Do Americans Have Problems With Identifying with Victims?

Originally posted by ceci2006
By all due respect, people of the dominant culture (when researching issues about race-relations) see themselves as individuals instead of a group.

Sorry, but it's not so black and white as that. It's not as if the dominant culture is made up of individuals and all other cultures are just amorphous groups of blob...

With that being said, individualism provides the perfect basis not to account for things socially, historically and politically when discussing the implications of American culture and its discontents.

I disagree with this. I'm not sure how you can judge how people of the dominant culture think of themselves, as people of the dominant culture do not think with one mind, but certainly some people think of themselves as individuals. We all are, after all, individuals. But I think most people actually think of themselves as individuals within a group of some kind or other. Whether it be racially, politically, sexually or whatever.

But there's a huge difference in being one in a group and being responsible for everyone in that group. Accountability is a personal thing for individuals. Holding a societal group accountable is impossible because of the number and varied actions of the individuals therein.

Your desire to make all people of the dominant culture responsible for the actions of the other people in the dominant culture begs the question... Why aren't all non-dominant culture members responsible for the actions of all non-dominant culture members? Splitting this out as you have, i.e. the dominant culture having a lack of empathy and compassion towards "victims" in society, calls for equal accountability all around.

We are each individuals. Then we are a member of a group and a larger group and a larger group, but accountability for compassion, empathy and so on rests with an individual.

Originally posted by ceci2006
What started this attack on victims? Who is responsble for encouraging others not to feel for victims (9/11, Hurricane Katrina, etc.) and what they experienced?

I'll have some sources explaining this later, but I would like you guys to put in your two cents about this phenomenon.

I'm still waiting for the sources promised in the first post. I'm waiting to hear something to back up the accusations made there...

Then there's the meaning of the word "victim" to define. We are all victims of something or other in our lives. I think people have no trouble at all having empathy for victims. The vast majority of individuals or groups, for that matter, have no trouble being empathetic with someone who is truly a victim. The 9/11 and Katrina victims mentioned in the first post are a prime example of "America's" capacity for empathy and compassion.

However, where the empathy and compassion start to be in shorter supply is when people "play up the role" of victim either long after the event is over or else when the event didn't happen to them, but someone they know.

Sometimes, given the opportunity to move out of victimhood, people choose to stay there, either to get attention, or because it's easier than standing on one's own 2 feet, or maybe they're just more comfortable there. But for whatever reason, they choose to be stuck in a Victim Mindset. This is when people's compassion starts to wane.

And when a person is stuck in a victiim mentality, other people might feel taken advantage of and even start to resent them. We are human beings and it's human nature to reach out to someone in need. But when they're no longer in need, yet they still expect and feel like they are "owed" something, it's also human nature to pull back. It's human nature to distance one's self from another person or group judged to be stuck in victim mentality.

So I think it's important to be clear about what is meant by "victims". Because true victims? I think the majority of America is and has always poured out their hearts and dollars to help our own and others in need. But those with a victim mentality? ... Not so much.

Outstanding BH!!!!!!

Excellent and well said....

That post was the truth of this entire thread in one place...

Semper

Since the question was asked about "true victims" and the "Cult of Victimhood", I decided to research some aspects to explain the "anti-victimization" that is happening society.

I've read Dr. Cole's book, but I'd like to put in a short blurb from a blog, which explains her perception of how America treats its victims in society. She argues that America has flipped victimization in society due to political leanings and created the notion of "anti-victim" politics. In essence, it is easier to berate the victim than to empathize with him/her, thwarting progress and social justice in American society:

Why have victims suddenly generated so much attention and public consternation? In turning ‘victim’ into an epithet, an anti-victim campaign profoundly altered our conceptions of victimhood -- namely, what society owes victims, and who may rightly claim that status. Being a victim no longer depends upon harms or injustices endured, but rather on the victim’s character and purity, what I call “true victimhood.” This transformation, which has gone largely unnoticed, had profound consequences on law, social policy, and popular culture.

These are some definitions that try to explain the "blaming the Victim phenomenon":

Definitions for Training in Diversity

BLAMING THE VICTIM: It is an ideological process that justifies inequality by finding defects in the victims of inequality. The logical outcome of analyzing social problems in terms of the deficiencies of the victim is a simple formula for action: Change the victim!

