Yes of course, it was the first thing I thought and I held onto that. If both parties were on equal ground you would be quite right and there would be equivalence so you could just flip the roles, but they aren't. Middle class white men have greater opportunities in society. Racism and sexism are oppressive by definition, and redressing inequality of opportunity isn't oppression.
And btw talking about institutional racism is the opposite of an emotive argument. It's a more precise way to highlight that the issue is systemic and not the result of individuals being deliberately racist.
That's the key word, not "white" or "men". I fully support redressing inequality of opportunity... as long as it's not sexist or racist.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2017/01...
Edit: in other words, if you want to help poor people, help poor people. If you want to help black people, help black people, but don't pretend you're helping poor people, and don't be surprised when you're called racist (like white supremacists, who help white people) or when you receive backlash from non-black people.
Edit: to expand on the above point, the funny thing is, people peddling this kind of bullshit know it's bullshit. For example, feminists want "social justice", and try to redefine "racism" as "institutional racism". But, obiously, by prefixing other adjectives to the words, they're modifying the words themselves - "justice" is just "justice", if you're talking about "social justice", you're obviously not talking about actual "justice", because if you were, you'd simply use the word "justice" without any additional qualifying adjectives. But then, most people respond to emotional arguments way more than to rational arguments, so that's where the war is fought, and it keeps escalating until we get Trump.