Cover for less obvious abuse of children…

In the booklet ”Plain talk bout spanking” you can read at page 9 (in the chapter ”Spanking at school”) that:

“…paddling, because it is specifically prescribed and so blatant, serves to overshadow and thereby give cover to less obvious forms of abusive treatment.”

Min snabba översättning:

“…att smiska barn, tjänar att överskugga och därmed täcka over andra, mindre uppenbara former av övergrepp/misshandel, därför att det är uttryckligen bestämt och så påfallande.”

Yes, I think Jordan Riak is right; corporal punishment can be a cover for other sorts of abuse, less obvious. So if you ban corporal punishment of children both in schools and in the home, everywhere, you start to see other forms of abuse underneath, but maybe not immediately.

Contrary to what people against a ban on corporal punishment assert. That people would use oher forms of abuse instead, more subtle forms. Abuse they already have been using however?

Read “For your own good – Hidden cruelty in child-rearing and the roots of violence” by Alice Miller online.

In San Francisco Chronicle you could read:

“If hitting a child is so good for him, why didn’t Charles Manson turn into a model citizen? Or Hitler? Or Stalin?

If there is ‘no harm in a swat on the butt’ for a child why is it against the law to do the same thing to an adult?”

And why are people (women) drawn to spankers and very violent people like a Charles Manson, see what Riak writes at page 8 in his booklet, in the chapter ”Spanking and sexual molestation”:

“It’s time spankers realized that- no matter what else they think they are accomplishing – they are setting children up to be easy prey for predators”

Min något fria översättning:

“Det är dags för misshandlare att inse – vadhelst de än tror att de åstadkommer – att de gör sina barn till lätta byten för rovlystna personer.”

The significance of childhood for how healthy the politics is that is practised – and is possible to practise…

When I was writing the recent blogposting about solidarity I came to think of something I read in one of the books John Cleese has written together with his therapist Robin Skynner “Life and How to Survive It” (the Swedish edition). I wrote a blogposting in Swedish about this.

First I want to add that I don’t believe in all their ideas on why people get psychologically ill, are having psychological problems or how to come to terms with them.

However, here I want to quote a little freely from the chapter about "changes for everybody."

Politicians dividing people in ”we” and ”them”, whom always need somebody to blame when things have gone wrong, aren’t really psychologically healthy.

They have less contact with the reality and their opinions are less gone through. Instead we are seeing their deep-rooted emotional attitudes (whom they maybe aren’t aware of).

On average they are more polarized, more prejudiced towards political opponents and thus less capable of seeing the whole picture and work towards the most reasonable compromises, as the soundest in every party are capable of.

Both Stalinists and Nazis were very authoritarian and totally paranoiac.

Differences, disunity and debate are important to be able to make proper political decisions, for they show the whole row of possibilities and through comparing and choosing among those we can make changes in consensus (without manipulation or brainwashing or anything: my comment).

See earlier postings about cults.

The soundest politicians have a lot of other interests in life besides the politics.

The sounder have less needs controlling other people. They are less interested in power for its own sake and more anxious or eager sharing it, as far as possible, giving power to other people in the society.

And when changes are desirable they try to bring those about through convincing people, instead of forcing changes on them. But again: not through manipulation. Sooner or less people will see manipulation through. And if they don’t we will see the results anyway; in a less good working society, workplace, family etc.

The people in the current system getting power are maybe the ones that least of all should have it. But the ones who ought to have the power are held back by the others, because that’s how our system is working. You obtain influence in a party by investing all your time and energy on it – something you are more apt to if you are obsessed by it and don’t have any other real interests.

Thus it’s the human beings whom have less on the side of politics, and the ones with the greatest power-hunger, who get disproportionate big influence and force the sounder and more moderate holding more extreme opinions than they should have otherwise. Which in turn increases the polarization further and conjure more extreme opinions up than most people usually would entertain.

The governing in Great Britain has largely consisted of foisting minority opinions on the citizens, with the result that a great part of the population don’t feel represented in the political process(es).

I wonder: Can this demoralize people? Create cynicism in the worst case and create cynicism if it continues a longer time?

