Talk:Victim blaming/Archive 1

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)

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)
 * 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)
 * Wikipedia 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)

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)


 * Not necessarily out of the ballpark though. I'm not sure if it's as used as SFP, but this certainly falls into the category of self-validating reduction, the stereotypes of SFPs in a matter of speaking.178.15.79.37 (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2015 (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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

Victimology
Is that right word? Capitals00 (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Notable instances
I've added a section of notable instances, which attracted worldwide coverage, of victim blaming in the last decade. All is referenced to RSs. I note that there is much in the article that still needs to be properly referenced.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Blatant coatrack. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with AtG on this. Leave the instances out. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is for those proposing to add the material to justify it. The person who originally posted it hasn't even bothered to respond. Anyway, given the ubiquitousness of victim blaming, specific 'notable instances' could run into thousands, without having to coatrack in speeches by Muslim preachers that could just as easily be replaced by similar speeches made by priests, judges, politicians and just about anyone from almost anywhere. Who decides the criteria for 'notability' anyway? And why do the 'instances' have to refer to rape? The article makes clear that this phenomenon is much more widespread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Policy would decide on notability, do these incidents have articles? How much coverage did they get? Have these incidents been described as examples of victim blaming? If so then I see no reason to exclude such from this article? BTW coatrack is an essay, please cite policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Policy? WP:NPOV. If you want to include the material, do the research yourself... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Darkness, here. Reasons for justification for entry were described already in the first entry in this string.  In the very first sentence.Epeefleche (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Andy -- your continued deletion lacks consensus support. One editor here supports you.  And three have either added it or disagreed with you here.  Please don't delete it again without consensus support.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Per Andy's suggestion above I shall add sources here for the content he removed. First up is first on the list Feiz Mohammad In his address, he appeared to blame rape victims for provoking male lust by dressing immodestly claiming that rape victims were solely responsible attacks against them. he said a rape victim had no one to blame but herself for wearing satanic skirts. Looks like victim blaming to me. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You asked "do these incidents have articles?" That one doesn't. Probably because there isn't an identifiable 'victim'. If we are going to include every example of such abstract 'blaming' we can find a source for, the section is going to get rather large. Meanwhile, can someone please explain why a section on examples of 'victim blaming' in general should only include material relating to rape? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think that this material should be included because there are no secondary sources which discuss these incidents as examples of victim blaming which help to understand the concept of victim blaming. What you've found are a bunch of instances of victim blaming from the newspapers which strike your fancy for some reason.  If you could find cases used as examples in actual psychology textbooks or their equivalent which said "incident X happened and it's an archetypal example of victim blaming" then I would think it should be included.  If all you have is a newspaper story where someone blames a victim I think that you have no reasonable argument for including it.  I might add that there is no consensus for including the material either, and in that case I believe that it should be omitted. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Alf -- your view is a minority one. Please, as with Andy, don't delete material that a majority of editors think should not be deleted.  And Darkness has refuted your comment before you even made it, and the other examples on their face are clearly victim blaming, described in RSs, in the past few years, and covered internationally.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, majorities are irrelevant and there is clearly no consensus here. Second, three to two is statistically even anyway, even if majorities did matter.  Thirdly, if you think Darkness refuted my argument you haven't understood my argument.  Yes, those episodes are clearly victim blaming.  Yes, they are reported in reliable sources.  No, they are not described in reliable sources as useful examples of victim blaming.  Do you not see the distinction?  If you want to include them in an article that purports to explain what victim blaming is you should have more than your unsupported opinion that they exemplify victim-blaming.  You say they are victim-blaming on their face, but it's OR to decide that they're such important examples of victim blaming that they should be used to illustrate it here. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is clearly no consensus support for deletion. So please don't edit war, without consensus support for your point of view.  Also, Darkness quite well refuted what you suggested.  There is no need for, in such evident examples of victim blaming, in the recent past, covered internationally, for the article itself to state: "Hear ye, hear ye, this is a useful example."  One doesn't just make up requirements of that ilk.  Or, at least, should not.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Really, I don't actually care if the article about the instance of victim blaming states that it's victim blaming. What I care about is whether some reliable secondary source about victim blaming thinks that it matters as an instance of victim blaming.  On your argument every possible instance of victim blaming in the history of the world could be added to this article. Without that random additions of examples are synthesis.  Did Darkness refute that argument? &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're again making up rules. Are you now going to delete the list of notable people of City x, because even though the person is notable and they are from City x -- you will assert a non-existent rule that an RS asserts that it it "matters" that they person if from city x?  That's not how it works.  Obviously.  We all the time at wp reflect what is notable in an article.  We don't delete it on the basis that you are conjuring up.  And these instances are all -- as was pointed out repeatedly -- recent, attracted worldwide RS attention, and clearly notable ... and clearly on point.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That's funny, because I was going to suggest that you start List of incidents of victim-blaming and put your examples there, where I would have no problem with them. I'm not making up rules, I'm proposing a reasonable criterion for deciding whether or not an example of victim blaming should go in this article to explain what the concept of victim blaming means. Do you have some reason for including those particular examples at such length? They don't seem especially illustrative of anything to me and the length of the section seems to constitute undue weight. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If someone makes a page about proteins, there is nothing wrong with showing a few examples of proteins, even with pictures. For some reason this does not cause anyone objections. However, if one moves to political subjects, there are always political partisans who object to even the most obvious improvements. Of course one can and must provide a few examples of something he is talking about in the article. What exactly examples? Well, that can be a matter of discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * How exactly is this a political subject? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The rape of women would certainly have political dimensions. An intimidated segment of a society would be hampered in its ability to have input in areas that could clearly be called political. Blaming the victim in this instance erodes the role of women to have a political voice in their society. Bus stop (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Lots of things 'could' have political dimensions. What do you mean by 'this' instance? And why do you think that this article is solely about rape? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It tells "government officials and political leaders". My very best wishes (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Tells'? If you mean 'writes of', that is currently true for one of the examples arbitrarily chosen. As it is currently described. Based on a single source - the second 'source' is nothing but a rehash of the first source, and I'm going to delete it. Even a passing awareness of the case will indicate that it wasn't just politicians and 'opinion-makers' that were engaging in 'victim-blaming' - sadly it appears to be endemic in large sections of Indian society. If we are going to describe the case, we should at least do it properly, rather than making questionable assertions regarding who is doing the 'blaming'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it took all of two minutes to discover that we do have an article on this case: see 2012 Delhi gang rape case. It is apparent that the simplistic claim that " Indian government officials and political leaders blamed the victim" cannot be borne out. Some did, certainly. Many others didn't. It seems to me that by reducing a complex issue to a bald assertion, we are singularly misrepresenting the issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

