The Culture of Victimhood

[CannonballB]

The sad reality of this is I know people are very close with a lot of people who have been victimized horribly by others be at their family government their religion, sometimes even spouses. And they don't ever wish to be identified as being a victim. when they get together and talk about it they refer to themselves as survivors.

Real victims have my sympathy and they don't want it. But I don't know how to not be sympathetic to it.

The caste society victims that seemed to be rampant and a society that is not caste are often quite insulting. They desperately want sympathy because they can use that to manipulate others.

Think about David Hogg. He was using his victim status as a means to guilt people into not criticizing his childish immature ideas. when in any other case if a 17 year old says something stupid they need to be told how stupid it is.

I know young man who was treated horribly by his family, and he broke away from them and I and my partner became his family. When he was 17 and he had a stupid idea had to tell him it was a stupid idea. Now that he's 26 he thanked me for that.

Real victims do not present their victimhood is a virtue so anytime you see victimhood being heralded as virtuous be very very very suspicious of the claims of victimhood.

A lot of the times people who are victims of some horrible act or some vicious family members you will never know because they are not proud of it.

I thought I replied to this but I didn't. I want to ask a couple of things here, all bolded.

You're using a lot of generalizations here. Tori Amos created RAINN because she was raped. By your definition of "real victims do not present their victimhood as a virtue", does that mean that Tori should have just kept quiet about what happened to her? Or should she have spoken up to try and help other victims?

When you say what you say here, you're playing with fire. Keep in mind that in order for someone to be a survivor, they had to at first be a victim. We all stop being a victim once whatever bad thing happens has stopped. But you're never NOT a victim after that. You will ALWAYS be a victim. If you're still alive, you will also ALWAYS be a survivor. This is what I mean by no true scottsman fallacy.

Also, Cheesenrice, sorry about the triple post.

 

[CLAX1911]

Got it. I took what he said as not so much just on you, but in general. And I would agree with him. There are some people who think you just take whatever happens on the chin and move on.

I agree there are absolutely people that think that way, it seems naive to me. People's who's lives were touched by someone who has suffered or people who have suffered themselves know it isn't that easy. What I was saying was that people who have delt with such trauma in their lives have a somewhat predictable psychosis in it's aftermath. It may seem completely opposite it even disconnected from the trauma but if you know your psych you know what to look for.

You don't look back you don't dwell you don't even give it a second thought. But since you seem to be at least knowledgeable about psychology, then you should know that by bottling it up like that, it *potentially* can lead to some scary things later, either by putting that pain, anger and rage internally or focusing it outward.

If somehow I conveyed that trauma should be treated such a way, I must apologize that certainly wasn't my intent. You have to talk about it. But there are people that are safe to talk to and people who are not. People who have suffered cyclical abuse know this very well.

 

[CLAX1911]

I thought I replied to this but I didn't. I want to ask a couple of things here, all bolded.

You're using a lot of generalizations here. Tori Amos created RAINN because she was raped. By your definition of "real victims do not present their victimhood as a virtue", does that mean that Tori should have just kept quiet about what happened to her? Or should she have spoken up to try and help other victims?

Again, if there is a clear perpetrator than the victimhood is real. If you are a victim of patriarchy or white people I have a hard time buying that. There are exceptions, such as a woman who grew up in a Muslim culture who suffered "female circumcision." She would be a victim of society.

If someone was raped than there was someone that raped. The victim is the victim of someone that raped. Not the patriarchy not the white over Lord's or whatever.

When you say what you say here, you're playing with fire. Keep in mind that in order for someone to be a survivor, they had to at first be a victim. We all stop being a victim once whatever bad thing happens has stopped. But you're never NOT a victim after that. You will ALWAYS be a victim.

The two bold statements contradict one another. If you stopped being a victim how are you always a victim?

If you're still alive, you will also ALWAYS be a survivor. This is what I mean by no true scottsman fallacy.

The way my husband explains it is that there is the word victim implies brokenness and the need to be saved. He doesn't want to be broken and didn't want to need salvation forever.

Also, Cheesenrice, sorry about the triple post.

Please if you think of other things you wish to say don't hesitate to respond again. I really like talking to you.

 

[Angel]

Millennial America? Try angry old white men. Hillbilly baby boomers are the self proclaimed victims unlike any other group ever.

Absolutely. TRump got elected pushing that garbage.

Victimhood was pushing forty when Trump got elected. Get a new theory.

 

[sangha]

Please point out where he denied science in any way?

