Is "Victim Blaming" always wrong?

[mjr]

I mean, is it considered piling on, unfair, or what?

I posit that sometimes it actually is the victim's fault, and therefore could be OK to blame the victim. Note I use the phrase "could be", because I can't honestly list every exceptional circumstance.

One example is that thread that Greenday started about the woman he knows who sleeps with a lot of guys and then complains about the reputation.

Should she be picked on/teased? Probably not.

But whose fault is it that she has the reputation to begin with? Hers.

[TheHuckster]

The key is what supposedly transpired the attack. If a woman who worked a late shift is attacked in the parking lot outside of work, the response shouldn't be "what was she doing alone so late at night?" People should be expected to be able to carry on tasks that should be considered "typical" without being attacked. The same goes for outfit choices and equipping yourself with defense (e.g. "She should have carried mace or had that special fingernail polish that detects roofies").

When it comes to cases like rape, it's especially a slap in the face because it detracts from the fact that the rapist should be fully to blame, and if we live in a society where one needs to go to such drastic measures just to protect themselves from something as heinous rape (and where people then point fingers at the victim for not employing said measures), then what does that say about that society?

Like virtually every concept, I believe when you put it out of the parameters of discussion and build a strawman, you'll find exceptions to the rule. Like if someone put their bike out in the middle of a busy parking lot unattended and unlocked. Yes, the person who steals it shouldn't have done so, but it's also foolish of the bike owner to not employ trivial measures (as opposed to drastic ones like the above) for what really comes out to be a far pettier crime than rape.

Same goes for cases of a victim purely of their own doing. If one is driving 100mph down a dark road and smashes into a telephone pole, that's entirely on him/her. If one rides a motorcycle without a helmet and has a brain injury after wiping out, that person's injury is at least partially to blame, even if someone else cut him/her off. And, there are cases where one puts themselves in a position to be attacked which leaves me unsympathetic, such as if one were to go into a black neighborhood (or any neighborhood for that matter) wearing a KKK robe with a burning cross, and get the shit beaten out of him.

[Kheldarson]

I agree with Huckster. There are cases where the victim may be partly to blame, but as long as the victim is acting within the bounds of normal behavior, then there is no reason to victim blame. And there is never a case for victim blaming in a sexual assault.

[mjr]

but as long as the victim is acting within the bounds of normal behavior, then there is no reason to victim blame.

This is why I worded the title, and my post, the way I did.

[s_stabeler]

I agree with Huckster. There are cases where the victim may be partly to blame, but as long as the victim is acting within the bounds of normal behavior, then there is no reason to victim blame. And there is never a case for victim blaming in a sexual assault.

well, I can think of one situation, but it's practically a strawman, and I doubt it would happen in real life: where a revocation of consent was deliberately inaudible. ( and I mean deliberately- as in, mouthed/under the breath) and it's specific to revocation, since the rule, IIRC, is that if consent is not clear, then you shouldn't have sex.

Also, it does depend on what you mean by victim-blaming. Pointing out that both sides are to blame isn't always wrong. But if you mean putting all- or most- of the blame on the victim, then that is far harder to defend.

[Rageaholic]

The term "victim blaming" is often used very loosely. On another message board, I was accused of victim blaming because I suggested that a guy shouldn't be sent to jail for alledged twitter harassment (The Toronto case). It was one of those cases where both parties were being asshats, but Guthrie (the plaintiff) made some BS about how she shouldn't have to be the perfect victim when asked to provide specific tweets. Even worse is that she had actively launched a harassment campaign to get some guy fired, but pointing out her hypocrisy is somehow wrong?

[Gravekeeper]

Victim blaming is kind of a loaded term, yeah and not always used correctly. Its suppose to apply to criminal/legal situations and its almost exclusively used against women and people of colour. Typically to justified violence or sexual assault towards them.

Greenday's story is a little bit of a grey area. Yes, she is responsible for her behaviour with her coworkers. But by the same measure you know if she was a he, there likely wouldn't be a problem with him sleeping his way through the office. No criminal issue is involved though. Its less victim blaming and more idiocy with a liberal dash of sexism.

[Hyena Dandy]

The thing about victim blaming is that it isn't about whether the victim did anything, so much as prioritizing that blame. In other words - If you leave your car unlocked, and it gets stolen, yes, you should have locked your car. At the same measure, while you may have been able to do SOMETHING, the person who committed the crime is definitely more at fault. So the response to the crime would ideally be "WE'll find who di this" not "Well, if you'd locked the door..."

