"survivor" Or "victim"?

[rebeccaborderline]

So as not to hijack BobbyMac v important thread below

http://www.mentalhealth-world.org.uk/forum...mp;#entry338794

I wanted to start a thread in response to the last posts there from hummm mabbee and roxy222 anout the status of "survivor" and "victim"; both of which, in common with roxy222, I find perjorative, the way they are bandied about in common usage these days.

We've all seen those books, "mis-mems"; where dreadful things have happened to small children, inimaginable abuse; and they battle and ulimately find redemption and peace as "survivors"

I have only read one, and became so angry, but couldnt figure out why, so talked it through with my T.

Firstly, I really object to the graphic, semi-pornographic depictions of the abuse, particularly S/A. I don't care what people say (its been justified in the media as people wanting to read about it to reinforce that their own lives arnt that bad; also so that they can "symathise"); thats bollocks to me; its people gratuitously getting their rocks off by others suffering.

Secondly, and a more complex reaction, I realised that it was the "survivor" assumption that was making me angry too. This may be nuts, but these books give out the message that you can suffer dreadful things, but because you are intrinsically a good/insightful/intelligent person, you will ultimately triumphantly recover and gain the label "survivor"

To me this invalidates the vast majority of abuse sufferers (of any type) who struggle for many years; who witness the unravelling of their adult lives because of the damage caused to their psyches; who may reach a stage where the pain becomes tolerable but pay a bitter and life-long price simply to stay alive though the worst periods.

Are they/we not "survivors" too?

And what of those we have lost? Who couldnt carry the pain any more, and are gone (and sometimes forgotten) forever? These books, by emphasising "survivor", betray the memory of those who lost the fight.

Now onto "victim". I have felt increasingly uncomfortable with the numerous TV shows/newpaper articles which slate "victims" eg "do you want to be a victim all your life? NO? Well don't be a victim any more!"

Well, Im sorry, but I WAS and AM a victim; and stigmatising me for being one is insulting and damaging. Ive been abused and invalidated-now you are invalidating me again, as a society, by refusing me even the acknowledgement that I have been wronged? That I am, literally, a victim? You tell me to "stop allowing myself to be a victim"? I didnt allow it in the first place! Because YOU find it uncomfortable to acknowledge that people can be long-term damaged, you turn it on me, and tell me to "stop it"? (being a victim).

Basically, when our society starts to acknowledge the lasting damage that abuse does, both to the individual and the community, and down the generations; and stop stigmatising us, we may slowly start to eradicate it.

When we stop classing "survivors" as people "together" enough to make a fast buck by writing semi-porn and being "brave"; to acknowledge that there are many more survivors that you dont want to see; in hospitals etc. And in the cemetary.

And stop blaming victims for being victims; its not helpful, and its just to make you feel less troubled

End of rant

reb

[hummm_mabbe]

The discussion actually started when I used the word "healing" in connection to sexual abuse, and this caused offence. I explained that I was not trivialising sexual abuse, and that with "healing" I was referring to recovery from the emotional / mental health impact of it. I agreed that sexual abuse is not something that really ever goes away. I did not use the term "incest victim", "incest survivor" or anything like that, though in one sentence I did write that people who experience sexual abuse "WERE victims of terrible crimes". I did not feel that the word should then be carried around for ever more - after all, I was the victim of several assaults, but do not define myself as "an assault victim". The EFFECTS are carried around for a great deal of time after, and its from these that my use of the word healing was used. As I realise that the word "healing" may imply invalidation or minimisation of what sexual abuse is or does, I will from now on not use that word in connection with it.

I agree with your feelings that abuse should be better recognised and understood, and stopped. In my own journey to getting better I only think in terms of what drives it for me, what I need to do to get better and whether I am actually getting better - the labels that others use to describe my condition do not occur to me so much, because I realise that without deep understanding, many folks will use an easy label that may be meaningless. Personally, I put that down to lack of knowledge as opposed to invalidation.

No one that has ever treated me has called me a survivor or a victim - but they have talked about the things I was meant to get as a child and didnt, and how the things that happened - abuse - that shouldnt have, were wrong. I havent really met anyone who wants to give me a label to be honest, and as I presume that most people who do not have the same past as me, and the same illness as me, cannot really understand it, I see that any term they might use to describe my state will be inaccurate. Most of the use of those two terms I have seen in american, not British books. I think the greatest emotional reaction I had to those terms was that I didnt connect with them, I didnt feel like it applied to me or really feel any need for that descriptive term. I cant say it offended me or affected my getting better, but I understand that for you the term is pejorative.

