Something I was left wondering after our discussion about masculinity, vulnerability and 🔫 was how 👱 culpability versus 👨👩👧👧 culpability works to reinforce norms of who (what groups) we traditionally think of as capable of 🔫. At DeRay McKesson’s talk yesterday he hit the nail on the head when he said something like “not calling ⬜️ people terrorists is saying that that type of evil isn’t ⬜️” and ⬜️ people aren’t capable of being wicked in ways that other ethno-racial groups are. ⬜️ness tries to (and often seemingly succeeds in) monopolize(ing) intellectualism. This claim to higher thinking and logic is part of the reason why we are so reluctant to call ⬜️ terrorists, terrorists. They are perceived to be above that.
So how do our perceptions of 👱’s versus 👨👩👧👧’s implications in destructive or 🔫 events skew the way we perceive those events? How do we reframe ⬜️ people, and men specifically, as capable of being evil? More importantly, how do we deconstruct notions of wickedness and evilness as only characteristic of some groups (based on stereotypes and entrenched assumptions) and not others? More broadly speaking, how do we denaturalize 🔫 in contexts where it is the norm? And how can we resist stereotyping or generalizing entire populations based on some 👱’s behaviors within that population? (I’m thinking specifically about how in some nations domestic 🔫 is somewhat normalized. The issue with that is that we then extrapolate those ideas of “others’” volatility to people of that country’s descent. We need to stop these behaviors that typecast people in certain ways.)
👱 = individual
👨👩👧👧 = group
⬜️ = white
🔫 = violence/violent