There’s a new feminist initiative to redesign the language to serve the goals of Cultural Marxism. Nash Montana, who translated the article, includes this explanatory note:
This idea has been floating on the internet for a couple of weeks or so: to change the term “victim” into “experiencer”, especially in connection with sexual violence. It’s probably not going to go anywhere, but still, it’s pretty sick.
To illustrate the trend, I chose an op-ed written by Ursula Scheer from the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
This new Orwellian transformation has gotten underway in German. Has anyone seen a similar effort in English or French? Leave a note in the comments if you’ve heard of the same proposal for the equivalent word in another language.
The translated article:
Experience Rape?
[Erlebnis = “experience, adventure, epiphany, aha moment, great experience, extraordinary experience, unforgettable experience, thrilling, déjà vu, hair-raising…” take your pick. I chose “experience”, but maybe it should be any of the others in NewGermanSpeak. — translator]
A culture scientist suggests that the victims of violent crimes should be called “experiencers”. Many women are fighting back, because that is how criminal deeds are being made invisible through language.
To speak of victims when talking about rape is wrong. And also in connection with the Holocaust, one shouldn’t use that term. The more appropriate description — because it’s value-free and neutral — for people who had to go through sexual violence especially, is called “experiencers”. And that’s how it’s supposed to be entered into the dictionary. A rape is an experience? It’s pretty breathtaking what the author of “Missy” and culture scientist Myth Sanyal together with the student Marie Albrecht have propagated in a co-authored text in the TAZ [Die Tageszeitung]. And it becomes more breathtaking with every stage of the argument in the article, which leads straight into the abyss — and therefore is representative of the lunatic path of a reactionary feminism that is mostly home on the internet, which pretends to be at the forefront of the war for the equality of all genders and identities, ethnicities and classes with tons of hashtags and roaring language restrictions, but in reality merely perpetuates a contempt for victims.
Just how effective it is when one liquidates the term “victim”, is shown perfectly by the article in the TAZ. The term “victim” — similar to “injured” and “affected” — judges people to be “defenseless, passive and at the mercy of”, as one can read there. But it didn’t have to be that way. When someone tells about a car accident they were in, people don’t look at that person differently. “But exactly that happens when you replace “car accident” with “rape”? “One wants to ask: Which victim of a sexual crime or any other violent crime “experiences” themselves as able-bodied or well-fortified, active and self-determined (autonomous)? Is a car accident not something fundamentally different from a rape?
The refined linguistic intuition of the victim-beraters [those who berate and insult and revile victims]
Further on in the text: Because in Christendom the lamb stands for purity and innocence, “it seemed like a good idea to transfer the concept onto sexualized violence (or the Holocaust), in order to exculpate the victims of all guilt for the crimes perpetrated upon them.” Now, if one wants to think in the manner of a language seminar about violence, it should be imperative to consider the nuances that are included in “offering a sacrifice (victim)”, “to sacrifice (victimize) one-self”, and “to be made into a sacrifice (victim)”. But instead the authors attest to youths who berate others as “you victim”, a refined intuition for language. The questionable argument of a religiously derived pardon however (from what guilt, exactly?) lays the foundation for a even more questionable conclusion of the text: Though to call oneself victim is the right of anyone, but the term “experiencer” should be favored by third parties. It won’t “make a statement about motivation or role-allocation.”
Precisely, and exactly that disavows the argument. Where there is no victim, there is no perpetrator anymore, either. Where something is experienced, nothing will be suffered. Back in 2016 Mithu Sandal wanted to break the “victim discourse” with her book “rape”, in which among other things she wrote about Silvester Night of 2015 in Cologne, and insisted that society needs to distance itself from speaking of men as always the offenders, and of women as always the victims. Alone: The overwhelming number of rape victims is female (and the victims of the attacks in Cologne, too, were women.)
The crime will linguistically disappear
Many outraged people on the Internet and in social networks have in the meantime recognized that the suggested abolition of the term “victim” does not free someone from being a victim; on the contrary it only shows that there are those who simply dislike victims’ suffering. On the website of the feminist bloggers “The Troublemakers”, victims of sexual violence protested against the article in an open letter. Among the first people signing were leading members of the Women’s Rights organization ‘Terre des Femems’, Femen members and women from Initiatives such as #IDidn’tReport.
