History UsefulNotes / VictimBlaming

* Telling a victim of harassment to "just ignore them" or "log off".[[note]]Even when the person who's telling the victim to "just ignore them" or "log off" means well, this is dangerous advice, because ignoring harassment can have the exact opposite effect: it can embolden the harasser(s) because they realise that they can get away with it, or they might get bored with the lack of a reaction and decide to escalate the harassment further and further until it does get a reaction out of the victim. Or both. Often, this leads to the harassment escalating to dangerous or even deadly levels. As anyone who worked in victim advocacy can tell you -- the idea that ignoring causes harassment to stop is a myth.[[/note]]

* Questioning the reactions of a victim, also known as the "Why didn't you do something different?" argument. The core idea is that the victim could have done something to stop it, but didn't, thus it's their own fault for "letting it happen". This mindset involves an oversimplified understanding of the "fight or flight instinct", referring to the adrenaline rush that gives people the necessary energy and strength to either run from or fight off a threat; a more accurate idiom is "fight, flight, ''[[TakeAThirdOption or freeze]]'', with "[[DeerInTheHeadlights freeze]]" actually being the most common reaction.[[labelnote:Further explanation]]Some people think that not fighting or escaping means the victim didn't really feel threatened, therefore their survival instincts weren't triggered, therefore they weren't victimized at all or they allowed themselves to be victimized. Waiting for the attack to end allows people to stay alive, especially against an attacker who might become more violent or escalate to murder. It may sound counter-intuitive, but there are times when the safest and smartest thing a person can do to survive an attack is to do nothing at all.[[/labelnote]]

* Applying hindsight to situations. For example, it's now "known" that the ''UsefulNotes/RMSTitanic'' did not have enough lifeboats. The ship was actually within compliance of 1912 -- the standard just hadn't been updated yet, and the Titanic accident was one of the reasons the standards ''were'' updated. There is a saying that many modern-day safety regulations were written in blood.

* Blaming a victim of Theft/Robbery/Larceny/Mugging for carrying things people would want to steal, putting it "in plain sight", for even ''having'' things a thief would want to steal in the first place, for being out after a certain hour, going into a certain area, etc.

* Blaming the [[ParentalFavoritism golden child]] for ''being'' the Golden Child.

* Blaming a person who was lied to for "believing it" or "Falling for it".

* Blaming a victim of stalking for "Putting so much info out there" or for making themselves able to be stalked.

* Blaming a victim of workplace abuse (including Gig/Contract work) for "Not quitting" or pursuing other lines of work, or for somehow not pursuing full-time work. Getting a job is much, ''much'' harder than it sounds, and many people take gig work because it's the only job that they can get. Certain industries -- entertainment being the most notable example -- are pretty much staffed by Contract/Gig work.
* Blaming someone who has debt for university / medical school / law school for "Knowing what they were getting into", as if the decision to better your life with schooling is somehow bad.

* Insinuating a victim of Identity Theft or a credit card breach was "buying from shady sellers", was "buying illicit substances/material", [[DigitalPiracyIsEvil was pirating material]], or was buying porn. This not only excuses the people who did the ''actual'' crime (Identity theft), but it also ignores the reality ''of'' such white collar crime: That most of it actually happens in ''completely legitimate places'' and via data breaches.
* Telling someone who was a victim of robbery/mugging that they "shouldn't have carried so much money on them". While it may have technically been true once upon a time, the increasing amount of cashless businesses have made Wallet/purse or phone theft an increasingly common and damaging crime since these often contain credit or debit cards with direct access to a checking account.
* Telling someone who had an expensive item stolen/destroyed that they "Shouldn't have had something that expensive to begin with" or that they "invited it to be stolen". Essentially, it's telling someone who had their property stolen/damaged/destroyed that these things ''only'' happen to people who own nice things.
* Telling someone whose insurance didn't cover something that they "Should have gotten better insurance" or "Got what they paid for". Insurance is known for using [[LoopholeAbuse loopholes]] to avoid payouts. Sometimes, insurance that ''will'' cover almost everything is so expensive that you ironically ''don't'' need it since you could afford to replace it.

* Saying "What goes around comes around", or "Well, now you know how so-and-so felt", or "Karma" to someone who experienced a misfortune. People make mistakes, people do bad things -- nobody's perfect. But when misfortune happens to them, saying phrases like those insinuates that they somehow did something to deserve it.

* Responding to complaints about harassment or a toxic community with comments like "Toughen up", "That's what it's like", or "Well, you can't police what people say". This still largely places the onus ''on'' the person receiving harassment, and is dismissing the people who are choosing to harass them.
* Telling a victim of harassment that "Actions speak louder than words". The choice to run your mouth is ''still'' a conscious choice, and running your mouth is still very much an action.
* Saying "I don't care ''who'' started it". This lets the aggressor off the hook. Essentially letting them know that they can start fights or harass people all they want - the person who retaliated learns ''not'' to defend themselves
* Telling someone who retaliates against harassers that they "Shouldn't sink to their level".

