#victim blaming

[whump-in-the-closet]

“They did that to you? And you let them?”

“You think I had a say in how I was fucking tortured?”

[learn-how-to-love]

I think it’s good— and a moral imperative, even— to check claims you see against marginalized figures before believing them. However, if you wrap back around to essentially the same rhetoric ppl use about “promising” young cis male athletes who “don’t deserve to have their future ruined even if they DID do something horrible”, you’re a bad person and a danger to victims. No identity or social position in the world gives you free rein to abuse others and no victim is “too privileged” to be believed. Rape culture has no place in the queer community.

[nonbinaryjudean]

@floppergostic i am replying to your comment in a separate post because i have a lot to say.

first, i do not genuinely believe you are coming at this from a place of wanting to engage in good-faith conversation.

second, misusing words like "delusional" is shitty. you shouldn't do that.

third, i do not think you are going to listen to any of what i have to say. i am still going to respond.

"Vast harm *is* coming to Jewish diasporas because of Israel's actions though. It's not *the* cause of antisemitism, but it is absolutely *a* cause for the rise in antisemitism happening right now."

no. it isn't. if israel doing something bad makes you commit a hate crime against a jew you already wanted to commit a hate crime against a jew.

contrary to some people's beliefs, jews are not all an evil almighty plotting hivemind. israel is not using the space laser to beam antisemitism into peoples minds.

"When you equate opposing genocide with being antisemitic, as Israel's officials have done again and again, it causes regular people to think "I guess I'm antisemitic then"."

so you base your understanding of bigotry towards jewish people on the israeli government? thats literally a you problem, not a jew problem. fix your shit. "regular people" are capable of thinking their own thoughts. regular people are capable of understanding that antisemitism is bad.

why does responsibility fall on the victims of hate instead of the people who choose to hate?

"It's obviously not the only cause of antisemitism (people will find reasons to hate Jews if they want to), but it is delusional to think that it isn't a contributing factor."

i think this is the part of your comment that bothers me the most. "people will find reasons to hate jews if they want to".

you need to step back for a moment. you need to take a seat. you need to fucking listen to what im about to say to you right now.

antisemitism is not just a "choice" that people make. it is baked into the foundations of western society. it is institutional, systemic, mutating. antisemitism functions differently from other forms of hatred because it isnt just hatred - antisemitism includes conspiracies, assumptions, lies, and erasure. antisemites don't hate jews "just because".

antisemitism is very often based on the PERCEPTION the person has of jews rather than ACTUAL jews. people hate jews because they think we killed jesus (we didnt). people hate jews because they think we are corrupting the white race (we arent). people hate jews because they think we are pretending to be victims of antisemitism (we are).

another example? the exact comment you left me. you are basing your idea of what antisemitism looks like, what jewish people are experiencing right now, and what jewish people believe on a perception YOU MADE UP in YOUR OWN MIND. you saw a jew talking about antisemitism. you interpreted it based on your perception of jews talking about antisemitism, specifically that we "support genocide". (the word genocide having literally been invented to refer to what happened to US within the last century.)

you are perpetuating the cycle. you are REFUSING to dismantle your own bigotry, to investigate it, to learn about it, to consider that antisemitism is the fault of antisemites, not jews that you dislike.

if you understand what it means when someone speaks about institutionalized racism or misogyny, you need to understand it when it comes to antisemitism too.

this is victim blaming garbage. in the past week there have been attacks on synagogues every. fucking. day. how in the FUCK is that israels fault?????

if you need an excuse to be an antisemite, YOU ARE ALREADY A FUCKING ANTISEMITE. ANTISEMITISM IS CAUSED BY PEOPLE BEING ANTISEMITES. antisemites need to take accountability for their own actions. instead, you force jews to turn out our pockets and explain this shit to you.

antisemites are responsible for their own actions. you know how you sound? "well what was she wearing? she was drunk, i could tell she was asking for it".

introspect or go fuck yourself

[nivora128]

Victim blaming can be defined as someone saying, implying, or treating a person who has experienced harmful or abusive behaviour like it was a result of something they did or said, instead of placing the responsibility where it belongs: on the person who harmed them.

