The man still dies first…

S. Thomas, photo.

In an article with the title “The man still dies first” (in Swedish) I read (my translation from Swedish):

“He [the man] is exposed to greater risks in work life, lives a more dangerous private life, is given less space for his emotions [certain emotions are allowed and others are not allowed] and dies in average almost five years earlier than the woman. Because he is a man.

The discrimination between the sexes means special treatment of men and women./…/

They [the men] are supposed (expected) to work within ‘manly’ works, have leisure-time activities suiting men and aren’t given the same space as women to show feelings.

Older men are more often socially isolated and lonelier than women in the same age.

Early one makes differences between boys and girls. Concerning everything from clothes and toys to how they are allowed to behave.

Just take such a thing that small girls can wear pants, but small boys aren’t allowed to wear skirts./…/

…equality is positive for everyone./…/…women shall have the same possibilities and accordingly the same duties (or obligations) as men./…/

First and foremost we are all human beings and each single individual has to be given space and permission to find her/himself and develop from within to feel well and reach her/his full potential [if he/she wants].

The length of life is used in research as a measurement on health. As example highly educated can have a better health and thus live longer than low educated.

If you compare the sexes you see that women are living longer than men./…/

Men’s expected length of life would increase dramatically if they were relieved the pressure from the most dangerous jobs, could get away from the social pressure to get dangerous leisure time activities and wee allowed to say yes to their emotional life.

Therefore it’s remarkable that men are hindering women from making career in sectors dominated by men and reach economical and political power positions.

In that way the men are retaining the gender stereotype straitjacket they have had all too long./…/

Separate individual’s life prerequisites have to be treated on an individual level but societal problems have to be treated on a societal level.”

Yes, all this is about how we are treated as children, from the first beginning of life. And later on if we are capable of treating our children in turn with genuine respect, for their integrity; for the physical and emotional integrity, for their feelings, emotions, needs. For their world of thoughts.

I read somewhere, don't remember where, that small boys are often treated with more physical violence (probably from both parents) than small girls. If that's true, is it strange that men are acting as they are in this world? But still, destructive behavior is never excused with bad early childhood treatment.

I also come to think about what the therapists Ingeborg Bosch and Jean Jenson write about anger, a feeling that can give one a sense of power. They mean that anger can be a defense/protection against the feeling of powerlessness and give a, what they call, false sense of power. This defense is quite common among men, and shown in different ways. Women use other defenses. For instance false poer denial of needs.

Those defenses are protecting the adult from other, more painful feelings and maybe disclosures, revelations about our past. And they were so painful so we had to protect ourselves from them the. Today those defenses cause a lot of problems they mean.

But you shall be careful when and if you choose help. See the book “Terapeuten, en avslöjande historia om hur det kan gå till inom den alternativa terapin” or something in the style “The therapist – a revealing story how things can turn out within the alternative therapy.”

Alice Miller has written a lot about this. For instance see this reader’s letter “Spiritual ideology of ‘negative emotions’” to her on her website.

And at last a link to a very interesting article in wikipedia on "Cargo cult science" starting with:

“Cargo cult science is a term used by physicist Richard Feynman during his commencement address at the California Institute of Technology, United States, in 1974 to describe work that has the semblance of being scientific [sken av att vara vetenskapligt], but is missing ‘a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty’.”