CLAX believes in science. Even when he denies evolution, its science. Therefore, if you disagree with him, you're denying science

 

[noonereal]

Victimhood was pushing forty when Trump got elected. Get a new theory.

You must be challenged in reading comprehension and not understand the evolution of victimization.

But, keep yapping.

 

[Angel]

You must be challenged in reading comprehension and not understand the evolution of victimization.

But, keep yapping.

I'll yap without your leave. And you can embarrass yourself further by sharing your victimhood theory of evolution.

 

[noonereal]

I'll yap without your leave. And you can embarrass yourself further by sharing your victimhood theory of evolution.

Like I said, TRUMPISM is the first political party to claim victimization as a core tenet.

As insane as that is, it's the privileged that are screaming it!

Like it's my fault they have led failed lives. dopes.

 

[CannonballB]

Again, if there is a clear perpetrator than the victimhood is real. If you are a victim of patriarchy or white people I have a hard time buying that. There are exceptions, such as a woman who grew up in a Muslim culture who suffered "female circumcision." She would be a victim of society.

If someone was raped than there was someone that raped. The victim is the victim of someone that raped. Not the patriarchy not the white over Lord's or whatever.


The two bold statements contradict one another. If you stopped being a victim how are you always a victim?

The way my husband explains it is that there is the word victim implies brokenness and the need to be saved. He doesn't want to be broken and didn't want to need salvation forever.

Please if you think of other things you wish to say don't hesitate to respond again. I really like talking to you.

Hi hi!

I like how your husband thinks. I think the thing I take away from "victim" is that it's nuanced. I'm going to use a scenario because I can't think of a way to explain further.

A woman gets raped. She's a victim in the moment. She stops being an active victim once the rape stops, but she's still going to be a victim of what that dude inflicted on her mentally, emotionally and even potentially physically. Now, she can say that she's a survivor (which is absolutely true!) but she's going to have to carry that trauma with her for the rest of her life. She will always be a "victim" of the past. That doesn't mean that she can't also overcome whatever happened to her, but she has to carry that pain inside. It dulls but, at least from what rape victims have told me, it never goes away completely. I don't think there's something inherently weak about being a victim.

Now, here's one for you. A guy goes and hooks up with another dude. Guy 1 gets HIV from guy 2. Guy 2 said that he was completely clean, but lied to guy 1. Does guy 1 have any responsibility in this case? Would you consider him a victim? My stance is, he's a victim because he was lied to, but he also chose his bed by not protecting himself, so he's not blameless. Thoughts?

I get why people take issue with the things you listed - patriarchy, religion, etc. Those things are nebulous. They're ideals and concepts and nothing more. Why I tend to be OK with it personally is I don't think "patriarchy" itself is to blame. Patriarchy is nothing more than a concept. What I question is, what influence does this nebulous concept play into how someone was thinking when they did whatever they did. I know that's a really weird sentence but basically what I look at is the original intent. I do not think I can point to "patriarchy" and say solely because of that, a woman didn't get hired. I would even go so far as to say that probably she had some undesirable traits that might have even been used as confirmation bias for him. This scenario is all hypothetical, right? As you and others pointed out in that thread, there are laws against this. Which is why you'll NEVER hear anyone (man or woman) say "Oh yeah. I didn't hire her because she's a chick". The thing that gets me is, just because there's laws against something doesn't mean it won't happen. Hello, speeding!

Side-note - I didn't get to respond to one of your questions yesterday, but you did ask me about Christians murdered in another country (Nigeria?). I firmly believe those people were victims. Your religion is your religion even if I don't agree with it - that doesn't give me a right to kill you for it. And I'd label what happened to them as a hate crime. They're being targeted based on a specific characteristic.

Sorry so long and wordy. I'm about to head out to a (very) early happy hour! Daydrinking FTW! Have a good one!

 

[sangha]

Hi hi!

I like how your husband thinks. I think the thing I take away from "victim" is that it's nuanced. I'm going to use a scenario because I can't think of a way to explain further.

A woman gets raped. She's a victim in the moment. She stops being an active victim once the rape stops, but she's still going to be a victim of what that dude inflicted on her mentally, emotionally and even potentially physically. Now, she can say that she's a survivor (which is absolutely true!) but she's going to have to carry that trauma with her for the rest of her life. She will always be a "victim" of the past. That doesn't mean that she can't also overcome whatever happened to her, but she has to carry that pain inside. It dulls but, at least from what rape victims have told me, it never goes away completely. I don't think there's something inherently weak about being a victim.

