I would point to the way causality is really a form of narration and narrative grouping, and tools that give definite answers in simple systems (eg physics) do not do so in complex systems, where the assumptions used to make cognitive models are suspect. We basically have a cognitive bias to project ourselves into a locus or centre of a story, and try to use that situation to extract useful information to shape our behaviour: 'I would -' 'If -' 'Should have -'
It's also widespread for the 'default' character to be male, for people, especially men, to fail to develop their empathy and understanding of the situation of people not like them - similar biases exist around being able-bodied, white, middle-class, English speaking. How few films pass the Bechedel Test is an example of evidence for this. Typically male commentators, based on culturally-reinforced assumed social dominance, decide they are the best to comment. And can't imagine the range of pressures and policing of female appearance and behaviours, because they don't experience it. If a man makes an overt display of sexuality, the meaning is totally different. There's also a major trope of maintaining patriarchal power & sway of society, as expressed by disproportionate interest in unborn children over living children, and policing female reproduction. Free female choice in who to reproduce with, is the ultimate power to shape what kind of people the future has in it, evolutionarily. The Men's Rights movement is fueled by a largely unconscious intuition of this, by people not getting chosen.
I am a big fan of Jonathan Haidt's research on moral behaviour, like his 'moral matrix' from The Righteous Mind. It highlights how physical 'purity', and analogous ideas about morality, are major motivators for the right, and part of in-group behaviours from feeling under attack. Basically fear and disgust have been the levers by which modern rightwing populism has risen. The personal manifestation of this, is harshly judging people over perceptions of purity. I visited the Hindu Akshardam temple in Delhi, and in their gallery of heroes, apart from Indira Ghandi, all the female characters were there for having resisted being raped, several for dying in the process. Through this lense, we can make sense of this, as a community and culture under attack, at risk of chaos and dissolution. This conservative policing of behaviour and 'purity' is a subconscious reaction to fear, to the sense of a hostile environment.
We can use this picture to understand how social tools have helped ease these fears in the past, and decreased the risks of violent extremists, and their demagogues. Habeus corpus, separation of powers, strong institutions with powrrs of oversight, local democracy the right to protest and to free speech. Durkheim identified the holding sacred of values as binding together moral communities, that this is the defining universal of what has been called religion. I like James C Scott's resurrection of the word metis for the hard-won craft of how to live well together, that has been challenged by the rapidity of social change.
I don't think we should tolerate victim blaming. But research on changing people's minds says find shared values first, and appeal positively to them, rather than attack ideas people may feel to be part of their identity. Challenge people to imagine the situations of others, to expand their awareness and empathy. Notice how asserting certain things is for social bonding and delineation, often within and between dysfunctional groups that are not fun, but people will choose over no group - see the women on the right victim-blaming, or harshly judging other women's outfits, makeup, or bodies - it's a proxy for policing behaviour, self-expression, and assertiveness. Rightwing people are far more likely to use these, attacking appearance, disabilities, weakness, and 'purity' (see Pizzagate).