Robin (1993) #0

This is victim blaming. To say that "Jason openly defied Batman's orders and that's what killed him" is victim blaming.

Instead of this, Dick could just simply say that "The Joker killed him", but he said "Jason was reckless, he defied Batman's orders and went solo against the Joker and that's what killed him" and that is victim blaming.

And I will say this again and again and a thousand times more if I have to, but: Jason didn't go after the Joker. He didn't go into the warehouse knowing that Joker was in there. He didn't recklessly go after the Joker. He went into the warehouse because he was following his mom. He was lied to and was betrayed.

New Teen Titans 1988 #55

This is another example of Jason being victim blamed for his own death, and yes, I will break it down for you all. For context, this happened after Dick found out about Jason's death and came to find Bruce.

B: I didn't expect to see you. D: I heard about Jason. I'm really sorry, Bruce...

This is their conversation after that:

D: Come on, Bruce, talk. Don't turn your back on me. I'm here... now. B: You were lucky. When you didn't listen to me, your injuries weren't fatal. Of course, by the time I properly trained you...

Dick came to Bruce to talk about Jason's death. When Bruce brought up this subject about how Dick was "lucky" and that his injuries weren't "fatal" when he didn't listen to him, he was implying that "You were lucky when you didn't listen to me, but Jason wasn't. When he didn't listen to me, it got him killed."

He was implying that Dick got injured before because he didn't listen to him, and Jason died because he didn't listen to Bruce. This is victim blaming.

Now let me ask you a question, do you think that Bruce was victim blaming Dick when he said that Dick was injured because he didn't listen to Bruce? Do you think it's okay to say that "Dick got injured because he didn't listen to Bruce," do you think that this is true and a completely normal thing to say and is totally not victim blaming at all? Do you think it's fine when you hear someone says that "Dick got hurt because he didn't listen to Bruce"?

If you can actknowledge that that was victim blaming, you can actknowledge that Jason was victim blamed when someone said that "Jason was killed because he didn't listen to Bruce." It's not that hard.

D: Jason wasn't me. I was a trained acrobat. I could think quickly in perilous situations. But why did you let him become Robin before he was ready?!?

In this sentence, Dick was saying that Bruce held responsible for Jason's death, because he let Jason become Robin before he was ready, but this is also implying that Jason's death was caused because of Jason's lack of skill, or because Jason wasn't ready to become Robin. To say that Jason wasn't Dick or an acrobat, implying that he died because he wasn't as good as Dick is victim blaming. To imply that Jason died because he "wasn't ready to become Robin", is victim blaming.

To say that Jason's death was because of anything he did, because of any traits that he carries, because of his actions, because of his lack of skills, because he was not good enough or strong enough, to say or imply that anything he did or said is something that lead to his own premise instead of Joker's action of murdering him, is victim blaming. To say or imply that the victims hold responsible, in whole or in parts of the crimes that've been commited against them, is victim blaming.

[thatoneautisticfnaffan]

“But what if the victims of the terrorist attack hate crime had Bad Views?”

What if you stopped talking forever?

[amillionmagpies]

I think, at this point, we can all agree that DC has some kind of editorial mandate that Jason Todd's Robin must be written as doomed from the start by his own flaws. For a good example of this, remember how pissed off we all were about Robin and Batman: Jason Todd? Jeff Lemire is a genuinely good writer when you put anyone but Jason in his hands, but with Jason, he suddenly turns into a victim-blaming asshole who can't seem to see the irony in condemning Jason for things that we literally see Bruce do in the same issue. (Or, if you're feeling more generous, he's trying to get around DC editorial by leaving his criticism of Bruce in the subtext - if Bruce does the same things we're supposed to condemn Jason for, we either have to stop condemning Jason, or start condemning Bruce as well. But of course, he's not saying that. Not in so many words.)

We're all aware of the victim-blaming rhetoric we've been fed about Jason, even from before his death (thank you, Starlin): he's reckless, violent, a bad seed that Batman tried and failed to save. He was always destined for a bad end. Most of us are also aware that, 1) This is bullshit, and Jason before Starlin was kind, clever, thoughtful, and fiercely compassionate, and, 2) Even if every word of the slander were true, he still wouldn't have deserved to be killed for it.

