Blaming the victim

Discussion in 'Self Defence' started by aaradia, Mar 15, 2016.

  1. aaradia

    aaradia Choy Li Fut and Yang Tai Chi Chuan Student Moderator Supporter

    Here is the background behind my questions. Sorry it is a little long.

    A year or two ago, a staff member at another location of my work was a victim of a series of attacks going in an area of San Diego. It was apparently some variation of "the knockout game" = completely random attacks late at night where someone was KO'd out of the blue. Beaten, but not robbed or anything else.

    When word got out to the various locations, of course it was a major topic. My location at work just so happened to be the area where the attacks were taking place! I, of course, came to the conversations with the perspective of my training, but I didn't do it in a know it all way. I don't know it all and that isn't my style. But I did hope that a few key things would be remembered by my co-workers so they weren't the next victims.

    I mentioned in the conversation about not walking alone if you don't have to, and that it would have been a good idea if this co-worker had taken her friends up on their offer to walk her to her car. (The attacks were well known to be taking place. They were highly publicized and she wasn't the first victim.)

    I met resistance from one person- who said I was blaming the victim- like how rape victims are blamed for how they dress. I said that wasn't my intention, but there ARE things one can do to lessen the risk of being attacked. That doesn't mean a victim should be blamed, but that others can lessen the odds of being the next victim. I don't think I got my point across to this person. So I dropped it.

    Just a couple of days ago, in a theoretical self defense discussion on Facebook, someone else made the point I did about self defense in general. And others made the same criticism. Again, IMO the person making the point did not do it in any sort of accusatory blaming tone.

    Have others run across this criticism? How do you respond? Instructors - has this come up when teaching self defense? I mean, rape happens to people dressed all sorts of ways, but things like situational awareness, trusting your senses, knowing when to run away, knowing the difference between social and asocial violence - those are things that really can lesson your chances of being attacked. But I really can't seem to make the argument about why they are different very well. Or how learning self defense techniques does not mean one is blaming the victim.

    So, I would like to hear how others handle this criticism when talking about self defense.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2016
  2. Dean Winchester

    Dean Winchester Valued Member

    I switch crimes on them.

    Take the discussion away from whatever it is that is being talked about and put in a substitution.


    "When you left the house this morning did you lock up?"

    "Is your car locked? Why?" "Do you leave valuables on view?"

    "Do you let your son or daughter go anywhere they want?"

    Or any number of other behaviours that we, usually, recognise as being sensible precautions.

    As for asocial violence I usually point out that yes you have the right to do x, y, and z but that there are people out there who don't give a damn about your rights because all you are to them is a means to an end, a resource, and little else.

    You are a thing to be used up. There's little or no chest thumping and no audience to impress, they want you alone and separated from the rest of society so that they can do whatever they like to you.

    Social stuff then usually there's an audience, little point otherwise, there's a way it builds up and things you can do to de-escalate. It is worth reading Rory Miller's work on the differences between dealing with this and asocial violence and why it's important they are dealt with differently.

    If you've ever dealt with the lead up to both there's an uncomfortable distinction, imo. Being in the middle of a social build up is emotional and feels easy to be whisked up into but knowing you've been interviewed for an asocial assault feels cold after because it can be done just so well.

    That's just my experience, which is very limited and mostly around people trying to start an incident driven by social reasons.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2016
  3. Mushroom

    Mushroom De-powered to come back better than before.

    You can do about 100 similar scenarios and come out with about...100 different outcomes.

    And yes victims can be blamed for an incident but it is entirely dependant on the situation.

    ie: I started a verbal fight (aggressor), I then got severely beaten up beyond reasonable force for my troubles (become Victim)

    That's an over simplification, but you get the gist. It's difficult sometimes to explain to people when all they see that people are either "victim" or "suspect" irregardless of what has occured in between. An argument you can't really win, until they have gone through multiple incidents themselves. Which (hopefully and thankfully) is rare for most people.
     
  4. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    Its difficult because you don't want to blame the victim (because that's a horrible thing to do), but any kind of self defence advice comes with a victim blaming subtext.

    The only way I think you can do it is by caveating it - by explicitly acknowledging that the only person to blame for a violent crime is the person committing it, but also pointing out that these violent criminals exist and that there are common sense things that you can do that reduce the likelihood of you becoming one of their victims - and again, explicitly stating that failing to take these precautions does not in any way make you responsible for the actions of other people.
     
  5. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    If people are prone to fall off a cliff is better to put a fence at the top or an ambulance at the bottom?

    In seminars I refer to it as "target hardening" - you are not casting blame so much as reducing the chances of you becoming a victim. Similarly if you exercise and eat well you reduce the risk of heart disease


    If this still doesn't work in conveying the message I ask them how the knowledge that it isn't their fault is any comfort or assistance to someone being attacked...I have yet to hear an answer that is cogent
     
  6. greg1075

    greg1075 Valued Member

    What does “blaming the victim” mean anyway? Let’s start with that. If it means saying it’s all the victim’s fault and they should stop whining, then of course you’re not doing that. However, if it’s saying that someone made a less-than-optimal decision and just might bear a certain degree of responsibility in the behavior that led to the unfortunate outcome, then come to terms with the fact that you are - and that that’s ok. I don’t concern myself too much with the PC crowd that reflexively plays the “victim blaming” card and eclipses that factor. Whether they do so intentionally or not, it is irresponsible, disempowering and does nothing to solve the problem and prevent it from happening again. Just know that you can “caveat” all you want, but no amount of prefacing that argument will stop most of them from doing that. YMMV.
     