Similarly, if you wear the wrong color on the wrong street of the wrong city, you can get attacked by a rival gang. But if that happens and they kill you, they're more at fault than you are.

Doesn't mean that you shouldn't be aware of those things, but that we need to find the right priority.

[Greenday]

Greenday's story is a little bit of a grey area. Yes, she is responsible for her behaviour with her coworkers. But by the same measure you know if she was a he, there likely wouldn't be a problem with him sleeping his way through the office. No criminal issue is involved though. Its less victim blaming and more idiocy with a liberal dash of sexism.

If you sleep with a lot of people and get a reputation for sleeping with a lot of people, then yea, it's your fault.

If you are walking home and get jumped because you dress a certain way, that's not your fault.

The only time I don't have a problem with blaming the victim is when the "victim" is 100% to blame for whatever incident is causing them problems.

[TheHuckster]

Greenday's story is a little bit of a grey area. Yes, she is responsible for her behaviour with her coworkers. But by the same measure you know if she was a he, there likely wouldn't be a problem with him sleeping his way through the office. No criminal issue is involved though. Its less victim blaming and more idiocy with a liberal dash of sexism.

Actually, chances are the male in the workplace who sleeps with a bunch of his colleagues would be known as a sleeze and a womanizer. Not exactly a reputation a man wants to have, and HR definitely would keep their eye on him.

The thing about victim blaming is that it isn't about whether the victim did anything, so much as prioritizing that blame.

That's pretty much it, yeah. In pretty much every case, the person who did the wrong action should always get the majority of blame. Even if you do something incredibly foolish like leave your car idle with the doors unlocked, the car thief is still the one who should get the brunt of the wrath, whereas the victim in such a case should get an eyeroll and perhaps will never be lent a car from anyone who hears such a story.

[Gravekeeper]

Actually, chances are the male in the workplace who sleeps with a bunch of his colleagues would be known as a sleeze and a womanizer. Not exactly a reputation a man wants to have, and HR definitely would keep their eye on him.

That sort of reputation is far more damaging to a woman's career than a man's though. Especially in a male dominated field. Thanks to the old slut / conqueror paradigm of female / male relations. He would have that reputation among the woman in the office but depending on the company and work culture, the men may be ambivalent or even encouraging.

I mean look at the Pennsylvania email scandal that's unfolding. It's almost kind of awe inspiring.

[TheHuckster]

I don't know... with sexual harassment complaints being taken more and more seriously, I don't think someone could get away with being a playboy in the workplace for very long. And when you have a sexual harassment suit against you, those are the kinds of things future employers will look out for.

I mean look at the Pennsylvania email scandal that's unfolding. It's almost kind of awe inspiring.

Case in point. I have a feeling there are quite a few people who were outed in all this who have a snowball's chance in hell of ever achieving success in their careers from now on.

[Gravekeeper]

I don't know... with sexual harassment complaints being taken more and more seriously, I don't think someone could get away with being a playboy in the workplace for very long. And when you have a sexual harassment suit against you, those are the kinds of things future employers will look out for.

They can and will, unfortunately. Sexual harassment still often goes unreported due to fear of reprisal and the aforementioned victim blaming. Bringing a sexual harassment lawsuit against your company can likewise damage a woman's career with future employers regardless of whether or not she's in the right. There are some companies that are even pulling the "private arbitration" clause in employee contracts now to keep any such suits out of the public limelight.

And let us not forget the wrist slap joke that is "sensitivity training".

Case in point. I have a feeling there are quite a few people who were outed in all this who have a snowball's chance in hell of ever achieving success in their careers from now on.

To be bitterly honest you would have to fuck a dead puppy on national television to completely ruin your career as a US politician these days. And even then 35% of America would claim the footage was a conspiracy against you.

[Tama]

To be bitterly honest you would have to fuck a dead puppy on national television to completely ruin your career as a US politician these days. And even then 35% of America would claim the footage was a conspiracy against you.

The "Trunchbull" principle, I think I'd call that. So over the top no one would believe it.


And the average american is pretty stupid, so there's that too.

[Mr Hero]

The problem I've seen with this term is that by teaching potential victims how they can be more safe, this gets lumped in with victim blaming. Especially with sexual assault. The counterargument I've seen is that instead we should teach men it's not ok.

Why "instead" though? Why not "also"? Unfortunately crimes are going to happen. And some men need a harsher lesson than others about it being not ok not to assault a woman. And what better method to reinforce the concept to slower learners than a well-placed jab to the jugular?

I get it. We need to worry about who committed the crime. But why is it wrong to increase your chances that the crime doesn't happen to you?