Gender differences, master suppression techniques, blaming the victim, keeping silent of shame…

Some loud thoughts in different directions and on different subjects.

Struck me about a former (second) boss after a phone call this morning with my second boss (where I got really angry, didn’t say yes or agree with everything he said, but tried to stay calm): Stiff (rigid) and inflexible, didn’t dare making own decisions at work. A stickler for details, a bureaucrat. Following the text-book totally.

Compared him with my current second boss. Struck me that some things worked better with the former, but... I wouldn’t want to have him back as boss anyway! But there were SOME advantages with the former.

Also thought about saying what you think, raising your voice. Because I wondered how much more I should say actually. And if I should raise my voice at all at the meeting after lunch, where what we had spoken about on phone should become taken up.

At a quite recent occasion I raised my voice and was told by my female boss:

“Now you have spoken almost all the time (during this meeting).”

She meant dominated it, on behalf of the two men (and her?)? I got a bit confused didn’t really know. But didn’t try to clear this up by asking:

“Please explain what you mean! Shall I be quiet?”

Shame on me who didn't! My own fault I am stuck with wonders!

And hmmm, isn’t this one of the Master suppression techniques in fact? I was fighting for things at our workplace for us all.

“Damn if you do and damn if you don’t.”

or something?

I haven’t been the one speaking up earlier. Rather very quite and back drawn, so… I really wonder, if somebody had measured the time each one spoke in that group (we spoke about the psycho-social environment at our workplace and a survey all had answered on our workplace anonymously!), maybe they would have found that I wasn’t the one speaking most of all four there? Or maybe “only” as much as my boss and another man.

It’s still so (despite all awareness about those things) that our “perception” of what we hear say us that a woman has spoken much more than a man even when she hasn’t. Because we are brought up that “the woman keeps silent in the congregation”?

When I studied pedagogy over 20 years ago at the University of Uppsala we spoke about how astounded teachers became when researchers told them that what they experienced in the classroom wasn’t true: that the girls were talking as much or even much more than the boys. Even when it was the opposite, that bys were talking much more.

We have an expression here (apropos raising our voices), translated it would be “talk in the corridors.” Instead of speaking up on meetings people are talking in the corridors. But how come? Why are people (quite ironically)?

Because they are silenced with different means, quite abruptly if needed?

Another thing I thought of was that clarity (legibility) is important so people know what they are supposed to, where the workplace is heading etc. And when you work with young people it is important being consequent. But this doesn’t mean you have to be rigid. Being consequent doesn’t have to be the same thing as being rigid. But of course it can be. As often is.

I also thought on self blame yesterday.

Had another phone call with a person standing close who said about her baking and dropping a bowl of dough on the floor:

“I made a (terrible) slip-up (tabbe in Swedish)!”

But nobody died because she did this.

Doing blunders or slip-ups or making mistakes are forbidden! Entirely forbidden.

Further on blame: you can also blame other people, the victim for instance.

“Blame yourself! Your own fault (that you became badly treated)!”

Making the victim feel shame. Making her/him crouch down and keep silent. Maybe even afraid?

“I am so bad! I deserve this!”

This can become used deliberately, to infuse shame and guilt.

What sort of self image – and self-esteem? On bonus and compensation scandals…

illustrating this with a nice old church bench, maybe not so comfortable to sit on, which was the purpose? :)

[A little edited and updated]. On Friday morning three people in a panel in a sofa in Good morning Sweden were talking about what had happened the previous week. For instance about bonus scandals here in Sweden concerning AMF and Folksam. AMF is administering retirement money for people and Folksam is an insurance company.

What they said is true for companies of all kinds all over the world. And it's maybe (probably) even worse in other bigger countries than Sweden.

In the panel, a man, Birger Schlaug, wondered (a little freely):

“What sort of self-image do those people have, when they take so many management commissions on them? Do they believe they are supermen [to different degrees? See about hubris]? Or do they have an enormous need to prove how clever they are [both to themselves and other people]? You take on those commissions pretty much like decorations to show how important you are?”

Here is Schlaug's blog (in Swedish).

Another man, a leader writer, wrote in a leader about motives for those sky-high compensations, about especially clever, competent and smart - men, something in the style "The Grounds to Hypocrizy. Ehrenberg examining the Great Mistake"…

“The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise’s outlook on man is that it is a certain elite, especially smart and clever/competent men that are demanded. Those are standing high above ordinary employees, fighting in entirely other divisions, and to protect the employees’ retirement money the labor unions have to accept, bend and bow and pay what is demanded.

