In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Let’s Victim-Blame Women for Elliot Rodger’s Murders!

Echo Zen

Note: This post was written a year ago, the week of the 2014 Isla Vista killings. Due to miscommunication, it was never posted – but one year later seems an opportune time to reflect on how much – and little – the public dialogue around misogyny has changed, since Elliot Rodger’s disgraceful killstreak…

For Fox News viewers, the preeminent question amongst conservatives is whether Elliot Rodger’s hatred of women who wouldn’t date him was actually a sign that he was gay. For everyone else living in reality, it’s a symptom of more pressing issues – like America’s culture of male entitlement, where men feel they deserve attention and sex from women because gender roles say so. Yep, everyone knows men deserve sex and attention, and if women refuse to give it, they have nobody to blame but themselves for violence they endure as a result.

We could be talking about women on Twitter being threatened with rape for voicing their opinions, or harassed in public for walking whilst female, or assaulted at parties by athletes who know their universities will obstruct any investigations to protect their image. That’s not news to women, who everyday inhabit a world where #NotAllMen violate women, but #YesAllWomen understand they must always guard themselves from being violated by men – because women know if they speak out about being victims, they’ll face relentless victim-blaming for somehow bringing violence on themselves.

You shouldn’t have spoken up online. You shouldn’t have worn your comfortable summer clothing in public. You shouldn’t have drunken with your male classmates at that party. To those who claim women just need more education about the dangers of being in public whilst female… what the hell woman hasn’t heard her whole life that she needs to regulate her behaviour to avoid being attacked? And if we’re willing to waste so much time on a message women have heard since forever, why can’t we spend more time on teaching boys to respect and protect their women peers? Oh, right… that would just embolden girls to think they have a right to be around men without fear of harm. Can’t have that!

But not far from where we attend school, Elliot Rodger just gunned down 6 people because he didn’t like that “blonde sluts” wouldn’t sleep with him. And despite attempts by the usual male suspects to whitewash this as an isolated case of “mental illness”, the next day another man opened fire on 3 girls because… they refused to have sex with him? But hey, that bloke was obviously “mentally ill” too. Can’t imagine what our culture of male entitlement has to do with it… no, ma’am, none at all!

In the face of such senseless violence, surely society would draw the line on victim-blaming here. Surely they’d know better than to blame women for somehow provoking men into violence against women. Besides, what could women have done to prevent this?

Well, our esteemed victim-blaming lobby begs to differ.

Some responses were predictable, like those from PUAs or men’s rights activists. As one renowned writer proclaimed, “more people will die unless you give men sexual options.” Yeah, because everyone knows girls are to blame when they’re murdered for refusing to sleep with men. None of this is surprising, and personally I’m more offended they failed to show greater originality than an Onion article. Their responses merit no serious analysis.

No, what’s more troubling is the victim-blaming that media establishments have levelled at women, for failing to appease men who turn violent. The more puerile scapegoating has revolved around Rodger’s supposed childhood crush, who he cites in his manifesto as an “evil *****” who “teased and ridiculed” him into bloodlust. We won’t name this girl because enough tabloids have done so already, plastering her Facebook bikini pictures across pages with headlines like “KILLER CRUSH” or “Schoolgirl blamed by Rodger for hatred of women doesn’t remember him”.

Gosh, what a *****, unable to even remember the boy she tormented into a killer! Why doesn’t she remember? Perhaps it has to do with the fact that she was… 10 years old? Yeah, a 10-year-old was totally guilty of provoking Rodger’s hatred of women.* Meanwhile the media are giving credence to that premise, running photos of the “stunning blonde” for viewers to ogle. The underlying message: Could you control yourself if this blonde tease blew you off?

Other outlets have chosen to blame no woman in particular, instead charging women in general with destroying… chivalry. Hey, everyone knows chivalry in the old days forced men to be nice to women, so they wouldn’t rape or murder them or anything! “Society used to expect men to open doors, protect their families… But chivalry is dead.” Obviously men didn’t rape or murder women back in the old days, until those dirty feminists came along and began passing laws against sexual assault and domestic violence. That makes total sense.

But the most laughable attempt at victim-blaming women comes from Fox News, attacking women who… support the women who were murdered. Because did you know anti-violence allies are denigrating the victims by standing in solidarity with them, via #YesAllWomen? “This issue is not about women… I think it’s kind of insulting for women to go on Twitter and talk about how them getting hit on in the bar is equal to being shot in the street, because it’s not.”

Whew, we’re glad she cleared that up! Being harassed or threatened after saying “no” is nothing more than getting hit on, it has nothing to do with violence against women! Nor does rape culture enable or embolden men who assault women for refusing to sleep with them. I can’t imagine how Rodger’s 141-page manifesto about punishing women who wouldn’t sleep with him has anything to do with this conversation!

Yeah, right.

Victim-blamers will always exist, but what matters is how credibly society takes them. Decades ago, ideas like rape culture and victim-blaming weren’t even part of the national dialogue. Now we see these ideas openly discussed in mainstream media coverage of sexual assault. The coverage might not always be intelligent, but the social climate is shifting to one where notorious rape apologists now paint themselves as brave truth-tellers when trying to pin the responsibility for rape prevention on victims rather than perpetrators.

This is a lifesaving shift in the national conversation. Lifesaving in the sense that loss of life is now wasted less on victim-blaming, and more on stimulating change. And that’s the hope which has to sustain us beyond #NotOneMore.

* Evidence exists that bullying played a substantial role in shaping Rodger’s hostile worldview. Given how often bullying is linked to these shootings, this should come as a surprise to nobody on this damn planet.

95 thoughts on Let’s Victim-Blame Women for Elliot Rodger’s Murders!

    1. That’s just a forum for people with autism. Some of what they say certainly qualifies as creepy. Most of it doesn’t. Overall creepiness levels: way lower than the average thread on Reddit.
      Either you’re an actual living example of the straw woman who uses “creep” as code for “man with disabilities” or, MUCH more likely, you’re a troll who believes in that straw woman, and you posted it here in the hopes of getting people to agree with you.
      (And even when no one does, you can go back to an MRA forum and stir up some outrage about your own comment. Look what the evil feminizis are saying now about poor disabled men! I often wonder exactly how much outrage about feminism is just trolls getting mad about trolls which only a troll couldn’t see through. )

  2. Pingback: Sunday Reads: The Church, Ireland and Reality Checks | Sky Dancing

  3. I mean, I think the culture of male sexual entitlement deserves to be demolished for its own reasons, but I’m pretty skeptical of this type of pop-psych analysis. Our chances of correctly speculating on why a specific person committed murder are awfully slim; obviously the population of men who feel entitled to sex is much larger than the population of men who murder women, so the assertion that the former is a proximate cause of the latter clearly needs some work. The same goes for speculating on what mental illnesses the killer did or did not suffer from.

    1. Well, that depends on what can be known about a given murderer. But there’s more than enough evidence – such as the manifesto itself – that can be reasonably used to conclude that Elliot Rodger murdered women because he was a violent misogynist. Even his murders of the handful of men were tied to his racism and misogyny, because he hated them for being the men who “deprived” him of access to certain women’s attention. There really isn’t any ambiguity here.

      obviously the population of men who feel entitled to sex is much larger than the population of men who murder women, so the assertion that the former is a proximate cause of the latter clearly needs some work. The same goes for speculating on what mental illnesses the killer did or did not suffer from.

