The effects of child rearing…

Madicken?

How do we see them in the ones governing the world (politicians and other power people)? In true, genuine respect, compassion and empathy? Are those, the respectful, compassionate and empathic, the ones governing the world? What sort of persons are people voting for (and supporting) and why?

I am reading a book about child rearing by a Swedish pediatrician.

On voices that are never heard - or creating a conception of the world...

Vibeke Olsson.

Anja on the blog “Do nothing day” writes that people trying to do something about inconveniences in the society are portrayed as bad people in media.

Think about labor union blockades; think demonstrating young people, think house occupants, think animal rights activists. Are you feeling “civil disobedience– brave!” or do you feel “criminality”? And who have in that case fed you with those associations?

She also wonders if all peoples' voices are heard, the poor peoples’ for instance…

And concludes yes, there are so many voices that are never heard.

My addition: some are silenced too. Whose? How come?

And whose voices are head? Who are screaming loudest? And who don't have to scream at all? Because they are listened to and respected anyway? In some cases deservedly of course.

Are we going to need more and more gated communities here and there in the world?

Miller is right: you CAN demonstrate without using violence or without destroying material things either.

Leaders and child abuse…

people lived here 6000 years ago (stone age).

From Bob Scarf’s essay “Leaders”:

"This is consonant with the idea that ‘leadership’ is composed of the most backwards psychoclasses.

Question: Why is that? That is, why is ‘leadership’ composed of the most backwards psychoclasses? /…/

I have written elsewhere (and in previous posts) on the origins of political power [and why are some given power? Why does the people give certain people power, even the highest power in a society, whether formal or informal, on different levels? What do those have in their early history?].

In the gynarchy (female subculture) women restaged their abuse and warded off their annihilation anxiety by emulating their abusive mothers.

In the androcracy (male subculture) men, who did not become mothers, had to restage and combat their annihilation anxiety in other ways. One of the ways they did so was by developing politics and political power [or in anger]. So power is pathological. If you want to avoid using medical terms; power is a defense. It follows then that the people who are more defended (in certain ways) are more attracted to political power.

[and power in general in the society!? I think the ones that would become the best leaders, for instance on workplaces, don’t seek those jobs, because they realize the problems with being a leader. The researchers Christina Maslach and Michael P. Leiter thought the workplaces and companies were at risk of becoming drained on their best work labor, because either they would become burnout or try to leave and start their own businesses, with all the troubles connected to this and what this would cost for the companies, workplaces, the democracy the society, the societal economy. And so far I have had the incomes so I can buy and read a lot of books. More privileged than many in this world, even though I only have middle-incomes! Grew up and still belong to the middle class, maybe grew up in the somewhat upper middle class].”

See what Alice Miller writes in her book "The Body Never Lies" and what's written about its content (the second half of this posting) concerning child abuse and the society.

I thought further on my maternal grandparents and how they survived the pressure on them (in the working class. Addition: I think I belong to the “working” class too!).

We live in much more complicated societies than our first ancestors lived, in societies with the potential to really destroy everything on this earth; the nature, all human beings.

My great grandparents and their generation, and in the generations before them, didn’t really have those means.

I also came to think how does the history look when it comes power-mad? To money and property mad (having limitless needs, needs that can never become filled, the person never becomes satisfied, is about persons trying to fill needs they can never fill afterwards, because that time has passed, but what does this cause other people, if not the whole society, but the persons nearest to them)?

And societies with many disturbed because of the ways that were in fashion raising children (as for instance in Germany decades before WWII, and probably also occurring in societies in wars and lots of conflicts today too)?

That our grandparents (in my generation), being under and standing with their caps in their hands, bowing for their employers managed their lives (in greater poverty than almost all people today?) how did they? Were they stronger, or what? The illnesses came late in life for them. See about the ACE-study. I think Miller wonders if Hitler had needed his leader role (that much) if he had a lot of children, and been able to abreact the horrible abuse he endured during his childhood on them.

Did they because they could abreact their frustrations on their kids, it was your duty to educate your children, and the method was spanking them and making so they didn’t think they were anybody (by using emotional and verbal violence)?

