This is the fault and responsibility fallacy. The fault of the wrongdoing lies with the perpetrators, but the responsibility of dealing with the aftermath always falls on the victim. Even if the perpetrators are punished by law or else wise, the victims are responsible for managing themselves afterwards.
Ex: You open your front door and find a baby on the porch. Is that your fault? No. But is it your responsibility? Absolutely. Whether you decide to leave the child to the wolves or take it to the police station, you are now responsible for it. The fault is not yours but responsibility is thrust upon you by circumstance. The same applies to victim situations.
I'm of the position that the language "You are responsible for anything that has ever happened to you" can easily be misinterpreted as "You are responsible for the actions done to you by others."
It is in fact a very common phenomenon that victims of abuse blame themselves. Women who were raped blame themselves they're taking extreme ownership the do infact believe they where responsible for it.
On the flip side, abusers by giving the victim extreme ownership do not actually take ownership for being an abuser as the victim did it to themselves.
What I am saying is there are victims in this world, but they do not have to identify as a victim. If I was hit by a drunk driver I was victimized in that moment but I do not have to make my personality that of a victim.
But in using the example of extreme ownership without nuance. That baby is responsible for itself, not me.
And so in this world there are circumstances and systems that have given people as unequal rights as a baby left on a doorstep of a person who is not going to care for it.
Agreed. Nuance is important here.
Oddbean new post about login | logout