Saturday, 6 June 2009

Another Arm on the Octopus of Woman's Insanity

At The Evil Style Queen, commenter Carl makes an excellent point:
Do you think Stockholm Syndrome really exists as most people know it?

When the women of the Norrmalmstorg robbery behaved so insanely during and after the incident it was too big and too ridiculous an issue to just brush under the carpet. So someone had to come up with an explanation and it couldn't sound like some update of Victorian "hysteria" (i.e. merely point out that all sufferers were female!) or they would have been ignored.

But really, other than the time scale, how is it any different to women staying with abusive partners or even the slow surrender to the barbarians at the gates?

How many adult men have suffered from Stockholm syndrome vs adult women. On the other side how many captive women have pulled off an "Hawaiian good luck sign"?

I think that eventually Stockholm syndrome will be viewed as just another arm on the octopus of woman's insanity.

In other words, "Stockholm syndrome" isn't an excuse for women like this but just the politically correct way of saying everything you did about her. A way to state the truth without admitting the truth.
The links Carl provided (see here and here) explain the "Hawaiian good luck sign" and reveal how MEN react under the pressure of kidnapping as shown by the crew members of USS Pueblo:

USS Pueblo was a Navy intelligence ship which was captured by North Korea in January 1968. For the next 11 months, Commander Bucher and his crew were held as POWs by the North Koreans, and were starved and tortured during their captivity. The treatment became even harsher when the North Koreans finally understood that crewmen were giving them "the finger" in staged propaganda photos, which they had explained as a "Hawaiian good luck sign". The men mocked their captors, too, by the wording of extorted confessions. As none of the North Koreans spoke English well enough to write such a confession himself, they were reduced to just verifying the meaning of the words, but failed to catch the puns and popular cultural hints: "We paean [pee on] the North Korean state. We paean their great leader Kim Il Sung". And: "We, as conscientious human beings who were cast upon the rocks and shoals of immorality by the tidal waves of Washington’s naughty policies know that neither the frequency nor the distances of these transgressions into the territorial waters of this sovereign peace-loving nation matter because penetration however slight is sufficient to complete the act," "Rocks and Shoals" being Navy jargon for the Uniform Code of Military Justice and "penetration however slight" the legal definition of rape.)


What conclusion can we draw from this? I have discussed earlier at this blog women who damage or even kill their own children to get attention:
If those perpetrators hadn't been female they would have been labelled simply evil. As they are, there is a long name now for it: Münchhausen by proxy syndrome.
And the Stockholm syndrome sufferers, we can safely assume, hysterical.

Maybe the answer to the question why the same women who refuse to accept good, caring men, but rather choose to vilify and marginalize them, succumb so easily to evil and alien forces, is really, as Carl suggests, insanity.

I guess, should another USS Pueblo incident happen today, the brave men, once home again, would have to face a trial for mocking the great plight and heroic efforts of the feminist movement.

9 comments:

Alligator said...

This is quite true about many girls and women that I knew during my high school and college years. They had boyfriends that were total jerks, would cheat on them, verbally abuse them and I suspect some were physically abused by them.

In a couple of situations, I found myself listening to and consoling these girls after a bad situation. After telling them I wouldn't treat them that way, I thought they were valuable as a person etc., they would respond with something like "That's so sweet of you" and then promptly go back to the jerk. After awhile, I quit being a soft shoulder to those kinds of women. What a waste of my time.

Mind you in those days I was still fairly athletic, very tall (and had all my hair) so I didn't look like Quasimodo. But I was a nice guy, honest and pretty dependable and never really got into trouble or made trouble for anyone. However, the "bad boys" in school seemed to draw many of the young ladies like flies to honey. The phenomenon dumbfounded me and several of my buddies.

Conversely, when we finally did find girls that would give us the time of day and married them, it has stayed long term. The girls who chased the bad boys didn't seem to catch on until their late 30s or early 40s or until after the second or third divorce.

Certainly, not all women behave this way but I've seen enough turn down really decent guys for "bad boys" to make me ask why this peculiarity exists. Maybe its because guys like me seem boring? If the ladies want excitement, they should take up rock climbing, whitewater kayaking or rattlesnake wrangling. Its a safer and less psychologically damaging way to get excitement than dating or marrying jerks.

Alligator said...

About the Pueblo incident - I remember it quite well. We got a kick watching the news broadcasts because every American understood what was going on and the media wasn't so quick to explain it ot the North Koreans.

Guys held in North Vietnam did some similar things to send out message or defy their captors. Unfortunately, I think the third world communists are probably more sophisticated and would catch on more quickly to similar defiance today. After all, we help educate them in our universities and our media tells them everything we do. Absolutely everything.

Carl said...

Munchhausen by proxy syndrome fits my theory (PC term for X) better than Stockholm syndrome does, although maybe that's just because Stockholm syndrome is a bigger and longer running lie and so it's harder to shake off. Two hundred years ago these women probably would have claimed to be possessed by demons and would have been socially outcast because of either fear or a recognition of their penchant for drama. These days they get book deals.


