Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:57, 26 March 2012

Psychology C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Treat as JWP? (moved to section)

Note: moving this discussion into a section so people can edit the section instead of having to edit the entire discussion page. Argel1200 (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason this concept should not be treated as an instance of the Just-world phenomenon, and its article merged? They seem quite closely related. --Soultaco 17:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• If anything, I'd suggest it be the other way around. In all my reading, I've never seen the term "Just-world phenomenon", whereas "Blaming..." is widely used. In addition, "Blaming..." speaks more to the practical consequences of this (untenable) position. Twang 01:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• • But even each of the links on this page referring to victim-blaming cite the just world phenomenon; you can also see the entry on same for some more examples. It's well established in the psych literature. Victim blaming strikes me as more of a pop psychology term for one particular instance of the same thing. Are there academic references that make use of the term? --Soultaco 22:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • You may be correct about the links on this page, Soultaco -- AS IT IS. But then this page isn't in very good shape ... BTV is an idea which has seen a ton of discussion since it first cropped up. I've added just a little history today; the concept was subsequently argued for years.
      The phrase was certainly widely adopted in Education studies and used broadly in the Humanities. (As of today (August 2006), Google lists 335,000 appearances of the phrase. JPW appears 504 times, making BTV 600 times more commonly used.)
      You may be right that it's more of a 'pop psychology' term; in my opinion the articles in WP ought to be given the title that's more familiar. Such an important instance of JWP deserves of it's own page. I suspect that as time goes by this article might become quite long ... depending on whether WP's reputation improves.
      Twang 23:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Another view, here... Seems to me that the more academically proper arrangement would be for the pages to given the title that's more technically correct, with the more familiar terms which refer to the concepts simply redirecting to the main page. That way if somebody searches for "Victim blaming" they end up at the more proper "Just-world phenomenon" page and, thus, learn the proper term for it. Just a thought. In any case, I think the issue needs to be resolved, as there is currently an enormous backlog of pages marked for merging. Jaye 17:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Misplaced Pages policy is to use the most common name, not the techncially correct name. Argel1200 (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Seeing as victim-blaming is a term used in the criminal justice arena (certainly in Britain, not sure about other countries) by probation, police and mental health services when assessing an offender's risk of harm and likelihood of reoffending, not to mention giving recommendations for sentencing to the courts, I would say it's a technical term in its own right and should not be subsumed under a partially related concept. I say partially because JWP can only explain victim-blaming among people who are not the perpetrator of the harm done to the victim; it's hard to say that a father who rapes his daughter and then blames her by saying "she seduced me" is blaming her because he thinks the world is a fair place. I think we're far better off with the pages separate. 194.203.103.2 (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that Baumeister's idea is basically exactly the same as JWP - I have put in a link to JWP, but anyone can edit it out if they feel like it. Why does he have his own section? His beliefs are not a new idea! Basically it is identical to JWP, but I suppose being a Prof. of Psych and write a few books means you can claim any old idea as your own. Even one that will have been in existence since man could communicate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.125.50 (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

The basic "jist" of a self-fulfilling prophecy is where the belief or fear one has about a given person/situation leads to their fear being realised as a result of having it in the first place. I do not see how this in any way relates to victim blaming. In this case we are talking about denial and a need to redirect blame to another party. It does not make the victim actually become the one responsible nor are we talking about something being actualized by the fear of it being true. If anyone can appropriately show how these two terms are in any way related we can restore it, but I think its misleading to make such a connection when one does not appear to exist. Enigmatical 01:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• The relationship between the two is complicated. It isn't so much cause-and-effect as it is a tug-of-war. Psychologically they're deeply intertwingled. It's like a binary star, where two stars orbit around each other.
  When I find, or think of, a sufficiently clarifying example, I'll be back. Twang 23:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• • So you are admitting yourself that neither requires the other to exist and that the relationship between them only exists if one chooses it to exist. This would clearly indicate to me that there is no need to "see also" as viewing either page does not provide any clarity on the other. If I read the article on SFP and then read Victim blaming I do not go "Ahhh... now I understand what an SFP is better because Victim Blaming helps me understand", nor vice versa. There is absolutely no correlation between the two other than both of them being psychological manifestations which "sometimes" are made together by people who fail to see the truth and have instead chosen to believe their own delusions. Should we then include "See also" links to paranoia, denial and other such articles? Surely these are involved in the "tug-of-war" far more often than an SFP is. Enigmatical 23:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sweden

This stuff about Sweden sounds like pure bullshit to me. I'm Swedish and _I've_ never heard anything about this. Unless someone comes up with sources for this about Sweden in the next 24 hours, I'm just gonna edit it away.

Addicted2Sanity 01:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Update

Hello.

I removed the unsubstantiated stuff about Sweden, and I also wikified the text more. Hope everyone is happy with the changes - it looks pretty nice to me... :)

Addicted2Sanity 22:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic

"Blaming the victim" as a concept is not really any deeper than what it literally says. If you understand the noun "victim" and the verb "to blame", you understand what it means; any further explanation would be nothing more than paraphrase, as in the introductory paragraph of this article. We might as well have an article about "Putting on a hat", complete with an elaborate explanation of the process, wikilinks, a couple pictures, and a brief history of hat-wearing across world cultures.

