Dominant group projecting on a minority group

I sense that there is some kind of logical error here, but I cant put my finger on it. 

In the U.S, the dominant group are white straight men. They are at the top of the social hierarchy and hold power. The dominate society and culture is oriented around them, for them and by them. The systems of law, police and economics is to their benefit. So, naturally they haven't been oppressed and don't need help or equality, and they have historically been the oppressors of minorities within the society. And so the minorities need to form pride movements to influence acceptance of them so that they can one day attain equality with the dominate group. The dominate group doesn't need these pride movements because they are the dominate group and doing so would be seen as a threat to the minority groups or aggression towards them???

So, here is the argument that I hear from some of the members in this dominant group: 

P1: The minorities are intolerant.

P2: They get to have gay pride, and black pride week, but we cant have a white straight pride week. 

P3: Therefore, the minorities are intolerant of us, racist and bigoted against us, and they have more freedoms than we do because we cant have a white straight pride week too. The day we can have a white pride week is the day I'll say they aren't intolerant. 

I think the argument could be a bit more organized, but I get the gist. The fallacy is ultimately a false equivalence . Groups like gays an blacks have suffered quite a bit, and these events celebrate their progress. There is nothing like that for straight, white people, just like it would be silly to celebrate "right-handedness week." Any such celebrations or even suggestions of celebrations, in my view at least, are nothing more than passive-aggressive acts towards minorities.

I think there's an implicit appeal to equality here. We assert that, since ethnic minorities have X, white people also need X, or there is somehow racial inequality. Yet, what is considered 'equality' is not actually specified in the argument, so it is just begging the question.

Then there's the suggestion that things need to be equal in the first place (accident fallacy). It is actually not the case; one can justify treating people or things differently as long as there is a morally relevant distinction between the categories. As it turns out, 'black pride' and 'gay pride' have had very different histories and purposes behind them compared to 'white pride' - in other words, they are not the same, and should be seen in a different light (just be careful not to overuse this defence, or you end up foregoing relevant context for historical context). To treat them similarly would be a false equivalence.

In my opinion, the problem is in your initial presentation, which to me has the underlying implications that minorities want to be victims and that (most) white straight men want to oppress them and should be punished for past oppression by their ancestors.    
Although there has always been oppression and prejudice which leads to more hate, I think the only way out of that cycle is to stop the emphasis on racial categories, whether by blacks or whites, and strive together as a species to end unfairness whenever and wherever it occurs, and think of ourselves as human beings rather than black or white, male or female.