There's also a reason I said adult men vs adult women. I can't find any actual investigation into the sex of sufferers but the only times I remember males being reported sufferers is when they are boys involved in custody battles, boys kidnapped in China by jealous parents, and so on (i.e. always young boys).

Maybe these cases are just thrown in to even up the sex balance but if they are genuine cases of what doctors term "Stockholm syndrome" then I don't find anything actually strange about young children behaving this way. Or is every adopted child or hand reared baby animal a life time sufferer of Stockholm syndrome?

In fact everyone expects this behaviour from young children or they wouldn't be so reluctant to adopt teenagers. Orphaned teenage boys are the hardest to get adopted exactly because they're least likely to show this behaviour.

So we follow this line of thought to its conclusion and it appears that these fully grown women who claim "Stockholm syndrome" are in fact behaving like 10 year old boys and girls. But why?


So now I have three possible rough causes for the behaviour of women like Joanie de Rijke; child-women (what I just wrote about), teenage-women stuck with a high school mentality who just want to feel holier than thou (what your previous blog post was about), or fully grown adult-women who just want to be sexually dominated (the age old man in the pub explanation). Which of the three you pick will depend on whether you're PUA, MRA or [insert camp] but I'm sure there's a common denominator to all three.

Carl said...

BTW, do you remember when Norman Kember was kidnapped in Iraq? He got lampooned by the media for being stupid and risking the lives of the troops who had to rescue him.

This BBC article covers some of it but the tabloids gave him a much harder time.

Of course he hasn't learnt a thing but at least the media gave him hell at the time, unlike what these stupid women have received.

The_Editrix said...

'gator, how very interesting! I always marvel at American youth culture. We simply didn't and still don't have anything like that here. Sports are virtually nonexisting at schools and universities, no proms, no beauty pageants, nothing to further COLLECTIVELY athleticism or physical attractiveness. When I first read as an impressionable youth the novel "Exodus" by Leon Uris and came to the point where that American nurse wants to adopt that Jewish girl and take her to the States, describing what an American teen (as opposed to a Jewish teen in what was to become Israel between 1945 and 1948) does, I thought: "About what is that woman TALKING? And she even seems to think all that is a good thing!" Basically, I still think that, but then, I may not understand it and I don't want to be of what I accuse many Americans: namely being presumptious regarding things I don't know well enough. Your point that "when we finally did find girls that would give us the time of day and married them, it has stayed long term" is well made!

We, as teens, have been very serious, very political, and what sport we did we did it individually outside school. Any marked interest in "beauty" and looks would have been considered shallow and I think BASICALLY, although the entire level of awareness has undergone a "yobbofication" (as I call it) that has remained the same among the young in those families where a certain emphasis is put on education.

By and large, I perceive American (men and women), at least those who are in the public eye, to be better groomed, infinitely more "polished", than we are and I think that is one positive outcome of that beauty cult. But is is worth it?

"Unfortunately, I think the third world communists are probably more sophisticated and would catch on more quickly to similar defiance today. After all, we help educate them in our universities and our media tells them everything we do."

Exactly! When I read that, my first thought was how stunning it is that only 40 years ago North Koreans (and presumably reasonably educated North Koreans) wouldn't understand the cultural references. And yes, we are teaching "them" our ways to understand and fight us better, although Communism has taken a seat in the back row now.

The_Editrix said...

Munchhausen by proxy syndrome fits my theory (PC term for X) better than Stockholm syndrome does, although maybe that's just because Stockholm syndrome is a bigger and longer running lie and so it's harder to shake off. Two hundred years ago these women probably would have claimed to be possessed by demons and would have been socially outcast because of either fear or a recognition of their penchant for drama. These days they get book deals.

Carl, I hope I am not being too repetitive if I bring up again the sexual liberation of women as a culprit. These days women who would have been outcast X years ago as adulteresses and prostitutes now get book deals and (flattering) media coverage as well. I think (I may be wrong, though) that Marianism has lumbered our culture with an unintended and unexpected burden. While Islam states that all women are temptresses and evil, our Christian culture presumes the opposite. That functioned as long as women were willing to perform their duties in a traditional society, i.e. as long as they were busy and satisfied with their role as wives and mothers and supervised and reined-in by society. In our permissive age, women's natural proneness for the shallow and footle coupled with an intense desire for attention wreaks havoc on society, the more as the latter won't understand what is happening. It can't be the saintly women's, images of the Madonna all of them, fault or can it? And if women are behaving whorish there MUST be an evil man behind it, right?

There's also a reason I said adult men vs adult women. I can't find any actual investigation into the sex of sufferers but the only times I remember males being reported sufferers is when they are boys involved in custody battles, boys kidnapped in China by jealous parents, and so on (i.e. always young boys).



So we follow this line of thought to its conclusion and it appears that these fully grown women who claim "Stockholm syndrome" are in fact behaving like 10 year old boys and girls. But why?


What about: Because women, different from men, have, naturally, TO RELATE to children and thus remain stuck in a juvenile stage? (Just a spontaneous idea of mine.)