      There doesn’t have to be a specific ratio of those populations in order for one to conclude that the murders of women are encouraged in a society that rewards men for disciplining women i.e. is structured by male entitlement – whether that involves murder, abuse, rape, reproductive coercion, or whatever else. Patriarchy creates many fragile male egos, who find that their only chance for self-validation rests in putting women in their place. So these murders of women will never stop until male entitlement is gone.

  4. Elliot Rodger murdered women because he was a violent misogynist

    You do see the intense circularity of that particular statement, right?

    Even his murders of the handful of men were tied to his racism and misogyny, because he hated them for being the men who “deprived” him of access to certain women’s attention. There really isn’t any ambiguity here.

    If you genuinely think you have perfect, unambiguous insight into the mind of an unbalanced stranger based on the fact that your read his manifesto… I guess I wrote myself into a corner there. Well, you don’t.

    Again, I think we should work against male entitlement for many, many reasons, one of which is absolutely reducing violence against women, but we can make that argument without pop-psych-at-a-distance.

    There doesn’t have to be a specific ratio of those populations in order for one to conclude that the murders of women are encouraged in a society that rewards men for disciplining women

    Not sure how this is compatible with my understanding of the words ‘rewards’ and ‘encouraged.’ Male entitlement, especially male sexual entitlement, is absolutely a feature of our society, but you’ll have to be more specific otherwise- what specific rewards do men receive for murdering, raping, or abusing women in our society? And I do mean specific, please.

    1. Male entitlement, especially male sexual entitlement, is absolutely a feature of our society, but you’ll have to be more specific otherwise- what specific rewards do men receive for murdering, raping, or abusing women in our society? And I do mean specific, please.

      I don’t quite agree with you or with Aaliyah (although in the particular case of Rodgers, I think it’s pretty safe to say that his whacked-out manifesto does provide a level of horse’s mouth info that the average murder doesn’t).

      Honestly, I don’t think it’s the abusers in question who benefit directly from abuse in many cases. Not in all cases. In the case of, say, the pedo who molested me and a couple of my friends and who would probably have molested a shitton more if I hadn’t stood between them and him, I’d say there’s definite sexual satisfaction to be gained from abuse for a hell of a lot of abusers. (Yes yes, all abuse is primarily about power, but let’s not kid ourselves: sexual abuse is a particularly sexualised and sexually gratifying form of power, and many or most sexual abusers specifically choose to sexually (rather than physically or emotionally) abuse because they get off on it.) Lots of murderers specifically state in their confessions that they murdered female partners to prevent said partner from leaving, etc. There are clear-cut cases of benefits. Those are, I think, a relative minority.

      I think the real gain is for The Patriarchy(TM) rather than for individual men, and that it’s the knock-on terror effect. In a culture where women know that they are routinely at risk of being violently raped for “wearing the wrong clothes”, a hundred incidents of sexual harassment will be shrugged off because hey, he didn’t rape you, right, what’s the biggie? In a culture where women are routinely murdered for insufficient dowry payments, no one gives a crap about women who are “only” neglected, denigrated and verbally abused for not paying enough dowry. In a culture with high rates of female foeticide and infanticide, the routine and systematic malnourishment of female(-assigned) children is shrugged off, even when it happens in families without financial strains. The fiance who slapped his ex-girlfriend around is still a Good Catch in her family’s eyes because hey, he’s not throwing acid at her face, right? (All examples taken from within my family/friends.) The rapists, murderers and abusers aren’t direct beneficiaries – they are the enforcers of the terror under which it is patriarchally desirable that women(type people) function. For every Elliott Rodgers who actually puts his money where his mouth is on his murderous impulses, there’s ten men telling their traumatised wives that hey, so I hit you a few times a year, but it’s not like I’m Elliot Rodgers, right? And the ugly thing is, he isn’t, and we’re trained to be grateful for it.

      2. Yep, I figured we’d be on the same rough page, anyway 🙂

        I did want to point out one thing I actively disagreed with you on, though:

        You do see the intense circularity of that particular statement, right?

        IDK. I mean, lots of men murder women for reasons that aren’t misogynistic. An armed robber who shoots a female eyewitness, or two soldiers on a battlefield who happen to be male and female respectively, etc, etc. Rodger (why did I keep saying Rodgers in my comment above? argh I hate bad brain days) clearly went after women due to a stated intent to murder them for not being accessible to him. Whether that was clear and sensible reasoning fueled by violent misogyny, or Rodger’s particular brand of male entitlement bugfuck, or mental instability that just-so happened to dovetail with creepy MRA shit – well, honestly, I don’t care. But it’s not necessarily circular reasoning to state that this particular killer killed the women he did because he was a misogynist. (We can agree to disagree on whether it’s accurate reasoning.)

      3. I think the real gain is for The Patriarchy(TM) rather than for individual men, and that it’s the knock-on terror effect

        I agree, but I think that all men as a class of people do from that kind of terrorism, regardless of whether some individual men are opposed to sexism and would never dream of raping, murdering, etc. women. They benefit in the sense that all forms of patriarchal violence maintain the system that grants men social, economic, and political/ideological power over all women. It’s kinda like how white people, while a group comprised of a variety of individuals, all systematically benefit from genocidal regimes that they live in, such as the US.

      4. Whether that was clear and sensible reasoning fueled by violent misogyny, or Rodger’s particular brand of male entitlement bugfuck, or mental instability that just-so happened to dovetail with creepy MRA shit – well, honestly, I don’t care.

        I don’t particular either, but the armchair diagnostic attempts to figure it out still leave a bad taste in my mouth for a lot of reasons.

        Lots of murderers specifically state in their confessions that they murdered female partners to prevent said partner from leaving, etc. There are clear-cut cases of benefits. Those are, I think, a relative minority.

        I’d note these examples don’t go to what Alliyah is claiming, which is that society actively rewards men who murder/rape women.

        I agree, but I think that all men as a class of people do [benefit] from that kind of terrorism, regardless of whether some individual men are opposed to sexism and would never dream of raping, murdering, etc. women. They benefit in the sense that all forms of patriarchal violence maintain the system that grants men social, economic, and political/ideological power over all women.

        I think that’s a claim that sounds logical in the abstract but totally falls apart when you try to put it into real-world terms, which is why I’ve been pressing you on specificity. How, specifically, do all men benefit when someone murders a bunch of women? Give me a concrete example, please.

        It’s kinda like how white people, while a group comprised of a variety of individuals, all systematically benefit from genocidal regimes that they live in, such as the US.

        I actually don’t believe this is true either – I’d argue it’s relatively easy to locate white people who are totally cut off from the benefits that accrue from colonialism, as a result of their other identities, just like I think you can locate men who are cut off from the typical benefits of male privilege, as a result of their other identities. That said, a longer discussion of intersectionality failures should probably wait for a different thread.

      5. How, specifically, do all men benefit when someone murders a bunch of women?

        Minimally, because all violence against women exists in the context of patriarchal society and that violence maintains the order that grants men their systemic power over women. Anything that keeps women afraid of resisting male supremacy automatically benefits men because all men are capable of exploiting it for their own aims.

        The countless murders of women reinforce women’s fears of saying no to men, on the basis that they will get angry and aggressive at them. It certainly makes it a lot harder for, say, a woman in an abusive relationship with a man to leave him, because of the commonly internalized fear of being hurt or killed for perceived disobedience. It can also make it a lot harder for women to protect themselves from male predators and stalkers, out of the fear that doing anything to upset him will escalate the situation.

      6. The countless murders of women reinforce women’s fears of saying no to men, on the basis that they will get angry and aggressive at them. It certainly makes it a lot harder for, say, a woman in an abusive relationship with a man to leave him, because of the commonly internalized fear of being hurt or killed for perceived disobedience. It can also make it a lot harder for women to protect themselves from male predators and stalkers, out of the fear that doing anything to upset him will escalate the situation.

