Safety advice blames victims
Safety advice is victim-blaming disguised as care. It systematically transfers responsibility from those who create dangers to those who must navigate them.
──── The fundamental inversion
“Don’t walk alone at night” instead of “Don’t assault people.” “Watch your drink” instead of “Don’t drug people.” “Lock your doors” instead of “Don’t steal.”
This pattern reveals safety advice’s core function: making potential victims responsible for preventing crimes committed against them.
The advice itself isn’t wrong. Locking doors does reduce theft. But the moral framework is inverted. We’ve normalized a world where self-protection is virtue and victimization implies negligence.
──── Individual responsibility for systemic failure
Corporate safety training exemplifies this perfectly. Workers receive endless instruction about proper lifting techniques, safety equipment, and hazard awareness. Meanwhile, companies cut maintenance budgets, increase production quotas, and design workflows that make accidents inevitable.
When injuries occur, the investigation focuses on “human error” - what the worker did wrong. The system that created the dangerous conditions remains unexamined.
This isn’t accident prevention. It’s liability management.
──── The economics of victim responsibility
Making victims responsible for their own safety is economically convenient. It’s cheaper to tell people to be careful than to build safe systems.
Telling women to avoid certain areas costs nothing. Installing adequate lighting and security costs money. Advising cyclists to wear helmets costs nothing. Building protected bike lanes costs money. Training employees about workplace hazards costs little. Eliminating those hazards costs much.
Safety advice becomes a substitute for safety infrastructure.
──── Moral legitimacy through victim failure
When someone gets hurt despite following safety advice, we question what they did wrong. When someone gets hurt after ignoring safety advice, we blame them entirely.
This creates a perfect moral trap. Either you followed the advice and failed anyway (implying you’re lying or incompetent), or you didn’t follow it and deserved what happened.
The possibility that the advice was inadequate, or that the system itself is dangerous, becomes unthinkable.
──── Professional victim-blaming industries
Entire industries exist to formalize victim responsibility:
Personal security consultants teach individuals to protect themselves from systemic violence. Cybersecurity training makes employees responsible for preventing sophisticated attacks. Financial literacy programs make individuals responsible for navigating predatory financial systems.
These aren’t solutions. They’re adaptation strategies for broken systems.
──── The normalization of danger
Safety advice normalizes the existence of dangers that could be eliminated. It accepts as unchangeable what is actually changeable.
“Be alert in parking garages” normalizes poorly designed public spaces. “Don’t share personal information online” normalizes surveillance capitalism. “Save for emergencies” normalizes economic instability.
By teaching adaptation, safety advice makes systems seem natural rather than constructed.
──── Collective action prevention
Individual safety advice actively undermines collective action. When everyone focuses on personal protection, no one focuses on systemic change.
A neighborhood watch program keeps people busy monitoring each other instead of demanding better policing or addressing poverty. Personal financial planning keeps people busy managing their own risk instead of demanding economic reform. Workplace safety training keeps workers busy following procedures instead of organizing for safer conditions.
The energy that could drive systemic change gets channeled into individual compliance.
──── The victim-blaming value system
Safety advice embodies a specific value system:
- Individual responsibility supersedes collective responsibility
- Adaptation is preferable to resistance
- System preservation matters more than human welfare
- Victims are expendable; systems are not
These values aren’t explicitly stated. They’re embedded in the structure of the advice itself.
──── Information as absolution
Those who give safety advice often believe they’re helping. Providing information feels like moral action. It creates the impression of having addressed a problem without actually changing anything.
“I told her to be careful” becomes “I did my part.” The advisor’s moral obligation ends with the information transfer. What happens next is the recipient’s responsibility.
This transforms genuine concern into a moral transaction. Information for absolution.
──── The impossibility of perfect compliance
Safety advice creates impossible standards. Follow every recommendation and life becomes unlivable.
Don’t go out alone. Don’t trust strangers. Don’t use public transportation. Don’t share personal information. Don’t invest in anything risky. Don’t walk in certain areas. Don’t wear certain clothes.
Complete compliance would mean complete isolation. But partial compliance means accepting responsibility for any resulting harm.
The system is designed so that victims always failed to do enough.
──── Structural violence maintenance
Safety advice maintains structural violence by making it seem like a natural hazard rather than a human choice.
Corporate malfeasance becomes something to “watch out for” rather than something to eliminate. Economic inequality becomes something to “protect yourself from” rather than something to change. Environmental destruction becomes something to “adapt to” rather than something to prevent.
The advice makes victims complicit in maintaining the systems that harm them.
──── Beyond victim responsibility
Genuine safety requires acknowledging that individual actions cannot solve systemic problems. It requires shifting focus from victim behavior to perpetrator behavior, from personal protection to structural change.
This doesn’t mean abandoning practical precautions. It means understanding their limitations and refusing to let them substitute for real solutions.
Safety is not an individual achievement. It’s a collective responsibility that requires changing systems, not just changing behaviors.
────────────────────────────────────────
The value embedded in safety advice is clear: preserving dangerous systems matters more than protecting vulnerable people. Once we see this, we can stop mistaking victim-blaming for care.