break
Ok, I have found a notable case which even Andy will be happy with, it is not about rape, nor does it involve ethnic minorities nor even a Muslim. It is a very notable case of domestic violence, Marisol Aguirre who was married to Christian Meier When she went public with it Jaime Bayly on his TV show blamed her for it. Local violence, global media: feminist analyses of gendered representations p56. Any objections to this being included as a notable example? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this in addition to or instead of? Also, could you quote a few lines from your source?  It sounds like the kind of thing I'd prefer to have. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Instead of, I think (and hope) we can all agree on having one example of types of victim blaming, one for rape, one for domestic abuse, and so on. Otherwise it will be overkill. Will type up the quotes in a bit, about to eat. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * A brief mention in an academic work doesn't establish 'notability'. More to the point though, I have yet to see any explanation as to why we have to involve particular victims of 'victim blaming' in a discussion of such cases at all. It simply isn't necessary to describe the particulars of individual cases, and by doing so we risk compounding the harm done. It seems to me that where living individuals are concerned, WP:BLP policy becomes a key issue, and we should be very careful not to violate it - as I'd argue we may well do if we select cases, arbitrarily label them 'notable' and then use them as 'evidence'. Not only is this questionable on BLP grounds (where applicable), it looks to me to be verging on WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Nothing in the article is "necessary." Not one word.  Not the article itself. That's an empty argument.  This, however, is appropriate.  As per consensus.  As per the editors who have input it into the article, and opined above. And I see nothing "on BLP grounds" ... as with the word necessary, we don't (or shouldn't) just throw words around as the gravamen of our complaint, because they are nice,  weighty, official-sounding words.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Can we just wait and see what the source says about the example in relation to victim blaming before arguing about it? &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. sorry for the delay but I am a little worried that someone will say I only read a pert of a line "In 2007 the popular actress Marisol Aguirre filed for divorce from her husband, actor and singer Christian Meier, after 12 years of marriage. Meier, a white Peruvian from an affluent family, is among the most well known, respected, and adored(especially by young women) contemporary celebrities. Aguirre filed a domestic violence complaint on the grounds of physical and psychological abuse not long before she filed for divorce. After repeated questions about their divorce Aguirre appeared on the popular celebrity gossip show Magaly to declare that, for the sake of their children, she wanted to clarify that her husband and never punched or hit her. She explained that "physical violence doesn't necessarily mean being hit, but also breaking a door or violently grabbing something from someone, there are a thousand forms of physical violence". The day after Aguirre's appearance on the show, Magaly told her viewers there were always two people guilty in domestic violence, not just one. Aguirre's explanation of the subtleties of physical violence was widely interpreted as a declaration that there had been no physical abuse and that her husband, the beloved celebrity, should not be blamed. Within a few days of Aguirre's appearance on Magaly, another popular celebrity Jaime Bayly, used his TV show to discuss the Aguirre-Meier case and to ridicule Aguirre's statements about the abuse she experienced. Bayly told his viewers that only "real" physical violence deserved to be reported, breaking a door was not real violence. He also claimed that verbal violence did not meet the criteria of real violence and that Aguirre should have considered the impact of her complaints on her husband before filing her complaint. In the following days, more television commentators followed Bayly's example by question Aguirre and supporting Meier. Because it involved celebrities, the Aguirre-Meier case garnered significant public attention. As in previous cases discussed in this chapter, victim blaming characterized the Aguirre-Meier stories. In one interpretation, Aguirre's explanation of the violence she experienced is reinterpreted and wipes away her husbands blame. In a second interpretation, blame is directly shifted onto Aguirre for speaking out and reporting her husband. Notable among the coverage of the Aguirre-Meier case was an open letter sent by one dozen women's organizations to Bayly. Citing international laws and international treaties that theoretically govern Peru's treatment of domestic violence, the letter reminds Bayly that contrary to his statements, domestic violence includes psychological violence." Local violence, global media: feminist analyses of gendered representations pp55-56 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkness Shines (talk • contribs) 18:41, 7 May 2013‎