The problem is neither that the CEO:s of Folksam or the former CEO of AMF are especially intelligent or over smart persons. They are salaried employees, good at organizing and delegating./…/THERE ARE NO SUPERMEN! And nobody is irreplaceable.”

No - and this is exactly what so many exhausted (not least women) have heard!

A female journalist in the article "Whom can we trust. Boëthius: Now the opposition has to rethink things":

“They earn a lot, they say, because of their heavy responsibility. However, this responsibility is now called in question.”

With all rights?

In another article you could read:

“However, the ones at the top in trade and industry as Göran Thunhammar and Urban Bäckström get through the criticism gallantly since they have no moral capital to loose. The capitalism is like that.”

And in another article “Time for a new world order” you can read:

“We consume to solve social and psychological problems, not practical [problems]./…/

The numbers of suicides are increasing in the material welfare.”

They write further that robots can’t be used everywhere. Culture, health care and other “soft parts” of the society then stand out as more and more expensive. This phenomenon is well-known and has gotten the name the Baumol Effect after the American William Baumol, who described the puzzling fact that the richer the society the less theater you can afford.

In the Swedish Wikipedia article you can read about the Baumol Effect that culture production can’t become more effective. To perform a play by Shakespeare or a music piece by Beethoven the same amounts of work and the same competence is needed now as when those pieces were written. I don’t know, maybe even more, because the high demands today? And everything we can compare with, all that is already written…

And on top, I don’t think that your efficiency (OR creativity, i.e. your capacity to solve problems for instance) can become especially high if you work six days a week or more and all your awoken time year after year with no breaks or any recovery, something a commentator on a blog referred to. But maybe that doesn’t matter for those highest up? The most important for them is that they can show or assert that they have been working all their awoken time.

And who have the greatest workload in fact? Quite ironically.

And some people are living in entirely other spheres… What are they fighting about compared to how other people have it in the world I wonder with a deep sigh.

I can’t help wondering what all those people have in their backpacks, what their inner drives are… Are they trying to fill bottomless needs? Trying to fill needs they should have gotten filled earlier and in other ways?

Yes, the most (psychologically) defended tend to lead.

And about work life in general; do we make a better job today and feel more satisfied than we did earlier? Are we happier? Do we laugh more and have more fun at work? Or less? Personally I think we have less fun and it seems as many people around me don't really get on well with their work or workplaces.

"The struggle for definition is veritably the struggle for life itself. In the typical Western two men fight desperately for the possession of a gun that has been thrown to the ground: whoever reaches the weapon first shoots and lives; his adversary is shot and dies. In ordinary life, the struggle is not for guns but for words; whoever first defines the situation is the victor; his adversary, the victim. For example, in the family, husband and wife, mother and child do not get along; who defines whom as troublesome or mentally sick?...[the one] who first seizes the word imposes reality on the other; [the one] who defines thus dominates and lives; and [the one] who is defined is subjugated and may be killed" (T. Szasz?. See more about him here and quotes here.).

Healthy boundaries and nearness to other people…

the first sprout (photo: S. Thomas)

How do we create them? Or not take them away?

So the latter grown up can protect her/himself adequately and in the best case without even thinking on this.

Can a person whose boundaries have been violated, even severely violated, recover? And end up protecting her/himself constructively and efficiently?

Yes, I think she/he would be able, with adequate help of some kind. Not just by new thought-patterns, new thinking and/or new behaviors!! The less harmed are maybe helped with this though. *

But by being allowed and helped to question and condemn what was done. By a person (books or literature) where what she/he was exposed to isn’t minimized or belittled at all.

Because I think the nature of the defenses is of that kind that you can’t control them or at least not control your feelings. For instance see what Jenson writes about Jane who continued to blame herself even though she had been able to live up to a lot of things she had been taught in therapy.

From earlier postings (slightly edited):

“Jane, who has gone to ACA or CODA meetings once a week more than one year and read many self help books on co-dependency and dysfunctional families. She has leaned to tell her husband that she doesn't want to go fishing on their vacations or meet his family each Christmas and that the children shall have a say in this too (putting a stop to things). She doesn't let her co-worker put his arm around her any more just like that (posing boundaries), she has stopped calling her mom many times a day to ‘make’ her go to mammography (refusing a responsibility that isn't hers), and she has created routines so all share the work in the household.

