I think it’s because gender plays an important roll in society whereas race ~~does~~ should not. Society doesn't benefit from segregating and victimizing. Society does benefit, generally, from a strong female population.
Race plays an incredibly powerful role in society. Every aspect of your lived experience is shaped by it, in fact.
From what resources you are likely to have available to you in childhood; how you are treated by the justice system; what jobs are available to you; your ability to get a mortgage despite having good credit.
I mean ideally, in a western liberal society of humans, race shouldn't matter in comparison to sex which has biological meaning and social function. Culture matters, but culture isn't race (at least not in a western liberal society).
"Race shouldn't matter" is a fine thing to say, but is a really unhelpful principle for those people for whom it can't not matter.
Or to put it another way, with an example: I'm sure there are plenty of non-religiously-observant American Jews who would be happy to treat race as a non-entity, but that's not much of an option for them when anti-Jewish slander and violence is an ongoing part of society.
So if all subgroups are subject to slander directed at their subgroup, then why is the answer to further segregate subgroups and create segregated services that only cater to certain subgroups?
> and create segregated services that only cater to certain subgroups
I fail to see the "segregated" and "only" parts. Marketing to a particular demographic and reflecting the life experiences of that demographic doesn't mean that other demographics aren't allowed, nor does it mean that nobody else is going to be interested.
> Culture matters, but culture isn't race (at least not in a western liberal society).
“Race” is, in origin, a mythology drawn around culture; it is either an actual ethnicity that is an in-group or an imaginary one ascribed on the basis of external appearance as an out-group. And the mere act of creating that distinction by an in-power group can create a shared experience reifying the ascribed ethnicity into a real one over time.
But, no, race is not apart from culture, but a product and aspect of it.
Sure, I agree. So why do we need a Netflix for black people? How does that help? Why can't e.g. the existing Netflix simply air culturally black content if people are craving more of it? Why does the service itself need to be exclusive and segregated?
Someone perceives an unmet need, and seeks to meet it.
> Why can't e.g. the existing Netflix simply air culturally black content if people are craving more of it?
They could. Someone with sufficient motivation and resources to launch a business thinks they aren't. That's...kind of true of most startups—an incumbent could meet the need they are marketing too, but they think the incumbents aren't.
> Why does the service itself need to be exclusive and segregated?
The proposed offering is neither exclusive nor segregated; no one is excluding people from subscribing or segregating them.
My point is not that I think they're wrong for trying to address a market. Everybody is welcome to do that. My point is that we don't call Netflix "Netflix for white people" and it's not designed in an exclusive way such that it aims to only serve a white audience. I'm probably not conveying my sentiment well: please read it more as "I'm excited about this effort and want include myself as an audience member to help promote the content they are promoting." If you tell me your service is for black people then I am excluded. My initial comment that stared this sub-thread is that I see a social utility to having content "for women" since it's motivated by biology but I don't see a social utility to having content "for black people" since that seems racially motivated (which we agree is an expression of tribalism) and I don't find our tribal desires to assert subculture dominance to be productive in society. I view western liberalism as an effort to transcend tribalism where we treat all participate as equals rather than continue to divide into subcultures.
It "helps" by satisfying a market need for a space for Black creators to tell Black stories without shouldering a burden to translate, soften, or attenuate that culture for other audiences, as would be the expectation on a mass media cable channel. It's not complicated; venues like this serve all sorts of ethnicities.
I think like many have pointed out, there's a messaging issue. I want to feel like I'm welcome, even though I'm not culturally black, to consume content created by black creators on a platform that helps promote that content. I like k-pop, I like Bollywood, I like Sister Deborah, I generally enjoy experiencing other culture. I don't need attenuation. One of the strengths of America is the capacity for cultural exchange. "Netflix for black people" does not achieve that. It makes me feel unwelcome on the platform and triggers angst related to my opposition to the idea of asserting ownership over and further segregating sub-cultures being part of the solution space. If BlackOak is truly trying to promote black cultural exchange, then don't use exclusive language. I really have no problem with a production company like BET geared at being a space to promote a given subculture. Personally, If I was the founder, I'd welcome this type of feedback even if it feels tired because the appropriate messaging may be integral to the success of the venture.
Edit: Want to also point out that in practice we don't seem to attenuate messaging in black pop culture. It's some of the most explicit sexual and sometimes violent content in existence and it appears all over radio, TV, and the internet. I'm not saying it's exclusively that, but it doesn't seem to suffer from expectation that it be attenuated "for white people". If that were happening I'd immediately be on the side of any effort to stop censoring it because I believe in freedom of expression.
You might want to reevaluate what you wrote. The last 500 years or so (of American especially, but also most Western European - Spain, France, UK etc.) history wouldn't exist if your statement was remotely true.
From what resources you are likely to have available to you in childhood; how you are treated by the justice system; what jobs are available to you; your ability to get a mortgage despite having good credit.