-William Ryan, Blaming the Victim (Vintage 1976).

COMPASSION-DIFFERENCE FROM SYMPATHY AND EMPATHY:

1. In Sympathy there is sorrow for the Other in need.

2. In Empathy there is not only sorrow, but also an identification with the Other in need.

3. In Compassion there is not only sorrow and identification with the Other in need, but also an involvement in reciprocal action to meet the need.

In fact, Source Watch has a list of public figures "blaming the victim" after Hurricane Katrina. It is really an interesting read about anti-victimistion has been adopted by our national leaders.

Ira Chernus has an interesting take in reading the current events when it has to do with "blaming the victim":

Blaming the Victim is an Old Habit

Old habits are hard to break. European-Americans started doing it 400 years ago. Invade the territory of a darker-skinned people, although they have never attacked you. Bring overwhelming military technology, leaving them little chance to defend themselves. When they dare to fight back, using whatever means they can, cry "Foul! Unfair! Savages! Terrorists!" Blame the victim.

A sadly typical example turns up in the Washington Post (April 6). Two law professors write: "British and American forces [in Iraq] find themselves under attack by fighters masquerading as civilians. Some now wonder whether codes designed to spare civilians from the ravages of war are dangerously outmoded, forcing coalition forces to fight with one hand tied behind their backs, while Iraqi forces flout the rules of warfare."

Should we pity the poor forces of the "coalition" (such a civilized word), victims of unfair Iraqi tactics, forced to fight "with one hand tied behind their backs"? I'm trying to figure out how to laugh, cry, and scream at the same time. Perhaps this phrase means the same thing today that it meant in Vietnam: "Hey, at least we ain't nukin' 'em."

[...]
Four centuries ago, the first English invaders came to these shores with the same vision of innocent righteousness. They were sure they were here to do God's will. So how could they not be righteous and innocent? They were inviting the Indians to receive the Lord's salvation. If the Indians declined - if they chose deceitful terror over enlightened civilization and had to be exterminated - whose fault was that? Surely their own.

Blaming the victim is a very old game here in America. Sadly, much of our public swallows it whole. And there is no end of it in sight. The only question is which victims we will be blaming next.

Suzanne Pharr writes a very cogent explaination of the "blaming the victim" stance and its effects:

The Common Elements of Oppressions
However, we have yet to examine thoroughly the blame we put on victims of racism, homophobia and anti-Semitism. People are condemned for being who they are, for their essence as humans. When we are clear of these oppressions, we will understand that the issue is not one’s racial, ethnic, religious or sexual identity-one should have the inalienable right to be who one is-but the problem is racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and homophobia and the power they support and protect.

Blaming the victims for their oppression diverts attention from the true abuser or the cause of the victimization. For example, a commonly held belief is that people are poor because they are unwilling to work. The belief is supported by the stereotypes that poor people are lazy, abuse welfare, etc. What goes unnoted is the necessity for poverty in an economic system in which wealth is held and controlled by the few. If the poor are in poverty because they deserve it, then the rich need not feel any guilt or compunction about their concentrated wealth. In fact, they can feel deserving and superior.

Just providing a pro-side against the previous support for the anti-victimist stance.








[edit on 20-3-2007 by ceci2006]

The notion of "blaming the victim" did not come out of a vacuum. It was derived through coded practices and language that fosters a sense of indifference, escapism of issues devoted to oppression, narcissism derived from protecting the interests of the system. By focusing on the victim, it in essence is saying that the victim is to blame for his or her circumstance. Therefore, victims--in the anti-victimist point of view--should not be able to receive sympathy, at most, and a lack of compassion, at the least.

The problem with "blaming the victiim" is that it focuses on an ideology that supports the rhetoric of indifference popularized by the current government as well as the MSM. Because victims are being ridiculed and demonized in public policy speeches, state addresses, blogs and politically-motivated studies, indifference from the American public sets in and denial arises due to overlooking the actual issues that must be discussed.

