Why Autumn would be surprised is beyond me.
Every time a category's proposed for inclusion in anti-discrimination bills or hate-crime bills there is a remarkable outpouring by Wasp/y white guys who have a certain cachet in their respective fields, even if the field is laying block or roofing.
Usually their arguments run to some trope regarding how "we have laws already that cover murder, voting rights, housing, lending, etc, etc."
Why, of course we do!
But, predominantly men who have theirs already, think they have theirs already, and those they have as allies, hoping to get theirs soon, believe we need no "extra-legal" protections.
Of course white males make up only a relatively small proportion of people who are murdered, raped, segregated, red-lined, etc, etc. OTH, they are not necessarily very much affected by those things. Thus, no reason seen to include them in a law -- afterall we have "equality in this country."
Uh-huh, unless you measure when "equality" was achieved. White guys with enough wealth to be landowners were for a long time the only people legally and de facto "equal." In the course of 150, 200, 200+ years ya get a certain "handicap" in those races for "equality."
Your ideas about equality generally include keeping your place as is and "giving everyone an equal chance to overcome the prejudices and old legal roadblocks to equality." And that is considered fair.
Besides I read Greenberg and he ain't exactly liberal and has never been.
There's a lot of reason for him to support the propaganda of the orgs. she was puzzled that he'd support. He's done that for years.
Nichole