Now, here's one for you. A guy goes and hooks up with another dude. Guy 1 gets HIV from guy 2. Guy 2 said that he was completely clean, but lied to guy 1. Does guy 1 have any responsibility in this case? Would you consider him a victim? My stance is, he's a victim because he was lied to, but he also chose his bed by not protecting himself, so he's not blameless. Thoughts?

I get why people take issue with the things you listed - patriarchy, religion, etc. Those things are nebulous. They're ideals and concepts and nothing more. Why I tend to be OK with it personally is I don't think "patriarchy" itself is to blame. Patriarchy is nothing more than a concept. What I question is, what influence does this nebulous concept play into how someone was thinking when they did whatever they did. I know that's a really weird sentence but basically what I look at is the original intent. I do not think I can point to "patriarchy" and say solely because of that, a woman didn't get hired. I would even go so far as to say that probably she had some undesirable traits that might have even been used as confirmation bias for him. This scenario is all hypothetical, right? As you and others pointed out in that thread, there are laws against this. Which is why you'll NEVER hear anyone (man or woman) say "Oh yeah. I didn't hire her because she's a chick". The thing that gets me is, just because there's laws against something doesn't mean it won't happen. Hello, speeding!

Side-note - I didn't get to respond to one of your questions yesterday, but you did ask me about Christians murdered in another country (Nigeria?). I firmly believe those people were victims. Your religion is your religion even if I don't agree with it - that doesn't give me a right to kill you for it. And I'd label what happened to them as a hate crime. They're being targeted based on a specific characteristic.

Sorry so long and wordy. I'm about to head out to a (very) early happy hour! Daydrinking FTW! Have a good one!

Note the equation of victim with weakness - being broken and needing help. While being broken is certainly not something one desires, it sometimes is a fact. Sometimes, the things that happen to people does break them. And sometimes, they need help putting themselves back together.

And just as it's true that some people are broken, it's just as true that some people despise them for it. Even more despicable is how they publicly announce their weakness and ask for help.

Being strong and silent is the goal, for some. They would never admit to a weakness, never mind ask for help. And so they despise those who do, which makes it easy, maybe required, for them to deny the injury or the need for help.

Just as they deny their own pains, and their own needs for assistance in order to maintain their John Wayne-esque pose of masculinity

 

[CLAX1911]

Hi hi!

I like how your husband thinks. I think the thing I take away from "victim" is that it's nuanced. I'm going to use a scenario because I can't think of a way to explain further.

A woman gets raped. She's a victim in the moment. She stops being an active victim once the rape stops, but she's still going to be a victim of what that dude inflicted on her mentally, emotionally and even potentially physically. Now, she can say that she's a survivor (which is absolutely true!) but she's going to have to carry that trauma with her for the rest of her life. She will always be a "victim" of the past. That doesn't mean that she can't also overcome whatever happened to her, but she has to carry that pain inside. It dulls but, at least from what rape victims have told me, it never goes away completely. I don't think there's something inherently weak about being a victim.

Well, a person that is a victim of something like rape is traumatized. Traumitization is normally not something you can heal from but that you cope with. Sometimes coping with it in the case of a child that suffers a near drowning would simply avoid being in bodies of water. It helps to think of it more of mourning a loss rather than a wound that won't heal.

It's very important for the mental health if the traumatized person to understand their role in it. In a case of a rape victim they are often chosen based on opportunity so their role is simply existing. The near drowning victim would be different. Was he over estimating his ability, was he pushed in by an older child or adult, so on so forth each one of these traumas that an individual would suffer is going to be different and their reaction to it is going to be different. But when people are talking about this sort of thing after the time that has passed once they have learned to cope with whatever After effects they are feeling they refer to themselves as though they were a victim. They aren't necessarily even over it per se if you can be over something like that, they are just ready to take another step.

Now, here's one for you. A guy goes and hooks up with another dude. Guy 1 gets HIV from guy 2. Guy 2 said that he was completely clean, but lied to guy 1. Does guy 1 have any responsibility in this case? Would you consider him a victim? My stance is, he's a victim because he was lied to, but he also chose his bed by not protecting himself, so he's not blameless. Thoughts?

first I don't think anyone on this planet deserves HIV so anyone that has it is a victim of it. That however doesn't entitle you to victimize others and that is something we see very often.

I have to break this one into two parts.