So now I have three possible rough causes for the behaviour of women like Joanie de Rijke; child-women (what I just wrote about), teenage-women stuck with a high school mentality who just want to feel holier than thou (what your previous blog post was about), or fully grown adult-women who just want to be sexually dominated (the age old man in the pub explanation). Which of the three you pick will depend on whether you're PUA, MRA or [insert camp] but I'm sure there's a common denominator to all three.

The above would largely explain that, wouldn't it? There is nothing wrong about being stuck mentally in a juvenile stage, or in a stage of submissive sexuality, as long as that is sanctioned by society and put to good use. It goes awry as soon as those people (i.e. women) are told that they can do anything men can do as well, including being sexually "liberated". We all can watch around us what an unbridled mentality stuck in a juvenile (shallow, fiddling, footling, attention seeking) stage coupled with sexual submissiveness of half of the population does to society.

The Norman Kember case was new to me. To be fair to us Germans, Susanne Osthoff, another traveller to Iraq, got her fair share of flak in the media after she'd been freed, which I consider a symptom of the fact that we are (yet) not quite as overtaken by feminism as you are. However, the observation that women are enjoying a grotesque head start in the media is doubtlessly true.

Alligator said...

Without reiterating the excellent point made by both Carl and Nora, I was reminded of yet another Dutch woman named Tanja Nijmeijer, age 29, who was in the jungles of Colombia fighting with communist guerrillas of FARC. In July of 2007, the army hit a FARC base camp. The women of the unit were bathing and fled into the jungle in their underwear. The army found the diary of the little Dutch girl turned leftist guerrilla. It sounds like all was not paradise in the people's liberation army:

"24 November, 2006. I am tired, tired of the FARC, tired of the people, tired of communal life. Tired of never having anything for myself. And this might be worth it if I knew what we were fighting for."

"August 23 I called home! Mum cried and Dad too. Now all I have to wait for is my punishment."

"At times I want to stop following orders. Following the orders of a bunch of sexists that try to kill birds with hunting rifles. I feel like a nobody all day; I am not useful and I have to do what every idiot tells me or I get fined."

"June 13. I have got a friend. We have negotiated and he is going to speak to the boss to see if we can be together. Without even a kiss or anything. Pure negotiation. The guy is interesting and handsome."
(She has to have permission from the commander to have a boyfriend)

"21 July. There are two comrades with AIDS, perhaps more. Here, nobody uses condoms. As far as I know the girl has no idea what it means. She told me the news smiling and her partner does not appear worried. A third girl who slept with the guy is well depressed."

"What will it be like when we (FARC) take power? The women of the commanders will have Ferraris, breast implants and eat caviar. At least that is how it seems,"

"13 June. Sometimes I dream of my mum and Elle and I wake up crying. Always the same question: did I do the right thing? Would I have been happy if I had stayed a civilian in Holland? What would I be doing? Would I be going out with someone, married, with kids?"

Nijmeijer's mother traveled to a guerrilla camp in 2005 to try to persuade her daughter to return home, but "Tanja's mind was not to be changed".

However, the diary clearly shows she is tortured with uncertainty and regrets. All that "idealism" pumped into her brain by the academic left about helping the poor and downtrodden in Colombia simply turned out to be a path to Hell. And that the FARC guerrillas are really selfish, beastly, brutal people - who'd have ever thought it?

Of course, people who could have warned ladies like Nijmeijer of what they were really getting into would be dismissed and derided by academia, certain political animals and of course, much of the mainstream media. Whether this case demonstrates some kind of emotional illness or just plain stupidity I don't know. Probably both. But it does show that the unfettered idealism of people like Joanie de Rijke and Tanja Nijmeijer is as dangerous as loaded gun with the safety off. Could you imagine if either of them had gotten into positions of political power and influence and managed to lead their nation on the path they ended up following? Their idealism and "love" "compassion" and "sensitivity" would get a lot of people killed, enslaved or just made miserable in life.

here were fears that since Nijmeijer's diaries were published for her commanders to see, she could have been placed in real jeopardy. I haven't heard any more about her since the initial story broke.

The_Editrix said...

'gator, I never heard of that dumb wench before. It seems she's still with FARC and still in the headlines.

If you look at that picture in a German newspaper, she's got the same vacuous, smug expression like de Rijke. They are all awfully pleased with themselves.

I just recalled "Patty" Hearst. She's maybe the worst of all those female trainwrecks because she -- literally -- got away with murder.

Alligator said...

Well all I can say for Ms. Nijmeijer and Ms. Rikje is that if you eat s**t long enough, you get used to it and at some point after that, you will think it tastes good. But its still just s**t.

You see the same kind of phenomenon with men who have been in prison for many years or decades. They can't adapt or function on the outside when they are released. Some want to go back to the safety and security and the order that prison provided in their lives. They've adapted and now they know no other way to live. Prison is "normalcy" for them. Of course truly normal people recognize the error of this thinking (that's not to say that society is not better off with some people staying in prison)