I disagree with very little of what you just said - most especially, yes, the tendency in some cultures for "victim blaming" to absolve the criminal is completely abhorrent. Likewise the fact that women must be disproportionally aware of potential threats is deeply saddening. And yet so long as the risk exists they must perpetually choose between taking precautions and living a life without fear, but probably eventually becoming a victim. What is it - 1 in 4 women in the US will be raped at some point in their lives? And I believe that doesn't include estimates of those that are shamed to silence, a truly ugly statistic if ever I heard one. And something that a society is very remiss in not addressing (but realistically, how? We know punishment, even the death penalty, has minimal effect on dissuading future crimes).
And yet I feel obligated to stand by my assertion that a measure of responsibility sometimes (often?) does reside with the victim. If a mountain climber misjudges that a rock can support their weight, nobody questions that the fall their own fault - tragic perhaps, but they gambled on a risk-benefit proposition and lost. Hopefully they had the foresight to securely install a safety line. It's not pretty, but the price of any gamble is the potential of losing, and the wise person factors that into their considerations, especially if the price of losing is high. If a firefighter misjudges the speed at which a fire is spreading and gets cut off, they likewise bear a measure of responsibility in their (hopefully near-) death. Or if a lion-tamer becomes too comfortable with their lions. Just because the threat possesses an intellect and will of it's own doesn't absolve the threatened individual of their own culpability in creating the situation in which it could affect them. All risk-assessment, all gambles, come with the potential of losing, and if a loss is unacceptable then you must take precautions.
For the low-income woman who has no choice but to return home to a bad part of town, she can still avoid most the dark alleys, and carry mace and/or a weapon. Kitchen knives are cheap, and with a little luck and attitude enough to convince an attacker to seek easier prey. Not everyone has the option of avoiding the wolf-filled woods, but to enter them defenseless is to invite tragedy. And yes, I'm aware that that paints a pretty bleak picture for the meek low income woman forced to survive in an untenable situation - but that is the reality of the situation, no amount of pretty words will make her any safer.
I do absolutely, categorically deny that we should allow victim blaming to in any way displace striving for a safer world. And shaming.. well that's totally untenable. Do you shame a person when they don't do their homework? When they fall off a bike? Well, probably some people do, but except in the most egregious cases of irresponsible behavior it rarely helps anything, and can often do further damage, despite them bearing near-total responsibility for the failure. But neither do we pretend that their actions had no role in the outcome. If we are wise however we wait until the tears have mostly been shed before we draw their attention to their own role in the outcome. Because as you allude - accepting that responsibility while still in the grip of the inevitable, irrational, emotional reaction can feed some unjustified but very dark and self-destructive spirals.