If you haven't yet noticed the extreme difference in how white women have anti-racism marketed to them - be guilty! original sin! repent! - vs how white men have anti-racism marketed to them - radio silence unless they are literally espousing a white nation state - then you just haven't lived.
It's interesting to me the cultural animus directed at white women, who, by any metric, are far less likely to be carrying out say, police shootings, than white men. They tend to police less aggressively, and employ more de-escalation tactics than male officers.
I heard a black college professor interviewed about his experience of being racially profiled. Police wanted to take him to a line up so a (white) woman could ID her attacker. His rage (justified) was directed almost entirely at the idea of a white WOMAN looking at him, not at the male officers who had profiled him. I found that disturbing.
Anyway, underlying all of this is the idea that women are responsible for what men do. That men are in a state of permanent aggression and women act as a civilizing force. To fail to restrain the (white) male through the power of (white) womanhood is seen as a double crime - a failure to feminise others in line with community expectations, and a racist action - whereas (white) male aggression is seen as conforming to natural masculine traits of physical violence. Men have the one sin - implicit bias - but are not held responsible for the same sin women are - that of civilising the (white) savage.
Anyway, it's interesting. Probably entirely taboo to discuss. I personally don't feel that I am responsible for what men do.