Both Australia and Canada have instructed their armed forces members to not wear their uniform out in public after a couple of bastards committed cowardly acts. Obviously I understand why, and it MIGHT even help keep a soldier alive, but is it victim blaming?
Victim blaming? Maybe. It reminds me of when people say things like "Well, if you wouldn't wear such skimpy skirts then all these guys wouldn't be hitting on you..." or whatever. Same idea. I don't know if that's really victim-blaming. I think it's more like giving some advice in order that you might not become a victim in the first place. Whether you choose to follow that advice is another matter. Frankly, I think a person should be able to wear a uniform (or a skimpy skirt) with impunity.
Did you ever see the movie
Barcelona? Taylor Nichols plays an uptight sales manager for a US company with offices in Barcelona. His cousin, a sort of party animal played by Chris Eigeman, is a US Navy Lieutenant, or whatever they call an O3 in the Navy. Eigeman is in Barcelona temporarily and shows up at Nichols' house and needs a place to crash. Anyway, they're walking around together, Eigeman in his dapper black and white Navy officer uniform, and some leftist punks harass them a bit (this was in the mid-90s). Nichols says that he shouldn't wear his uniform about if he doesn't want to be harassed. Eigeman fumes. He's a party guy, but he's also a patriotic American. He'll wear his uniform proudly in public, goddammit. Anyway, late in the movie a communist activist on a motorcycle drives by and shoots him in the head, for no other reason than the fact that he is a "fascist" (as determined by his attire.)
Was Eigeman's character too stubborn for his own good?