The decisions that are working are the ones that are obtained through a thorough and open discussion where diverging opinions are welcomed and listened to, leading to a real and widely spread unity or in the worst case that decisions are taken by a management one feels is acting with the WHOLE systems best for its eyes.

A bit ironic: for our own good!!??

But this sounds a little as the Summerhill school!

One-sided (or badly supported: my addition) made decisions aren’t lasting. Instead of solving problems they maintain the sad processes in the political apparatus that makes so decisions never are what they ought to be, but always are an exaggerated reaction against the last one-sided decision. The result becomes an endless oscillation between extremes giving overcompensation for what you have lost on the earlier decision.

My comment: The ones that are governing are in many cases governing through dividing and ruling.

The result can become a society that is less sound, more authoritarian, more polarized and group-selfish.

My comment: Exactly what we are seeing.

The trick is finding people whom are less one-eyed.

My comment: why are people one-eyed? Why don’t we have healthier leaders? Or healthier societies?

If I use rhetoric people are paying back with the same coin and we don’t get anywhere. Only in the healthiest contexts we are safe/secure enough to encourage all becoming independent and to express what they feel.

Yes, as the meetings at Summerhill!?

Solidarity – to oneself, to other people, to the world, nature…

I baked Lucy cats yesterday.

[Slightly edited in the evening and updated December 3]. One of my bosses said on a meeting recently that he had read (or heard about) an investigation about people born in the nineties showing that those people are much more individualistic than any other generation. He didn't describe it as this individualism was something positive in my ears and feelings. My interpretation was that they are selfish and don't really care about other people. But has grown people always thought like this about the younger generations (with a self-ironic smile and a deep sigh).

These young people have a greater propensity for immediate satisfaction of their needs he said I think. They put themselves in the first place/room… If I remember right. They are (only) loyal to themselves.

Sidetrack: I also reacted at colleagues I got in the beginning of the nineties (colleagues coming directly from their education), colleagues who were born in the sixties (as our minister of education, whose ideas I don't like at all), they were so strict and authoritarian towards our students, sounded so totalitarian in their judgments! Yes, they sounded like this at least, it's maybe possible that they weren't really like this in practical work, I don't know.

I reacted at what my boss said, as if we just have to accept that young people are like this... And I also raised my voice on this meeting. Have thought further on this a little, among a lot of other things I have in my mind.

Does the one have to exclude the other? Can’t you be loyal both to yourself and to the community (so long as the community is really worth this of course)? Does the individual exclude the collective or vice versa? Can’t, and shouldn’t, the collective treat or meet, each individual with real, genuine, deep respect? And can't an individual feel loyalty towards a group, a community? So long as it is worth it, yes!?

Are those two opposites? Do they have to be? And if they are, why are they?

I try to imagine; if we managed to meet the child with true, genuine respect from the first beginning, in the first place, respect for its feelings, needs, reactions, expressions etc. wouldn’t that individual be capable of showing true, genuine respect to what is worth her or his respect? And make that person more capable of constructively dealing with difficult people, conditions etc.

I also came to think of John Cleese and one of the books he wrote with his therapist Robin Skinner, about leaders, more and less healthy ones. For instance what they had to say about Hitler and Stalin. I searched the book in my book cases and read quickly that they mean that Hitler belonged to the right-extremists and Stalin to the left-extremists briefly said!?

But I think I have to reread what they wrote better before I write more about it…

And I also came to think about shame again of some reason, as a raising method, even used (by people in the power) to steer adult people into things they otherwise wouldn't have agreed to or would have strongly protested against... Would it be possible steering people with shame if they had become better treated (truly respectfully treated) earliest in life?

The young people growing up during the former decade (the nineties), grew up during a time when the grown up world had less time for them; parents more occupied than ever, and there were less grown up people in school, because of the steel bath in the economy then...

There’s a lot at work now too… This was really quickly written...

Some quick reflections December 3: we have been told (encouraged) the last more then ten years at work to say what we think. Told not to talk in the corridors. But do people really - and if not why? Have they started doing this more? Or maybe even less? And the ones that are speaking up - how are they seen and/or met? Are they maybe exploding over states of affairs? And sensitive to not outspoken things? Is it a little "you shall but you shall not"? Which is one of the Master Suppression Techniques?