The question is why DC feels a need to push this narrative. I've seen it suggested that this is an attempt to deflect criticism of Bruce. After all, Starlin's run doesn't exactly paint Bruce in a flattering light - Jason's death can pretty easily be traced back to the Joker, who killed him, and to Bruce, whose poor parenting led Jason to be in that situation in the first place. But Batman is DC's most popular title, and they don't want people to grow critical of Bruce, because that means Batman doesn't sell as well. If it's Jason's fault, they don't have to deal with criticism of their most popular character. This is a pretty good theory, but I think it goes a bit deeper than that.

Jason's death didn't just damage Bruce's image - it dealt a critical blow to the genre conventions of superhero comics. Child sidekicks are vital to the superhero genre. It does not work without them. There's a reason Jason's death is regarded as one of the most significant in all of comics history: he proved that child sidekicks can die. And if sidekicks are mortal, you have to start contending with the question of whether children should be allowed to fight crime in the first place. Jason's death didn't just invite criticism of Bruce - it destabilized the entire superhero genre, inviting criticism of every hero who's ever had a child sidekick.

But if it was Jason's fault that he died, rather than being the logical result of throwing children onto the front lines of a war, DC could (they believed) continue to appeal to one of their biggest target demographics (that is, children and teens who wanted a character they could relate to) without fear of criticism.

This only got worse when Winick brought Jason back to life, because suddenly he couldn't be swept under the rug. Instead of quietly disappearing into the backstory of other characters, a regrettable but unavoidable tragedy, Jason was right there, demanding a story of his own, refusing to be forgotten. And more than that, he was popular. People liked this new Jason, which meant that he was profitable. Rather than being a one-arc villain who could disappear into the massive corpus of DC canon, Jason was once again an active player in the DC universe. Starlin had already damaged a load-bearing staple of the genre, and then Winick took another swing. The longer Jason Todd remains alive - the longer he keeps screaming for justice - the more criticism DC is going to face for letting children be sidekicks at all.

So they've doubled down on the victim-blaming. It's been more-or-less working so far, after all - even people who consider themselves fans of Jason often buy into the 'angry and reckless' narrative. And with Jason's return marked by his furious quest for vengeance, it's easy to convince new fans that he was always like that, rather than having been changed by the circumstances of his death and resurrection (and even after that change, still nowhere near as reckless or unreasonable as DC would like us to believe). But other fans only grow louder and angrier with every story that tries to paint Jason as being doomed by his own faults, his own nature, rather than the nature of superhero comics as a whole.

DC made two very critical mistakes with Jason Todd: they let Starlin kill him, and they let Winick bring him back. They let two writers irreversibly damage the foundations of the superhero genre - and Jason is still paying for it.

[glitter-stained]

Incredible how dc pushes the "Jason died because he was reckless" narrative to try and absolve Bruce of blame because, victim-blaming aside, that's worse, right? You understand how that's worse?

No matter how you interpret it, in Jason's post-crisis run, Bruce is gonna be partially responsible for Jason's death, because he was the one to offer him Robin in the first place in exchange for a good foster home (Batman 1940 #408), and because he had fucked up with Jason to the point he felt the need to run to a whole other continent in search for family (Batman 1940, a death in the family). Like, that part of responsibility, that remains no matter how you spin it, because regardless of why specifically Jason went in the warehouse, that's why he was in Ethiopia with the Robin suit in the first place.

But this aside, in canon? Jason goes in the warehouse because Sheila betrays him and he does what any hero, and many children, would do in his place: he wants to help Sheila, he listens to her, he trusts his mother. The people directly responsible for Jason's death, in canon, are Joker, Sheila, and crowd of goons that helped Joker and Sheila take Jason down in the warehouse. It's clear as day who the villains are in there and it doesn't add any stain on Bruce's ledger.

