>>Can we close this conversation? :)
>
>To the subject of 'victimhood' or the 'victim mentality' in general:
>
>You might be interested in items 4,5, 6, and 7:
>
>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/brothers/362662_joyce528.html
>
>While everyone is not always responsible for everything that happens to them, they are each responsible for their own contentment. For some, a life of victimhood and whining for sympathy is a conscious choice. There is a difference between being a real 'victim' of a crime (and then receiving sympathy and support to work through it and above it) and imagining yourself as always the victim in every circumstance.

I've read the article. I found it difficult to answer the questions because it was always either True of False. On every item I'd have preferred an interval. The answers contained better texts and most remarks made there are IMO correct. However, there were some that I disagree with. But you do not want to discuss each of them, do you? :)

About your conclusion here above. I understand what you're saying. Nevertheless I'm inclined to believe that the use of the concept of 'victim mentality' mainly serves an irrational wish to get done with it, to lower involvement. I'm inclined to believe that characterizing someone as having a 'victim mentality' is wrong. Instead, a thorough analysis of such a person will probably reveal that his/her skills, knowledge of the real world and opinion about what's right and wrong show fallacies and weak spots that cause this person to get into troublesome situations more often than others who have a better set of skills, a more correct knowledge of the world and a more correct opinion about justice.

There's esp. one insight that may be helpful for a victim who wants to solve the problem: A victim cannot be held responsible for what happened, but can be held responsible for what's done with it.