zlacker

I'm not a fan of racialising everything either, but I don't think the intended meaning of that advice is really so obscure. It is something like 'white guys have been socialised to put themselves forward and take credit for things, whereas our society has probably squashed those tendencies in you; but in this setting you would benefit from being more like those white guys, i.e. more assertive and less self-effacing'. It's fair enough to be annoyed by the generalisations, the insistence on bringing race into everything, etc., but I don't think it takes much charity to see that the underlying point is well-intentioned and not obviously stupid.

>>retsib+(OP)
There is absolutely no reason to bring race into it. If you need to tell someone to be more assertive, then tell them to be more assertive and give examples of how and explain why. Don't bring up racist generalizations and hope they are interrupted the way you want them to be.

Saying that white men are confident and black women aren't is simultaneous bi-directional racism. You are generalizing white men and black women AND telling black women to act more white?

>>ALittl+Wb2
I'm not advocating the race-based approach, just pushing back against the idea that the advice was complete nonsense or hopelessly ambiguous. I can see why someone would say it with good intentions and a basically sensible message in mind. I agree that it was framed in a silly way and that race-based rhetoric and generalisations, even from the 'progressive' side, are usually a bad idea.