But according to that victim-blaming narrative that Alfred and Bruce (and others later on) spin in-story, and that dc spins in meta? Jason died because he was reckless. So it's Jason's fault right? Yes and no. I need to write a more detailed meta about the two types of recklessness and how confusing the two accidentally led to Starling writing a compelling narrative with Jason, but basically the important question here is why was Jason reckless. And Starlin answers us, in text, in a death in the family: Jason has been behaving abnormally recklessly recently, because he's suffering. Bruce tells us, straight up, that he suspects Jason to be suicidal. This isn't the first time Starlin's Batman says Jason is suicidal: even in Batman (1940) #416, Batman explains Jason's "reckless" behaviour to Dick as a symptom of being mentally unwell, and very clearly implies Jason already struggles with suicidal thoughts (which I maintain is the reason why Dick changed his mind on Jason so quickly and gave him his number with a "you can reach out to me, don't let a lack of communication become your achille heel" talk at the end of #416.)

And Bruce's POV mind be often biased, but we see, ourselves, Jason jump in front of bullets in aditf and it's like... As much as I'm not convinced with Bruce's random explanation for Jason's struggles in aditf, I do agree that he is being suicidal (and considering the stories that come right before this one, I completely understand why he would be.) So that's why Jason is reckless in aditf. It's not why he died, but if we listen to that victim-blaming narrative that claims his recklessness is indeed what killed him, doesn't that make Bruce more guilty? Because that means Bruce knew Jason was suicidal (literally jumping in front of bullets with apparently no consideration for his life) and left a fifteen years old active suicide risk alone in a completely foreign environment after having messed up very severely with him during the whole issue, and then he told him "do not go into that warehouse alone, there's a very dangerous guy who wants to kill you." In terms of responsibility, Bruce is actually very damn lucky Jason, like some impulsive suicidal teenagers his age would have, didn't think "oh well, I'll try my luck against the guy who wants to kill me alone and that way either I win and get reassured in my heroism and right to be alive, or I die and that saves me the trouble of buying rope and a step ladder!" Bruce took the Robin costume from Jason to protect him from this exact type of situation but didn't seem to realize the danger he was putting Jason in at that moment. And it's not just me saying that! I don't have the exact reference (I think it was in Gotham Knights?...to verify) Barbara, after finding out about Jason's death, literally tells Bruce that this is his fault and that she warned him Jason had issues.

Of course, all of this is moot point, because it's not why Jason went in the warehouse in the first place, but I can't help but feel baffled at the audacity of DC, who are so deep into their psychophobia, classism, general victim-blaming bullshit and ingrained stereotypical conception of the "troubled teen" that they don't realize that the revisionist interpretation of Jason's death they are defending is literally worse for Bruce. And I have to say, it certainly doesn't paint people trash-talking Jason and blaming him for his death to prop Tim up as "better" and "different" in a very good light either (especially since, if i'm not wrong, there's an arc in which Tim struggles with suicidal thoughts himself... especially since Tim's trauma happened after he became Robin and is, for the most part, a direct consequence of his heroism. Doesn't exactly paint the adults in Jason and Tim's life in a favourable light...)

Anyway, stop blaming Jason's death on his recklessness to absolve Bruce: you're only making it worse.

[inthemoodforblastt]

Snape is punished for not being the perfect victim, for not lowering his head or staying curled up crying in a corner. He is punished because when two rich kids come after him, backed by their friends, their surnames, and their numerical superiority, instead of running away or collapsing into a ball on the ground, he fights back, and he fights back with rage, with ferocity, with everything he has. He is punished for refusing to give up, for not accepting the role of victim assigned to him, for wanting to return the blows and to punish his abusers in his own way.

He is punished for not being submissive and compliant, just as so many other victims of abuse are punished when they do not fit the stereotype of the trembling, helpless lamb that has been drilled into our heads as the only acceptable image of an abused person. But the reality is that Severus Snape did not deserve punishment: his abusers did. And the fact that he constantly confronted them does not make him any less of a victim, nor them any less guilty. It only makes him someone with far more guts than they ever had, because while they attacked him as a group, he stood up to them alone, with nothing but sheer nerve.