 * That seems entirely appropriate to me as an example. We have actual social scientists discussing the instance as illustrative of the concept of victim blaming.  I would especially like it if we could use it to replace all of the examples that are currently in there, because, as I said above, I don't see any evidence that experts consider those to be important examples of victim blaming.  Also, if AtG is worried about BLP concerns I don't think we have a problem here since the reliable source itself is offering this explicitly as an example of victim blaming. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wanna summarize it? I figure I can find a few other examples. The Serbian Kosovo conflict springs to mind, but I do not recall where I read it. Heading off in search. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mind. I have to split for a while so if anyone else wants to before I do they're welcome to.  Those pages are in the google books preview (you could have saved some typing) so I made a citation in case anyone else wants to do it:
 * &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sloppy sourcing
Could I ask that people pay a little more attention to proper sourcing? I've had to remove several sources from the disputed 'victim blaming' section. We had opinion pieces (not generally accepted as RS other than as the opinion of the author, obviously), sources which say 'according to' other sources, and vague generalisations clearly not borne out by the facts. This is not the way it is supposed to be done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Other Victim Blaming
Although rape is the stereo-typical victim blaming scenario, victim-blaming reaches into many other areas. I added a section to this page on Family Estrangement, about the knee jerk reaction of people to assume the parents were "bad" whenever there is a family estrangement. I included references, but it was deleted as being "off topic." It isn't off topic. There is a large population of good parents, no history of abuse or alcoholism, who have been emotionally cut off by their adolescent or adult children. Yet, the adult children are supported while the parents are stigmatized (they must have done something to deserve it.) Overindulgence, borderline personality disorder, alienating in-laws are all common themes.... yet the parent, who freely admits to not being perfect, is vilified without reasonable justification.... the equivalent of "she wore a short dress, so she was asking to be raped."