        If you read your own comment you’ll notice that it doesn’t support your contention that all men benefit. Perhaps abusers, rapists, and stalkers benefit.

      7. If you read your own comment you’ll notice that it doesn’t support your contention that all men benefit. Perhaps abusers, rapists, and stalkers benefit.

        I should have given clearer examples. Sorry about that.

        Another way of looking at the female-socialized tendency to avoid saying no to men: while not all men are violent and abusive, all women certainly internalize the fear of men’s reactions to being told no. (All women, cis or trans, are female socialized because they all exist in the context of patriarchy.)

        That makes them more vulnerable to being coerced and abused by men, and in turn allows men to easily do what they want to women while encountering little to no rejection from women. This power imbalance applies in all situations involving men and women, including situations involving only men who are non-threatening and respectful.

        For example, a woman can be in a relationship with a man without being abused by him, but no matter what the relationship is like, as a woman she has an internalized fear of male violence because of knowing how common it is for women to be hurt by men (even if not all men). Even if her male partner wouldn’t dream of hurting her and is in fact openly opposed to misogyny and she feels safe and comfortable with him, her partner nevertheless has greater access to her body and labor as a result of the vulnerability that affects people who are socialized to kowtow to male desire – women – out of fear of men. That’s one example of how he would benefit from systemic violent misogyny at her expense.

      8. You know, as a woman my experiences aren’t at all aligned with how you describe the universal female condition.

    2. You do see the intense circularity of that particular statement, right?

      I stated what I think Rodger’s motives for murder were. It’s a fact that he murdered people who happened to be female – the judgment I made subsequently was simply that he did so because of his hatred of women. That’s not circular at all. I’m not saying “Rodger was a violent misogynist because he was a violent misogynist” nor “Rodger murdered women because he murdered women.”

      If you genuinely think you have perfect, unambiguous insight into the mind of an unbalanced stranger based on the fact that your read his manifesto… I guess I wrote myself into a corner there. Well, you don’t.

      Just because I don’t have intimate knowledge of Rodger’s psyche doesn’t mean that I can’t make reasonable judgments of his motives with what I know about him and his worldview. It’s also pretty common for men who murder many women to have misogynistic views, in the same sense that white murderers of POC tend to be racist.

      what specific rewards do men receive for murdering, raping, or abusing women in our society?

      Keeping many other women in a state of fear and caution and internalized victim-blaming, which allows lots of violent men to evade accountability and benefits non-violent men by setting up a power imbalance between men and women in pretty much every social situation involving the two groups somehow (simply a result of any system of power like patriarchy and white supremacy). It also makes women more afraid of refusing male sexual advances, giving men more free access to women’s bodies and labor. And it terrorizes many women into avoid demonstrating resistance to male supremacist regimes, out of fear of punishment. mac’s examples are pretty important to note as well and are related to some the stuff I’ve mentioned.

  5. Keeping many other women in a state of fear and caution and internalized victim-blaming, which allows lots of violent men to evade accountability and benefits non-violent men by setting up a power imbalance between men and women in pretty much every social situation involving the two groups somehow (simply a result of any system of power like patriarchy and white supremacy).

    That’s pretty much the opposite of a specific example of how our society rewards men who murder women.

    It also makes women more afraid of refusing male sexual advances, giving men more free access to women’s bodies and labor. And it terrorizes many women into avoid demonstrating resistance to male supremacist regimes, out of fear of punishment. mac’s examples are pretty important to note as well and are related to some the stuff I’ve mentioned.

    Ditto.

    You made a specific claim- that our society rewards men who abuse, rape, and murder women. I’m asking you to be specific about what form that rewards take, since to me that seems like a clearly false statement. Our society certainly doesn’t do nearly enough to punish men who do those things, and everyone here is keenly aware of its propensity for victim-blaming and excuse-making for male violence, but I don’t see how it rewards people who commit violence crimes.

    1. actually don’t believe this is true either – I’d argue it’s relatively easy to locate white people who are totally cut off from the benefits that accrue from colonialism, as a result of their other identities,

      I guess their food was magically grown, not grown on stolen land people were murdered to get. The only reason they’re even here is because this country was colonized. Their homes, schools, grocery stores, banks, roads…all of it is the result of colonization. If they lay their head down on the ground at night, people were murdered for it. The highways they walk or drive on are laid across unmarked graves. Unless you are indigenous, you have benefited from genocide. Regardless of your belief about it.

      1. I guess their food was magically grown, not grown on stolen land people were murdered to get.

        Unless you don’t have any food to eat…

        Their homes, schools, grocery stores, banks, roads…all of it is the result of colonization.

        …or a home, or an education, or a bank account.

        I think in concrete, real-world terms it’s going to be pretty hard to demonstrate any direct benefit accruing to people totally isolated from the output of capitalism. But like I said, this is probably a derail/ a discussion for another thread.

      2. I wouldn’t argue that white people in North America don’t inherently benefit from the murder of indigenous peoples, but I also kind of…don’t see where white Armenians or Macedonians have much in the way of white privilege (as it’s understood in a western European/North American context) unless they’re in areas where they can assert said privilege. The power dynamics can be pretty different there, afaict.

      3. Yeah, I guess this all goes to my increasing feeling of dissatisfaction with abstracted theories around how people benefit from oppression (which goes to why I keep asking for concrete examples). I mean, you can say every non-NDN person benefits from colonialism, and you can build a whole theoretical framework around it, but unless you can provide a concrete example of why (for example) a homeless, mentally ill black woman who benefits from no government services derives some specific advantage from the history of American genocide of indigenous people, I’m not sure that actually is a useful exercise.

        In general, and I say this as someone who has plenty of ‘oppressed identities’- female, POC, dating a woman, survivor of sexual assault, immigrant family, atheist, I could go on- I’m becoming increasingly convinced the way the theory of ‘privilege’ assigns each person a set of identities, and then divides those identities along oppressor/oppressed binaries, is untenable.

        I’d argue the reality is that any combination of identities, placed into any specific context, is going to have a distinct outcome that can’t be derived from adding up oppression and oppressed points.

      4. I charge for tutoring. Wanna pay me I can educate you. If not, use the internet and figure it the fuck out. Maybe you can understand what ” people were killed so this land could be lived on by everyone else” means in regards to benefiting from genocide. ( hint: It’s not white privilege nor does it mean your life can’t also be a big wad of hell).

        I’ve had this conversation before. Here in fact. I’m not going to get drawn into again with someone who’s just pulled out the words ” oppression points”‘.

      5. And while you’re at it, learn the difference between colonization oppression and racist oppression, gender/sex oppression, religious oppression, etc etc because colonization issues are different. Not worse or better or what have you. Just different. So you’re framing it wrong to begin with.

      6. Maybe you can understand what ” people were killed so this land could be lived on by everyone else” means in regards to benefiting from genocide. ( hint: It’s not white privilege nor does it mean your life can’t also be a big wad of hell).

        Not my argument. My argument is that there isn’t a single discreet, tangible, concrete way that a homeless, starving person who doesn’t receive any government assistance is better off because of the US’s history of genocide. If you disagree you are free to provide an example, or not, as you wish; that doesn’t mean I’m not going to draw inferences from your decision not to provide one.

        I charge for tutoring. Wanna pay me I can educate you.

        That’s a hilarious tactic to take in internet disagreements. Are you willing to pay me to continuing to explain why I think you’rewrong? Didn’t think so.