The question then becomes, what describes the "anti-victimist" stance? And why does it seem so palatable in this day and age to place the blame on the oppressed instead of adequately acknowledging the oppression?

I think we need to look at the several aspects of psychopathy: manipulation, narcissism and intimidation. We also might have to formulate that the victim experiences oppression, therefore being "one of the oppressed".

Whenever anti-victimist language is used, it is implemented to manipulate the oppressed into feeling shame for their experiences through berating them. Therefore, the oppressed is "silenced". Out of the gate, the oppressed is manipulated by the oppressor not to truly speak of his/her oppression. Instead, the oppressed is made into the subject of blame by the oppressor by ridicule, denial, and omission.

When the oppressed is silenced, it reinforces the narcissistic norms of the oppressor. That means, that the oppressor is content with his/her own derived norms that protect the system which benefits the oppression. With this narcissism in place, the oppressor can continue to adequately voice his/her concerns, insights and feelings. Through preservation of the system, the oppressor is also allowed to continue the propaganda of blaming and shaming the victim due to the lack of identification, conscience and empathy.

Being complicit with the system which preserves the oppression, the oppressor uses power-relations to assert language as a form of intimidation against the oppressed. The oppressor has the power of:1) bending societal rules to suit his/her social norms; 2) adapting those rules to support his/her superiority; and 3)inducing his/her narcissism through indifference, lack of empathy and conscience against those who suffer. This intimidation, in turn, continues to silently blame the oppressed for questioning the system in the first place. Due to the silent and complicit denial that such an oppressive system is in place, the entire power-relations between the oppressor and oppressed continues because there are few discernable ways for identification or connection.

It leaves indifference as part and parcel of the anti-victimist stance because without the need to identify with the oppressed, then in essence the oppressed is "invisible" to the oppressor. With that "invisibility" there is protection and self-satisfaction due to the fact that the system has quietly silenced any dissent and put forth a politics of blame to make sure that the system stays in tact without question.

Denial is much easier to practice than bringing the issue of oppression out into the open. And to preserve a sense of entitlement, "blaming the victim" becomes a cause celebre.

Just my .02



[edit on 21-3-2007 by ceci2006]

... if you think I'm blaming the victim. I'm not "blaming the victim" or supporting an "anti-victimist stance" (whatever that is). I'm pointing out the difference betweeen someone who is a true victim and someone who continues to live in victim mentaliity as a possibly explanation for the perception that "America has a Problem with Identifying with Victims".

I'm not anti-anything here.

Victim Mentality

I am out of my abuse and have moved on with my life. There is something that I have been wondering about. How and when does the abuse stop playing a significant part of my life? I have seen others who have moved on and I would like to know how they did it.

Only when a person is ready to "move on" do they move out of victim mentality.

The woman who asked this, asked a valid question. There are many men, women and children who no longer are victims, but feel like they cannot leave it behind. It stays as much a part of themselves as it did while they were being abused. The only difference may be there is no physical or emotional abuse happening in their worlds.

A victim mentality is one where you blame everyone else for what happens in your world. ... If you do not get the promotion it is because Mr. Johnson was out to get you. Not because he found you playing on the Internet every day. Your best friend called and said she could not have dinner with you. She is always doing that to you; not showing. You'll show her. You won't invite her when you go out again! Instead of remembering she has just started school and you did call her at the last minute. Victim mentality.
...
When she was living under the victim mentality she found herself angrier. She found herself swirling in a sea of resentment towards her abuser. She stayed locked in that cycle and never seemed to move forward. If she got sick, she became angry at him. If the kids messed up, she became angry at him. He was no longer in the picture, but it was all his fault. It was not hers; he made things this way... Life is easier when you can play the blame game. The blame game makes it easy for your life not to move forward or for you to grow.

ceci are we talking about the victims that were gang raped on the streets of new orleans, or the ones in the saints dome that were also gang raped? or are we talking about the victims that were seen stealing TVs and DVD players along with other non practical items?

We are not socialist Europe. We shouldnt expect the government to pamper us and tell us what to do when, where, and how. It was a travesty what happened to the ppl of NO. But it was by no means the fault of the white man.

And let us not forget the countless americans who were openly taking in New Orleans refugees into their own homes to shelter these ppl in need.