Jane still feels hurt, angry, embittered, set aside, neglected, ignored, afraid of saying and even thinking certain things. She can't just relax and read a good book or take a walk (and enjoy it). She is still depreciating herself, feels insufficient as wife and mother, and wonders if she is doing enough well at work. She thinks she is mean to her husband and kids and that she ought to control her temper better. Insights which have developed in parallel with her new understanding of herself. Despite all she has done and tried to change as the good girl, satisfying the therapists (and the other members) in the group(s) she has joined.”

There are different boundaries you can violate. Such as not only sexual or physical, but also emotional ** (not letting the child have secrets for instance). Ingeborg Bosch for instance has written about this, so has Anna-Luise Kirkengen. Stepping over emotional boundaries is also extremely harmful.

See earlier postings on what violations actually are and about that emotional needs are essential for survival.

Alice Miller writes/says about therapy and therapists, and I think she is right:

“Certainly, if I knew of some therapists who would be respectful enough to answer your questions; free enough to show indignation about what your parents have done to you; empathic enough when you need to release your rage pent up for decades in your body; wise enough to not preach to you forgetting, forgiveness, meditation, positive thinking; honest enough to not offer you empty words like spirituality, when they feel scared by your history, and that are not increasing your life-long feelings of guilt…” (Alice Miller).

“The method of Marshall Rosenberg is very nice and may be helpful to people who have not be[been??] severely mistreated in childhood. The latter ones however must find their pent up, LEGITIMATE rage and free themselves from the lies of our moral system. As long as they don't do this, their body will continue to scream for the truth with the help of symptoms" (Alice Miller)

And about becoming stuck in anger (or hatred):

“Feeling and understanding the causes of our old pain does not mean that the pain and the anger will stay with us forever. Quite the opposite is true. The felt anger and pain disappear with time and enable us to love our children. It is the UNFELT, avoided and denied pain, stored up in our bodies, that drive us to repeat what have been done to [and which gives us all sorts of troubles]." (Alice Miller in an answer to a reader’s letter May 24, 2008, relating to a talk between Andrew Vachss and Oprah Winfrey)

and about a "failing" client:

“If one uncritically cling to old methods' alleged infallibility and blames the client for failures, you inevitably land in the same fairways (waters) as the sect-guru, who also promises entire liberation. Such promises only produce self-destructive dependence which stands in the way for the individual’s liberation.” (Alice Miller in “Paths of Life” in my amateur translation from the Swedish edition of this book).

Sigrun wrote a blogpost about (in my amateur translation) “Nearness sort of”:

“As an earlier victim for violence and abuse through a lot of years I have to say that the concept ‘violence in close relations’ doesn’t feel good. The closeness that was forced upon me during the abuses are so painful that it had been nice not being forced to become reminded each time I come across this conception (something that happens daily).

What’s the reason why you can’t talk about relational violence instead?

I don’t think it is right using notions that become a burden for the ones that are concerned.”

* The Dutch therapist Ingeborg Bosch writes in her book at page 82 about Daniel Goleman and his concept Emotional Intelligence (a concept that can be, is, manipulative, but may help short term):

“The reader should be aware that many of the ideas on emotional development put forward in Mr. Goleman's book are contrary to PRI [Past Reality Integration therapy] ideas. In PRI it is not considered as desirable for young children to control their ‘socially undesired’ emotions or feelings such as fear and anger. When this sort of behaviour is desired by adults of children PRI regards it as poisonous pedagogy.

/…/ Also, many of the behaviors that are considered by Mr. Goleman to be essential elements of ‘emotional intelligence’, are considered by PRI to be defenses (False Hope and False Power Denial of Needs) employed in order to avoid feeling pain. The general profile of Golemans ‘emotionally intelligent’ person fits the PRI idea of someone who is quite defensive, albeit in a socially desirable way. This might therefore lead to social success, while simultaneously sacrificing contact with the True Self and inner autonomy.”

And Jennifer Freyd writes at page 195 in her book:

“For a child dependent on abusive caregivers, lack of internal connection can help maintain some sort of external connection to necessary others. But I disagree with those such as Daniel Goleman (1985), who suggest that while truth is generally a good thing, some times even privileged members of our society are best served by living with ‘vital lies’ in which the truth is best kept from oneself and one’s intimate partners.”