        I’m not going to get drawn into again with someone who’s just pulled out the words ” oppression points”.

        Sure, if you remove two words from the rest of my post you could probably paint me as some sort of anti-social-justice monster. I’m not sure what it gets you, though.

      7. And while you’re at it, learn the difference between colonization oppression and racist oppression, gender/sex oppression, religious oppression, etc etc because colonization issues are different

        Sure. Also, not relevant to my central thesis, which is that there are non-indigenous people in this country who do not benefit from the murder of indigenous people.

      8. I’m glad you find expecting a NA to educate you for free in NA issues amusing. Tells me a lot.

        By the way…when your family applied to come here, who did they apply to? The Cherokee? The Navajo? Keetowah? And the paperwork, was it stamped with Turtle Island? No? Hmmmm……perhaps your central the applies to a different conversation and not one about colonization.

      9. I’m glad you find expecting a NA to educate you for free in NA issues amusing. Tells me a lot.

        Well, I’m not asking to be educated in NA issues, am I? I’m asking for a concrete example of how, specifically, a hypothetical person benefits from the genocide of indigenous people. I find your insistence that you could but won’t because I’m not paying you funny, yes.

        By the way…when your family applied to come here, who did they apply to? The Cherokee? The Navajo? Keetowah? And the paperwork, was it stamped with Turtle Island? No? Hmmmm……perhaps your central the applies to a different conversation and not one about colonization.

        Oh, my family absolutely benefits from colonization, as do I. Fuck, most of my clients draw federal paychecks. I’m not talking about myself.

      10. . I mean, you can say every non-NDN person benefits from colonialism, and you can build a whole theoretical framework around it, but unless you can provide a concrete example of why (for example) a homeless, mentally ill black woman who benefits from no government services derives some specific advantage from the history of American genocide of indigenous people, I’m not sure that actually is a useful exercise.

        Allow me to introduce myself…

        I’m a homeless, mentally-ill, Black woman who is not on government assistance. (I just ate a couple of spoonfuls of peanut butter I found under the junk in car for dinner, so I’m hesitant to claim the label of “starving.”)

        And yes, as a colonizer, I am benefitting from NDN genocide. I benefit from simply being a citizen of the USA because, as shitty as it sounds, without their genocide there would be no USA.

      11. And yes, as a colonizer, I am benefitting from NDN genocide.

        How?

        I benefit from simply being a citizen of the USA because, as shitty as it sounds, without their genocide there would be no USA.

        That… doesn’t make sense. I mean, you can try to compose a counterfactual about who you’d be in an alternate history without colonization, but that seems like a relatively pointless exercise. In real life, what concrete benefit do you derive from the US’s various historical and ongoing policies of violence/genocide toward indigenous people?

      12. That… doesn’t make sense. I mean, you can try to compose a counterfactual about who you’d be in an alternate history without colonization, but that seems like a relatively pointless exercise. In real life, what concrete benefit do you derive from the US’s various historical and ongoing policies of violence/genocide toward indigenous people?

        (I’m going to say this in all seriousness, but Angel, feel free to tell me to fuck off if I’m overstepping here)

        Well, it sounds like Angel got a car. We can reasonably deduce that colonization led to industrialization in North America, ergo the manufacture of automobiles, which it sounds like is currently presenting the benefit of having a form of shelter, rather than none at all. So, I’d say that’s a pretty specific, concrete benefit.

        (Again, sorry if I am being out of line here, or misunderstanding your circumstances)

      13. That… doesn’t make sense. I mean, you can try to compose a counterfactual about who you’d be in an alternate history without colonization, but that seems like a relatively pointless exercise. In real life, what concrete benefit do you derive from the US’s various historical and ongoing policies of violence/genocide toward indigenous people?

        The alternate reality would be that I wouldn’t exist because my ancestors wouldn’t have been brought over to till the land that NDNs were killed for.

        Also, I wasn’t always homeless. I attended public schools that were built on NDN land and paid for by the same government responsible for that genocide. And did I mention that my father served in the military for that same government so that he could the money to get his family out of poverty?

        I’m really not getting how this is difficult to understand even when you say yourself that you benefit from colonization. What exactly is your argument?

      14. I’m really not getting how this is difficult to understand even when you say yourself that you benefit from colonization. What exactly is your argument?

        That not everyone who’s not indigenous inherently benefits from colonization. But I’m going to keep making that argument somewhere not on this thread.

    2. My argument is that there isn’t a single discreet, tangible, concrete way that a homeless, starving person who doesn’t receive any government assistance is better off because of the US’s history of genocide

      Of course there are such people, such as homeless and poor whites. Even the most marginalized of white people and settler POC along class lines benefit from the racist genocide of all indigenous people, particularly homeless and poor indigenous people. Being oppressed on the basis of class doesn’t cancel out white privilege and colonizer privilege.

      1. Of course there are such people, such as homeless and poor whites. Even the most marginalized of white people and settler POC along class lines benefit from the racist genocide of all indigenous people, particularly homeless and poor indigenous people. Being oppressed on the basis of class doesn’t cancel out white privilege and colonizer privilege.

        You keep repeating your claim while ignoring the fact I’m asking for an example. I believe their are some non-indigenous people in the US whose lives have not been benefited by the murder of indigenous people. If you think I’m wrong, give me a reason to agree, don’t just keep repeating that you’re right.

      2. This goes back to the other issue you’re ignoring, which is your claim that society specifically rewards men who rape, murder, and abuse women. When I ask for a concrete example of a phenomenon you claim exists, you keep retreating to abstract restatements of your belief in said phenomenon.

    3. Like most of the guys I know, I have a lot of female relatives, across multiple generations. Most of them, in fact. All the people in my immediate family are firmly in the “give a kidney or take a bullet” category. Two of my three kids are girls.

      Certainly I concede that if one was a misogynistic asshat who didn’t care about anyone female, then you might have some collateral benefit from society getting MORE problematic. And if you had some horrible behaviors (abuse, etc.) then the same thing might also apply.

      But that isn’t most people. Or most men. In what possible world do non-violent men in general, many of who presumably have wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters that they love and would die for, benefit from the world getting worse?

      I spend a lot of my time and energy trying to make the folks I love happier. Why on earth would you think that I benefit if they were more likely to be hurt?

      1. In what possible world do non-violent men in general, many of who presumably have wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters that they love and would die for, benefit from the world getting worse?

        All of the power that men have over women comes from their access to women’s labor, which includes sexual activity, housework, sex work, childcare, procreation, and forms of emotional labor that lots of men expect from women.

        The primary means by which this access is secured is through male violence, because it’s through violence that both men assure themselves that they still have access to women and women, on the flip-side, internalize fear to the point that they find difficulty in saying no to men (the former resulting from men’s knowledge of the latter).

        It doesn’t matter how many actual male predators exist in the world, for instance: because the sexual assaults of women by men exists in the context of patriarchy, every single sexual assault reinforces the social order in which women are supposed to be the sexual property of men, legally or otherwise. It’s nice to know that there are men out there who wouldn’t dream of sexually assaulting anyone, but it’s also true that women are socialized to give in to men’s sexual demands no matter what out of the fear of being hurt by men. (How that socialization is experienced exactly varies among individual women, but all women are socialized the same way regardless.)

        And so even the non-violent men systematically benefit from the collective actions of sexually violent men – not in the sense that they all necessarily want to be able to coerce women into sex, but in the sense that between them and women there is a power dynamic in which women hold less social/economic power than men and therefore are especially vulnerable to being coerced.

