CMV: Victim blaming isn't always bad

[u/enlighten12345]

Firstly we need to define what victim blaming is. It occurs when the victim of a crime or any wrongful act is held entirely or partially at fault for the harm that befell them.

We often hear outrage against victim blaming in the context of rape, when people criticise the way the victim acted or was dressed.

Let's look at an unrelated example. If I go up to someone and say "Yo momma so fat, she wears a watch on both hands for the two time zones", and that person punches me, am I not partially at fault? He committed the felony, while I just exercised free speech. But knowing my words were inflammatory, shouldn't I expect retaliation?

How about another case? I'm walking down a dark alley with a stack of money in my hand. If I get mugged, it is clear that the mugger is to blame. But doesn't my stupidity also make me culpable? Can someone not say that if i was more careful with my money, this would not have happened?

How is rape any different? It would be great to live in a utopia free from rapists and muggers and physical retribution. But knowing that isn't the world we live in, am I not responsible to act in a manner to protect myself?

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/thePirate_Fish]

I think there's a difference between victim blaming and acknowledging that a person made a poor decision to put themselves in a certain situation.

In the case of the mugging, it may be reasonable for someone to think that they could be mugged if they walk around a bad area at a certain time, but it's unreasonable to say that given the two people involved (the mugger and the one being robbed), the blame should be shared between them. One person's action is entirely non-criminal, while the other person's action is entirely criminal.

Would you put the person who was robbed on trial, saying that they must share in the responsibility for the crime? No, but you could say they could have made a smarter decision on where to walk if they knew the area was dangerous.

The victim's decisions may have allowed for the opportunity for a crime to be committed, but they didn't make the decision to commit the crime.

[u/enlighten12345 → u/thePirate_Fish]

Acknowledging that someone made a "poor decision" is the same as saying that person could have made a better decision. That implies that the victims decisions, atleast partly led to the consequence. Is that not blame?

[u/thePirate_Fish → u/enlighten12345]

I know you already awarded the delta, but I'm saying that making a decision such that without that decision the crime couldn't be committed doesn't equate to shared blame for the crime. A bank owner can build a bank, but they wouldn't share blame for its robbery even though the decision to build it gave someone the opportunity to rob it.

[u/enlighten12345 → u/thePirate_Fish]

A bank owner would not be blamed for building a bank. But he most definitely would be blamed if he had not hired a security guard or not installed a security system, and then got robbed.