Too bothersome and laborious…

On our way back to work after the lunch on Friday I took some photos in a hurry on pictures with old Volvos, hanging on the walls in the stairs to the restaurant where we ate our lunch, here is one of these pictures.

[Addition in the end May 26]. On Thursday and Friday I had a lot to do with one of our bosses, a man y, the "lower" of our two bosses (boss no 2!! :-)). We two only sat in a jury listening to candidates to a special course for our cleverest pupils, aged 13-20.

We spoke a lot with each other and with the pupils. y and I ate lunch on Friday too. We had a lunch-break for more than an hour on Friday, so we had time associating a lot!

There was a lot to process for me of all different kinds, both on a personal and general level, my reactions, what y said to the pupils, what they said, how they reacted, what their teachers (my colleagues) said etc. (typically female thoughts? Or?).

All of a sudden I got a very vague Aha-experience, something I am still trying to put words on.

I’ll start trying to do this in this posting (had to write a second posting today, let’s see if there comes a third too? :-))

On the balcony I wrote the following (in Swedish) with pen and paper:

“[It's] more comfortable shambling along (lulla på) in the same old ruts (hjulspår) [than changing the state of affairs]? Sometimes the profits and gains with this are outweighing everything else [or feel outweighing, easier than the hard and tough struggle and fight - and less scary?]? Men are maybe more forced giving up something quite comfortable (generally)? Changes feels like being forced doing something feeling too bothersome and laborious (besvärligt, mödosamt, jobbigt)? While many women don’t have any choices? They are forced doing the hard and bothersome work?

The profits in a [true, genuine] meeting with another human being (through a meeting with oneself) with all what comes along with that, all what that means, is – too much? [for many women too!] Something many men see as ‘changing oneself down’ as we say (byta ner sig)?”

A change to something that feels worse? Even if they on the other hand honour changes. But there are "changes and changes", and who define what changes actually are, and that they are against (at least a certain sort of) changes is covered up (and many of us probably don't see this either, because we aren't used to question these things, many are probably totally blind to this too, and I think I can be too to a high degree, even if I think I got a glimpse of something now)? The benefits with the old behaviour overweight. So of course they aren’t so interested, but cling to how it has always been? And defend that too, forcefully? With this not said that y is the worse example on men against changing oneself!! He isn't, but nevertheless... (I wonder what he would feel and think if he read this??:-))

They feel they will loose more than they will gain? And it struck me – they will loose many comfortable things??? So small wonder they aren’t so interested – in general?

At least not in this generation? But honestly I am not sure this is true only for that generation… Sad to say.

But there are probably men whom have no choices but doing the hard work too?

Cats are musical? :-)

Addition May 26: Miller writes in a reply to a reader's letter about

"...many professionals who are still stuck in the traditional way of thinking."

Yes, these things ARE bothersome and laborious? Everything in us “rises up against” this? After a while we don’t want to know about it any more? Want to push it away, ignore and minimize it? Are some more prone to this too? Denial turns on? As Judith Lewis Herman actually writes about the history around trauma? See for instance the chapter “A Forgotten History” in her book "Trauma and Recovery - From Domestic Violence to Political Terror":

“The study of psychological trauma has a curious history – one of episodic amnesia. Periods of active investigation have alternated with periods of oblivion [a defence reaction? Denial of the longterm consequences of what we were exposed to and how in fact common these things are? Why a person like Miller is less mentioned today, and why her last books haven't been translated to Swedish for instance? And the denial also expressed itself when Sweden's therapist hesitated on banning corporal punishment fearing abuse would express itself in other manners, and maybe get more hidden? See earlier posting on this here. Denial from their part too!]. Repeatedly in the past century, similar lines of inquiry have been taken up and abruptly abandoned, only to be discovered much later. Classic documents of fifty or one hundred years ago often read like contemporary works. Though this field has in fact an abundant and rich tradition, it has been periodically forgotten and must be periodically reclaimed.”

---

“Studiet av psykologiskt trauma har en besynnerlig historia – en av tillfällig amnesi. Perioder av aktivt utforskande har alternerat med perioder av glömska [en försvarsreaktion? Ett förnekande av de långsiktiga konsekvenserna av det vi blev utsatta för och hur vanliga dessa saker faktiska är. Varför en person som Miller är mycket mindre nämnd idag och varför hennes sista böcker inte har översatts till svenska. Och förnekandet uttrycktes också då Sveriges psykoterapeuter tvekade inför förbud mot aga därför att de var rädda att misshandel/övergrepp skulle ta sig andra uttryck och kanske bli mer dolda. Se tidigare inlägg här om detta. Förnekandet hos dem uttrycktes på detta sätt??]. Under det gångna århundradet har liknande undersökningstankegångar tagits upp och abrupt blivit övergivna, bara för att upptäckas långt senare. Femtio till hundra år gamla klassiska dokument kan ofta läsas som samtida arbeten. Trots att detta område faktiskt har en överflödig och rik tradition, har det periodiskt glömts och har periodiskt måst återerövras.”