First, you didn’t clearly answer my question, but i assume that you now imply that you indeed did imply that you think it would pass.
Second, it wasn’t stated in my previous comment, but i was and am aware of the power plus prejudice definitions. You seem to assume here that i was not.
Third, and most importantly, i still believe that it would not pass, as i noted in my parens remark. This is because i think that none of “[institutional] power” or “prejudice” [against a group] can adequately be described as “historical disadvantage” alone. When they write “institutional power” as well as “power plus prejudice”, they decidedly are not referring to something that lies purely in the past (indeed the present-day components are arguably the most important, though not the only interesting, ones) . The adjective “historical” in your usage seems to me to be incompatible to that.
First, you didn’t clearly answer my question, but i assume that you now imply that you indeed did imply that you think it would pass.
Second, it wasn’t stated in my previous comment, but i was and am aware of the power plus prejudice definitions. You seem to assume here that i was not.
Third, and most importantly, i still believe that it would not pass, as i noted in my parens remark. This is because i think that none of “[institutional] power” or “prejudice” [against a group] can adequately be described as “historical disadvantage” alone. When they write “institutional power” as well as “power plus prejudice”, they decidedly are not referring to something that lies purely in the past (indeed the present-day components are arguably the most important, though not the only interesting, ones) . The adjective “historical” in your usage seems to me to be incompatible to that.
Fair point, the feminist definition is more detailed then how I described it.