[Mz]

Good comment, but:

That being said, I don't know if I'd call "she should sue" victim-blaming, even though the reason is probably about the same.

This reminds me of some of the BS I have seen where people insist a woman should prosecute her rapist. One of the problems with this line of reasoning is that it makes it the victim's responsibility to try to right this wrong. What if she just wants to put the whole damn thing behind her and not let it eat any more of her life instead of dragging the pain out longer?

It still hangs something on her instead of other people stepping up to bat.

[projektir]

Hmm, perhaps I misunderstand the term?

I thought victim blaming referred to specifically blaming the victim for the event itself as / before it happened. Not for what the victim did or didn't do afterwards. Unsolicited advice, in poor taste, but not victim blaming by the definition I'm aware of.

I think most people here asking to sue want to see Uber pay, and they don't really have any equivalent leverage against Uber. There's more victim blaming in the "you should have known how HR works / you should have left" comments.

[Mz]

Sorry if it wasn't perfectly clear: I didn't say that it was victim blaming, just that it is problematic in a way that is not much different from victim blaming. So defending the suggestion as not victim blaming is kind of not great in my book.

[mst]

It's always worth considering that "she should sue" is actually meant as "she has a clear right to sue, and I would applaud her receiving an appropriate amount of compensation should she do so, because that was completely unacceptable".

I tend to frame the sentiment as "That's lawsuit worthy and if she desires to bring one I wish her good luck and good hunting" for clarity, but I find that often people use "should" conversationally to mean "thing I would love to see happen" rather than "thing I believe the object of the sentence is required to do".

[Mz]

Yeah, I am aware of all that. I appreciate you making an effort to make a clearer distinction -- "that's lawsuit-worthy -- but I am less thrilled with having it explained to me that it is on the victim (or sympathetic women, like myself) to be emotionally sensitive to the intent of random internet strangers sloppily using "should" instead of being backed up on the idea that a predominantly male discussion group really ought to be making more of an effort to frame things carefully when they discuss what some woman has endured at the hands of other men.

[maxlybbert]

> This reminds me of some of the BS I have seen where people insist a woman should prosecute her rapist. One of the problems with this line of reasoning is that it makes it the victim's responsibility to try to right this wrong.

Simply put, that's the system we have. It's designed with the assumption that having adversaries argue according to rules in front of a judge is a good way to figure out what really happened.

It's not necessarily the best way to solve the kind of things it's used for, but we don't have an alternative.

> What if she just wants to put the whole damn thing behind her and not let it eat any more of her life instead of dragging the pain out longer?

I can certainly sympathize with that decision.

[true_religion]

> This reminds me of some of the BS I have seen where people insist a woman should prosecute her rapist.

I was under the impression that criminal cases were pressed by the state, not any given individual.

The only thing the state may ask is testimony from the victim. If the victim is unwilling or unable to give that, then the case may just fall apart due to lack of evidence.

[ggreer]

That's correct. In a case with a surviving victim, the victim is almost certainly going to take the stand. The 6th amendment to the constitution contains the confrontation clause[1] which says, "…in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." If someone strikes or stabs or shoots you, and that person stands trial, you will be on the witness stand and you will be cross-examined.

Public support for the confrontation clause isn't popular these days, but I am very glad the courts have continued to uphold it. To quote Crawford v. Washington[2], "Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with jury trial because the defendant is obviously guilty."

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause

2. http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2007/13-SCt/Crawford_v._Washi...

[true_religion]

> If someone strikes or stabs or shoots you, and that person stands trial, you will be on the witness stand and you will be cross-examined.

Not necessarily. If someone stabs or shoots you in a public place, in full view of 50 other witnesses and 4K recording devices, then your testimony is unnecessary.

That said... in the US most crimes don't go to court so I can't really say what a hypothetical 'open/shut' case will look like in a court trial, because in reality the offender will plea-bargin immediately.

[jaxn]

Which puts the pressure on the victim. Very few prosecutors are willing or able to bring a case to trial without the support / testimony of the victim (who is often the only witness).