@pierogi (btw that’s a little meat dumpling type thing in Russian isn’t it) sorry I’m having difficulties with hot copper at present.
if you understand Stockholm syndrome you’d know about the complexity of the psychological process that creates an emotional attachment between the prisoner and their captor. While it’s application to family violence is a little debated there are similarities. There is a proposition that the prisoner needs to do things that please or pacify the captor. There’s a psychological tension in that because there is also fear and sometimes terror. Humans can’t really manage that dissonance and so the result is to create emotional bonds. The alternative is most likely dangerous. If you hate your oppressor you either experience shame for not taking action even though it might be dangerous to do so, or you do act and put yourself at risk. in addition where this syndrome is in evidence the captors are not continually cruel. They may perform acts of relative kindness or thoughtfulness.
people who show symptoms of Stockholm syndrome typically experience PTSD subsequently
so there are parallels with family violence. I outlined some of them in an earlier post. But to try and use a sound bite - the psychological and emotional environment in many situations where family violence occurs is complex. What would seem to be rational is not an automatic choice. Foolish or not staying often seems like the more rational choice, or it seems the less complicated path.
we know that it takes on average seven attempts for a woman to leave an abusive relationship. If it were that easy and obvious that average would be far lower
we also know that the most dangerous time for an abused woman is when they leave a relationship. That suggests that women may be right - staying is the lesser of two evils
btw I wasn’t irked by what you wrote. I don’t see the point in getting emotional about this topic. That makes it much harder to address and avoid the extremities we saw in this case or the psychological damage that happens to both parties (and to the children if there are any).
I don’t like labelling. It doesn’t allow an understanding of the complexity of this topic and because it makes the discussion personal emotions get raised. I’m glad you didn’t do that. I don’t think it’s got to do with politics - it’s got to do with human behaviour and the social environment and values.
I’m interested in what the research has to say on the topic. I’m interested in reasoned debate
I have one other question - why is it that if someone has an alternative perspective and sets that out that is considered shutting people down. On that basis everyone on this page whose views are different is sort of shutting down some aspect of others position. If you have a different view from me and speak it are you shutting me down? I don’t think so. I think you have a different view and you may or may not ever agree with me. In life that might make a difference to whether I can connect with you but that’s it. So if I have a different view to marketinfo and thalweg and express it does that mean I am shutting them down or are they trying to shut me down by responding negatively to me.
not once have I told anyone to stop expressing their views or accuse them of trying to shut me down. I haven’t noticed anyone else doing that to them either. So what is it that makes them - and you - respond by suggesting censoring is going on.
