1994 wasn't that long ago but I see your point. Please tell me 1994 wasn't that long ago because I remember 1994 =).

Again, I bring up my poorly worded variation on the Homeland Security Act simply because if we say the majority of anti-U.S. violence is perpetrated by a certain ethnic group we run into the same issue. I don't see how most of these crimes happening against women changes the fact that unless all of these crimes are against women it should be gender neutral. Considering the document itself is gender neutral I don't see why the name has to be gendered.

To me it's more of a negative against women than against men. Why do I say that? Because it implies domestic violence is women's problem. Not just as the victims but as the perpetrators (which is obviously not true). There's no reason why men should not be just as involved in preventing violence against women than women should be. By creating the gendered title they alienated a great many men who feel like the "enemy." It makes us not want to have anything to do with it which is counter-productive.

To get back on topic one of the biggest mistakes I think interest groups make is exclusion of the majority (which I'm fairly certain I'm considered). I not supposed to be feminist. I can't be part of the NAACP. Technically I can join these organizations but I'm always that weird white guy whom the group is supposed to be fighting against. Why would I join an organization that cites me as the bad guy? It would kind of kill the meetings about how to better advance the situation of women or African Americans if I'm sitting in the room. Perhaps it's my own perception but I would definitely feel unwanted and unwelcome in these groups.

So how does alienating the supposed "most powerful" group help your cause? If white guys have as much power as everyone keeps telling me I have couldn't I use it to actually help people? The truth is I'd like to. But being made to feel like an evil oppressive force doesn't exactly endear me to the cause.

Arguably these are simply my own biases and do not reflect the actual message of such organizations. But I can guarantee I'm not the only white guy that notices this perception. I hear the argument all the time about how white guys think that just because prejudice isn't institutionalized (as much) anymore it doesn't mean that discrimination doesn't exist. That concept works both ways. You can't tell me I'd be welcomed with open arms at a NAACP meeting. When I go to the NAACP website I don't see a picture of a single white dude anywhere. Why on earth would I even imagine trying to show up at a rally? If I donated money would I be a good person or simply another rich white guy trying to buy out the African American community? If I'm going to be looked at negatively no matter what why bother?

I'm not trying to criticize the NAACP or feminists or any other activist group (except PETA...take that, political correctness). I'm trying to point out that I believe these organizations are shooting themselves in the proverbial foot by using exclusive terminology. The National Association for Equality of All People or the National Organization for the Equality of All Genders might make white guys a bit more willing to think "hey, I won't be treated like a diabolical creep if I show up and lend my support. I'm a person and a gender. Sounds good to me!"

Instead I have to look at the horrible things all my ancestors did and repent for my many sins. This idea doesn't make me very sympathetic. Call it my future- and present-oriented cultural values. Call it my invisible knapsack of privilege. Call it whatever you want but as long as divisions between race contain a concept of "us vs. them" equality will never exist.

Jacquesne

P.S. I'm not saying race or ethnicity are pointless or that we should live in a "colorblind" society. I'm saying that the entire concept of race and ethnicity as being positive or negative needs to go. Culture is. It isn't better or worse. It simply is.