 

[CLAX1911]

I get why people take issue with the things you listed - patriarchy, religion, etc. Those things are nebulous. They're ideals and concepts and nothing more. Why I tend to be OK with it personally is I don't think "patriarchy" itself is to blame. Patriarchy is nothing more than a concept. What I question is, what influence does this nebulous concept play into how someone was thinking when they did whatever they did.

it varies if somebody says that they can't love their son because their religion says not to and their son is gay or marries someone of a different religion, the religion is being used as a weapon of their parents prejudice the religion Maybe the architect of their parents prejudice but often times people pick religions based on how it suits their antecedently held beliefs. basically put if they were in a different religion there would be some other reason why they couldn't have contact with their son or daughter that married someone they disapprove of.

I know that's a really weird sentence but basically what I look at is the original intent. I do not think I can point to "patriarchy" and say solely because of that, a woman didn't get hired. I would even go so far as to say that probably she had some undesirable traits that might have even been used as confirmation bias for him. This scenario is all hypothetical, right? As you and others pointed out in that thread, there are laws against this. Which is why you'll NEVER hear anyone (man or woman) say "Oh yeah. I didn't hire her because she's a chick". The thing that gets me is, just because there's laws against something doesn't mean it won't happen. Hello, speeding!

agreed on the notion of law beating some prohibitive measure but not really 100% effective. so if a person doesn't want to hire a woman because she's a woman and find somebody who's not that has equal or better qualifications then he's not really breaking a law. then it goes into personal motivations and the thoughts a person is having we can't know what someone's thinking unless they tell us. Thoughts cannot be actionable only actions can be. If we start going after thoughts such as people who don't think women would be good mechanics that opens up a whole new area for legal abuses. So it has to be limited.

Side-note - I didn't get to respond to one of your questions yesterday, but you did ask me about Christians murdered in another country (Nigeria?). I firmly believe those people were victims. Your religion is your religion even if I don't agree with it - that doesn't give me a right to kill you for it. And I'd label what happened to them as a hate crime. They're being targeted based on a specific characteristic.

Sorry so long and wordy. I'm about to head out to a (very) early happy hour! Daydrinking FTW! Have a good one!

Again I welcome your wordy responses it might take me awhile to get to them but I enjoy talking to you you make me think.

 

[TheParser]

We have all just witnessed a prime example of victimhood in that once great city of Chicago.


A third-rate "actor" was able to play the race card and the gay card along with friends in high places to escape punishment for a vicious hoax.


Hopefully, Karma will somehow teach him a lesson that he will never forget.

 

[HK.227]

Let's talk about victimhood.
(1) It appears to be on the rise in Millennial America.
(2) In these terrible times everyone seems to be claiming victimization.
(3) Have we nurtured a culture of victimhood?

1) It would appear so.
However, it is difficult to deal with trauma without acknowledging it. As we gain a better understanding of how to do this, acceptance of trauma within society grows.

2) Not everyone, but given (1) you must expect certain outcomes.

First, a growing percentage of people who dare speak out about personal trauma for legitimate reasons without the fear of ridicule or ostracization.

Second, a growing percentage of people who try to monetize this new acceptance of trauma in one way or another. Attention. Social advantage. Cash. Political power.
It is no different from the frauds who saw an opportunity in claiming to have fought in the French resistance post WW2. Learning to discern legitimate from scam is the same challenge it has always been. Perhaps a bit more annoying, now scammers have access to social media and so become capable of reaching much wider audiences. But then again, more frequent exposure could make you better at detecting scams. But then again, it might also make you more cynical through over exposure. But then again, it may be good because more exposure given to legitimate causes raises awareness. And so on and so forth until things eventually reach a balance.

(3) I would say "Culture of victimhood" is a misnomer. We have nurtured a culture of trauma acceptance, and like always, with the coming of the new come new problems also. The trick is to deal with them without rejecting the good parts of the new. I find "Culture of victimhood" counterproductive because it encompasses both the legitimate and illegitimate.

 

[joko104]

Add "The Culture Of Entitlement," the claim that when a person is born s/he is entitled to force everyone else to pay their way in life to the list of cultural degradation:

Free food
Free medical care
Free housing
Free education
Free phone
Free income

that everyone else has to work to pay for.

 

[noonereal]

The Culture of Victimhood

Indeed, I have had it with Trump and his brood.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Indeed, I have had it with Trump and his brood.

Trump is a victim of SNL.

 

[noonereal]

Trump is a victim of SNL.

LOL!

Good post