For me. my take is that I have emotional struggles that are painful, and that they are a result of the things I did not receive and the abuse I did receive. I feel no need for a label and no one has given me one. I think with the books, they have to refer to "people who experienced sexual abuse as children" in some way, and they happened to choose a short term to stand in for that chunky sentence, and that perhaps now it has become a little too commonplace. It seems they did not choose wisely, because many find it offensive.

I think that if a lot of people find it offensive, its best not to use it. Can you think of a better word to replace it?

[walker]

I only have one small thing to say.

I was once accused of being in 'victim' mode, - inferring that I was passively allowing the abuse and hurt to continue to destroy me. Whilst I can see some truth in that, as regards being unable to 'fight' it out of me,

I do, however, feel that the term 'victim' allows me an element of innocence. For me, it means it was not all my fault, not all my creation and that is something I struggle hard with. It just occasionally gives me a chance to take a breath and say 'yes, perhaps it was them, and not me'.

Sorry if that makes no sense

[jetno]

my opinion was and is that damage is damage and the best I can hope for is to learn various ways of dealing with the the challenge of everyday life , despite the damage. The hurts remain and can be reactivated at vulnerable times.

Don`t know if that makes me a victim or a survivor and for me it is not so important. I know psychological wounds make life difficult. Improvement might occur with the passing of time but I try not to rely on it.

Striving to have an existence that reflects my view of what reality is , is probably the best I can hope for and probably the best environment for improvement to take place.

I respect and appreciate that other people have other opinions and i am always willing to learn.I also believe that psychology is not an exact science.There are too many influential factors involved. Everyone has to find their own way with or without guidance.

hope it makes sense to somebody

best wishes

[AndyL]

I first heard the term "survivor" in the context of domestic abuse. Women were tired of being labelled victims because, if I remember correctly, victimization implies a passive role. The term survivor came about because most people who come out of any kind of trauma--for instance an earth quake, a war or some sort of damage to their bodies--in one piece are termed survivors. You survived the war, losing everything in the earthquake or hurricane, or the wounds received after a car accident.

Battered women survived that physical and emotional trauma, hence the term. It's not demeaning, it's descriptive. There was never an intention of judgement. If anything, it was meant to empower, i.e., "I survived this abuse--I am stronger than I realized and can take steps to move forward." Now it's being applied to psychological trauma, which makes sense to me.

And "healing" also makes perfect sense to me as well. Just as you heal from a physical wound, it is possible for many people, over time, to heal from the emotional wounds as well. In both cases the scars remain. Yet, for some us, we have experienced such severe trauma that a part of us has been lost forever. We have, in effect, lost a limb. And while we can never get it back, perhaps there can be a way to accept the loss and adapt.

You know, after receiving so much therapy over the last months and years, I have concluded that it all boils down to this, crude as it sounds: Negative stuff that we can't control happens to us. The only thing we can really hope for is to acknowledge that and find a way to make the best of it. And yes, the process of getting to that place can be torturous and grueling. It can take years. Yet get there we must if we are ever going to be able to pursue happiness.

[hummm_mabbe]

I first heard the term "survivor" in the context of domestic abuse. Women were tired of being labelled victims because, if I remember correctly, victimization implies a passive role. The term survivor came about because most people who come out of any kind of trauma--for instance an earth quake, a war or some sort of damage to their bodies--in one piece are termed survivors. You survived the war, losing everything in the earthquake or hurricane, or the wounds received after a car accident.

Battered women survived that physical and emotional trauma, hence the term. It's not demeaning, it's descriptive. There was never an intention of judgement. If anything, it was meant to empower, i.e., "I survived this abuse--I am stronger than I realized and can take steps to move forward." Now it's being applied to psychological trauma, which makes sense to me.

And "healing" also makes perfect sense to me as well. Just as you heal from a physical wound, it is possible for many people, over time, to heal from the emotional wounds as well. In both cases the scars remain. Yet, for some us, we have experienced such severe trauma that a part of us has been lost forever. We have, in effect, lost a limb. And while we can never get it back, perhaps there can be a way to accept the loss and adapt.

You know, after receiving so much therapy over the last months and years, I have concluded that it all boils down to this, crude as it sounds: Negative stuff that we can't control happens to us. The only thing we can really hope for is to acknowledge that and find a way to make the best of it. And yes, the process of getting to that place can be torturous and grueling. It can take years. Yet get there we must if we are ever going to be able to pursue happiness.

Yes I agree with this - I think the term survivor had good intentions, but maybe came as a bit of a clanger for some. I think its important to find your own identity and sense of what happened. Certainly this kind of "narrative psychology" is favoured in treating PTSD.