“Sexual violence is not an experience,” it says. To change the meaning into an “experience, similar to going to a concert or on vacation” negates the fact that victims cannot choose their victimization, and it causes the violent crime to disappear, including the perpetrator: “Sexual violence is a crime.” That we have to hammer that back into the brains of these experts says everything.
I’m only guessing, but maybe the loonies* proposing this change in the use of language imagine it will “empower” the victims- sorry, “experiencers”?
*Technical term used by psychiatrists and psychologists.
[Editor: Replaces my earlier note, with a few minor corrections]
This essay makes more sense in German than in English. The German word “Opfer” has two meanings: [1] sacrifice, with a religious connotation, as in
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/aztecs/sacrifice-4.jpg , and
[2] victim (of a crime or accident).
So the “sacrifice” meaning of “Opfer” can get conflated with its “victim” meaning. One way to avoid this conflation is to use some other word for “victim” instead of “Opfer”. The essayist suggests “Erlebende”, which might correspond to “experiencer” or “undergoer”.
P.S. What’s the meaning of the red things (what are they?) being held in the three women’s mouths? And why is the woman on the right wearing a T-shirt with the English word SLUT ? What’s wrong with SCHLAMPE ?
The flower in the mouth symbolizes a german phrase, “Durch die Blume reden”, meaning, “using flowery language”, in other words, roses smell good and if we give rosy meanings to bad words, then it’s all good.
Slut/Schlampe: It’s “cool” to use english words on t-shirts sold at H&M, C&A. and Aldi, don’t you know?
As far as your Opfer thingy, yes. I’ve grappled with the article, and I think I caught the appropriate meanings whenever they were either meant “sacrifice” or “victim”.
Thank you.
But the word ‘Erlebnis’ is generally positive. One ‘erlebt’ a great holiday. One ‘erlebt’ an exciting sexual experience that is not rape, even if one doesn’t want to repeat it (eg. trying out a same-sex experience). The word is completely wrong for rape.
It strikes me that this word also has associations with ‘enrichment’. And that gives it a whole new context in the pro-mass migration narrative. This blog uses ‘enrichment’ and ‘enrichers’ in an ironic way. It seems that the people pushing this replacement word for ‘victim’ are wittingly or unwittingly extending the narrative of enrichment to its logical conclusion – in the face of barbaric reality ‘enrichment’ must be extended beyond spicy food and colourful clothes.
Yes :(.
Yes, “opfer” might mean sacrifice as well as victim. It’s the context that tells you what is meant. In context of the article I did not think for one moment of the meaning of sacrifice.
And as already is pointed out, “Erlebnis” mostly is something positive, something that you enjoyed more often than not, in some way “a lesson for life”.. OTOH the first translation of “experience” that would come to my mind is “Erfahrung”, both being neutral with respect to what happened.
Greetings from Germany!
“Schlechte Erfahrung” then (bad experience), would be far more appropriate than ‘Erlebnis’.
This is done to destigmatize the rapist.
I guess there were 6 million Jews who “experienced” the Holocaust and the Nazis, or for that matter, any criminal is considered[an] “experience enhancer”?
The word has ‘Leben’ in it: living. So being murdered can’t be an Erlebnis.
Extreme socialists (including National Socialists) who believe that the ends justify the means, but who are also not psychopaths, also have to live with the guilt of their (group) actions, they KNOW that murdering people to achieve political or religious aims is wrong. They will therefore wriggle and waggle trying to project blame, and to convince themselves that, in this case, those 6 million Jooz ‘deserved’ it. It was for them a ‘life changing’ experience.
The whole idea of ‘Islamophobia’ is the same construct, Muslims KNOW that there is something terribly, terribly wrong with Islam, but they also don’t want to have to acknowledge the fact because then they will have to clean up their act.
Hence [lies] are best!
Maybe some of the perps should EXPERIENCE what it’s like to be on death row somewhere.