Anyone with me on this? Willing to undo the deletion of my short Family Estrangement section at the tail end of this article on Victim Blaming? Think Rachel Canning's assertion that her father gave her a sense of being inappropriate when he kissed her on the cheek in public becoming an indictment against him in a legal finding.

Seabreezes1 Seabreezes1 (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Do the sources you cite actually discuss victim blaming in any depth? And do they support your assertion that there is a 'knee jerk reaction of people to assume the parents were "bad" whenever there is a family estrangement'? It seems to me to be a rather sweeping generalisation to be making about a complex topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I have not been able to recover my edits to this article to specifically address your critique, AndyTheGrump. Perhaps you can help me with that? I don't want to rewrite it multiple times to have it rejected. I certainly can pull quotes from the article about "real or perceived stigma" to replace "kneejerk" and will be happy to do so. However, although "in depth" is a relative term, yes, there is research quality documentation in Bowen theory, Shunning, Karpman Drama Triangle, and Family Estrangement indicating that there is a psychological predisposition to "blame the parents" when an adult child estranges, and for the parents to beat themselves up about what they did wrong, when they didn't do anything to deserve this type of treatment. It is part of our collective tendency to believe that if something that bad happens to someone, they must have done something wrong, consequently it's not going to happen to us and we don't want to associate with the person who did wrong, i.e. victim blaming See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_estrangement Seabreezes1 (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Past versions of an article are almost always viewable via the article history: see . With regard to the substantive issue, I wonder whether it might be worthwhile asking for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

This discussion on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology was rerouted back to talk:family estrangement and talk:victim-blaming
 * I tried adding a new section to the end of victim-blaming article on family estrangement, but one person undid it, because he felt it might be "off topic." He suggested I query this group as to the appropriateness of family estrangement in this context. See:

BTW: I intend to add another section to family estrangement article on Scenarios involving value based rejection, i.e. religion change or sexual orientation, and on grandparents, but need more documented research on those areas before I add. Seabreezes1 (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree that the addition to victim blaming was off-topic; the online sources for that section did not even mention victim blaming, and while I haven't looked up the offline sources, I doubt that, say, one documenting a rise in narcissism will provide useful information on victim blaming. Huon (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is focusing on the type of estrangement that is somewhat below the radar. The increasing family dissolution for non-violent reasons. A common refrain is that a dtr or son in law prompted a complete cut-off without giving any reason to the parents. There are also PTSD type stories about soldiers and other victims or assault estranging from families, which isn't anything new, but not really researched with this filter. Seabreezes1 (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The 2010 study indicates that intergenerational "disharmony" is the worst in the US. Seabreezes1 (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The analogy repeated in support groups for parents is that they feel like rape victims, that folks assume they did something to deserve the ostracism, that they are afraid to talk about it because then people treat them differently.... hence my suggestion it belongs in victim-blaming.Seabreezes1 (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Karpman drama triangle does confuse things. The estranger claims they were victimized and points the finger at the estranged, who then becomes the victim..... Seabreezes1 (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The research by Kylie Agllias is the best recent research that I've found that focuses on this topic. Otherwise, see the 3 external links.
 * I expect and hope the Family Estrangement article grows, and sparks more research in this area. Really, it is not unlike what rape was 40 years ago. Something that isn't talked about. A taboo subject. Seabreezes1 (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

See talk:family estrangement for comments about family estrangement as a topic apart from victim blaming Seabreezes1 (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)