Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Why do people of color vote for Trump?
After reading many articles, and pondering on how to answer this question, I've come to my conclusion:
Misogyny.
It's also why a lot of white people vote for him as well.
(yes, please usual disclaimer NOT ALL)
Latinos, Muslims, some aspects of black male culture are all heavily machismo (in different ways).
They don't want women in positions of power (same as white men).
Anyway, that's where I've landed.
It's all fear of women being equal or in charge.
Prove me wrong!
Also, I am NOT excusing women from this. Women can also be misogynists. Viciously so.
56 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
https://www.themarysue.com/viral-tweet-exposes-sexist-origins-of-stockholm-syndrome/
Sometimes, very rarely, social media opens your eyes to something you didn’t know or had never really examined, and today that thing was … Stockholm Syndrome. Twitter user Sarah Mohammed shared the following excerpt from the book See What You Made Me Do: Power, Control and Domestic Violence by Jess Hill and it’s completely realigning how many of us understand Stockholm Syndrome.
Stockholm Syndrome is something that’s become a pretty well-known idea, at least since the first time some of us heard about in reference to Sophie Marceau falling in love with her kidnapper Robert Carlyle in 1999’s Bond film The World is Not Enough. We apply the concept that a person (usually a woman) might fall in love (or deeply sympathize) with their captor to a lot of media, and Beauty and the Beast has become such a common example it’s nearly cliche to call out the idea. And culturally, we don’t go that much deeper into the term. The BBC gives the following quick rundown which is the standard story:
But, as we can see in the excerpt in the tweet above, there was a lot of sexism at work in the coining of the term. The hostage situation was mismanaged and most importantly, Nils Bejerot, the psychiatrist who invented the term, never spoke to the woman at the center of it and seems to have coined the term to make himself and the authorities look better. And it really calls into question how we think of Stockholm Syndrome and how there are so many phrases and ideas in our culture that we don’t examine enough, especially for the subtle ways they undermine women’s agency. Stockholm Syndrome is not a recognized diagnosis or disorder, and there are no accepted criteria for diagnosing it. But that doesn’t stop armchair psychiatrists from misapplying the idea to things like women in abusive relationships.
But Stockholm Syndrome is not the same as abuse, in fact, it’s a potentially very flawed idea that fails to encapsulate all the complexities of human emotion, survival responses, and psychology. The actual accounts of the Stockholm situation are far more about the hostages learning to see their captors as people, and developing empathy (which is what most of us do when we meet people). It is, essentially, human nature for someone in such a situation to feel (and inspire) empathy for their captors—which would better increase their chances for survival—and to reduce it to a syndrome is a way of reducing women’s feelings and humanity to something both outside of their control, as well as equivalent to mental illness and insanity.
snip
Sometimes, very rarely, social media opens your eyes to something you didn’t know or had never really examined, and today that thing was … Stockholm Syndrome. Twitter user Sarah Mohammed shared the following excerpt from the book See What You Made Me Do: Power, Control and Domestic Violence by Jess Hill and it’s completely realigning how many of us understand Stockholm Syndrome.
Stockholm Syndrome is something that’s become a pretty well-known idea, at least since the first time some of us heard about in reference to Sophie Marceau falling in love with her kidnapper Robert Carlyle in 1999’s Bond film The World is Not Enough. We apply the concept that a person (usually a woman) might fall in love (or deeply sympathize) with their captor to a lot of media, and Beauty and the Beast has become such a common example it’s nearly cliche to call out the idea. And culturally, we don’t go that much deeper into the term. The BBC gives the following quick rundown which is the standard story:
But, as we can see in the excerpt in the tweet above, there was a lot of sexism at work in the coining of the term. The hostage situation was mismanaged and most importantly, Nils Bejerot, the psychiatrist who invented the term, never spoke to the woman at the center of it and seems to have coined the term to make himself and the authorities look better. And it really calls into question how we think of Stockholm Syndrome and how there are so many phrases and ideas in our culture that we don’t examine enough, especially for the subtle ways they undermine women’s agency. Stockholm Syndrome is not a recognized diagnosis or disorder, and there are no accepted criteria for diagnosing it. But that doesn’t stop armchair psychiatrists from misapplying the idea to things like women in abusive relationships.
