Faced with the judgment of the "herd" trial, many people wonder why we sometimes blame the victim or blame him for what he has to endure. This type of attribution is more common when we share a characteristic with the aggressor.
They are also common when we do not want to see our sense of control endangered (If the attackers are to blame and not the victim, it can also happen to us). This latter attribution is generally made by persons who share characteristics with the victim: if it is she who has made a "mistake / recklessness", they have a "false sense of security"; if they do not make the same "mistake / carelessness", it will not happen to them.
When we think that the responsibility lies with the person who has been assaultedwe feel safer because we believe we are in control. In other words, we believe that we are safe as long as we do what is right. This belief works unconsciously to blame the victims, even when the victim is oneself.
In any form of gender-based violence, attention is focused in part on the potential accountability of women. One example is prevention and education campaigns, which always emphasize the "security measures" they must take.
In other words, the only person who seems obligated to do something to prevent aggression is the woman. In this sense, information and prevention campaigns should more often target other audiences, such as potential aggressors and even society as a whole, so as not to indirectly contribute to this blame.
Good people do not focus on the convicts, but on the victim.Share
Why do some people not resist when they are sexually abused or raped?
People have a complex web in their nervous system that paralyzes them when there is a danger where fighting or flight is not possible (or possible, but not valued as the best answer). We speak of a resource as an extreme form of survival. When there is consensual sex and immobilization, the brain produces oxytocin, the love hormone that prevents trauma.
But when sex is forced, the person becomes paralyzed and frozen, which is seen by the rapist (or by outside observers) as an opportunity or consent. Paradoxically, the abused person, who is the victim, is traumatized by shame and the aggressor goes without haste towards his conscience.
All victims are equal, and no one is more equal than someone else.Share
When we accuse the victim, do we put ourselves in his place or do we stay with ours?
When we accuse the victim of the assault, we may be defending ourselves against something. The powers we have on the facts minimize the weight with which we want justice to be done to the aggressors, by accepting less severe penalties.
We may still live in a world where women's rights are on a thin line, but there is something else in this psychological position to go against the victim. Perhaps the men who defend in this case the five men convicted of sexual assault in the "herd" trial will only see the attributions from their point of view and understand in a way that they are indirectly attacked.
When we accuse the victim, we defend ourselves against something.Share
In the case of women who think that the victim is partly responsiblethey can do it to have the illusion of control, by identifying the factors that would prevent them from doing the same. We have all heard other women say, "It would not happen to me", "I would act differently". In the end, all we know about these situations is that we never know how we would act.
It is permissible to take the place of the accused, but we have all seen a video where four of the condemned members of the "herd" abused an unconscious girl. In this case, the attributions are clear and science gives us the answer to the reason why a person, while she can neither fight nor flee, is paralyzed. Now, it's time to put yourself in the victim's shoes.
"You're not alone, sister, I believe you, me."