[Kobi]

------------

Originally Posted by silkepus

That would indeed be crazycakes.

I saw someone describe conservative’s view of unwanted pregnancies (or forced pregnancies) as sending women to their room for nine months for having been a naughty girl.



Funny how the woman is a naughty girl but the sperm donor gets a 2 thumbs up eh?



You’re absolutely right, banning abortion has little to do with saving babies and everything to do with controlling women. If people who are anti-choice really cared about reducing abortion numbers they would work hard to make contraception cheap and easily available. They would fight for sexual education that taught young people how to have safe sex. They would make plan B easily available too.



Very true. The same people who are fighting against abortion are simultaneously fighting against the Obama administrations mandate for birth control to be part of health plans.



But instead it is the same people who want to ban abortion who often want to ban contraception (or make it hard to obtain and thus in reality banning it for a lot of women), who want to have abstinence only sex education who say plan B and abortion is the same etc.



Abstinence for females, not males. Females right to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies is being frowned upon. Males "right" to impregnate them - with or without their consent is still seen as a manly thing.



It really does feel like were going backwards sometimes. I don’t think women should be too comfortable with the rights we have gained. History is full of examples of oppressed groups who gained rights only to lose them again.



We are going backwards.....by design. Women won some of the battles but we lost track of the war. In addition, we have lost track of the insidious nature of sexism and misogyny and in doing so are, unwittingly, being complicit in our own victimization.

It is a prime example of the Stockholm syndrome on a nationwide/worldwide basis.

Stockholm syndrome, or capture–bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.

Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes “strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other.

One commonly used hypothesis to explain the effect of Stockholm syndrome is based on Freudian theory. It suggests that the bonding is the individual’s response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with the aggressor is one way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes the same values as the aggressor, they cease to be a threat.