Bill Cosby summarized it best with his speech on NO and the citizens who lived there.

I think its a form of racism to blame a certain other race for all your problems. We just seem to be the ones who can tolerate it more.

[edit on 083131p://2203pm by semperfoo]

Since the issue has been brought up about the oft cliche of "the victim mentality", it is time to deal with this issue.

I found this description quite interesting, in terms of bringing the derogatory "victim mentality" out in the open:

Perpetrator Mentality

Something bugs me. Well, lots of things bug me, as you’ve probably already gathered. But the current mosquito of irritation draining my arm is the well-worn phrase ‘victim mentality’.

‘Victim mentality’ assumes that there is something about the victim that makes them a victim, something the victim does that invites victimisation, and that therefore the victim is responsible for their suffering. It asks the victim to take responsibility for the actions of their aggressor. And it is used because it easier to pile more blame upon the vulnerable than it is to stand up and point out that there is something wrong with the world in which the victim, the aggressor, and the speaker live.

The main assumption in the statement is that the victim should change aspects of her/his behaviour in order to prevent future abuse. It is easier to change the victim than the perpetrator, because the perpetrator is the one with the power. Forcing the victim to take the blame and alter themselves means that the speaker of the magic phrase doesn’t have to question himself or his actions that might contribute to the victim’s suffering. All the speaker has to do is settle down on the moral highground, marvelling at his own strength and knowledge.

I especially like how she starts to put together a "perpetrator mentality".


Otherwise, the "victim mentality" is another form of the straw man attack. Except, the oppressor comes off unscathed from acknowledging the oppression of the victim. Instead, the victim becomes the center of abuse for what he/she experienced in the form of oppression.

[edit on 21-3-2007 by ceci2006]

You caught me right in the middle of posting my sources of the anti-victimist rhetoric of the "victim mentality", but I will take the time to answer your replies.

Originally posted by semperfoo
ceci are we talking about the victims that were gang raped on the streets of new orleans, or the ones in the saints dome that were also gang raped? or are we talking about the victims that were seen stealing TVs and DVD players along with other non practical items?

You mean the white people who found items compared to the black people who looted?

We are not socialist Europe. We shouldnt expect the government to pamper us and tell us what to do when, where, and how. It was a travesty what happened to the ppl of NO. But it was by no means the fault of the white man.

Who is making it a fault of the white man? I'm just bringing up the underlying social and socio-psychological causes of the "anti-victimist" stance.

And let us not forget the countless americans who were openly taking in New Orleans refugees into their own homes to shelter these ppl in need.

It's nice that there were people who showed concern for the survivors of Hurricane Katrina and Rita.

But let us not forget Barbara Bush when she condemned the Katrina survivors in Houston. She "blamed the victims", did she not?

Bill Cosby summarized it best with his speech on NO and the citizens who lived there.

I believe Bill Cosby less than I used to, especially when he participated in "blaming the poor" in his speeches.

I think its a form of racism to blame a certain other race for all your problems. We just seem to be the ones who can tolerate it more.

I agree with you. However, I don't know who's blaming the other race on this thread. I'm just talking about how America has a lack of empathy for victims.

Originally posted by ceci2006
You mean the white people who found items compared to the black people who looted?

I dont remember differentiating between the two races? Perhaps you could point it out to me if I did. It isnt my fault that NO is predominately a "chocolate city" as mayor Nagin put it...

Who is making it a fault of the white man? I'm just bringing up the underlying social and socio-psychological causes of the "anti-victimist" stance.

It’s purported to be the white man’s fault. And their are many groups who see it that way. Im not saying that, that is the way you see it (could be), just that, that is one of the certain mentality's out there.

It's nice that there were people who showed concern for the survivors of Hurricane Katrina and Rita.
But let us not forget Barbara Bush when she condemned the Katrina survivors in Houston. She "blamed the victims", did she not?

For?... Perhaps this is a bit of history that I missed. Did she blame the victims for the crime wave that seemed to follow these victims from new orleans to Houston? Or the ones that just expected the government to give them a free handout without first getting a job?
What was it that she "blamed" these victims for?

