Poe's Law is at play, here. I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic.

As I read it, the user to whom you replied used the term balanced in the context of meaning parity. Your response, while perhaps being one technical interpretation of his statement, may have been a misunderstanding of his comment. That's why I say I don't know whether your comment was sarcastic or not.

Also, while I understand RBG's point, I don't understand how two wrongs make a right in this case. In my opinion, a SCOTUS comprised entirely of women has the same potential for being detrimental as a SCOTUS comprised entirely of men. Earnestly believing that the SCOTUS should in the future be entirely comprised of women merely because historically the SCOTUS had been populated by men is like saying blacks in the future should own plantations and white slaves because merely because there once was a historical condition to the opposite.

Why can't we instead find a way to constructively educate our children to have better values than our ancestors? Why must we hurt some people tomorrow merely because those people's ancestors hurt others in the past?