        Any power imbalance is going to leave one side vulnerable to the other, and male-female relations under patriarchy are no exception – even relations between individual women and men who are committed to treating each other as equals.

      2. The primary means by which this access [to power] is secured is through male violence, because it’s through violence

        Are you defining “violence” or “primary” in an unusually broad way? Or have you moved to worldwide and outside the US, without my realizing it?

        I ask because, no question, some men are violent. Lots more outside the US, especially in countries which don’t have things like restraining orders and fault-free divorce. But the primary means that men get women to do things is not violence, at least here. It’s the same as the primary way that women get men to do things, which is “trading something for it.”

      3. In this world. Violence against women is used to prevent women from being individual, gaining power, wealth, status, basic rights etc etc. Men hold the resources and use them to attract mates. This keeps women in a subservient role, the child rearer the house keeper and so on which frees men to continue accessing power and opportunity. All of these things btw, made your roads to becoming a lawyer smoother than a woman’s road. That’s how you benefit, even though you don’t wish to. It’s privilege, and its bestowed on you, and violence against women is one of the myriad things that make that privilege possible.

        Society rewards the men who commit the acts against women by believing them, making excuses for them and enabling an environment where violence against women flourishes. Telling a man it wasn’t rape because she asked for it is a reward. Telling a woman she should have left when a man beats her is his reward. It’s not his fault, it’s hers. Doing something wrong and receiving little to no punishment is the reward. When people say how horrible it is for a rape victim to ruin her rapists life, that’s a reward. When a judge orders a rape victim must bring her child to see her rapist in prison, that’s a reward.

        All of that serves to keep women in their place. Which is less than. Shit rolls downhill and on the gender ladder, men occupy the top rung.

      4. Aaliyah- you have a terrible habit of retreating to restatements of broad, abstract academic philosophy when asked for specific, concrete, real-world examples. It makes it hard to engage with you.

      5. Doing something wrong and receiving little to no punishment is the reward.

        That’s super twisted logic. If I tell my friend “If you manage to quit smoking I’ll come up with a reward for you” and she quits and I say “cool, your reward is that I won’t set your house on fire,” I’ve done something weird with the English language.

        The claim ‘society rewards men who abuse women’ is distinguishable form the claim ‘society doesn’t do nearly enough to sanction men who abuse women,’ and the former isn’t proof of the latter.

        Anyways, this is another example of someone making a hyperbolic statement, being unable to provide examples, and retreating to abstract generalizations and semantic games to cover it up.

      6. pheenobarbidoll says:
        May 29, 2015 at 8:42 pm
        In this world. Violence against women is used to prevent women from being individual, gaining power, wealth, status, basic rights etc etc.

        It’s worth clarifying, first, I think, that we are discussing only the details here and basically agree on the meat of things.

        but, you said:

        Men hold the resources

        Yes, I agree. Resource control is a huge way of male bargaining, and resources are not evenly distributed across genders, and therefore men have a lot more power.

        To me this is crucially different than “violence,” and it is not actually properly termed as violent.

        All of these things btw, made your roads to becoming a lawyer smoother than a woman’s road. That’s how you benefit, even though you don’t wish to. It’s privilege, and its bestowed on you, and violence against women is one of the myriad things that make that privilege possible.

        Is your point w/r/t violence the bolded part above? Because if so, I’d switch from “arguing about details” to “complete agreement.” Like I keep saying, I’m not denying violence happens. Nor that there is gender imbalance. I’m merely arguing with Aaliyah’s apparent perspective that violence is the primary (and presumably large) cause of that imbalance.

      7. I spend a lot of my time and energy trying to make the folks I love happier. Why on earth would you think that I benefit if they were more likely to be hurt?

        Just because it isn’t something you want doesn’t make it not a benefit. My company offers reduced-price health club memberships. I have no desire to go to a health club, but that doesn’t stop it counting as a benefit.

        Also, because women are more likely to be hurt — and also because, due to sexism, they have fewer resources to make it on their own — they are more dependent upon men and have to go to greater efforts to be on good terms with men and please them. You may not see the extra efforts women go to to keep men happy as a benefit, but many men do, even those who don’t desire to hurt women.

        And I can’t help wondering: if the women you love didn’t need your efforts to make them “happier,” would you be relieved? Or disappointed?

    4. Victim blaming and excuse making- are- the rewards. Validation of their misogyny is a reward. Not believing the victim often leads to zero punishment. Getting away with rape is a reward. Avoiding assault charges because she fought back therefore it’s mutual abuse is a reward. It all leads to an environment where violence against women flourishes, which benefits men in a society….more men can get away with it.

      1. So you asserted “A”, I responded “I don’t think that makes sense for these reasons,” and you responded “no, A.” OK, then.

        Nobody here is denying the existence of male privilege. Several people are criticizing the idea that men as a class benefit from each instance of violence against women.

      2. You think there needs to be intent behind reward? No. Prvielege is a reward. Getting away with something is a reward. I don’t have to think ” hey I’ll reward Ludlow for doing this horrible thing” in order for me to look the other way and focus on the victim of the horrible thing you did. Not going to prison for it is pretty Damn rewarding. It’s a positive consequence for you.

        I don’t even know why you’re on this board, frankly. You spend most of your time playing contrarian and telling everyone how you don’t think something exists or can’t figure it out or are just flat out wanton in your ignorance. ( colonialism for example) You say you want an example. You got one. But I doubt nothing would be a good enough example be you’ve already made up your mind and don’t – want- there to be an example.

        And it’s always interesting to me how men don’t benefit from male privilege but they sure as shit aren’t beating down the door to give it up. I wonder, if it’s so unrewarding, why women have to fight tooth and nail for a slice of the pie.

      3. And it’s always interesting to me how men don’t benefit from male privilege but they sure as shit aren’t beating down the door to give it up.

        I’m not a man, asshole. And nobody here is denying the existence of male privilege.

        I wonder, if it’s so unrewarding, why women have to fight tooth and nail for a slice of the pie.

        Is your dishonesty intentional or just reflexive? I never, ever claimed ‘male privilege isn’t rewarding.’ You just love to make ideas up and put them in my mouth- knocking down strawmen is fun for you, I guess?

        You think there needs to be intent behind reward? No. Prvielege is a reward. Getting away with something is a reward.

        No, getting away with someone is the absence of punishment. The claim ‘society rewards men who abuse women’ cannot be proven by the lack of sufficient resources devoted to punishing men who abuse women, any more than the statement ‘I personally reward murderers’ can be proved by the fact that I don’t put on a costume and go hunt them down at night.

        I realize you think you’ve found a semantic loophole to hide behind, and fine, this is exhausting and I don’t really feel like going over the point yet again, but I guarantee if you asked basically any normal person whether ‘not being punished for something’ is the same as ‘being rewarded for something’ they’d say no.

        I don’t even know why you’re on this board, frankly. You spend most of your time playing contrarian and telling everyone how you don’t think something exists or can’t figure it out or are just flat out wanton in your ignorance.

        As has been made extremely clear, we probably agree on must fundamental issues, like the existence/salience of colonizer privilege, male privilege, etc. I’ve just pointed out a few extremely sweeping, baseless claims- like ‘every single man benefits whenever other men murders, abuses or rape women’ which, while sounding good, fail to meet the test of real-world applicability. As an ideological principle I suppose “every non-NDN in the US benefits directly from colonization and occupation’ is OK, and of course most people do, it’s just that it’s relatively easy to falsify by finding someone who doesn’t.