I believe Bill Cosby less than I used to, especially when he participated in "blaming the poor" in his speeches.

Always blaming someone for something. Why do we do this?... Its not the ppls fault for not going out and getting a job, bettering themselves in the process is it? This is the real world. There are no such things as free handouts. You have to work to make a living. I know that this can be really hard for some ppl. And I really do feel sorry for these ppl. But its not all of society's fault for these ppls inadequacy's.

I agree with you. However, I don't know who's blaming the other race on this thread. I'm just talking about how America has a lack of empathy for victims.

Well I admit I skimmed through this thread. It seemed to me that the victims you used were african american ones.


[edit on 093131p://2803pm by semperfoo]

Originally posted by ceci2006
I found this description quite interesting, in terms of bringing the derogatory "victim mentality" out in the open:

‘Victim mentality’ assumes that there is something about the victim that makes them a victim, something the victim does that invites victimisation, and that therefore the victim is responsible for their suffering.

Of course you found it interesting. That's not victim mentality, that's blamiing the victim. Look somewhere besides a blog for your definition. I have given plenty of sources on this subject. You have plenty of scholarly articles at your disposal. I'm sure at least one of them has the proper meaning of the victim mentality.

But that probably wouldn't suit your purposes.

Here's the difference:

Blaming the victim: A woman walking in a dark alley at night gets raped. "She is told that she shouldn't have been walking around in a dark alley at night.

Victim Mentality. The "victim mentality" is a way of being in which one feels that they are owed for life's unfairness. It's a way of being that suggests that someone else or something else is responsible and guilty of putting them in their wronged or wounded position. It's the feeling (after the victim incident) that things cannot be right again until someone else makes it right, atones or gives reparations to set the incident right. And many people who adopt the victim mindset were never even a victim! They adopt it on behalf of someone else!

Now, if you want to see "victim mindset" being the same as "blaming the victim" have at it. That's your choice. And I can understand why it's important for you to equate the two. But they're 2 different things entirely.

Originally posted by semperfoo


I dont remember differentiating between the two races? Perhaps you could point it out to me if I did. It isnt my fault that NO is predominately a "chocolate city" as mayor Nagin put it...

No, but the MSM did.

It’s purported to be the white man’s fault. And their are many groups who see it that way. Im not saying that, that is the way you see it (could be), just that, that is one of the certain mentality's out there.

Actually, I think that it is simply the politics of denial for some people to escape dealing with social disparities in America. And, they promote a lack of empathy along with blaming the victim. Furthermore, anti-victimists make the victim a straw man via the "victim mentality".

For?... Perhaps this is a bit of history that I missed. Did she blame the victims for the crime wave that seemed to follow these victims to Houston? Or the ones that just expected the government to give them a free handout without first getting a job?
What was it that she "blamed" these victims for?

Now, we're getting into the rhetoric of "blaming the victim". You're replying in the same clicheed territory that promotes a lack of empathy for suffering as well as a lack of identification with the survivors who had to subsist on little to nothing. Thank you for pointing out some of the language that is used in an "anti-victimist" stance.

I posted her remarks earlier in the thread, btw.

Always blaming someone for something. Why do we do this?... Its not the ppls fault for not going out and getting a job, bettering themselves in the process is it? This is the real world. There are no such things as free handouts. You have to work to make a living. I know that this can be really hard for some ppl. And I really do feel sorry for these ppl. But its not all of society's fault for these ppls inadequacy's.

That is subscribing to the "myth of meritocracy", a notion that everyone must work hard for their merits without taking into account that there are true societal inequities that prevent social access and treatment for all.

Well I admit I skimmed through this thread. It seemed to me that the victims you used were african american ones.

White people were also survivors of Hurricane Rita and Katrina (including Trent Lott). White people were also survivors of 9/11.

-----------------------------------

As for the victim mentality: it is one and the same as "blaming the victim". They both put the victim as the center of attention. The victim is shamed for his/her experience. And the perpetrator does not make any restitution. Instead, the victim is held responsible instead of the perpetrator.

It is part of the language of power-relations that allows the oppressor to get away with their oppression while all the shame and blame is shifted to the victim.