* Insinuating that people who had items stolen/damaged/destroyed didn't "properly secure them" or "Didn't lock them up". Since [[SarcasmMode locks cannot be destroyed or picked]] according to this line of thought, or that people couldn't simply just break in.
* Telling hurricane/cyclone victims they had [X] amount of time to evacuate and didn't. This isn't taking into account that [[http://www.hurricanescience.org/science/science/hurricanemovement/ hurricanes can be quite unpredictable]] -- it's not uncommon for hurricanes to change course and suddenly hit another area and give the people as little as 12 hours to evacuate. This also ignores that some people may have trouble evacuating, or aren't able to. (Ie, they are "Essential workers" such as First Responders)

* Implying that someone's financial or workplace troubles are because they are not "Working hard/smart enough".
* Implying that someone expressing woes about a defective product "Bought from a bad brand".
* Telling someone with a broken product that they didn't take proper care of it or [[NotTheIntendedUse "used it wrong"]]. While it might be justifiable if someone is say, playing catch with a pair of binoculars, sometimes things may be simply manufactured incorrectly. This also is ignoring Planned Obsolescence where products are only designed to last a particular amount of time, and it is becoming much more common.

* Implying that parents whose children ran up credit card bills on an AllegedlyFreeGame "Deserved it" because they didn't use parental controls, limit screen time enough, or even ''gave'' their kids a device in the first place. This excuses companies who made the conscious choice to ''use'' manipulative tactics (Targeting people such as children) for such things, and completely downplays the choice(s) children make. (Which includes being able to sneak around loopholes)

* When attributing a character's problem as "Self inflicted", make sure that it's actually a result of the character's choices and their actions taken. Otherwise, the readers might find someone intended to get their just desserts to be a {{Woobie}} who got a raw deal.
* Some advice towards dealing with DomesticAbuse is for the abused person to try and "Fix" their partner. Whether it be because it is [[AgainstMyReligion a violation of religious principles]], a [[ValuesDissonance cultural taboo]], or simply "Admitting defeat", this is still ultimately bad advice. This line of thinking not only discredits the agency the abuse''r'' has, but it still ultimately places the "blame" for the abuse on the victim. That evidently, it is up to the abuse''d'' person to "fix" their abuser and that the abuser is somehow "not in control of their own actions", or is trying to "correct" behaviour.

* Acknowledge just how difficult it is to just up and move. Similar to the above example, packing one's bags and moving to another city may result in homelessness, while moving to another country means you have little to no social support. Real world refugees often end up on waiting lists for years and ''years'' even ''if'' they qualify, while countries do ''not'' make it easy to immigrate even if they are there legally. Even if it's a fictional world where the process ''is'' easier, take into account what challenge(s) people have and account this into worldbuilding.
* Acknowledge that the people in countries are not always united - even in times of war.

* Keep one thing in mind: {{Irony}}. It's easy to blame someone for trusting an ObviousJudas, but as far as the characters know? ThisIsReality. And in reality? People can ''only'' act off of information that they themselves already know. If a villain [[VillainSong sings about how evil they are]] and how much they want to ruin the protagonist's life? That's information for the ''audience'' to know - ''not'' for the character to act off of.

* Blaming a victim of ParentalAbandonment as somehow "Causing" it.

* Telling a victim of stalking that they should have contacted the authorities.[[labelnote:Further explanation[[/labelnote]]Much like ignoring a harasser, this can actually ''embolden'' stalkers. By getting authorities involved, some stalkers will up the ante to show that you can't get rid of them this easily - even if they ''do'' face legal repercussions.[[/labelnote]]

* Blaming a victim of workplace abuse (Including Gig/Contract work) for "Not quitting" or pursuing other lines of work, or for somehow not pursuing full-time work. Getting a job is harder than it sounds and many people take gig work because it's the only job that they can get. Certain industries (entertainment) are pretty much staffed by Contract/Gig work.

* Blaming someone's woes of buying [[TheAllegedCar a lemon]] as buying from an HonestJohnsDealership and "You should have known better".

* Blaming a business owner who was robbed that they needed to have merchandise insured. This dismisses the choice the robber made.

* Keep one thing in mind: {{Irony}}. It's easy to blame someone for trusting an ObviousJudas, but as far as the characters know? ThisIsReality. And in reality? People can ''only'' act off of information that they themselves already know.

* Acknowledge that products ''can'' be made with defects that "do" slip past testing. If someone buys a product that turns out to be defective, it's not the person's fault, it can even be just dumb luck. Maybe it happened in transit.

* Implying that parents whose children ran up credit card bills on an AllegedlyFreeGame "Deserved it" because they didn't use parental controls, limited screen time, or even ''gave'' their kids a device in the first place. This excuses companies who made the conscious choice to ''use'' manipulative tactics (Targeting people such as children) for such things, and completely downplays the choice(s) children make. (Which includes being able to sneak around loopholes)

* Responding to complaints about harassment or a [[{{GIFT}} toxic community]] with comments like "Toughen up", "That's what it's like", or "Well, you can't police what people say". This still largely places the onus ''on'' the person receiving harassment, and is dismissing the people who are choosing to harass them.

