I understand that, but that assumes group identity, which I reject on two grounds, 1. Being that enlightenment pushes us away from that primitive thinking, of lumping groups together in arbitrary ways for important things such as power. There is no real connection between skin color and power in America, other than percentages. The racists of old and present see people as a group, and it does more harm than good. 2. The grouping term “white men” is such a large umbrella that it destroys any chance of any cohesion or connecting traits, other than skin tone again. There is too much diversity of experience and circumstance within that group to make any meaningful generalization such as power dynamics.

I reject identity politics about power and privilege on race or skin tone. It does not hold water, and there are many more accurate ways to describe the relationships between privileged and underprivileged people and groups.

Watch a montage of main stream left wing media figures spew openly bigoted and hateful things about white men, then watch as they collect their paycheck, keep their job, and have their audiences clap. You could start with The View if you don’t know where to begin. It is socially acceptable to be hateful and openly racist and sexist against white men. It’s sad, but that is the flavor of the day.