        I’m still here because I think you’re wrong, just like you’re presumably still here because you think I’m wrong. Unless you mean the broader question of why I’m at Feministe at all, which is pretty much for the same reason as anyone else- to discuss feminist issues, to learn more, to complain about shitty misogynistic things, and so on.

      4. Absence of punishment is a reward to people who do bad things. Clearly you’ve never been a rebellious teen, otherwise you’d know getting away with something is half the damn fun. Getting away with it emboldens you to do more. Which gives you the thrill of getting away with it. And when people know about it and still let you get away with it, yeah. You do percieve it as a reward. Your freedom is a reward. Think like they do, not like you do. Think like a criminal and then ask yourself if being found not guilty when you are guilty isn’t a reward.

      5. No, getting away with someone is the absence of punishment. The claim ‘society rewards men who abuse women’ cannot be proven by the lack of sufficient resources devoted to punishing men who abuse women, any more than the statement ‘I personally reward murderers’ can be proved by the fact that I don’t put on a costume and go hunt them down at night.

        Your analogy doesn’t work here because it doesn’t relate to a situation involving a power imbalance between two social groups. Being able to harm an entire group of people with impunity is a legal and social privilege that men have at women’s expense: what should normally be expected – people being held accountable for their violent behavior – doesn’t happen nearly as much to men because society is male supremacist and cares more about men’s reputations than women’s safety.

      6. Aaliyah says:
        May 31, 2015 at 3:41 pm
        Your analogy doesn’t work here because it doesn’t relate to a situation involving a power imbalance between two social groups. Being able to harm an entire group of people with impunity

        Aaliyah,
        When you use words like “impunity” and “primary” and “benefit” and such, do you mean them literally?

        what should normally be expected – people being held accountable for their violent behavior – doesn’t happen nearly as much to men because society is male supremacist and cares more about men’s reputations than women’s safety.

        Out of curiosity, does anyone know, for both men and women, what percentage of equivalent violence (say, “hitting your partner without breaking anything”) is investigated as serious? Charged? Prosecuted? Successfully convicted? Punished by jail time?

        I do not know the answer so this is not a rhetorical question. But I have to say that as a gut feeling resulting from my experience, I am not sure that’s the “men are less accountable” part is actually true.

        Yes, it’s hard to successfully prosecute a man for raping, hitting, or threatening a woman. But I think it would be even harder to successfully prosecute a woman for raping, hitting, or threatening a man.

      7. a_lawyer said:

        But I think it would be even harder to successfully prosecute a woman for raping, hitting, or threatening a man.

        I don’t know about “raping, hitting, or threatening.” Do you have actual statistics on that? Or are you just repeating a sexist trope?

        I do know that women are more frequently and more harshly punished for using deadly force against an intimate partner. There are statistics on that. Also see: the Marissa Alexander case.

      8. AMM says:
        Just because it isn’t something you want doesn’t make it not a benefit. My company offers reduced-price health club memberships. I have no desire to go to a health club, but that doesn’t stop it counting as a benefit.

        You’re not stating it right; I’m not sure if you are arguing about how preferences work (which would be odd and basic) or about logic.

        If it’s negative, the fact that you actively don’t want it is absolutely a negative and is in no way a positive.

        So if your company buys free KKK robes and hands them out to new employees together with a membership card, and also buys everyone memberships in the local Nazi party (you don’t have to use them) that would sure as shit be a negative and not a benefit, right?

        Similarly, like most parents I’d take a bullet for my kids. If someone shot my kids instead of me, that would be a negative and not a benefit.

        And I can’t help wondering: if the women you love didn’t need your efforts to make them “happier,” would you be relieved? Or disappointed?

        Huh. Have you seriously made it through life without exposure to anyone who honestly loves one or more other people? Or are you just trying to be an asshole by implying that I don’t? I am not sure which is going on here.

        [from another post]

        AMM says:
        I don’t know about “raping, hitting, or threatening.” Do you have actual statistics on that? Or are you just repeating a sexist trope?

        Again, you deliberately omitted the part where I said “I don’t know and this is not a rhetorical question.” It seems like you’re more interested in scoring points than actually discussing things here, but if you want to actually list facts which are responsive I’d be happy to talk about them.

  6. And I pretty clearly told you you’re framing your argument wrong, and need to understand how colonization is different …do that and maybe you can ask a question that doesn’t require me to educate you on colonization 101 first.

    Drawing benefits from the government isn’t the only goddamned benefit and you missed the entire point of that question, BECAUSE YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND COLONIZATION.

    1. Drawing benefits from the government isn’t the only goddamned benefit and you missed the entire point of that question, BECAUSE YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND COLONIZATION.

      Of course that’s not the only benefit, I added that to eliminate one possible benefit.

      The fact that you keep repeating this, instead of just suggesting a specific way in which my hypothetical person’s life is improved because of the US’s history of violence against indigenous people, says something.

      1. Anyone who lives on occupied land and isn’t native to it is a colonizer. It doesn’t matter how poor that person may be, because the power imbalance of colonialism exists regardless of intersecting class marginalization. Every single person who isn’t native to this country is a colonizer, including me, and there is no exception because colonialism, as a form of systematic oppression, affects every single individual within it regardless of their specific life circumstances. The fact that I live on occupied land as a non-indigenous person is already strong proof of that, because I have access to land and resources that indigenous people are regularly denied at all levels of society.

        It seems to me that you are insistent on believing that some colonizers can magically not benefit from colonialism just because of being poor, and in doing so you are denying the privilege that all non-native poor people have over native poor people. You talk about intersectionality fails but honestly with your reasoning it’s hard for me to believe that you understand intersectionality as theorized by black feminists and womanists.

      2. It seems to me that you are insistent on believing that some colonizers can magically not benefit from colonialism just because of being poor, and in doing so you are denying the privilege that all non-native poor people have over native poor people.

        No, I was saying (pretty clearly, IMO) I believe there are some non-indigenous Americans who nevertheless don’t see dividends from colonization. Your insistence on constantly removing the discussion to abstract/academic terms, when I’ve been pretty clear that I don’t care about the semantics and genuinely am only interested in concrete/real-world examples, is puzzling. If you want to discuss it further, how about we go to spillover?

  7. Thank you Angel.

    I doubt ludlow will accept that. Maybe she can chew on the fact that a homeless US citizen can go to a county emergency room and get treatment, whereas a NA regardless of home having status can be turned away if the federal money allotted to all NA has run out. No money, no treatment. Not even if you have a heart attack in the ambulance on the way. They’ll tell you to go home. Maybe give you some tylenol.

  8. Maybe she can chew on the fact that a homeless US citizen can go to a county emergency room and get treatment, whereas a NA regardless of home having status can be turned away if the federal money allotted to all NA has run out. No money, no treatment. Not even if you have a heart attack in the ambulance on the way. They’ll tell you to go home. Maybe give you some tylenol.

    That’s terrible. It’s also a non-sequitor; nobody is debating whether things are better for NA or non-NA homeless people, or whether discrimination against NA people is real.

    1. That’s not discrimination. That’s colonized and occupied. A US citizen that is non indigenous benefits from the US health care system that allows even the homeless to be treated in a county run public emergency room to save their life. An indigenous person does not recieve that benefit, because we get free health care until the money runs out. Which is about June. Hence the joke ” don’t get sick after June” that NDNS know. No non native US citizen has to deal with that because they were not colonized, occupied then deemed charges of the US Government. Colonizers are citizens, NDNS are wards.

      If you’re murdered, as a US citizen, the police don’t have to ask permission to arrest the suspect or wait for a federal agent to show up. Recently we were allowed to arrest non NDN rapists.