**

"...of all the many forms of child abuse, emotional abuse may be the cruelest and longest-lasting of all.” "Emotional abuse is the systematic diminishment of another. It may be intentional or subconscious (or both), but it is always a course of conduct, not a single event. It is designed to reduce a child's self-concept to the point where the victim considers himself unworthy—unworthy of respect, unworthy of friendship, unworthy of the natural birthright of all children: love and protection." (Andrew Vachss)

The role of an enlightened witness...

[A little edited March 19]. In the leader ”The little we can do” about the Austrian man who held one of his daughters as prisoner for 24 years, raped her and made her pregnant six times the leader writer wrote:

“{The crime was committed in] The country of the Wiener waltzes and the all embracing courtesy’s land – but where a great part of the population welcomed the Nazis and where musty forms of Catholicism and patriarchal tradition in a holy alliance have maintained all sorts of old power structures. Maybe it’s something special with Austria, but still: of course you can’t impose guilt on a whole nation.

Is it Fritzl’s upbringing we shall blame? In the talks he has had with his psychologist it has come up that he had an extraordinary horrible upbringing, fatherless and at the same time he became tormented by his mother. Disturbed for life, full of contempt for women and an unhealthy need for control./…/

But there are many people with a horrible upbringing whom for that reason wouldn't commit any bestial deeds.”

I think Alice Miller is right when she writes that the reason to why all abused children don’t commit horrible crimes is because they have had an enlightened or at least knowing witness during their childhood and/or youth, and that’s why they have been capable of, to certain parts and degrees, condemn what they were exposed to.

Addition March 19: Even if they don't become criminals or commit crimes of different sorts (destructiveness) they can suffer from sickness and addictions or other self-destructive behaviors of different kinds. See the ACE-study and what Miller has written in for instance "The Body Never Lies".

And a horrible upbringing is no excuse for what you commit (if you abuse a child, commit crimes or even murders, initiate homicides etc.), only an explanation.

More on discipline…

[Edited March 19]. Some loud thoughts around the following concepts: Conformity and discipline are killers for creativity. Compassion.

The kind of discipline the current minister of education in Sweden is “recommending” is a kind that kills. Killing not only creativity, but other things, as maybe for instance compassion. And it is also lack of compassion and love it expresses, even if the ones exercising it probably claim the opposite (I think the Nanny-programmes are recommending highly manipulative things too).

This is what poisonous pedagogy is about?

Grown up fury and rage in a grown up is something else than the child’s fury and rage in a grown up?

And leveling fury and rage at scapegoats only gives temporary relief. You have to direct the anger and fury at the true, real, original source to truly and really heal and to really recover.

But there are different sorts of “discipline”: a self chosen and one that is forced upon you. You can work hard for something you really, truly and genuinely want and feel for, in that way discipline you (is discipline an adequate word in this case though?).

Old authoritarian raising methods are coming back…

Torment written by Ingmar Bergman.

[Updated and a little edited during the whole day]. From an article "Björklund more and more resembles a politician's Caligula" in which you can read that, with some right you can say that, Sweden’s leading school pedagogues are raging against the government’s school politics, or the lack of such politics:

The one and only solution are Nanny-ideals; more discipline, more grades, more tests. Something sounding like “the good old school, from the good old time”: the teacher standing in the teacher’s desk, pointers, chalk and detentions quite ironically.

On Wednesday Sweden’s current school minister Jan Björklund debated these things with the pedagogy professor Mats Ekholm in a morning sofa on TV (you can watch this debate here till March 18 2009 only).

Ekholm namely delivered a petition on the rigths of children to the school minister earlier this week, a petition that was sharply expressed.

All sorts of people (pedagogues, psychologists, grandparents, people in all sorts of occupations - and from abroad) have signed it protesting against the current government’s school politics. A reaction from the initiative takers of the petition leaning on decades of school studies, all showing the same thing, namely that demands only and slavish discipline doesn’t lead anywhere. My addition: probably causes problems instead, problems that can come much later too.

My comment: And it wasn’t much better earlier either according to a book about a study from the fifties on the discipline problems in the school then! Maybe these problems were of another kind then though, but discipline problems in the school are definitely not new!

It was long since one saw such a totally uninterested and arrogant politician in TV the author of the article wrote. Björklund openly derided the critics, cited deliberately the petition wrongly, ascribed Ekholm opinions he hasn’t expressed. Björklund lied casually for the viewers.