[rebeccaborderline]

i do agree, logically.

(PS, especially humme mabbe, my words were never meant as an unfounded disagreement; you make a lot of sense)

But, my point is, I am fed up of being objectified. Perhaps some of you with better support systems and better MH care dont encounter this so much; perhaps Im a bit oversensitised; perhaps Im just older, and more tired.

But every day I find the words "victim" and "survivor" over-used and constantly devalued-because it makes "normal" people (ie those who cannot perceive of the damage abuse does, like my family, the average person on the street, or in the pub) feel more complacent and it becomes less important to take action.

If you read the Matthew Parris article in the Times today, coincidentally he makes the same point

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle5282308.ece

(third section, "Abuse of terms")

reb

[fucktheworld]

reb-

I love your rant. It needed to be said. Both terms are incorrect given the connotations that go with these words. The word 'victim' suggests weakness, and there is nothing weak in a child that has suffered abuse. And there is no true 'survivors', the damage is done, the void in your soul is never filled. Healing, filling up what was removed, doesn't happen. The emotional mind cannot ever be completely healed. This damage is with us forever and the logical mind must be engaged to manage the damaged soul. The truth of abuse, facing it and believing the awful, is what helps to remove the power.

The logical mind can take one step back and see the abuse, see the abuse for real, without emotion. It is just wrong that any child should spend five minutes feeling fear for their safety in any way. Any time it occurs in a child's life is wrong. The abusers are rotten fuckers, fuck forgiveness, fuck torn feelings because they are also fathers, mothers, spouses, they betrayed a trust and our souls hate the fucks. I accept who they are and they never will get next to me again. They've lost the right and my soul rejects them forever. I don't care why it happened, it happened, and they can go to hell. They knew better and did it anyway, and will keep doing it over and over and over until someone finally tells them 'no', I won't give you one more chance to keep it up. I wasn't a victim of you, I didn't know any better, and I didn't survive shit -- you fucked me up forever. Fuck off....

Ha--the evil media, pretending to inform the world. They are predators looking for any sick ass story that will tap tap tap on some thrill people get from reading twisted shit. Oh how easy it is to read every little word and then sit back and say, omg what an awful story.

fuck the evil world

:angry:

[roxy222]

well said FTW, the terms could never possibley be enough, not that words ever really can when it comes to something as huge as abuse (of any type)

I think the most damaging thing about abuse is not the actual abuse but that because we are being abused (most often by family members) we also miss out on alot of basic and necessary developmental experiences, or that the experience of abuse changes these for us so that we do not get what we need at the correct time. with regard to many basic experineces once the opportunity for these to happen is missed there is v v little likelyhood that this can ever be made up for. an obvious, but non abuse, example would be language aquirement, if no one talks to a child before a certain age there is absolutely no chance of them ever being able to develop language skills, regardless of the quality of care given or the number of experts called in. the same is true (to varrying extents) with emotionals experiences also, negative attachment patterns are v v difficult to change (not impossible as I am testamnet to this, although I only believe this was possible due to the rare but massively influential experience of the kind old couple next door who genuinely cared for me) and true reactive attachmet disorder is virtually ever remeidied in any real sence of the word. so the idea that 'healing' can be achievable is something I personally find insulting, and not just with regard to my abuse but those who never had any positive experiences of care to provide a way forward. 'victim', well what child isnt a victim of their parents, in that they are utterly dependant on them and that there is a massive power imbalance in such a relationship, even if they are a 'victim' of positive parenting and not abuse. and yes the word suggests weakness, like there was a choice in the matter, a child is not weak, they are just a child. as some children are not victims and others are does that imply that some are weaker than others?? as opposed to the actual difference being that some have evil parents and some caring protective parents. Why should the child carry the burden of the definition of why they are different from other children, why should this lie with anyone other than the abuser themselves???? And 'survivor' god that really makes me sick, what a nice way for everyone to stay blind to the massively detrimental consequences, to both the individual and society, that abuse causes. I mean obviously if we're all survivors then there is just no need for governments to actually address abuse, to allocate monies and time and energy to fight this most horrific type of crime, to even mention it on their agenda (as they never do) because we're all survivors yeah!!!! oh isnt adversary good for us, yeah, infact why dont the polititions give abusers medals for allowing us the kind opportunity to become survivors, oh wait a minute their to busy getting backhanders from the peados themasleves.

I know that these words arent used offensively, Im not getting at anybody promise, and probly to many they may not be offensive, but they simplify things so that the world cant continue to go on blindly ignoring the plight of children and that is very disturbing and very dangerous.