      1. In other words, if the most oppressed non native and a native were both dying on the floor in an emergency room, the staff could treat the non Native. They cannot treat the NDN if the money is gone. Tax money pays for non native treatment. Special funds pay for NDN treatment. Limited special funds.

      2. You’re still listing ways in which NDN people are oppressed/colonized, which I’m sure are absolutely true, but also aren’t relevant to the question at hand.

      3. Jesus Christ. The money and resources to treat the homeless man are being withheld from the NDN in order to treat the homeless man, regardless of If he will ever need it. Money for NDN health care is limited, in order to leave more money for non NDN use. That means the homeless man benefits from the ongoing genocide of NDNs. The money that would save me and mine is being denied us, in case YOU might need it. And that money comes from stolen resources, stolen land, taxing citizens who wouldn’t even be here had genocide not occured. They literally take money they get from our water, our land, our trees, our numerals and give us a pittanne and save the larger amount for non NDNS. All of them. Even the hungry and homeless oppresed.

        This isn’t complicated. Crack open a book once in a while.

      4. Jesus Christ. The money and resources to treat the homeless man are being withheld from the NDN in order to treat the homeless man, regardless of If he will ever need it.

        Not how budgets are set. But more importantly, not all municipalities have significant NDN populations, so your claim that every single homeless person in the US benefits from set-aside medical care money at the expense of NDN people is facially absurd, even if you weren’t wrong for other reasons.

        This isn’t complicated. Crack open a book once in a while.

        It’d be faster if you skipped straight to calling me “LITERALLY HITLER.”

      5. How in the fuck would you know how the BIA sets the healthcare budget? What do you even know about the policies the BIA governs us with and do you not know more NDNs live off reservations and still receive government healthcare? You’re utterly ignorant about the subject, but you keep insisting you have a valid opinion on it.

        You don’t have to live on a reservation to receive the NDN “benefits” . You just have to be a registered member of a tribe. And guess what? We’re all over the country.

  9. Ok, in the interests of not stoushing and/or derailing further, I’m going to back off and let the other people in this thread respond to what I already posted, and I’m sure we can circle back on an open thread or spillover as well.

  10. The thing that gets me about the Elliot Rodger case was that 4 of the 6 victims were his roommates–his Asian, male roommates.

    How were these dudes suppose to “prevent” Rodger’s violence?

    1. I’m glad you brought up the deaths of his roommates because alot of people also forget that Rodgers was racist as hell.

  11. Mods, we need a giraffe here. It’s starting to feel like Ludlow is being contrary just for the sake of it. The ” I’m not like – you- feminists” thing is getting old. And the absolute denial of colonization benefits are,insulting as hell. Maybe a reading list can be provided so she can seek answers instead of hounding people to hold her hand and lead her through it all.

    [thank you for sending a giraffe alert ~ moderator team]

    1. I’m not like – you- feminists

      Ugh, really? Going there?

      And the absolute denial of colonization benefits are,insulting as hell.

      Not an absolute denial, a qualified one. If you said ‘colonization privilege is a real thing’ I wouldn’t have argued. You made the extreme claim that there is not a single person in the entire US who does not directly, tangibly benefit from colonization. I think that’s a pretty easy claim to disprove.

      1. Ludlow it’s pretty clear your pulling the ” not like you feminists” crap. Your creeping suspicion it’s just a matter of oppression points leaves little doubt. Don’t engage me on NDN topics again. You have no idea what you’re talking about and your colonizer privilege is offensive as fuck. Angel H and I have both explained it to you yet you still don’t get it and deny it when people who have seen it in action are telling you YOU are wrong. I can’t help that you can’t manage to grok it, so go ask someone else to feed you small bites of thinkystuff regarding the subject. Do not speak to me about again.

      2. Don’t engage me on NDN topics again.

        Sure, no worries.

        Ludlow it’s pretty clear your pulling the ” not like you feminists” crap.

        Yawn.

      3. Can you please explain why you think eating literally anything grown or manufactured on US soil is not a benefit of colonization? You brought up starving people before. Not to be crass, but they’re starving – not starved (i.e. to death). It absolutely sucks to be hungry, but it’s incredibly disingenuous to think a hungry person has never, ever eaten anything ever.

        [fixed ~ moderator team]

  12. As an ideological principle I suppose “every non-NDN in the US benefits directly from colonization and occupation’ is OK, and of course most people do, it’s just that it’s relatively easy to falsify by finding someone who doesn’t.

    Simply existing and breathing oxygen on colonized land is a benefit.

  13. Ludlow, is this part of your thinking: that there are many people in the United States who would actually have a higher standard of living if their ancestors had stayed in their home countries? That joining in the colonization process (I’m thinking of voluntary migrants, here) was not a benefit for their descendents and they lost more than they gained, though they still have privilege over Native Americans?

    1. I’m not sure that train of thought would play out either. I’m descended for non-voluntary migrants (slaves) and I still have far greater advantages over NDNs. I would point to access to decent education and primarily family wealth. My family was able to accumulate wealth three four generations ago despite the civil war and jim crow laws. I mean we’re a rarity but I think African American were far more able to do that that NDNs.

      1. Again, I’m not arguing non-NDN people don’t have advantages over NDNs, I’m arguing that not every non-NDN person directly benefits from the oppression of NDN people. I’m arguing that it’s possible to identify non-NDN individuals who’s lives are in no way better because of colonization.

      2. Medea- I see where you’re going but I think it’s probably risky to engage in counterfactuals that extreme.

      3. I’m arguing that it’s possible to identify non-NDN individuals who’s lives are in no way better because of colonization.

        Who? You keep accusing everyone else of arguing in abstracts, but the last example you offered up didn’t work because apparently the idea that a homeless, mentally-ill Black woman would be on Feministe was so far-fetched that no one argue against it.

      4. the idea that a homeless, mentally-ill Black woman would be on Feministe was so far-fetched that no one argue against it.

        I have literally no idea what you’re talking about.

        Who? You keep accusing everyone else of arguing in abstracts, but the last example you offered up didn’t work

        The fact a particular homeless, mentally-ill Black woman was able to give an example of how she benefited from colonization doesn’t mean every single person can. Not everyone has a car. Or had a parent work for the US Government.

        I know people who’s lives aren’t improved at all by colonization, because there aren’t any external forces improving their lives at all. Aside from abstracts like ‘well, the ground they’re sleeping on was stolen,’ which is true, but doesn’t do anything to make it more comfortable.

    2. I have literally no idea what you’re talking about.

      Oh, please:

      but unless you can provide a concrete example of why (for example) a homeless, mentally ill black woman who benefits from no government services derives some specific advantage from the history of American genocide of indigenous people, I’m not sure that actually is a useful exercise.

      As if you didn’t through that “for example” because you wouldn’t get called on it.

      I know people who’s lives aren’t improved at all by colonization, because there aren’t any external forces improving their lives at all.

      So, they’ve never attended public schools? They don’t travel publically-funded roads? They’ve never spent the day in the public library because it was too hot or too cold to spend it outside? Hell, have they even the night in jail? Even if they take advantage of charities from religious organizations, those organizations are able to provide those services partly because of their tax-exempt status.

      We’ve given you example after example after example, and all you’ve come back with is “because reasons”.

      Oppression is systemic. You don’t have to be actively oppressing someone right at that moment to benefit from the system.

      1. So, they’ve never attended public schools? They don’t travel publically-funded roads?

        No and no.

        They’ve never spent the day in the public library because it was too hot or too cold to spend it outside?

        Hm, that might be one, actually.

