I don't think you fully understand what is meant by "context". "Context," in this case, would mean a white male making the equivalent type of comment to a group of white males who have historically been an underprivileged minority in a particular walk of society. A good example might be a white single custodial father addressing a group of non-custodial fathers who want to have custody or joint custody of their children. In this scenario, the white male speaker says something to the effect that the experience of growing up as a male could help make a single father a better parent to a son in some ways than a single mother could be. In this scenario, I don't think he would have been "destroyed instantly" . People know that mothers tend to be favored in custodial cases and that good fathers who are fighting for custody probably need all the encouragement they can get. Just like Latina women need encouragement from successful Latina professionals (like judges) to believe that they can--and deserve to--succeed in a traditionally white male profession.
Originally Posted by Particle Man
By the way, if you read the whole speech, you'll see that her overall message was that, yes, every person is influenced by his or her culture and upbringing, but that judges must always strive for neutrality and put their personal experiences and biases aside.
Here is the full speech. You have biases, like everyone does, but try to read it with an open mind and reserve judgment: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us...pagewanted=all