One can debate on the category of the victim blaming behaviour in cases of sexual assault but there's a common element to both these categories. The narratives and justifications sound convincing and internally convincing. They appeal to the superficial reasoning.
For instance, consider the victim blaming in sexual assault cases. The analogies of dogs and thieves are regularly employed. "If there's a mad dog on a road and if you take the road despite knowing the presence of dogs, whose fault is it if the dog bites? Why did you take that route even after knowing about mad dogs?". A similar analogy is "If you travel by a forest with money and gold, despite knowing that there are thieves in that forest, it's obviously your fault".
These analogies sound appealing and convincing - obviously, why did you go that way despite knowing about the dog? How can this reasoning this ever be wrong?
In other words, if the person was careful (good/just) and if still unfortunate (bad/unjust) incidents happen to that person, it makes people feel unsafe. People wouldn't want to believe that. So, they try to get over this by attributing the blame to the victim, convincing themselves that the incident occurred because of some "mistake".
In such cases where the external situation is unavoidable, people who place more emphasis on binding values (obedience, loyalty) can expect people to be cognizant of the situation and act accordingly. In cases of sexual assault, it turns into statements like, if you knew that it's safe, why did you go?
Framing strategies to address this issue is going to be challenging because sometimes people don't even realize that their arguments are incorrect. As Daniel Kahneman argues in his book "Thinking Fast, Thinking slow", some of these responses might be due to their subconscious reasoning and that people haven't taken out time to careful reason them. One needs to persistently work to dislodge these beliefs pushing people out of their comfort zones of thinking and make reasoning speak.
The former text suggests that it's something brought upon by Eve (Eve went, Eve met). In contrast, the latter puts emphasis on the perpetrator (Adam mixed, Adam assaulted). It changes the way one imagines the scenario and it's more likely that people attribute responsibility on
Four, repair the house when it isn't raining. Usually, such topics come up for discussion only when an incident is reported in news. The emotions are running high in such times. People who are supposed to nudge the narrative are too angry to engage and those who believe in victim hood blaming are too defensive.
The act of talking people through their biases can be unsettling to people. One can get too defensive and hence much of the work has to be done when it isn't in news. Ultimately, dislodging beliefs through careful reasoning is a matter of having a conversation, asking right questions. Education institutes are a good place to have such conversations. In a tech-obsessed world, humanities are ignored resulting in such repercussions!
Same is the case with whistleblowers and activists who fight against the state, vested interests and political parties. The government's harassment of activists and sometimes the opponents becomes so pervading that it's normalized. The government's harassment is taken as a default and unavoidable. Activists and opponents are then expected to behave accordingly.
As in the case of victim blaming in sexual assault, when activists and opponents are harassed by the government, our immediate instinct is "un se panga kyu liya?" (why did you pick a fight with them?). We think of it as the mistake of activists and opponents while absolving the government of its excesses.
Here again, we need to change the narrative and ask - what right does it give the government to unnecessarily harass the activists and opponents? We shouldn't do the mistake of taking the government's behaviour of bullying as granted. Instead, we should question it and stop blaming activists and opponents.