An attempt at a more concise response

I'm often frustrated with the responses I see to victim blaming. I agree, of course, that it's not OK to dismiss harm done to someone by saying, "well, they shouldn't have gone there," or "they shouldn't have worn that," "they should have known better or been more careful," or "they should have respected themselves more." I agree, of course, that these statements simply divert blame and attention from the person who actually did something wrong.

There are lots of responses to this problem, how they take away responsibility from the perpetrator, how they imply it's expected for some people to not have self control or empathy, how they cause even more harm. But while all that analysis is very important, it doesn't often feel to me that it would be all that convincing to someone who really believes what they're saying. They need to be helped to see it from a different point of view, a different angle, to see just why they're focusing on the wrong thing, perhaps by relating this to other issues more broadly.

So I want to try to simplify the main point of the response to victim blaming:

When you tell a victim they should have done something differently, you suggest that the outcome was an expected consequence of something the victim did. This shifts blame off the perpetrator, and shifting blame away implies that their actions were on some level acceptable. No. It is never acceptable. No one has the right to do something to or with someone else without that person's consent. Clothing is not consent, interactions with other people or situations is not consent more broadly, location is not consent, other activities are not consent, uncertainty is not consent, personality and behavior is not consent, feelings and opinions about self and others is not consent.

I'm not just talking about sex. You can't force someone to buy something they don't want, even if they're shy and have a hard time speaking up for themselves and their wants (I've had this happen, and it's very upsetting to be steamrolled like that). It's rude to continue to ask personal questions someone doesn't want to answer. Even doctors generally can't just do something different than what you're seeing them for with out your permission, barring certain emergencies (if you've had surgery, doctors may have had you sign a form saying you agree to let them do what they need to if something unexpected comes up). It is normal and acceptable to expect other people to have self control, decency, and basic respect for personal autonomy, and hold them accountable if they don't, no matter what anyone else is or isn't doing, so focus on promoting that if you want to really change things. Focusing on changing the victim instead of the perpetrator means accepting and accommodating the bad behavior rather than fixing the real problem.

I don't care how positive you feel about it

You still basically named a character "Defective" and then suggested she's mentally disabled. Yet you really don't comprehend how someone might see that as offensive?

Intent does matter

In the blogs I follow, I've been seeing a lot of the statement "intent isn't magic" in response to when someone unintentionally says or does something rude, insulting or harmful. Meaning well doesn't make it hurt less, doesn't make the thing OK or unproblematic. I agree. To an extent.

If a friend says something sexist to me, for example, it's not going to hurt less just because it's a friend who genuinely likes me. In some ways, being a friend who supposedly respects me may even hurt more. I'm going to feel hurt and I'm going to get angry, I have a right to my feelings, and that doesn't change based on their intention, whether it was said or done out of naivete or ignorance, or out of a truly sexist worldview.

But their intention does matter in how I respond.

If they're a friend who claims to respect me and didn't intend to hurt me, I'm going to talk with them about what they said, why I think they were wrong, why it hurt, and because they're my friend, expect them to at least consider what I have to say. If they claim to be a feminist or ally, I'm going to talk with them about why I found what they said to be sexist. Maybe they're just not entirely informed, or maybe they have their own thoughts on why they think what they said was fine. After all, I may have simply misunderstood or they may simply have a different but potentially still valid perspective I hadn't considered. Just because I feel hurt doesn't mean they necessarily said something "wrong," but even if they did, I expect to be able to have a conversation with them, or at least be able to come to a point where we can still move towards the same broad goals, albeit in different ways. I'd like to think we don't have to be in perfect agreement, or even be completely correct or ideologically consistent to share that. We don't even have to like each other to still be allies.

If I did or said something to hurt a friend or an ally in an issue we both care about, I'd hope they would talk to me as well, instead of just get angry, refuse to be my friend any longer, or call me a "bad ally" because I didn't understand something perfectly the first time. Or even the second or third time.

However, if the person's intent was simply to belittle me, to disregard my thoughts, to hurt me; if they refuse to listen to what I have to say or consider views outside of their own; if they reject the history and research that should inform a well-thought-out opinion, even after being exposed to it; if they refuse to have a back-and forth discussion and just assert their own correctness and insist my feelings are irrelevant or illegitimate while theirs reveals the truth, never considering if they simply misunderstood, then I am going to consider them a "bad ally," ideological opposition, someone who is not a friend. Then I am going to avoid discussing it with them, avoid wasting my time and energy. Then I may even warn others about them.

If someone say they didn't mean to hurt me, they're sorry I was hurt by their words or actions, I don't consider that a "not-pology" most of the time. To me, it means they acknowledged that they have hurt me and do feel bad about that. They may just not understand why, but recognizing that they did certainly seems like a good place to start that conversation.

Sometimes I think I shouldn't be blogging

I see I've gotten a comment, and I feel sick. I'm glad it's a friend because I respect my friends' thoughts and I feel pretty comfortable that they respect mine. So it's OK if we disagree. But I already know we disagree, so what if I've unintentionally insulted them or hurt their feelings?! What if I haven't really thought through what I was trying to say and embarrassed myself? Maybe if it were a stranger commenting, it would be easier. But then they might be rude, a troll, or someone who isn't really interested in discussion, just looking to tell me I'm wrong!

I want to have discussions, but then I think I have too much anxiety to deal with potential disagreement.

So three comments have sat unread since April.