But Stockholm Syndrome is not the same as abuse, in fact, it’s a potentially very flawed idea that fails to encapsulate all the complexities of human emotion, survival responses, and psychology. The actual accounts of the Stockholm situation are far more about the hostages learning to see their captors as people, and developing empathy (which is what most of us do when we meet people). It is, essentially, human nature for someone in such a situation to feel (and inspire) empathy for their captors—which would better increase their chances for survival—and to reduce it to a syndrome is a way of reducing women’s feelings and humanity to something both outside of their control, as well as equivalent to mental illness and insanity.
Link to tweet
snip
also see:
Stockholm Syndrome is a myth invented to discredit women victims of violence
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217540135
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217540135
Nils Bejerot was an asshole on many fronts, one of worst of the influential Swedes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils_Bejerot
Nils Johan Artur Bejerot (September 21, 1921 – November 29, 1988) was a Swedish psychiatrist and criminologist best known for his work on drug abuse and for coining the phrase Stockholm syndrome. Bejerot was one of the top drug abuse researchers in Sweden. His view that drug abuse was a criminal matter and that drug use should have severe penalties was highly influential in Sweden and in other countries. He believed that the cure for drug addiction was to make drugs unavailable and socially unacceptable. He also advocated the idea that drug abuse could transition from being a symptom to a disease in itself.
snip
Before Bejerot began to participate in the debate on drugs in 1965, it was the dominant view in Sweden that drug abuse was a private health problem and that law enforcement measures should be aimed at drug dealers. Before 1968, the maximum offence for a grave drug crime was one year in prison. Bejerot objected to this and stressed the importance of measures against the demand for drugs, against users, and their importance in the spread of addiction to new addicts. Bejerot did not accept unemployment and poor private economy as explanations for increased use of illegal drugs. He pointed out that alcohol abuse in the 1930s was comparatively limited in Sweden, despite high unemployment and economic depression.
snip
Bejerot also strongly advocated for strict anti-drug laws. In 1965 Bejerot started to engage in the Swedish debate on drug abuse, encouraging tough action against the new and rapidly growing problem. He followed closely a rather clumsy experiment with legal prescription of heroin, amphetamine, etc. to drug addicts, studies that formed the basis for his thesis on the epidemic drug spread. Bejerot claimed that the program should increase the number of drug addicts and showed through counting of injection marks that the number of drug addicts in Stockholm continued to grow fast during the experiment. The program was stopped in 1968. From 1968 and onward, the difference between the epidemic type, the therapeutic type and the endemic type of drug abuse was a repeated issue in Bejerot's writing and lectures. In 1969, Bejerot became one of the founders of the Association for a Drug-Free Society (RNS), which played - and still plays - an important role in shaping Swedish drug policies. RNS don't accept any of the state grants which are available. Bejerot warned of the consequences of an ‘epidemic addiction’, prompted by young, psychologically and socially unstable persons who, usually after direct personal initiation from another drug abuser, begin to use socially nonaccepted, intoxicating drugs to gain euphoria.
In 1972, Bejerot's reports were used as one of the reasons for increasing the maximum penalty for grave drug offences in Sweden to 10 years in prison. In 1974 he was called to testify as one of 21 scientific experts on marijuana for a subcommittee of the United States Senate on the marijuana-hashish epidemic and its impact on United States security. He advocated zero tolerance for illegal use and possession of drugs, including all drugs not covered by prescription, something that today is law in Sweden. In the early 1980s, he became one of the "Top 10 opinion molders" in Sweden for this. Bejerot is by UNODC and many others recognized as founder of the Swedish strategy against recreational use of drugs. His demand for zero tolerance as a drug policy was for a long time seen as extreme, but during the late 1970s opinion changed. He is without doubt the person most responsible for changing the Swedish drug policy in a restrictive direction something that made him a controversial person, both before and after his death. Many people considered Bejerot as a good humanist advocating a viable policy against narcotics and Robert DuPont considers him "the hero of the Swedish drug abuse story." Others view this as a reactionary hindering of new treatment practices against drug abuse.
