Few talking heads put forth the argument that since the vast majority of owners are white, they hire white head coaches, who then hire white assistants, and white trainers. Not out of racist leanings, but more out of shared origins, commonality.
This would also be racism though. You could claim that it’s just individuals gravitating to those with similar backgrounds, but that abstracts away the historical and sociological context out of which these scenarios emerge.
White people - men especially - are very determined to define racism (and sexism) narrowly as an antagonistic animus towards a particular group, ironically, because the world which they experience is set up with them in mind and so they never come into contact with situations with ostensibly “fair” systems that nevertheless unfairly harm those not in mind. Even when objections are raised to the false fairness of the system, the reasonability of the objections are not determined by some objective standard, but subjective evaluations made by individuals, who, again have no reference point for what is being talked about. They can only imagine themselves in that scenario, and in doing so deem that which is comprehensible to them to be reasonable and that which is not to be absurd sjw screeching.
This applies to everything, including “objective” or “falsifiable” standards. There may be an ontological objectivity in the confluence of perspectives, but ultimately knowledge is not experienced at the group level. It can only be experienced as a subjective individual, where what you deem to be falsifiable, what you deem to be rational or logical, what you even select or choose to take away from some “objective” analysis is necessarily always driven by your reference. There is no objective knowledge, it can only exist in relation to the knower.
Which frequently leaves the process of getting a white man to understand the oppression one experiences as less one of neutrally and factually describing what happened, and more trying to find a way to frame what happened in a way that is comprehensible to a white male framework, where unfairness is almost singularly experienced either as direct legal exclusion or a perceived unwarranted interpersonal malice or antagonism. Everything else is either rejected outright (“People aren’t inherently more skeptical of a woman’s knowledge or credentials”) or downplayed (“if I was catcalled I would welcome the compliment!”) I can try to explain to you what it is like having a deadname or why you should never ask a trans person for that name. But you will never know what it feels like to have a deadname, or to be asked to share it 5 minutes after meeting someone. Most cis people I’ve described it to reject my hurt entirely, while for trans people I need not even elaborate: “a guy I met at a bar asked me what my deadname is” is sufficient to elicit a visceral reaction.
In broad strokes that is what privilege is. Not that you are inherently richer or lead a more pampered life per se, but rather that you live in a world that was constructed with your background, your physiognomy, your language, and your culture assumed as the default. It is all the little things that you get to take for granted, that others have to do labor to navigate through. Even when talking and thinking about them, you have the privilege of rejecting anything which makes you uncomfortable, to simply dismiss and go about your day as if nothing has happened, and there are really very few direct consequences for doing so. That’s the privilege. Your existence is intrinsically held and treated as unquestionably valid with no effort on your part, whereas for me, every crumb of medical or legal care requires a laborious process of rhetorics, pathos, and careful and measured narrativizing, with maximal punishment for any error, misstep, or misinterpretation of the rules, rules which were not designed with me in mind, which rarely make mention of me, but which I must nevertheless interpret and navigate to survive.
