[ta12121]

Not everything is always black and white.

Of course the PR people should not be sexist.

But if a person doesn't take even the slightest, tiniest effort to defend themselves against something that is wrong, they're "going to have a bad time" whether that thing which is wrong is something politically charged like sexism, or simply individual malice.

Also, prejudice like this is most likely due to ignorance, and the best antidote to ignorance is education.

[saraid216]

I like how you say "not everything is black and white" and then proceed to give black-and-white prescriptions.

From an armchair, it's terribly easy for you to say, "Well, instead of backing down, you should have told him off." Not everyone is, or should be, the strong and assertive, constantly vigilant culture warrior shrugging off the whips and scorns of ignorant simpletons. Most especially, as the Derailing for Dummies link explains, most people have finite energy and even if they are strong and assertive some of the time, they cannot be that way all of the time.

A direct quote out of the article:

  Every time I protested [over "the next few days of E3"], the offender would say — 
  as if it were a proven fact — “Well, girls aren’t usually into this stuff, you know.”

Somehow, you and everyone else saying that she should have ripped him a new one missed this sentence. It's a very important sentence, and I'm disappointed she didn't highlight it more clearly.

By the time she starts educating, she is no longer doing her job as a member of the press reviewing games. She is doing an entirely different job, which she did not arrive prepared to do, and for which she receives no compensation except the desperate hope that one person might possibly listen.

How would you feel, if you were constantly distracted from your job in order to fill in for something for which you have no training, no interest, and no pay?

[ta12121]

Saying that sexism is wrong and saying that a victim of sexism should stand up for herself are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and just because the former is true the latter isn't necessarily "blaming the victim".

Suppose a student leaves his laptop on a table in the school library while on a bathroom break and it is stolen. Is it "blaming the victim" to tell him not to leave his valuables unattended, just because it is clearly the thief who did something morally wrong?

[goldensaucer]

Your analogy doesn't work. The student locking their computer is a preventative measure, not a reactive. Williams couldn't have prevented others' attitudes towards her. She did nothing to invite the behavior. This is more akin to telling the student they should've had a better lock when they had already locked their computer, but had it stolen anyway.

[saraid216]

No, there are two problems here.

The first is that you're insisting on excerpting from the "How to React to Every Situation" book. Your claim is that "if you are oppressed, you should always stand your ground". No exceptions. No compromises. Every deviation from the right and true way is a failure.

This is wrong.

The second is that the entire condescending piece of advice is being offered as if she hadn't already done it. You seem to feel that, because her first and immediate reaction was not confrontational, this makes her a failure. It doesn't matter that, the second time, she did stand up for herself and did speak up. You only care about the first time.

Why?

Victim-blaming is reinforcing a victim's status as victim by giving unwanted and unneeded advice. It's saying, "You poor wretch. If only you worked harder, you'd be as awesome as me. Work harder." That is what you are doing.