snip
Nils Johan Artur Bejerot (September 21, 1921 – November 29, 1988) was a Swedish psychiatrist and criminologist best known for his work on drug abuse and for coining the phrase Stockholm syndrome. Bejerot was one of the top drug abuse researchers in Sweden. His view that drug abuse was a criminal matter and that drug use should have severe penalties was highly influential in Sweden and in other countries. He believed that the cure for drug addiction was to make drugs unavailable and socially unacceptable. He also advocated the idea that drug abuse could transition from being a symptom to a disease in itself.
snip
Before Bejerot began to participate in the debate on drugs in 1965, it was the dominant view in Sweden that drug abuse was a private health problem and that law enforcement measures should be aimed at drug dealers. Before 1968, the maximum offence for a grave drug crime was one year in prison. Bejerot objected to this and stressed the importance of measures against the demand for drugs, against users, and their importance in the spread of addiction to new addicts. Bejerot did not accept unemployment and poor private economy as explanations for increased use of illegal drugs. He pointed out that alcohol abuse in the 1930s was comparatively limited in Sweden, despite high unemployment and economic depression.
snip
Bejerot also strongly advocated for strict anti-drug laws. In 1965 Bejerot started to engage in the Swedish debate on drug abuse, encouraging tough action against the new and rapidly growing problem. He followed closely a rather clumsy experiment with legal prescription of heroin, amphetamine, etc. to drug addicts, studies that formed the basis for his thesis on the epidemic drug spread. Bejerot claimed that the program should increase the number of drug addicts and showed through counting of injection marks that the number of drug addicts in Stockholm continued to grow fast during the experiment. The program was stopped in 1968. From 1968 and onward, the difference between the epidemic type, the therapeutic type and the endemic type of drug abuse was a repeated issue in Bejerot's writing and lectures. In 1969, Bejerot became one of the founders of the Association for a Drug-Free Society (RNS), which played - and still plays - an important role in shaping Swedish drug policies. RNS don't accept any of the state grants which are available. Bejerot warned of the consequences of an ‘epidemic addiction’, prompted by young, psychologically and socially unstable persons who, usually after direct personal initiation from another drug abuser, begin to use socially nonaccepted, intoxicating drugs to gain euphoria.
In 1972, Bejerot's reports were used as one of the reasons for increasing the maximum penalty for grave drug offences in Sweden to 10 years in prison. In 1974 he was called to testify as one of 21 scientific experts on marijuana for a subcommittee of the United States Senate on the marijuana-hashish epidemic and its impact on United States security. He advocated zero tolerance for illegal use and possession of drugs, including all drugs not covered by prescription, something that today is law in Sweden. In the early 1980s, he became one of the "Top 10 opinion molders" in Sweden for this. Bejerot is by UNODC and many others recognized as founder of the Swedish strategy against recreational use of drugs. His demand for zero tolerance as a drug policy was for a long time seen as extreme, but during the late 1970s opinion changed. He is without doubt the person most responsible for changing the Swedish drug policy in a restrictive direction something that made him a controversial person, both before and after his death. Many people considered Bejerot as a good humanist advocating a viable policy against narcotics and Robert DuPont considers him "the hero of the Swedish drug abuse story." Others view this as a reactionary hindering of new treatment practices against drug abuse.
snip
see this for more detail:
How did Sweden end up with its zero-tolerance attitude to drugs? (for many Swedes pot equals heroin)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217880642
Yes, Rupert Murdoch has tentacles everywhere. 
Response to Coventina (Original post)
Response to Coventina (Reply #48)
