Her Choice

This is about domestic abuse, but it is also about economic abuse.  "It was her choice," is a common phrase applied to domestic violence victims.  "She chose to stay with him," and "After last time, what did she expect?" are also common.  If you seriously thought that she got up one morning and said to herself, "I think I want to get beat up by my boyfriend," you are an idiot.  Yes, her choices might have lead to the situation.  This does not mean that she knew it would turn out this way.  In fact, every relationship is a risk.  It might last for a lifetime, but it might end with being dumped in an especially cruel manner.  It might end with some "Community Property" law that results in one party walking away with far more than he or she put into the relationship.  Every relationship carries risk.  This does not make it fault of the victim when that risk is realized.  Violence in a relationship is never appropriate, and it is never the fault of the victim.  Maybe she chose the relationship, but she did not choose the abuse, no matter how many time it happens.

The is a problem with rape as well.  Even judges, who should know better, frequently assume that the woman was "asking for it."  I can agree that she should have dressed more modestly, but that should have no bearing on the result of the case.  The rapist is the one who committed rape, not the victim.  The rapist is the one at fault for the crime, not the victim.  The victim could have been walking around town naked, and the crime would still be the rapists fault (though, indecent exposure laws do apply here, but they do not apply to the rape case).  How the woman dressed or acted has no bearing on whether rape is a crime or not.  If she did not consent, nothing else about her behavior and dress matters.

Victim blaming is a major problem in the U.S., especially with regards to domestic violence and rape.  Let me make it very plain what victim blaming is: Victim blaming is claiming that the behavior of the victim justified the crime.  Is dressing in skanky clothing really such an awful crime that it justifies the emotional harm and tearing away of personal freedom associated with rape?  Further, does wearing immodest clothing exempt a person from the legal right to representation, trial by a jury of peers, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment?  Likewise, does making a error in judgment of the character of a person justify physical and emotional abuse, again, without legal representation and the rest of due process?  Even if it was the victims fault, vigilantism at this level is illegal, regardless of the supposed crime committed by the victim.  The fact is, in neither case has the victim broken the law, and in both, the abuser has.  Legally, it makes no difference whether the victim somehow "asked for it."  The behavior of the abuser was illegal.  Rape and domestic violence are both wrong, regardless of the situation.  Any person committing these crimes is a threat to society, and they should be treated as such.  When individuals or courts accept arguments about the victim "asking for it," they reinforce the bad behavior of the criminal.  This makes the abuser a bigger threat to society.  Victim blaming only makes the situation worse, and it punishes the person who deserves it the least.

Now, this also applies to economic abuse.  When I have discussed economic abuse with other conservatives, the most common reaction I get is, "Well, the employees agreed to those conditions, so there must be nothing wrong with it."  This is seriously wrong.  This is equivalent to saying that the abused woman agreed to the abuse by sticking around, so the abuser is not doing anything wrong.  Claiming that paying minimum wage is ethical, even though no one can survive on it, because the employees agreed to it is just another face of victim blaming.  This applies equally to those who are unemployed because they cannot find a job, or who are in poverty because they are not paid enough by their current job.  In case you are rich and have never had to find a job all on your own, giving up a job to look for another is not an option when you do not have any money, and many poor people work 40 hours a week at minimum wage (and statistically, they are working harder at their job than you have ever had to work in your entire life).  Most poor people do not have time to find a new job, when they already have one.

The point here is that being victimized is not the fault of the victim.  When another person chooses to act violently or unfairly, that person is the abuser, not the victim.  The fault of abuse belongs entirely to the abuser.  A victim that is forced or otherwise coerced into an abusive situation does not bear any fault for the abuse.  Our legal system is about protecting the innocent.  A rapist, a wife beater, and an unfair employer all harm the innocent.  We don't even bother protecting against the last one, but rapists and domestic abusers who are allowed to remain free frequently cause additional harm.  It does not matter how the victim was dressed, and in domestic abuse cases, it frequently does not even matter of the victim abandons the relationship.  Blaming the victim never helps protect society from additional harm.  Instead it makes the blamer look incompetent, it does further harm to the victim, and it reinforces the bad behavior in the abuser.