Use of the word "Survivor"....

[AJL308]

Read this article today and it's prompted me to post this question here as I've wondered about for for a while..


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-5884800...

Why is the word "survivor" used by the media and various campaigners when it really isn't appropriate? I mean, it should properly be used only to refer to something which has a high likelihood of causing a risk to life, one would think. Why is it used to refer to things like rape which really don't pose a significant risk of death?

I can appreciate its use in reference to things like cancer but not a lot of the other things it's used in relation to. Surely "victim" is the more appropriate term to use?

[Dog Star]

It’s up there with “hero”. I associate that with rescuing people while under heavy machine gun fire and getting your limbs shot off in the process.

[popeyewhite]

It's not appropriate really for someone cured of cancer either (except in very few cases). Like me. I mean either your cancer is treatable, or it isn't. How you deal with the treatment is largely down to luck and perseverance. It's not a "battle" either!

[ZedLeg]

AJL308 said:

Read this article today and it's prompted me to post this question here as I've wondered about for for a while..


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-5884800...

Why is the word "survivor" used by the media and various campaigners when it really isn't appropriate? I mean, it should properly be used only to refer to something which has a high likelihood of causing a risk to life, one would think. Why is it used to refer to things like rape which really don't pose a significant risk of death?

I can appreciate its use in reference to things like cancer but not a lot of the other things it's used in relation to. Surely "victim" is the more appropriate term to use?

The point is that survivor is positive and gives the person agency whereas victim is negative and passive.

[46and2]

popeyewhite said:

It's not appropriate really for someone cured of cancer either (except in very few cases). Like me. I mean either your cancer is treatable, or it isn't. How you deal with the treatment is largely down to luck and perseverance. It's not a "battle" either!

Exactly, my brush with it involved a 60min operation. I'm not a survivor, If I called myself that i think I would be belittling those who really have suffered.
Plus i'm superstitious and don't want to tempt fate.

[768]

Dog Star said:

It’s up there with “hero”. I associate that with rescuing people while under heavy machine gun fire and getting your limbs shot off in the process.

We haven't had much of that in Europe for a while. I think it's skewed some perspectives.

[popeyewhite]

MrBogSmith said:

It's perfectly encompassed within the definition.

Simple as that really.

Nope. Context.

[ZedLeg]

Obviously if people don't feel comfortable using it for themselves that's fair enough but survivor isn't strictly reserved for a certain kind of trauma. It just means that someone has gone through a bad time and is on the other side of it.

[Dagnir]

To give gravity and legitimacy to whatever they apply it to, and consequently, elicit a response.


It's sad but lots of things are having their meaning diluted for the sake of personal gain at the moment.

[toohuge]

ZedLeg said:

The point is that survivor is positive and gives the person agency whereas victim is negative and passive.

Agreed.

Furthermore, the difference in mindset between victim and survivor (or whatever term you may deem appropriate) is huge

[otolith]

AJL308 said:

Why is it used to refer to things like rape which really don't pose a significant risk of death?

Have you looked into the impact of sexual violence on subsequent mental health?

[46and2]

ZedLeg said:

Obviously if people don't feel comfortable using it for themselves that's fair enough but survivor isn't strictly reserved for a certain kind of trauma. It just means that someone has gone through a bad time and is on the other side of it.

True

but

It just seems to me to be an extravagant word for what it describes in a lot of cases.

[popeyewhite]

MrBogSmith said:

popeyewhite said:

MrBogSmith said:

It's perfectly encompassed within the definition.

Simple as that really.

Nope. Context.

I'd say it fits the bottom one quite well.

CONTEXT!

[popeyewhite]

46and2 said:

popeyewhite said:

It's not appropriate really for someone cured of cancer either (except in very few cases). Like me. I mean either your cancer is treatable, or it isn't. How you deal with the treatment is largely down to luck and perseverance. It's not a "battle" either!

Exactly, my brush with it involved a 60min operation. I'm not a survivor, If I called myself that i think I would be belittling those who really have suffered.
Plus i'm superstitious and don't want to tempt fate.

Abso-bloody-lutely!

[Glosphil]

Only one of a number of words now used, at least to me, out of context.
A actress playing a part in a film is not going on a "journey", she's just doing her job.

[popeyewhite]

MrBogSmith said:

popeyewhite said:

MrBogSmith said:

popeyewhite said:

MrBogSmith said:

It's perfectly encompassed within the definition.

Simple as that really.

Nope. Context.

I'd say it fits the bottom one quite well.

CONTEXT!

Yes, the context being a sexual assault is a difficulty which a survivor will be coping with / have coped with.

You put put the shovel down on this one.

No idea what you're on about, but if you can't see there's more than one scenario involving 'survivor' under discussion then it's Specsavers for you.

[Eric Mc]

I'm wondering if people are running out of things to get angry about.

[Biggy Stardust]

Glosphil said:

Only one of a number of words now used, at least to me, out of context.
A actress playing a part in a film is not going on a "journey", she's just doing her job.

You can add "brave" for putting up with stuff that can't be altered.

[46and2]

MrBogSmith said:

he OP is talking about people whether people who have gone through sexual assaults and come out the other side can be called 'survivors' or not.

I'm saying, according to that third definition in the dictionary, they can.

Hope that helps.

I would agree, it was a traumatic event that is over and has been survived.

In terms of cancer, its a traumatic event that might be over but the 'survivor' can never know for sure unfortunately.

[Pothole]

AJL308 said:

Read this article today and it's prompted me to post this question here as I've wondered about for for a while..


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-5884800...

Why is the word "survivor" used by the media and various campaigners when it really isn't appropriate? I mean, it should properly be used only to refer to something which has a high likelihood of causing a risk to life, one would think. Why is it used to refer to things like rape which really don't pose a significant risk of death?

I can appreciate its use in reference to things like cancer but not a lot of the other things it's used in relation to. Surely "victim" is the more appropriate term to use?

Careful. Did you see the reaction to my objection to the plaudits heaped on people who stop taking drugs?

ETA: I disagree with you, by the way.

Edited by Pothole on Monday 11th October 21:00