The Victim Blaming Accusation Lobby has taken a worthwhile cause and morphed it into an extremist movement designed to silence and discredit all those that disagree with their point of view.The worthwhile cause is victims of sexual assault should not be blamed by society for what transpired. They should not subject themselves to harmful self-blame. The blame should rest on the perpetrators of sexual assault.
Unfortunately, this righteous cause has become dominated by the extremists I dub as the Victim Blaming Accusation Lobby (ABAL). The ABAL accuses anyone who takes into consideration Factors related to the victim of sexual assault as “blaming the victim”.
The ABAL uses flawed logical arguments to support its accusations. A popular strategy goes as follows:
If someone states that “a certain Victim Factor increases the odds of sexual assault”, the ABAL swings into action using the following strategy. The phrase Factor increases the odds is changed to Factor causes. Since, the reference relates to the Victim’s behavior or traits. The Accused person’s original sentence is translated to “Victim Factor causes sexual assault”.
The changed sentence creates the Victim Blaming Accusation. Next, the Factor is declared to be invalid because not having the Factor doesn’t prevent sexual assault. For example, since being sober does not prevent sexual assault, then being drunk does not increase the odds of sexual assault.
The argument is flawed in the same way as stating that “since not smoking doesn’t prevent lung cancer, then smoking does not increase the odds of lung cancer.” The final logical proof is that since the perpetrator is to blame, nothing the victim did could have done caused the assault. Therefore, the Factor is declared invalid.
This methodology allows all Factors to be categorically denied without any investigation into the actual validity of the Factor.
The ABAL labels the Accused Person as a Victim-Blamer and asks the inevitable question of “Why is the Accused blaming the Victims as opposed to blaming the Perpetrators?”
Here are more flawed logical arguments used by the ABAL to discredit others with a different point of view.
1. Since no method works every time to prevent rape, no methods work to prevent rape.
2. Some victims could do nothing to prevent being raped, therefore all victims could do nothing to prevent being raped.
3. Examining the pre-assault behavior of the victim means NOT examining the behavior of the perpetrator.
4. Trying to change the pre-assault behavior of potential victims means NOT trying to change the behavior or perpetrators.
5. Focusing on certain pre-assault behaviors of some victims, means focusing on the pre-assault behavior of all victims.
6. Saying the victim has some responsibility is the same as saying that the perpetrator has no responsibility.
7. Since men don’t engage in rape risk reduction practices, women should not have to either.
NOTE: This entire discussion is about Societal Violence Dynamics – The 6th Dimension of Self-Defense.