        As if you didn’t through that “for example” because you wouldn’t get called on it.

        I gave that example because I believed it was an example of my point. I don’t know what type of game you think I’m playing, but I’m not.

        Anyways, you don’t fit the description I gave, unless I somehow misread your post; didn’t you say your father was in the military?

      2. Oppression is systemic. You don’t have to be actively oppressing someone right at that moment to benefit from the system.

        Sure, I don’t find anything objectionable about that. I just don’t see how, in concrete terms, you can make a very strong argument that if colonization/occupation/genocide against NDN people had never happened, every single non-NDN American would be worse off. Leaving aside all the problems with counterfactual histories, which (I assume we agree) are pointless to speculate about, I just think such an argument assumes too much about the way the benefits of colonization are distributed.

      3. Anyways, you don’t fit the description I gave, unless I somehow misread your post; didn’t you say your father was in the military?

        Yes, let me remove a few points from my Oppressions Ration Card since having your life go from sugar to shit isn’t applicable. Y’know, maybe after they’ve learned how to talk, you can ask some Black, homeless, female babies I know how their lives have or have not benefited by colonization. Maybe if you’re lucky, they’ll also be mentally-ill so you can check off all the little boxes.

  14. Hi! Sorry for the OT posting, but it looks like the open thread is closed – is there any way to open it up or start a new one? I think it would be cool to celebrate Caitlyn Jenner’s debut, discuss how her other privileges mean she’s comparatively safer to do so, and maybe complain a bit about the transmisogyny I’m sure many of us have heard today (me hashtag feministb—-face is on in my conservative office).

  16. The fact that arguing the benefits of colonization might not accrue to every non-NDN American equally, or at all, is considered racism is disturbing. I’m not sure how one decided that “colonization is real and shitty, but there are probably at least some Americans who don’t benefit from it,” is even in the vague vicinity of racism or being pro-colonization. I think, in general, privilege is highly contextual; I’d argue there are specific men who don’t fully- or perhaps at all- benefit from male privilege, too. You’re free to think that’s totally wrong, but it’s not a sexist belief.

    I guess when we say we’ll stop engaging on the subject, it just means continuing the conversation, but not specifically replying to each other’s comments or mentioning each other by name?

  17. pheenobarbidoll says:
    June 2, 2015 at 10:01 am
    The colonizing racism happening in this thread is disturbing.

    I don’t think anyone disputes the history of the U.S. having colonized the U.S. Nor does anyone dispute that overall, that seems to have ended up quite badly for the NAs who lived in the US.

    But to the degree that folks are pointing to specific costs/benefits accruing to specific people, and are trying to directly assign them as being “caused by” an unspecific wide ranging set of actions and decisions which started over 500 years ago, and covered entire eras of society and human development, it’s a bit harder to accept.

    Saying “the U.S. government exists because of colonization activity that started in 1492” is 100% right.

    Saying “The U.S. government is screwing over the N.A.s and we have an obligation to make that stop” is 100% right.

    Saying “these are some examples of things which should be changed” is 100% right.

    Saying “there would not be any white people living in the U.S. on land they own if there was not colonization” is probably wrong, I think, unless you want to imagine some magic trade/ship/purchaser barrier which surrounds the Americas.

    Saying “Ludlow22 personally and every non-NA in the US personally, has benefited more than every single N.A. in the world personally as a result of colonization activity that started in 1492 and continued through the formation of the U.S.” is unprovably vague. Why is that the battle everyone is fighting?

    I have no idea what the result of different actions would have been, and neither does anyone else, because nobody on the planet is skilled enough to guess about 50–much less 500–years of human changes. Maybe the NAs in my area would be happily subsisting like they were in the 1600s. Or maybe they’d be mostly dead, be it from Aztec expansion, or from one of the various medical conditions which have since been vastly improved. Or maybe they’d have industrialized their own society and merged tribes and I’d be living right where I do, with my same job, with similar laws, but with a NA government. outside science fiction how on earth can anyone claim to know? And without knowing, how can you claim that particular people, who would not even have existed in a different time frame, have been better or worse off?

    1. What? That’s like saying we can’t definitively say white people benefit from institutional racism (which has similarly happened over hundreds of years) because in an alternate universe where white people weren’t dicks to people of color, they might have had the same exact benefits or even been better off.

      …We were dicks to Native Americans. Then we built on their stolen land, fed ourselves off of crops we grew on their stolen land, and developed a society on their stolen land that shunts them off into corners of the States largely without letting them in on the benefits. Whether or not we would benefit more or less than we would in an alternate universe is an unnecessary exercise. We stole land, killed a mess of people to do it, and every single person in the US benefits from that genocide simply because every single one of us has eaten something grown here. Full stop.

      1. PrettyAmiable says:
        June 2, 2015 at 12:56 pm
        What? That’s like saying we can’t definitively say white people benefit from institutional racism (which has similarly happened over hundreds of years) because in an alternate universe where white people weren’t dicks to people of color, they might have had the same exact benefits or even been better off.

        Whites as a class, on average benefit from institutional racism. Just like men as a class, on average benefit from patriarchy. Just like US citizens as a class, on average benefit from colonization, and everything else that the U.S. did/does. Similarly, POC as a class, on average were harmed by racism; and NAs as a class, on average were harmed by colonization; and women as a class, on average are harmed by patriarchy.

        Nobody is arguing about that. Please remember, nobody is arguing about that.

        I see, however, that some people–including me–are questioning the substitution of “every individual, ever, who was a class member” for as a class, on average.

        Patriarchy hurts men, too, right? Not as much; not as badly; not as systemically; and so on. But still, not every man in every situation at every time is better off as a result of patriarchy. And the flip side is the same: not every woman in every situation at every time is/was worse off as a result of patriarchy.

        This doesn’t seem especially offensive or, from a sociological perspective, even the tiniest bit surprising. Large group effects never perfectly translate to individuals, especially for involuntary groups. Hell, PHMT even has its own feminist acronym, right? And it’s not as if that analysis instantly disappears when you look at other enormous complex sociological things like colonization, etc. The analysis is the same. The application to large groups is the same. The reality that not all individuals are necessarily exact matches for their group averages are the same.

        We were dicks to Native Americans.

        YES. Do you think anyone here is disputing this? Do you think I am disputing it? I mean, I keep putting it in every post merely because I am certain someone will otherwise accuse me of god knows what, but it is obvious by now.

        …Full stop.

        If you don’t want to discuss it, don’t discuss it. Declaring something the last word, or final and binding, doesn’t make it so.

        Hell, colonization is interesting. There are a lot of people who write about it. There are a lot of people who have different views about it. The view that “perhaps not every single individual member of the US citizenry, ever, has actually personally gained all that much directly from colonization” does not seem like it should be that odd of a perspective.

  18. My bad. I forgot that non NDNs get to dictate what is or is not e experienced as racism by NDNS. Carry on, oh wise colonizers. Your opinions are ever so unique and new.

      2. Ugh. Had forgotten about Idouglas. You’re right. Had hoped people like that had moved on.

  19. I’ve opened up a Spillover post for anyone wishing to continue this discussion elsewhere. That said, it would be great if the discussion doesn’t continue, at least in its current form, because prove that every single person has benefited from colonization and cite your sources this is important is beyond distasteful, as is how do you know they would be better off if they weren’t colonized, like it’s a high school debate topic and not people’s actual lives and histories. Consider that there are people in this discussion who do have skin in the argument, and if you don’t have skin in it and are just pounding away at your point until you can get people to agree with you, you’re being an asshole.

    So stop it, or bans are coming.

Comments are currently closed.