The question has to be asked, when does the perpetrator ever have to account for the crime (i.e. oppression)? Why does the victim have to share the burden of not only the oppression as well as the brunt of wrongdoing?

That is what focusing on the victim does. No matter how you slice it, the victim gets the short end of the stick while the perpetrator continues in his/her denial of the crime. And that is what blaming the oppressed for their experiences does.

Unless we decide to blame rape victims too for being raped. And no one wants that to happen. In the same vein, the anti-victimist stance wants the woman who was raped to forget she was ever attacked, let alone stop the fight to see her perpetrator get incarcerated. So, in essence, all the raped woman has to do is "deal with it". Her suffering doesn't matter. Isn't that what people, (who want the victim mentality to stop) desire?

If "dealing with it" is the logic of stopping the "victim mentality", then suffering is something that is par for the course in which no one has to feel any sort of empathy for.

Yep. Deal with it and let the poor woman who was raped feel the shame of the crime committed against her.


[edit on 21-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
White people were also survivors of Hurricane Rita and Katrina (including Trent Lott). White people were also survivors of 9/11.

But you haven't been talking about them at all. Not since the first post. It's like you're putting 9/11 and Katrina out there to show true victims, then you go off on how America is narcissistic and this administration is bad and never mention 9/11 and Katrina victims again. It's almost like you're using their victimhood to justify ragging on the American people for how little empathy they show, when nothing could be further from the truth.

As for the victim mentality: it is one and the same as "blaming the victim".

Like I said, it's clear that you want them to be the same and it's clear why. If you still don't see the difference, I can't help you.

To rarely answer you:

You don't have all the answers. But I also can't help you to notice the repercussions of anti-victimist language. To me, an anti-victimist stance is just letting those who have no decency and a lack of empathy off while the victims continue to suffer.

That is something that you can't understand, if you are so hell bent on blaming the victims and shaming them for what they've experienced while not focusing on the perpetrators or the social problem that is at the formation.


[edit on 21-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Victim blaming is holding the victims of a crime or an accident to be in whole or in part responsible for what has happened to them.

Source

Victim mentality (or victim thinking), describing a mindset with highly external locus of control

locus of control - A theoretical construct designed to assess a person's perceived control over his or her own behavior. The classification internal locus indicates that the person feels in control of events; external locus indicates that others are perceived to have that control.

Source1
Source2

They're 2 totally different things. A party hat and a birthday party both focus on the party, but they're 2 different things.

Originally posted by ceci2006
Actually, I think that it is simply the politics of denial for some people to escape dealing with social disparities. And, they promote a lack of empathy along with blaming the victim along with making the victim a straw man via the "victim mentality".

What victim are we talking about? The ones that would rather blame then do something with their lifes, or the ones being blamed that are doing something with their life? Provoking envy and jealousy.

Now, we're getting into the rhetoric of "blaming the victim". You're replying in the same clicheed territory that promotes a lack of empathy for suffering as well as a lack of identification with the survivors who had to subsist on little to nothing. Thank you for pointing out some of the language that is used in an "anti-victimist" stance.

but this implies that the victim is 'innocent' and can never do any wrong.

BH,

As you are being ignored, I thought I would jump in and give you a sounding board...

So are you saying the "Victim Mentality" is a life style?
I have heard and appreciated the phrase "Victim Culture" and all that it applies to. In fact all one need do to understand exactly what a Victim Culture is, would be to read the majority of this thread...

Could it be a deeper seated phenomenon? One that is easily observable and rapidly growing... The "It can't be me syndrome." Replete with "It has to be someone else's fault."

The personal acceptance of responsibility apparently went out the window for some individuals. Far easier to blame a group or culture for all the ills observed within their own group or culture. Add to that the absolute and bifurcating, idealogical practice of completely ignoring any other point of view, and only accepting as valid that which agrees with you; and what do you have?????

Why the opinions expressed on here of course....

ANYONE can be a victim and most individuals will be a victim of one sort or another in their lifetime...

The only question is, will they adopt that victimization as their lifestyle?
The absolutely incredible thing is, all one needs to do to study that particular phenomenon, is read here. For here we have a perfect example of "not accepting responsibility", the "Bifurcation of Society" and the "Victim Culture". All displayed in somewhat chronological order.

