Laying all the responsibility and all the blame on people who are basically suffering from stockholm syndrome AND in very real danger when they try to leave is both callous and unrealistic .

@Blindbird I said "some", and I meant it. People from all walks of life cede agency every day, in every conceivable way: to religion, to the American two-party political system, to the college-career-white-picket-fence-2.5-kids dream, etc. In any population you will find a fraction of people willing to trade the liberty of agency for security of not being responsible for their own actions. No population is immune.

I did not mean to present an axiomatic explanation for the entire phenomenon; I simply illuminated this fraction of the calculus. I don't know how big it is--maybe not very--but I refuse to believe it's 0%.

@stinkeye_a "believe" is the operating word there. You are basing your ideas about the world on your own biases and not the facts as they are. Arent we better than that? Is that not the point of being atheist/agnostic, to function according to what IS rather than our irrational wishes and beliefs?

@Blindbird So, are you saying people don't cede agency? Are you saying there are populations that are 100% immune from this phenomenon? I think that would be an "irrational belief".

People cede agency. It happens. I don't "believe" that--I see it. Every day. I understand doing so is an innate human phenomenon. Nothing irrational about that.

From what I have observed of the penetration and distribution of this phenomenon, I cannot "believe" that any population is wholly immune from it. I say "believe" because I am not a psychologist, sociologist, or statistician, and therefore unlikely to conduct such research myself--and have (as of yet) not sought out studies to back my claims. I "believe" what I am saying because I have reasoned it intuitively through oberservation and analysis, and cannot (yet) cite any measured, recorded data. That is not irrational. That is layman's prerogative. I stand behind my observations, my analysis, and my carefully considered use of the word "believe".

I brought this up in the first place because it's a) it's a counterpoint to the 90% "brainwashing, psychological abuse" answers that I knew everyone else in this thread would offer, and I like to offer something different--preferrably contrarian--if and when I can; and b) this particular situation provides what I believe makes for an interesting lens to focus the ceding agency phenomenon.

And, I'm glad I brought it up, because now--in response to your comment--I have the opportunity to say c) whitewashing and canonizing victims doesn't help them. It erodes honest, unflinchingly critical dialogue, which is what is needed.

Brainwashed or not, Stockholm syndrome or not, some of these women are fully, vociferously complicit in their psychosocial bondage. That is the piece that interests me. I suspect some are glad they don't have to make decisions for themselves, and thus cling to the established order--in much the same way that many people vote for their party's candidate without a thought, rather than look into the issues and platforms themselves.

I'm talking about a fraction--because it's there, because it's an interesting counterpoint to the larger phenomenon at play in this discussion, and because it's a fascinating psychological case study in its own right.

@stinkeye_a cetainly some cede agency but where do you get the authority or knowledge to decide that it is somehow "voluntary" despite a lifetime of brainwashing? Again I see you offering no facts, no evidence ,simply assertions that because you WANT reality to work a certain way, it must.

I understand that the idea that our thoughts, actions and volition are not entirely(arguably mostly not) products of our will but have been shaped for us by circumstance is alarming and abhorent to many. The FACTS, however point to that being the case.

Furthermore you see people answering that victims of domestic violence are brainwashed, because.they.are. it is an integral part of the system that makes domestic violence possible. Your irritation with the same answers makes as much sense as being angry that everyone answers "2" when you ask what 1+1 is.

By all means believe what you will. Don't ask others to join you in your baseless beliefs and expect to be called out when your lack of understanding makes life unnecessarily difficult for others.

Ignorance is ignorance is ignorance and no one will ever learn anything by making baseless assertions and defending them loudly.

As a battered woman who got herself out on her own, I cannot help but find your comment Extremely demeaning and condescending!

@AnneWimsey I certainly understand, however I feel no responsibility for your identification with that statement. I made a very general statement about agency and responsibility; I respect your freedom to interpret it as you wish, and I'll thank you to attrtibute responsibility for your interpretation accordingly.

@Blindbird You have brought the heat and the noise. I have have brought even-keeled, dispassionate objectivity and a commitment to rigorous intellectual honesty in a highly emotionally-charged area.

I said "some", you supplied "all"; I made a general statement about an observable phenomenon (with any specific language directing at the population in question!), you supplied "blame"; I supplied mentioning a counterpoint to the discussion at hand, you supplied "irritation with facts"; I cooly defended myself to your floridly imaginative misinterpretations/misrepresentstions of my position; you supplied "asking others to join"; I have refrained from ad hominems and general unpleasantness, kept my tone neutral and my discussion focused on the issues, you have...not so much.

Nowhere did I say "blame the victims." Nowhere did I say "don't take victims seriously, don't have compassion for them.". Nowhere did I say "most" victims of psychological abuse are complicit in their oppression, or even "many". I said some people will give up agency because they don't want responsibility.

This has a place in the discussion. Not on the front page, and not taking up a majority of the time. I'm not a "callous" moron: I wouldn't make such a statement in a support group for victims of such abuse. But in a randomly-initiated discussion thread on a website for a community of people (ostensibly) devoted to logic and reason? You're damn straight I'm going to point out a contrasting facet that enriches the entire picture, in a spirit of intellectual honesty and rigor..

If that makes me a villain, so be it. I'd rather be such a villain than an echo-chamber patsy. Glossing over (or completely ignoring) contrasting details at the margins of an issue is not only a intellectually lazy and dishonest, it can be downright dangerous.

I agree you've stated this in a clear manner.

a sad state of affairs

apparently all over the place . mind boggling really in century 21