* Telling someone who is expressing annoyance or outrage at an item or not being available for whatever reason that they could have gotten it via this way. There may be multiple reasons as for why someone never got an item that has been removed from circulation, i.e. money, availability, or simply never expecting it to be removed from circulation in the first place.

* Responding to complaints about harassment or a [[{{GIFT}} toxic community]] with comments like "Toughen up", "That's what it's like", or "Well, you can't police what people say". This still largely places the onus ''on'' the person receiving harassment, and is dismissing the people who are choosing to say things.

* Telling hurricane/cyclone victims they had [X] amount of time to evacuate and didn't. This isn't taking into account that [[http://www.hurricanescience.org/science/science/hurricanemovement/ hurricanes can be quite unpredictable]] -- it's not uncommon for hurricanes to change course and suddenly hit another area and give the people as little as 12 hours to evacuate. This also ignores that some people may have trouble evacuating, or aren't able to.

* Implying that parents whose children ran up credit card bills on an AllegedlyFreeGame "Deserved it" because they didn't use parental controls, limited screen time, or even ''gave'' their kids a device in the first place. This excuses companies who ''use'' manipulative tactics (Targeting people such as children) for such things, and completely downplays the choice(s) children make.

* Insinuating civilians of a country are "complicit" in its actions by paying taxes to their government, are citizens of that country, or didn't overthrow their government -- and thus it's "okay" for them to be killed by terrorists, suffer the effects of war, or to be collateral damage.

* Implying that a

* Accusing a victim of sibling abuse of having been an AnnoyingYoungerSibling.

Belief in victim blaming stems from a desire for comfort and hope based on these ideas:

# Victim blaming comforts non-victims by reassuring them that bad things only happen to people who "deserve" it because they didn't "do the right thing".[[note]]In [[JustForFun/TVTropesWillRuinYourVocabulary troper terms]], this would be labeling all misfortunes as LaserGuidedKarma and all victims as {{Asshole Victim}}s. We intentionally refrained from potholing the main phrase because then [[UnfortunateImplications we could be seen as]] [[{{Hypocrite}} engaging in victim blaming ourselves]].[[/note]]
# Victim blaming gives people the illusion of control over their own fate, giving them hope that bad things won't happen to them if they 'do the right thing'. Therefore, victims "choose" to be victimized, and doing the "right" things will prevent it.

At the root of this desire for comfort and hope are two fears. Fears that:

# People have no choice in becoming victims. Bad things happen to people who don't "deserve" it, which means:
# ''Anyone'' could become a victim. Even if someone "does the right thing", bad things could still happen to them.

This line of reasoning [[ConfirmationBias justifies what people already believe]]; people remember information which justifies their beliefs, and ignore or reject information which inspires doubt.

* Blaming disaster victims because they live in an area prone to disasters and/or prepared insufficiently.
%%* Blaming disaster victims for "not evacuating".

* Related to the above, blaming the ''teachers'' for "enforcing" rules.

* Blaming an ethnic or religious group who have been conquered and oppressed for their second class or fallen status by using [[TheSocialDarwinist survival of the fittest]] as an excuse or finding dark or negative elements in their history or culture and saying that those were far worse then anything done today.

* Blaming a victim of workplace abuse for "not quitting" or "Finding other lines of work".

* Blaming someone's WeightWoe on lack of willpower or lack of self-discipline.

* Blaming a victim of workplace abuse (Including Gig/Contract work) for "Not quitting" or pursuing other lines of work, or for somehow not pursuing full-time work. Getting a job is harder than it sounds and many people take gig work because it's the only job that they can get. Certain industries (entertainment) are pretty much staffed by Contract/Gig work.

* Blaming someone who tried to bring injustice(s) to attention and do something about it for "causing trouble".
* Telling a victim of sibling abuse that they must have been an AnnoyingYoungerSibling.

* Blaming teachers for bullying happening because they "could prevent it, but don't" or are "following orders". Teachers have rules to follow, and breaking them will lead to their immediate termination.

* Blaming someone who is gay and/or transgender and didn't disclose it for being attacked by a sex partner who reacted badly to learning that status. In many cases, the victim ''and only the victim'' is blamed for non-disclosure, with no criticism whatsoever towards the assailant. Over the years, the [[WoundedGazelleGambit "gay-panic" and "trans-panic" defenses]] have allowed for the acquittal of many homophobic/transphobic murderers; and were for so long (and tragically in some places, ''still are'') considered to be a sure-fire GetOutOfJailFreeCard for their crimes.

* Blaming someone who is gay and/or transgender and didn't disclose it for being attacked by a sex partner who reacted badly to learning that status. In many cases, the victim ''and only the victim'' is blamed for non-disclosure, with no criticism whatsoever towards the assailant. Over the years, the [[WoundedGazelleGambit "gay-panic" and "trans-panic" defenses]] have allowed for the acquittal of many homophobic/transphobic murderers; and were for many, many years considered to be a sure-fire GetOutOfJailFreeCard for their crimes.