Ekholm and his colleagues are worried about the current societal climate and the climate of debate about children. Opinions, ideas and behaviors from people in power that has become more and more strict and a talk about the school and kids without nuances, about politicians in our current government talking about more punishments, new forms of being put in the corner for instance even though they are called something else (in a hope that this would cover what it's about up?).

According to the author of the article Björklund didn’t want any talk; he just wanted to pass his simple populist message to anxious parents forward; children need a steady hand, now we will get order. He knows that such messages go home in people. “Fuck pedagogy!”

And what was worse was that he didn’t seem to understand what use an intellectual talk about those things has. He didn’t even understand the problem formulation according to the article.

The author of the article thinks Björklund’s patronizing, superior politician style will become his flop sooner or later (my addition: it was authoritarian and arrogant!). Yes, I certainly hope so. To listen isn’t what he is best at.

See more about this petition in the earlier posting "Nanny-methods nothing for a democratic school...",

Addition just before lunch: And also see ”The obedience culture or ‘well intentioned’ violence…”; violence can be of other natures too, not only obvious, visible violence in form of spanking, but also in form of emotional abuse - and disrespect. See Andrew Vachss on this theme:

“...of all the many forms of child abuse, emotional abuse may be the cruelest and longest-lasting of all.”

"Emotional abuse is the systematic diminishment of another. It may be intentional or subconscious (or both), but it is always a course of conduct, not a single event. It is designed to reduce a child's self-concept to the point where the victim considers himself unworthy—unworthy of respect, unworthy of friendship, unworthy of the natural birthright of all children: love and protection."

And also see what Alice Miller’s for instance say, in the posting “Child abuse and politics…”

Now I have seen the talk on TV. Here are my notes: Björklund spoke about what’s “best for the children”! I was just taken aback with astonishment. Yes, he believes he is doing those things “for their own good”! And too many people think he is right, sounds reliable.

He also used the words or notions "order, peace and calmness" in school. And I don’t know if it was the programme leader or I who wondered

“But why ISN’T there calmness and peace? (And are, a little, noisy classrooms ALWAYS bad???)”

Then Ekholm tried to point out that a Markus Samuelsson has made a dissertation showing that it IS peaceful and calm in the schools and/or that many teachers CAN deal with things (with some exceptions. In the bottom of the linked site you find an abstract about his dissertation in English, and here is more information on this dissertation and its findings).

The topic or discussion why there isn’t peace and calm, when it in fact isn't, never comes up! And not either if it can be something good with children daring to talk, doing this frankly and openly! Or if we can (ought) to handle it (IF it is disturbing) without “stick and carrot” but in other ways! By the way, teachers over the world are reacting at the neoliberal winds in the school and what those mean for the school and all those working there (children and grown ups)!!

What outlook on children does Björklund have? Björklund has been talking about the importance of children getting “knowledge” in school. But he himself demonstrates the opposite; that he doesn’t respect findings from researchers and “people who knows”! And that he isn’t even familiar with what he is talking about (that he isn't familiar with school research for instance, i.e. the knowledge that in fact IS there!).

Ekholm tried to say that it’s important that we on a system-level have proper knowledge about how children are functioning (in different situations and respects, and that we want to learn more about this, MY addition).

Ekholm also tried to raise the topic what sort of public talk we ought to pursue in our/the society (a much more nuanced!!??), but with very little result or feedback from the school minister.

A retired university teacher, Pia Hellerz said something about frightening and alarming tendencies in our society, mirored in the school and the school politics, how we see children and the school and it's purpose. To use methods like disciplining, early grades and other control measures is to simplify for oneself she meant. So true!

And on top, Björklund said quite frankly that how the parents are raising their kids at home isn’t the politicians’ duty! They have nothing with this to do! With this he said, in my feeling and interpretation, that nobody (not we private people either belonging to the society too) except the parents have anything to do with how they are raising their kids.

What he is saying (as I see it) is that CHILDREN ARE PARENTS' PROPERTIES! But all adults, be it politicians or other people in the society, have the duty to speak up on behalf of other peoples' children when and if a child is badly treated, whether it's his/her own or another person's child, and certainly if a parent is treating his/her child badly (if we recognize this at all!!?? And not all do. We rather tend to minimize and belittle abuse, probably a lot of emotional, and both subtle and obvious abuse)!

But how parents are raising their kids are certainly their kids' business however!!??

Ekholm tried to squeeze in that he wishes we raise the demands even more on showing more consideration to children! Not the opposite! He didn’t get any response on this either from the school minister.