  7. Lad_Gorg

    Lad_Gorg Valued Member

    Yeah I'm stealing that saying mate.

    Wonderful response!
     
  8. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    No amount of irresponsibility on the part of the victim makes them responsible for the actions of the people who victimised them.
     
  9. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    Do you believe that a girl who walks home alone down a poorly lit street whilst drunk is partly responsible for her rape?
     
  10. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    The problem arises from mixing teleological and deontological arguments.

    The teleological (consequence-led ethics) argument is that there are things that we can do to minimise the risk of becoming a victim to predators.

    The deontological (moral based) argument is that we should not have to impede our own freedoms in order to avoid becoming victim to a predator.

    Both are correct, and are not mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, the partisan nature of argument tends to force everything into either/or.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2016
  11. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    Reversing the question is there anything this girl could have done to reduce her chances of becoming a victim?

    As David says this is not always a "yes/no - either/or" scenario....no she did not invite or hold responsibility for someone deciding to commit a criminal act, but yes she exercised poor judgement with regards to her risk exposure - conceding the latter does not invalidate or mitigate the former, but does allow others to reflect and learn
     
  12. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    And this is what I meant by caveating any advice. You need to make it clear that responsibility/fault/blame lies firmly with the attacker.

    It's also a temporal thing - saying, 'take these steps tomorrow to reduce the chance of being attacked', is very different to saying 'if you had taken these steps last night, you would not have been raped'.
     
  13. Van Zandt

    Van Zandt Mr. High Kick

    Some folk jump at the opportunity to wave the scolding finger of social justice, whether they're accusing you of victim blaming, slut shaming or male privilege.
     
  14. aaradia

    aaradia Choy Li Fut and Yang Tai Chi Chuan Student Moderator Supporter

    I think the issue I am seeing is different. We, as MAists- many of us also studying self defense to some degree - have it ingrained as a way of life. And this was a reminder to me that this is not as commonly ingrained in others lives as it has become in mine.
     
  15. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    But the fact that a victim could have reduced their chances of being attacked in no way shifts any of the responsibility, which lies entirely with the attacker.

    This is the point around which people get angry, and the whole political correctness and social justice warrior schtick comes out.

    I believe the movement against victim-blaming originated around rape, and in that case it is very much needed, because many rapes could not be prevented by any sensible means. Rather than the stereotypical girl-walking-home scenario, a more common type of occurrence might be something like: if a woman kisses her boyfriend before he rapes her, is she partly responsible for her rape?

    I think, in that case, a stern deontological stance is needed to battle the, still widespread, notions that many women who are raped were somehow leading the men on. This kind of thinking basically leads to Islamic State levels of precaution, where men are expected to want to rape anyone with so much as an eyebrow showing, so it is the responsibility of women not to "enflame their passions", by covering up and never being in public without a male relative. [EDIT: and they are still no safer.]

    As with anything, a balance between freedom and precaution must be found, which will differ between individuals.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2016
  16. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    It works the other way too - that people use SJW, PC and similar terms in a derogatory way to protect themselves while writing horrible things on the internet.
     
  17. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    This is pretty much my view on it, but the anger towards Self-Protection advocates is misplaced because it is not them who made the statement vis a vis responsibility - the most high profile example of someone who did was Judge Pickles who advocated leniency in sexual assault cases, describing women defendants' "clever manipulation", dressing in a way "calculated to invite attention" or even "asking for it".
     
  18. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    It's a weird one.
    I'd be (relatively) OK "blaming" the victim of a shark attack if they were surfing in great white territory where attacks are known to happen.
    It's an utterly foreseeable outcome isn't it? Although still rare.

    But engaging in "less than optimal self protection behaviour" that contributes to the ease of committing a sexual assault (etc) seems different.

    Not entirely sure why TBH.
     
  19. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    Maybe because there is an expectation of humans to take some responsibility for their actions that we don't place on sharks?

    No-one expects sharks to know right from wrong.
     
  20. SWC Sifu Ben

    SWC Sifu Ben I am the law

    There's a difference between fault and responsibility which I think often gets lost. If I get shot as an innocent bystander it may not be my fault, but protection of my self is my own responsibility. One may not necessarily be able to impact the other though. You can't protect against every possibility. You might get cracked in the head with no opportunity to duck.

    Personally I find words like blame, fault, and even responsibility less than helpful because of the social stigma and emotional attachment to those words. Unless you're helping someone resolve emotional issues I don't think it's helpful to involve emotion in analysis. It's far more helpful to look at events and desired outcomes.

    Did someone have X happen to them → yes
    What can we do to prevent X happening in future → Y

    Now on both ends of an occurrence you have the people involved and the social environment. It is important to work for change at a social level, like reducing a culture of violence so people get attacked less. But it's also important to provide people with the tools to meet the situation in the mean time at ground level. Pretending that by being offended and angry at the situation, or even by working for actual change, that tomorrow we'll all be able to wake up and sing kumbayah isn't realistic. Neither is getting angry at people trying to give individuals ground level tools.

    No, women should not have to watch their drinks to make sure they're not drugged but until we can create a culture where no one does that watching your drink is a prudent idea. Not watching your drink may be a factor in what happens next.

    Somewhere along the line of protecting people, giving people agency, tools for self protection, personal responsibilities, and looking at the factors involved became victim blaming. That's a knock against both the SJW crowd who jump on being offended FAR too quickly where it is often times unwarranted and the idiots causing them to jump by saying stupid things like 'women's bodies can shut down rape.'
     

Share This Page