Or maybe they should EXPERIENCE what it’s like to be an Opfer, as in
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/aztecs/sacrifice-4.jpg .
The term “rape survivor” has been in use in America for quite a few years. It’s a similar whitewashing, i.e., rape victims are empowered by “surviving” rape, it’s a rite of passage for women, in fact anyone who hasn’t been raped yet isn’t a real woman, you have to suffer and move on to be authentic.
Nothing surprises us anymore. Young infants (under 4 years) barely able to string two words together made to colour in “Mr Willy’s Pants”. This is “British Values”. Are young mites still learning to speak now “Experiencers”? Whatever these “cultural Marxists” are, they are sick in their minds. Like all this obsession with thought control and expression I am stunned that people think it does not matter. The silence is deafening. We should be on the streets in our millions in righteous indignation. Rape is a terrible event.
Germany will throw its woman to the invaders just as Hitler shoved German indigents into ovens.
George Orwell said they will be changing the language in order to stop people from thinking. If they change victims into experiencers, what information goes missing?
I’d say the information that a crime happened.
Then – this is legalising rape. where have I seen legitimising rape before? All you german girls wear slutty miniskirts and you deserve it, you know…
This reminds me of the 70’s in England when the lefties were trying to normalise paedophilia. It didn’t work. I don’t think this will either.
I have to declare that this madness really appeals to the darker side of my sense of humor, gallows humor to be exact.
What I want to know is if this new standard also applies to white guys. If so …
Maybe those proposing such things should be send to a weekend in Stockholm or Malmö to “experience” what they’re proposing and then, after their return, we can ask them if they feel more like they had a great “erlebnis” (since it’s usually used in positive conotations) or as victims.
For me however, a victim is anyone who had to go through something against their will. In these guidelines, having been raped can’t make anyone anything but a victim.
Seriously, even though it’s just online most of the time, such statements should be put under heavy criticism!
The whole affair calls a few things in mind to me.
First, is the separation of intelligence into separate and unrelated abilities. The writers like Ursula Scheer have high verbal intelligence, but absolutely no other type of intelligence or ability. Academia, or funded foundations are the only places this type of people can exist.
Second and more prominent is the absolute determination of the leftists to dissolve the Western culture. The concept of “victims” has a long history, and pretty well establishes the description we want to convey. Imagine the difficulty in explaining to a rape victim why she (increasingly with the prevalence of Muslims, he) is not adequately described as a victim. Mostly, it doesn’t make sense.
So, the virtue in the leftists minds, of changing the terminology is to further dissolve the bindings of common language and concepts among Westerners. The more diverse the language, the fewer the shared meanings, the less in common people have. Like feminists defending FGM, these writers are only using women, or supposed compassion for rape, as a means to approach their real interest: cultural deconstruction.
It’s like asking why gays march against Trump and in support of gay-killing Muslims. Because the “gay” leaders are interested only in the narrative and could care less about actual gays.
Though no proponent of changing language, there is an aspect of this that is not coming to the front. One of the most devastating consequences of rape or child molestation is not the actual experience and trauma (which is bad enough), but the stigmatization of the victims, who often long to again be the “same” when they were still “whole”. They want other people to interact normally with them, in the same way as before they became “victims”. In a real sense they are sacrificial victims, since the shame of social violence is imputed to them and they become the only ones who bear this burden of shame. I remember how awestruck I was the first time I met a Jew with a tatooed number (in a ski gondola) — it immediately becomes difficult to carry on an easy going conversation and treat them normally, as before. Children who are the victims of relatively harmless pedophile attentions are often more traumatized by the reaction of the adults [that the child has become an (unwitting) party to something horrible and terrible, and is now tainted, stained, blemished, and altered for life] than the events themselves. Male victims of sexual violence bear a double burden because in addition to being a victim, their manhood is diminished. Even victims of non-sexual violence are subject to the same dynamic albeit it less charged.
In this sense victims have every reason to get out from under their victim role. However, most interventions stress assuring them that they are in no way to blame. This type of messaging does not work whatsoever, because it is a rational conclusion that does not in fact interact with the shame. People can be made to feel shame even though they have done nothing shameful or blameworthy.