You're ignoring the case where resource A is finite, or relatively so, health care, especially in the US where the Federal government controls the number of new doctors and hospital beds and requires emergency room care for all is a great example of that. As soon as the Federal government can no longer can borrow money a essentially zero percent real interest rates, you'll find that's even true for things like "welfare queens".

I don't understand how you're addressing my argument, but I'm arguing in favour of the concept of targeting a specific population to help them and saying that this approach is not bigoted. I'm not talking about the how, but about the why, and that there are lots of cases where this is justified. I agree that this approach can be badly implemented (maybe healthcare as in your example is one), but it is a useful tool in the right context. Examples: targeting immigrants to help them assimilate, or targeting kids in inner-city schools who don't have the resources of rich suburban school to help them get into college.

In other words, you see the resources being used in "targeting a specific population" as essentially infinite, not to mention that the extraction of them is without serious problems.

That's simply not the world I see myself living in; to quote Margret Thatcher, "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money".

And for today's object lesson on that, see Venezuela, where those that are not pure money problems are inherent and unavoidable in the political process you're endorsing to "target a specific population". As shown by the very word target; in the case of Venezuela, replacing competent STEM types with politically reliable ones, 18,000 in the first wack, and then favoring current production over longer term investment necessary to maintain production levels.

I think you're confusing my suggestion (it being okay to help black kids escape the cycle of poverty using tax dollars) with blanket socialism? I didn't say anything about socialism.

But woman don't have less access to resource A. They only have less access in average! So if you target women, inevitably you'll help some women (Hillary Clinton comes to mind) that are (individually) much more privileged than some (individual) men. I don't think that's fair.

Very true, that does happen, and it is unfair, but it's a cost of helping the oppressed. Welfare is a great example of this: let's say for a population of 12 that gets welfare, 4 recipients become welfare queens (able to work but choosing not to so they can live off the dole) and the remaining 8 are helped enough so that on top of all the hard work that they do (think of single mothers working multiple jobs who are still below the poverty line), they are able to live and raise their kids with dignity.

Yes those it's unfair those 4 people take advantage of welfare, but for me, that's an acceptable cost for helping the other 8 who need it. I'm happy my tax dollars go to that.

Of course you can argue forever about whether the cost is worth the benefit, and whether basic income is better than welfare in this form and yadda yadda, but I'm trying to illustrate to you that in a system designed to help a population (I don't agree with you that women are not disadvantaged, but substitute them with any other minority group like black people), some people will inevitably abuse the system, but that's okay as long as there are enough people who benefit to justify the cost of the small number of abuses. In sum: helping a population with less access to resource A is not bigoted and, if implemented right, is a very reasonable approach.