Is there a gap in cultural ethics between members of minority groups and non-members of minority groups?

A few questions and responses on here have struck me as very oddly and almost deliberately hypocritical recently, and it's struck me that perhaps the way that I (as a heterosexual, passably-white male) was raised to think of the ethical way to respond to social inequality may be fundamentally different from the... show more A few questions and responses on here have struck me as very oddly and almost deliberately hypocritical recently, and it's struck me that perhaps the way that I (as a heterosexual, passably-white male) was raised to think of the ethical way to respond to social inequality may be fundamentally different from the ethical views of those who identify strongly with some inescapably obvious minority group. (It may be of note that I do belong to a couple of historically socially disadvantaged minority groups, but none are immediately visually obvious upon looking at me.)

The thing is, the way I was raised, when you see social inequality, when you see people being treated differently because of the color of their skin or their genitalia or their blood type or religion or whatever, the responsible reaction is always to join the fight to nullify that inequality. You don't consider whether it benefits or disadvantages the particular groups you belong to, you don't consider "tradition," you don't pretend that somebody's ancestors owe somebody else's ancestors something, you just join the fight to get rid of the bigotry.

A couple of questions recently have highlighted the fact that certain unnamed users on here have a tendency to choose their sides carefully depending on whether a given inequality benefits or detriments women (namely, there's a tendency of certain people who normally view men and women, quite correctly in my opinion, as equal, to suddenly jump back to the traditional mindset that women are helpless and fragile creatures who need to be protected and supported and treated like children when an issue like alimony or women-only violence shelters or any other issue of archaic inequality where the inequality in question happens to give the advantage to their demographic group comes up).


So it's struck me recently that an unfortunate side-effect of the modern enlightenment concerning the plights of minority groups may be that certain people who identify strongly with certain minority groups, instead of getting the "fight for equality, even when that equality doesn't necessarily benefit your demographic group" ethic that most of us have, get instead a selfish sort of "take what you can, capitalize on the sympathy of others, rationalize and compartmentalize when necessary" ethic.

I'm not the first person to notice such a thing either; it's well known in politics, for instance, that black candidates are unpopular with Hispanic political groups and vice versa, more or less because members of these political groups often have this "my minority first at all costs, even at the cost of the progress of other minority groups" mentality.

So, to those who identify strongly with a minority group, do you think there's anything to this? Do you fight to establish equality, even when that equality runs over some cultural advantage your group traditionally enjoyed? Do you fight for the rights of other minority groups to which you do not belong, even when that comes at the cost of sharing resources which could go to your own group's fight?
11 answers 11