Men abreacted on their wives and kids if they weren’t in a power position (then they probably mistreated the persons standing them nearest in different ways, more or less subtle), and women in turn on their kids (if they couldn’t react at their husbands, on whom they were dependent)?

Women abreacted the abuse they had endured during their childhood (and their under order in the whole society) and their fear of becoming annihilated by copying their mothers (and/or fathers). Men sought power in the society, and if this wasn’t possible they abreacted their early experiences and latter humiliation they experienced in the society, at work etc. too on their kids (and wives. But women have been abusive too at not only their kids!). As was the case when I grew up.

In this way they survived, didn’t become sick in the first place, and had a feeling of some sort of power and control (the therapists Ingeborg Bosch and Jean Jenson, maybe among others, think you get a feeling of power and control through anger and/or denial of needs) ?

Also came to think: Owe Wikström realized when his heart all of a sudden stopped and during the recovery after this, how totally being at the mercy and dependent he was on his caregivers, and the care and good will he got from them [my addition: that they didn't abuse his situation]. See what his reflections in his book “Sonias goodness”.

I also wondered: real equality, real freedom, (that all people have the same say, are equally worth, get the same respect as everybody else) in the society and the world is that the real prerequisites? How do we create this? The best and probably only method is changing childrearing methods even more than we have already done? There’s still quit a lot to do there I would say.

Interview with the author Henning Mankell.

Denial and the possible, horrible effects of it...

a nuclear family (happy?).

A third posting on the American neurologist Jonathan H. Pincus’ findings. He writes at page 214-215 in “Appendix: Tools of Diagnosis, History, Physical Examination and the Role of Tests” that:

”Conventional wisdom among prosecutors and society at large holds that the fabrication of stories of abuse occurs often. But in twenty-five years of seeing the most violent people in America, I have only once encountered an inmate whose claim of abuse was reliably refuted by other family members. In my experience, falsification has weighed heavily in the other direction. I have seen many murderers whose claim not to have been abused was contradicted by independent evidence.

Many condemned prisoners would literally go to their deaths rather than consciously and publicly describe their abuse by their parents [abuse with really dire consequences]. Many families of the condemned would much rather see their relative executed than reveal the story of abuse that implicates them as either perpetrator or fellow victim.”

One denies and hides what has happened. And that’s why the abuse is passed further. This proves what for instance Miller has said. Things we see every day in society but in other forms and not as obvious? For instance in political decisions.

“Konventionell visdom bland kärande (åklagare?) och samhället i stort menar att påhitt om övergrepp ofta förekommer. Men under de tjugofem år som jag sett de mest våldsamma människorna i Amerika så har jag bara mött en intern vars anspråk på övergrepp var pålitligt vederlagda (motsagda) av andra familjemedlemmar. Enligt min erfarenhet så har förfalskning vägt tungt i den andra riktningen. Jag har sett många mördare vars anspråk på att inte ha blivit misshandlade har blivit motsagda av oberoende bevis.

Många dömda fångar skulle bokstavligen hellre gå i döden än att medvetet och offentligt beskriva misshandeln av sina föräldrar [man skyddar dem alltså snarare än berättar hur det verkligen var, med de ödesdigra konsekvenser det får. Och det är antagligen oerhört många i samhället oerhört tacksamma för att slippa höra!! Med de konsekvenser DET kan få! Hellre stoppar vi alla våra huvuden i sanden!?]. Många familjer till dömda skulle mycket hellre se sin släkting avrättad än att avslöja övergreppshistorien, vilken [samtidigt] skulle låta förstå att de antingen är förövare eller medoffer [också].”

I am for instance thinking of what we see in politics too. What sort of politicians and politics we (seem to) have today. Ideas opportune today. What society approves of today and what this can lead to?

Yes, the psycho-historian Bob Scharf is right when he writes in the essay “Leaders” for instance that:

“…the more defended psychoclasses tend to lead.”

