

Discover more from Wrong Speak Publishing
According to Wikipedia - “the phenomenon of blaming the victim is well established in human psychology and history; for example, there are plenty of examples in the Old Testament where tragedies and catastrophes are justified and the victims blamed for their faults as sinners.“
As far as this generation is concerned, victim-blaming became a household term, derived from the questioning of a woman after being the victim of an assault. The line of questioning sounds something like this:
Were you drinking?
What were you wearing?
Did you put up a fight?
This is perceived, and sometimes rightly so, as a line of questioning designed to implicate the victim and potentially throw some, if not all responsibility of the incident onto the shoulders of the woman herself.
Anyone sensible can agree that a short skirt is not a signal of consent, and neither is imbibing. Questions involving intoxication, patterned behavior, relationship status, etc. do need to be asked and many times can come off as indelicate, insensitive, or obscene in their perceived motivation, especially when dealing with a victim who is likely distraught.
Although the questions can be uncomfortable, so is the truth, and if truth is the aim, the questions should not be labeled as perverse or accusatory.
In fact, you may very well need to ask all sorts of questions — beyond any personal judgments, because you won’t know which information may matter at the time. The Atlanta murders were mostly black adolescent males. Ted Bundy had a specific target for brunettes. Roughly fifty percent of all murders involve intoxication, and although there are disagreements on the exact number, a high percentage (up to 74%, the highest rate I could find) of sexual assaults involve intoxication as well. Nearly 93% percent of juvenile victims know their assailants.
The answers to some uncomfortable questions can lead to a broader understanding of statistics and can ultimately lead to information that can be used in preventive measures. Without asking some questions, these statistics would never be known.
Viewing the victim as innocent and therefore noble is also a human trait, but like all human traits, it needs to be protected from overcorrection.
The idea that we shall not blame the victim has become a mantra lately, albeit a dampened one. Even when the term victim-blaming is not being used, its logic and its reasoning are found deep in our society and our conversations.
The perception is that any line of questioning directed towards a victim, or a perceived victim, or, in most cases, a perceived victim based on group identity, is inappropriate, rude, racist, sexist, etc. Having empathy for a victim, and treating them carefully, especially, with sensitivity and compassion, again, are very human qualities. But is it spared from overcorrection when applied to everything and dominates the process of our rhetoric?
What are, if any, the consequences when the mantra of not blaming the victims is expanded to broader categories of race relations, trans folks, those who live in poverty, and those who may personally be victims of nothing? I find there to be many unintended consequences of not “blaming the victim” and its adjacent logic— meaning, there are consequences of blindly accepting the words of any alleged victim or victim group without further reflections or conversation.
As the logic expands, it encapsulates not just the idea that you should not blame the victim, but also that their victimhood can’t be questioned. That the claim of being a victim is so self-evident that it must stand as immune to any type of scrutiny or challenge. It is now easy to graph the overcorrection of victim-blaming to believe all women.
Why would one have to believe all women? (Or a better question, how does one even attempt to control what one believes?) Typically, humans have gut feelings about what they believe. You can also have an intuition, an instinct, a personality type that may lend itself to being more inquisitive, less trustworthy, more trustworthy, less empathetic, and more empathetic.
We believe what we believe intuitively — but to not be stubborn about it, in light of deliberation, new evidence, testimony, or an epiphany is the key here.
“Believe all women” is an overcorrected rhetorical response and not a serious position. Personally, I see no problem in withholding judgment. On just about any topic, I may have instincts about what I believe, instantly, as the story is received. The trick is, again, not being stubborn about new information. This is why we need facts — especially when they are contrary to our beliefs.
Judson Vereen, author (Like a Bird Knows To Sing, 62 Poems, American Pleasure) and artist. Pursuits include painting, film, music, and poetry. Vereen lives with his wife in Brazil. www.judsonvereen.com.
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.
JSV
2023
‘Believe All Women’ And the Overcorrection of Victim-Blaming
With the increase of public interest via social media in criminal justice pet projects such as the "believe all women" campaign, there has not been a similar increase in actual knowledge about how the law actually works. For example, if you were to ask these same warriors if they believe the criminal justice system treats black males disproportionately unfairly, they are likely to say "yes." They are likely to tell you these males are innocent before being proven guilty, have rights to an attorney, a thorough and objective/fair & legal unbiased investigation- including an investigation that addresses the credibility of the victim and their account, unless of course it involves a crime that involves something close to home, like sexual assault or rape. Then all bets are off, they're guilty no matter what & the victim is right and should never be questioned or their account investigated. And therein, lies the hypocrisy that I found crazy making as an investigator. I never asked questions designed to harm or re-victimize, I asked questions because I knew that each alleged perpetrator/suspect or defendant - should the case be charged, will have an attorney. I knew the attorney for the defense has the constitutional responsibility to advocate for their client -even if they're guilty or they're accused of horrific things, or they don't like them, or they're just generally jackasses. That duty will include questioning the victim and challenging their account. Why then would the investigator not be proactive and prepare for that in advance ? A good investigator conducts a thorough, objective investigation by not taking a side, remaining unbiased and asking questions, following the evidence that allows you to rule evidence in & out as it comes. Not playing favorites simply because someone has the label of victim or perpetrator. Recently @ a FIRE event that was played on the the Fifth Column Lara Bazelon a professor of law & the director of the Criminal Juvenile Justice and Racial Justice Clinical Programs at the University of San Francisco School of Law spoke about the hundreds of young people who have been accused & caught in this climate of believe all victims on college campuses. These are not your Stanford Swimmer/rapist & I got away with it cases, these are your brown, black, Asian -and white kids who are from poor - lower socio economic class who get caught up in a system where there is no due process, no attorney to protect their civil rights, no discovery, no thorough or legally solid investigation completed. And yet, the decisions that are made, affect their lives possibly forever. Believe all victims, believe all women, has not helped make victims safer nor has it made investigations better or the court process more equitable. It's just made more memes & more virtue signaling.
When an alleged crime of rape has been committed, it’s important to gather facts before you reach a conclusion about guilt. A female rape victim may be more comfortable being questioned by a female investigator. If the alleged rapist is arrested then he should be questioned to obtain all pertinent facts. If there is DNA evidence matching the victim then his innocence or guilt will be determined by a court of law. You can’t just believe a person’s account of a crime without verifying their statements and comparing it to the evidence found.