The vehement exposed racism apparent is somewhat unsettling, but after reading for awhile one can see the pattern and better understand this as the norm for the Victim Culture. It is also an interesting study in the mechanics of alternate text, the undercurrent of illusionary tactics and good ol' side stepping.

One finds often as well, the defense mechanics of applauding those that throughly agree, even for simple and obviously not well thought out posts. These occur at times when a new posters enters and disagrees.

So to identify with a victim, one can simply read here and understand the victim mentality and the emergence of the new Victim Culture in America..

Semper

The posts are very well thought out, Semper. I've done a lot of research on this issue. It's just unfortunate that there are some of us who would like a woman who is raped and victimized by her attacker to just "deal with it" and move on instead of understanding her oppression in totality, identifying and sympathizing with her.

She just has to be stoic and move on without any comfort.

I mean, that is what proponents against the "victim mentality" are saying. After all, they don't like the victims to talk about their oppression. They don't blame the perpetrators. And, in the narcissism of the anti-victimists, they escape any culpability in terms of empathy in regards of the crime that has happened. And by the malice and shame anti-victimists place on victims, that's exactly what they want.

It is rather unfortunate that victims have to be blamed for the sake of political ideology. Really, what should be encouraged is empathy, compassion and understanding--which American society does not have.

Well, you know what they say: Let them eat yellow cake.




[edit on 21-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Thanks, Semper, That was an interesting read.

Originally posted by ceci2006
You don't have all the answers.

I don't claim to.

But I also can't help you to notice the repercussions of anti-victimist language.

I'm not anti-anything.

To me, it is just letting those who have no decency and a lack of empathy off while the victims continue to the suffer.

I realize that to you, talking about the victim discounts what the perpetrator has done, but that's not the case. I wasn't even talking about the perpetrator. I was talking about the victim. Bringing the perp into it doesn't discount the mindset of a victim.

That is something that you can't understand,

Ceci, I am a rape survivor! I am a survivor of child molestation. I'm a cancer survivor! Trust me. I know a thing or two about being a victim!

if you are so hell bent on blaming the victims and shaming them for what they've experienced.

If that were true, I'd be blaming myself for being raped and so on! I'm not. You're just not listening to me.

That's okay, though.

[edit on 20-3-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

It's not okay. You promoted an entire thread (twice on my thread) about the the "victim mindset" and in it (and on here) you perpetrated the same language as others who espouse blaming the victim. Be proud that you want people to continue to suffer without any comfort. Be proud that you made divisions between victims. And be proud that you don't show any desire to hear about their oppression.

And be proud for rightfully arguing that in the severe case of a victim who has experienced a terrible crime like rape, she should not get comfort. Instead, she should stop complaining and move on.

That is what you want, is it not? You do want victims to stop complaining about their misfortunes and move on because of a narcissistic society's inability to care anymore, don't you?

Stand up for yourself. Be proud of eradicating the "victim mindset" now--especially at the expense of those who are suffering in society. After all, it has to do with emotional exhaustion and abuse of people's feelings--except if it happens to the people who espouse the "anti-victimist" mindset. But then, it would not surprise the anti-victimists if they receive the same lack of concern that they refuse to dole out to other sufferers. Because even they have to stoically move on and "deal with it".

Fancy that. No one wants to be even bothered with the sad experiences of rape survivors.

After this, there is no reason to address you any more.





[edit on 21-3-2007 by ceci2006]

My question is what does one thing have to do with another?

The title of the thread is...

"Do "Americans" have problems" ......

One may naturally assume the topic is about Americans, a group, a rather large group...

What does identifying with one single rape victim have to do with group dynamics?

To accurately and effectively study and/or discuss group dynamics, the individual is never relevant to the issues...

Of course we all sympathize with every SINGLE true victim. The result of an action that caused them harm....
What the topic suggests is that we are exposing and discussing a broader and more complicated issue involving the GROUP and not the IVDIVIDUAL..

ie....

The rather large segment of people that refuse to take responsibility for their own actions, even ridicule those that do.

Semper