[Race] may not own houses. -- Illegal. [Race] is given extra help to own houses. -- Legal
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html#:~:te....
You do see anger when individuals perceive they can't afford homes, school, or other big ticket items and perceive that they aren't given help - but that isn't quite the same as denying people something.
Which is fine if you're part of that the well-off, but if you're just a person and not benefitted by the categroy association with rich people who happen to be the same race -- a simplistic association that discriminatory, racist people make -- then you're shit out of luck.
Discriminating against people is denying them something, it's denying them a fair shot, fair treatment by the government. Regardless of their sex or skin colour they deserve fair opportunity.
How is that not denying them help?
> On average [Not-Race] has more wealth to afford houses, or home ownership is more common than [Race] in these programs.
So why not just have your aid program be based on wealth, rather than race?
However, if we are going to solve a problem (eg non biodegradeable plastic) we must do it upstream (eg taxing non biodegradeable plastic and nudging corporations into switching to biodegradeable materials), rather than expend tons of effort downstream (eg banning plastic bags, straws and blaming individuals).
Same here... if we are going to be doing something about girls in STEM as a society, I’d rather do it upstream — earlier in life — because otherwise trying to fiddle around the edges later is just a bandaid.
PS: as an aside, I found the expression “it’s the boys getting the shaft right now” a bit ironic, given the origins of the phrase https://www.etymonline.com/word/shaft