Yes, we ought to, IF we can! And why can’t we?

Albert Einstein:

"Modern education is competitive, nationalistic and separative. It has trained the child to regard material values as of major importance, to believe that his nation is also of major importance and superior to other nations and peoples. The general level of world information is high but usually biased, influenced by national prejudices, serving to make us citizens of our nation but not of the world."

"A human being is part of the whole, called by us the 'universe',
a part limited in time and space.
He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings,
as something separate from the rest -
a kind of optical delusion of consciousness.
This delusion is a kind of prison for us,
restricting us to our personal desires
and to affection for a few persons nearest to us.
Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison
by widening our circle of compassion
to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

We need to treat children with respect from the first beginning. But how should we actually handle a child showing disrespect? Who probably shows what he/she has been exposed to? Because how a child behaves is no mystery!? With treating it with more of the same? Is that the solution?

See Andrew Vachss in “You Carry the Cure In Your Own Heart. Emotional abuse of children can lead, in adulthood, to addiction, rage, a severely damaged sense of self and an inability to truly bond with others. But—if it happened to you—there is a way out.”

Neo authoritarianism and self centeredness…

There are a couple of themes I am thinking on…

Our bosses and how they are acting. How our female, and highest boss, is acting.

The self-centredness today.

My quiet thoughts: Not mentioning the purpose is quite authoritarian. We are treated in tis way in both small and bigger things. Told what to do with no information of why. We are supposed to just accept, i.e. not really call things in question. We have no right to know. We are treated as if as if we are no thinking people? We shall just do. Obey and keep quiet.

Our female boss doesn’t even seem to think on this. Explaining why we shall do this and that or change things to something else doesn’t seem to exist in her repertoire of thoughts or behaviors? No, it plainly doesn’t seem to exist (how was she as parent?). Why this lack? Was she born like this? Her genes? Innate traits in all of us? Or?

A sidetrack: how is this model for us when we deal with our students? Do we expect the same obedience from our students? That they shall just swallow what we tell them to do?

I can’t help wondering how she was brought up.

It’s the same neoauthoritarian (and neoconservative) tendencies in the whole society. It’s those models (good and bad) bosses have from the highest bosses in this society and the most authoritarian leaders are elected too? Obey and keep quiet. Don’t question any state of affairs or at least not certain state of affairs (i.e. what the power says, but “weak” people you can use as scapegoats). And, yes, amazingly few people seem to question this. How have we been raised?

I searched on an earlier posting on those themes and found a posting where Arthur Silber has written:

“The wish for unquestioning, unresisting obedience is coming true in America, more and more each day.”

And this made me think even further on something else I had read on he psychohistory list, in an essay about teaching children obedience (in school, the authoritarianism) and found what I was looking for in the essay “Freedom of Speech”:

“US state power over its citizens has been steadily increasing since the civil war, yet children are trained in schools to be blind to this fact. The US media and University system has heavily groomed the adult population to look to the national government to solve all their problems, even problems of basic emotions like fears and anxieties. The efficacy of this indoctrination into passivity can clearly be seen in lack of outrage over the recent destruction of the US legal system.

I don't think it's a coincidence at all that the same vote that over turned a speedy trial by jury also legalized torture. This is an action to frighten the population into unquestioning obedience. It is the next logical step for absolute state power after torturing people outside of the US. This vote purposely says to the US people 'when government people say jump, you say ‘how high’ or you will probably get tortured and raped just like the Iraqi's.’ The unsaid but obvious threat is the classic psychological assault of bullies, abusers and organized criminals everywhere.

However, the big secret for slave states is that it doesn't matter what you say or do, you will get impoverished, imprisoned, tortured and killed at some point no matter what. By speaking out we have absolutely nothing to lose and our very lives to gain.”

Societal approval...

Another theme is something a blogger (and leader writer) here wrote in a blogposting. She was going to take part in a café talking about

“I, I, I. What about ‘We’ then? - How to create a ‘We’ in a self centred era.”

What would a sound selfishness be about? Or should we use another vocabulary? Is the word 'selfishness' appropriate? Because it’s rather a question of sound protection of oneself? How do we achieve such a sound protection of ourselves?

By (truly) respecting our kids boundaries? By not violating them? How many of us are really capable of doing this?

Earlier postings on texts by Helle Klein. See for instance "In the individualism’s era..."