The Concept of ‘Victim-Shaming’ Has Jumped the Shark, Dangerously So


victim shaming
SJW’s are more concerned about ideology than they are about protecting women.


by John Ellis

Several years ago, while working in a substance-abuse awareness program designed for teenagers, my coworkers and I would frequently caution the young ladies to take ownership over their own safety. Since it was a substance abuse program, we would discuss the role that alcohol plays in assault, sexual or otherwise. For example, imploring them to be aware that there are men out there who hang out in bars and who want to do them harm (more men than most would probably imagine), we would offer the very prudent caution to never leave their drink unattended. Related, females should never accept a drink from someone they do not know. At the time, my coworkers and I believed that we were empowering young women. However, according to SJW’s (Social Justice Warriors), it turns out that we were guilty of victim shaming.

My past “transgressions” were brought to mind last week when I began to see accusations of “victim shaming” being directed at the Washington DC police department. You see, earlier this month, the DC police embarked on a campaign to raise awareness of missing girls. Using their Twitter account, the DC police began tweeting out photos and stats about every single girl that went missing. According to a department spokesperson, “If more people in the public are aware, then that’s more eyes on the road for us.” Well, almost immediately, the department’s Tweets toppled several SJW dominoes.

One of the dominoes toppled was the one on which Black Lives Matter activists were perched. Politicians and celebrities began pounding on the media and the federal government for standing idly by in the face of the increasing epidemic of kidnapped black girls that’s ravishing DC’s African-American community. The media was accused of being racists for not opening the evening news with the obviously racially motivated kidnappings of young, African-American women. The Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Cedric Richmond demanded that the Justice Department begin investigating the disappearance of young, African-American girls in Washington DC.

The increased attention caused a confused DC police department to issue another statement assuring everyone that almost all of the missing girls had already been found, and, furthermore, the number of missing girls has gone down in 2017 from the 2016 numbers.

My main concern, however, isn’t over the hair-trigger sensitivity of Black Lives Matter activists. Another group in the SJW camp got in some swings of their own against the DC police department. And those swings are dangerously counterproductive and need to be shouted down.

In the midst of the ginned-up maelstrom, according to feminists, the DC police had the gall to suggest that not being alone on the streets at night is a good way for young girls of all races to protect themselves. That incredibly sensible recommendation created an earthquake of feelings on the SJW feminists’ domino. The DC police department was swiftly and roundly condemned for their “victim-shaming.”

This tact is not new. SJW feminists have been playing the “victim-shaming” card with increased prevalence over the last few years. Whenever it’s suggested that women should take self-defense classes, the “victim-shaming” card is pulled out. Insinuating that it might not be a good idea in reference to personal safety to drink so much alcohol as to render a person unaware of her surroundings or what’s happening in her increasingly foggy surroundings will earn the concerned and, frankly, wise speaker the accusation of “victim-shaming.”

Usually, the accusation is accompanied with the bitter complaint that instead of “victim-shaming” we should be teaching men to not rape women.

As I’ve aged, I’ve become increasingly aware that concepts like “it’s not an either/or” and “two things can be true at once” are difficult for many people to grasp; specifically, those are difficult concepts for SJW’s to grasp. But, I’m not responsible to coddle the feelings of SJW’s. Nor am I beholden to cater to SJWs’ inability to grasp simple logic. Among other things, I’m responsible to teach my children how to navigate a world filled with sinful people.

Look, I recognize that I can’t speak for other parents, but my wife and I are most definitely teaching our son to not enact violence (verbal or physical) on anyone, including, of course, members of the opposite sex. More specifically, when he’s older, he’s never going to be able to claim, “But, Your Honor, no one ever taught me that rape was wrong!” Furthermore, almost every parent that I know who has son is teaching their son the same thing.

Teaching our sons that they’re not to rape women does not mean that we can’t nor shouldn’t teach our daughters (and our sons) to take ownership over their own safety. It’s not an either/or. Parents aren’t limited in the number of life-lessons they’re allowed to teach their children; parents aren’t going to reach a number of life-lessons taught and then be confronted with, “That’s it! No more teaching life-lessons to your kids. You’ve used all yours up!” So, yes, my wife and I are most definitely going to continue to teach our daughter to take ownership over her own safety.

When she’s old enough to drink, we will drill into her head that she is to never, never-ever, absolutely never take a drink from a stranger, nor is she to leave her drink unattended. We will also encourage her to learn how to defend herself and to make wise decisions about where, when, and with whom she cavorts. And here’s where the “two things can be true” bit comes into play.

Teaching our daughter to take ownership over her own safety does not, in any way, shape, or form, mean that she will be responsible if something violent is enacted upon her. If our daughter, or any female, for that matter, leaves her drink unattended and is subsequently raped, 100% of the responsibility for that rape lies upon the rapist.

Often, the absurdities of SJW’s make me sadly chuckle, but, with this nonsense that teaching women to take ownership over their own safety is “victim-shaming,” SJW’s are making the world a much more dangerous place for my wife and daughter (and son).[1]

Parents, I encourage you to ignore the blathering idiocy of SJW’s and remain committed in your desire to protect your children by teaching them how to protect themselves. The world is full of sinful people, and refusing to take ownership over your own safety is dangerous. And it’s dangerous because you can’t control nor are you responsible for the evil of others.

[1] Putting “my” as a qualifier for “wife” and “daughter” means that I’ve violated a tenet of SJW’s. In their minds, I’m claiming patriarchal ownership; taking possession of “my” wife and daughter in a violent way. As any non-befuddled person can see, that’s nonsense. My wife is, in fact, my wife. And I, in fact, am her husband. When she says, “my husband,” referring to me, that’s not a claim of ownership, either. Although, my “rights,” whatever those are, are subservient to the good of my marriage and my wife. To serve her, I must submit. I don’t get to do whatever I want. But nuance is the enemy of SJW’s, and progressivism, in general.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s