I am not sure I agree with ALL he writes in his particular essay though… (psycho-historians seem to be influenced by psychoanalysis still? So brainwashed by it, not capable of shaking its influences off really? I don't believe in and don't like that language really, it's manipulative I think and more covering than relieving and liberating. But I wonder if thinking like this isn't like "swearing in the church"?) Rather see what Ingeborg writes about False power - anger defence and what Miller writes on anger, the justified anger, and scapegoats (anger directed at other targets than the factual perpetrators), I believe more in their ideas. And what these serial killers show is the extremes of this anger, their need for power and control??

I will write another posting later today I think about WHAT sorts of abuse Pincus actually has found and how the victims minimize and belittle the abuse. Probably the more the more horrible it is/was.

Yes, all these things: denial, belittling, minimizing can get dire consequences, because if you deny what you were exposed to you are a great risk of abusing other people as soon as you get that opportunity. From own children to committing murders etc.

The horrible thing is that the more serious the abuse the more difficult it is to admit that it was done… We should speak about these things much more? Even the abuse we (maybe) less harmed was exposed to. Making us more or less blind and more or less insensitive. And pone to voting for quite authoritarian and not so sound politicians and leaders for instance.

See the lasts postings on Pincus and this theme here and here.

Addition at 13:25: and now also here.

The problems with defences…

pictures from today's walk.

Spontaneously: A lot of thoughts (and emotions) on the walk I have just returned from. Eskil is still peeing blood… It is not fun mildly said. And maybe this is also triggering things… Experiences?

Addition in the evening: Chose the title to this posting very quickly... Maybe I should have chosen another? But there is so much in my head and mind now...

I also came to think of people denying their needs, thoughts triggered by a posting I did on my other blog this morning. Also a posting I have thought of writing a long time. Having everything in check and control, and maybe also looking down on other people, “weak”, dependent ones… There is a psychiatrist here David Eberhard whom has written a book “In the safety addictions-land”. He means that it can be too much safety and security! Till it becomes an addiction!

These denying their needs are often (but not all??) resonating in terms of:

“I can manage! (why can’t you then too?) What weakling are you!”

And this is plainly said contempt for weakness?? Contempt for the small child one was once?? See Bosch on the Primary Defence. And on the False Power Denial of Needs, False Power Anger – and False Power Hope…

Women often resort to False Power Hope Defence and adds it with False Power Denial of Needs Defence she means… They (we) think they (we) can change the state affairs and this can be added (and is often added) with denial of needs, we think the more we can deny our needs the better, the we will get love. The less needy they (we) are the more respected they (we) become – they (we) think at least!?? In general. But she underlines that this is a generalization and that there are (a lot of) exceptions.

And men generally combine Denial of Needs with False Power Anger, which gives them a (false) sense of strength, a strength they don’t need in the present situation (most often), but needed to defend themselves with as small boys to survive (and not experience how vulnerable and power and helpless they were then, denying this fact with a belief of, false, power, a power the small boy actually didn't have, but as he grown up man now most often have).

But denial of needs doesn’t mean one doesn’t have any needs and what's more important that the person doesn’t act on his/her needs? Trying to fill them in different ways, but maybe this is more or less hidden or visible/invisible both to themselves but also to others?

Unfulfilled needs which have become, what Stettbacher calls them, perverted?

And filling these perverted needs are always (more or less) harmful? And the ones that are denying them the most are causing most harm?? The less aware are causing most harm? The ones most in Denial causes most harm? Or the ones most in denial and with most power cause most denial? And maybe these persons also need power the most to defend themselves? And need exercising power most, need having power the most to hold the truth away?

Yes, psychohistorians are right about backward psychoclasses here?

And the ones admitting to their needs or who got their needs filled the most as children, or wo have been able or got help processing their early history the most and best, are causing less harm and don’t have to fill their needs through other people?

The worse is though when one tries to fill ones early unmet and denied needs through children (ones own or other people’s) and the ones under in power or less strong. Compared to filling them through other grown up people equal to oneself...

See earlier postings on authoritarianism.one of my favourites, picture taken 4 hours ago.