Pendulum of Iniquity
Every retribution of iniquity of the (long) past in the present introduces iniquity on its own as it is aimed at those no longer responsible for the initial iniquity. It seems that the retribution is almost always at the expense of others, not directly involved in the iniquities of the past, because iniquity assumes power that makes one dominate over another. Unless this power is shifted to the other side, the iniquity cannot be redressed; and such a shift does not happen in history very rapidly, generations need to change.
If we say that people X were oppressed by people Y in the past (say, 200 years ago), we cannot start oppressing Y now and give preference to X because we have just realised how unfair it was. These present Y have nothing to do with the Y of the past. If we decide to do so, we just introduce the iniquity to be retributed in the future.
And the pendulum of iniquity continues its swing…
A drug-discovery company decides to rename one of its meeting rooms from (male)-Hodgkin to (female)-Ball in an attempt to retribute iniquities done to Ms. Ball by her male supervisors and the society of the time. Mr. Hodgkin had nothing to do with those… It is a sheer act of iniquity towards Mr. Hodgkin, if we believe naming a room benefit anyone deceased.
The very same company fights for proper design of the clinical trials for new drugs, where it is common to have more male participants than female ones. Clearly, given sex is a major biological factor, the activity of new drugs may not be quite well studied in women, because of the fact that females do not constitute the same portion of the study cohort as males. (The reasons for this imbalance of the sexes in clinical trials are many, but it is a fact.)