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.