The Christian Science Monitor talks about affirmative Action for males. See how the argument is framed. For example, in this article, the woman complains about 'lowered standards' and how blacks and Hispanics should have to live up to the same standards. Yet, there's only a mention that women are usually stronger applicants, not a bunch of raping famous men's corpses to suggest that this is sexist. There's no attempted co optation of feminist rhetoric here, as the conservatives here try to use to make us feel that social justice is 'racist'. Men aren't called to live up to the same standards- no, their underachievement is fine- it's not a pathology. Also, note the lack of saying that letting men in leaves women out, unlike this article in the New York Times:
"The inclusion of race on the scale, with the result that nearly all qualified minority applicants are admitted to the competitive program while many qualified white students are turned away, demonstrates the absence of the ``individualized consideration'' that the Bakke decision required, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote"
What exactly is so bad about having qualified whites turned away if they are replaced with qualified minorities? Unless the perception is that whites are the ones who should get in by default. The idea is that blacks are taking over whites' 'rightful' places and that annoys me. The only reason that many blacks were not in the predominately white colleges was discrimination. It wasn't anything inherent in having dark skin, and so many people forget that.