As a literal expression, "blaming the victim" is little more than a rhetoric device; we could list instances where it has been used, but that would result in an unencyclopedic and sometimes ridiculous article (currently its "History of the idea" suggests that victim-blaming was invented in the 1960s!). It would end up being just a soapbox for people to denounce their favorite injustices, NPOV be damned. --79.23.243.226 (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Blaming the victim is an important concept that has widespread consequences in a variety of social phenomena, identifying it and taking countermeasures was neither obvious nor trivial, as evidenced by it only happening in '60s; nor is it a finished process. Somehow I don't see you questioning the encyclopaedicity of flour, even though everyone knows what flour is. mathrick (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't question "victim" or "blame", either, provided something encyclopedic were written about them (the article on blame is not that great, for instance). I would, however, oppose an article titled "Mixing flour with water"; and I would only accept "Flour manufacturing" if we had so much material about it that it could not be included as a section in the article on flour. In the case of this article, all we have are some assorted facts and opinions that would fit better under other entries: for example, the article on rape already has its own section on victim blaming.

If you think you can write an encyclopedic treatment of the very concept of blaming the victim, by all means do try, although it's not going to be a small job (you'd have to start way farther back than the 1960s!). And beware of OR. --79.23.243.226 (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So, according to your logic, any two-words compound phrase is unencyclopaedic, because you can figure it out from the constituent words. The exact same argument could be made for, say, erectile dysfunction. Your objection is silly and I'm editing it away from the article. mathrick (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Historical Instances?

This entire section appears to be political, unnecessary, and poorly cited (not to mention difficult to verify). I really don't think it's possible to identify for certain what is and isn't a historical instance of "victim-blame". I'll delete this section in 24 hours unless someone has a reason not to. --Smilingman (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is this a Misplaced Pages article?

This article has as much reason to be here as "Walking a dog", "Moving furniture" or "opening a window". It just isn't encyclopedic and grouping a couple of words together "Victim" and "Blame" does not make for an encyclopedic topic. It should be marked for speedy deletion. JettaMann (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The existence of rape shield laws and the Just World Hypothesis show there is more to this than just three words. Argel1200 (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I for one would like to say "Thank you" for including the article on Victim Blaming in Misplaced Pages. I have found it very enlightening and very helpful to myself as I have apparently been a victim of this very thing on several occasions! If I had not come across this article in a link from another Misplaced Pages article, I would not have been able to understand what had been happening to me. I would also like to thank everyone for all the other Misplaced Pages articles on Psychology which I am reading and finding so helpful. I realise this post of mine may not be very Wikipedic, but I'm a newbie so I hope you'll accept it and not edit it out. May God bless you all. Anonymous. 01:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.108.57 (talk)

I would say, important and notable topic that definitely should stay. We need more references. Audriusa (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to you guys. I take some credit for working in this area. Yes it is an important article. Yes it needs improving but it is a gradual process.--Penbat (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

A section of victim blaming fallacies

I suggest a section on the use of "blaming the victim" in order to divert attention away from the accused having not commited a crime, be as responsible, be resonsible at all, deserve the consequences that are demanded, and in all in all, the various ignorant uses people have for using the "you're blaming the victim!" fallacy.

I find that such a section, or a "contraversy/criticism" section regarding "blaming the victim" would hold a great deal more artcle than what is presented so far. As it has been used to erode away rights, harm others or as ive mentioned, divert attention away from reason and logic in an emotional situation so their ignorance can be upheld. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.143.128 (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

---> Personaly I disagree with adding such a section, because that would make it ideological. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia meant for objective, universally accepted facts. Its not for opinions and/or ideology, and that's what your suggested section would entail. --77.29.85.175 (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The rape section is misleadingly phrased

It said ""In the United States, rape is unique in that it is the only crime in which there are statutory protections designed in favor of the victim (known as "rape shield laws").""

The reason this is misleading, is because its still a trial, there is no proof the accuser is a victim yet. That's why you have a trial. Only after the trial is over do you know if there was a victim. The law doesn't protect victims after they're proven victims, but it protects any accuser, before they actually prove that they are indeed, a victim. I changed it to "the accuser" instead of "the victim" to make it more accurate. Otheriwse left the paragraph untouched.

--77.29.85.175 (talk) 12:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

- I noticed later that it uses the word "victim" all throughout the paragraph, and in all cases I changed it with "alleged victim" and/or accuser or both.

--77.28.18.24 (talk) 09:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary sentence?

"Historically victim-blaming is the trait most often exhibited by the criminally insane and has traditionally emerged in racist and sexist forms." What does this have to do with anything? The source doesn't look too reliable, and honestly it makes no sense. What do victim blaming and the criminally insane have to do with each other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.145.202 (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Intro

Removed "citation needed" from second paragraph of intro. You do not need a citation for a simple definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.78.217 (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Child and domestic abuse

I believe there should be some information about child and domestic abuse in this entry. Kazuba (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Family honour and sexual purity

danielg 05:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Yikes, what a very "bold" set of statements with only a link to a study in Jordan. Murdering women because they are pregnant should really have some more citations if you want to include this. For an English version of Misplaced Pages I dont think a Jordanian reference is nearly enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielg001 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Secondary Victimization

This section is purely about rape victims, and also utilizes concept requiring the definition of "victim blaming," as well as uses the phrase. I feel like this section belongs somewhere on the rape page or something, not here. It's not very encyclopedic in that I feel like it's sort of off-topic. I also feel like using the words "victim blaming" to describe an incidence of victim blaming is sort of like using a word in its own definition. Pressondude (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes but secondary victimisation as a concept is relevant here although the text needs to be reworked and generalised.--Penbat (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• C-Class psychology articles
• High-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles