I see no evidence any Black person ever suffered discrimination. I'm not buying that nonsense.
Anyway, as for evidence, we can start with the very amusing book, "Fashionable Nonsense", or Susan Haack's "Memoirs of a Passionate Modereate".
Your analogy is a fail. I was specific about what evidence I asked
epepke for.
I have 3 college degrees from 2 different colleges and none of the required courses outside on one's major ever went beyond reading, writing, math, some very basic sociology or a related 'ology', and a second language. There is no way a specific course in women's studies was ever mandatory in any university. That is much too far afield from the basics to be a cross major requirement.
Such a claim about required courses in university is hardly analogous to evidence of a well known condition in society like segregation.
But before we waste time on a pissing contest, let me reframe what my objections are to all these claims about how the women's movement went too far, became extreme, was its own worst enemy, yadda yadda.
There are two hypotheses here to explain observed events/groups/individual activists. One hypothesis is the above description is a true representation, "the women's movement went too far, became extreme, was its own worst enemy, yadda yadda". But the narrative I believe I observed was that the opposition to the changes that were being sought focused on extreme elements and used them as examples supporting the opposition's objections. It goes on today and more than a few people are fooled by it.
The birth control mandate included in a preventative care mandate becomes evidence Obama is out to gut religious freedom. "Liberals" becomes a dirty word associated with some kind of bizarre socialist/communist anti-capitalism group, the likes of which I've only seen in a tiny left fringe which includes the Socialists Worker's Party.
When the opposition fights a movement like social change this absurd exaggeration and drawing attention to any fringe group or individual is a natural progression of events. Or, the leaders of the movement for change are depicted as radical by people who've never heard or read the actual position of the leader. The false rumor becomes believed fact as it is passed from person to person.
At the time of the civil rights movement, a lot of people, including powerful people in our own government, painted Martin Luther King as a crazy radical commie. Were the Black Panthers their own worst enemy? Probably. But did they represent the main arm of the Civil Rights movement? No.
There are differences. Women were (and are) an integrated group that experienced unequal treatment. Blacks were not integrated. So there are some categorical differences between the two movements. The changes the blacks accomplished are more visible. But the women's movement also made great progress. Both groups are on a higher but not yet quite equal plateau. To see the women's movement as ineffective, taken over by its own worst enemy radicals and so on, while the black civil rights movement's radicals have faded and others like MLK and Rosa Parks seen as heroes, it's because of the nature of the social change, not because the leaders were that much different overall.
