The earth: a large scale enterprise where you have to watch so you aren’t “disturbing” if you want a place in the sun…

The Swedish journalist Maria-Pia Boëthius writes in the leader "The Galleria of the Ego-trippers" a couple of weeks ago about a Swedish radio programme called “Summer,” that is having its 50 years anniversary this summer.

It’s a programme where celebrities are invited to talk and play music. She thinks that Public Service in Sweden has chosen a lot of self centered, ego-tripped, cowardice and harmless (not dangerous) hosts for the programme. People who aren’t risking anything or exposing themselves - because it can be bad for the(ir) trademark.

They are seen as “non-political” she thinks, but she hasn’t seen something so political; “Summer” is the self-sellers and yellow-bellies arena, the Alliance for Sweden’s deadly boring apprehension of the “successful” man/woman.

The system chooses its babblers she thinks. And the system, also the public service, is governed by those who have joined the thought on the earth as a large-scale enterprise owned by the rich where it’s about not disturbing – but get yourself a place in the sun.

One of the last speeches the creator of this programme, Tage Danielsson, held had the heading “The Murder on Solidarity.” Today this could be used as the heading for public service’s way of choosing summer-talkers she thinks.

PS. Tage Danielsson made a movie on Astrid Lindgren's book "Ronia the Robber's Daughter" (se below).

Cowardice shown by the authorities...

from the country side in USA.

Sigrun writes on her blog about the authorities cowardice apropos an article worth reading in a Norwegian paper about the abuse of children in the Catholic church on Ireland and protecting the perpetrator (the Ryan report).

Compared to children exposed to abuse in their own homes with the blessings of the authorities; there it's entirely quiet.

Some silent thoughts…

In a pause between two schools, a pause longer than it use to be. Home for a cup of coffee and some writing.

”Don’t come here with your insecurity!”

a man said to a woman (by the way I wonder if this woman should have happened to be more secure on herself in another situation, or even very secure on herself in another, that wouldn't be good either??).

I came to think about taking responsibility for ones own things… For oneself and ones projections… However, probably not easy.

Who tend to question themselves? In general? And who are (maybe) less prone in questioning themselves?

Defended (in a certain way) are less prone?

Are some more forced to questioning themselves (oh, this English: was this right? "to questioning"?), because of the state of affairs? Because of the different roles we (still) play in the society?

As little as the man is my (early) dad, I am as little any grown up man’s mom… I am an entirely other grown up woman and person and human being. And I try the best I can (with more or less success) to take responsibility for my own things… And I am both insecure and less insecure in certain things and situations…

On the bike to the first school: blaming oneself… How was it with the Primary defense? Some are nearer to blaming themselves and taking the blame on themselves (even when there is no reason)!? Some are denying this side not only to the environment but also to themselves? And when those are stating to behave differently: not taking the blame on themselves, that can cause (strong) reactions in the environment, which thinks it's convenient with this tendency in this person...

And who are the ones most inclined seeking help? Isn’t it the ones that are admitting to their problems? And there are more women seeking help in therapy and counseling than men. At least here in Sweden.

And I think Anja is right: the perpetrator can't blame the bystander that he (she) committed crimes (of different degrees) "Why didn't you prevent me from doing this??" even if that is probably very convenient!? Not least if this is a an attempt to push responsibility away.

But (if I remember right) Jennifer Freyd writes in her book that it's maybe even more painful realizing you have been betrayed (if a mom hasn't intervened when a father has committed sexual abuse on a child).

And how was it now with scapegoats? Acting and reacting at scapegoats? And about symbolizing? We probably do this all of us to different degrees... And this certainly causes a lot and has caused a lot. Even wars!!

And I also thought about a raised awareness in society in general about those things: child abuse, in all its aspects/respects... Even emotional abuse and what that causes too.

There is still a Societal denial to a HIGH degree!?? I read the article I linked yesterday, about stigma... Of course childhood wasn't mentioned! Different topics (and he explanations to them) are still pretty "abstract"!?? As if phenomena comes from the blue or nowhere (or from genes, innate drives, our innate characters etc.)...

And I am reacting strongly at the moralizing politicians we have too (how were their childhoods? What are they playing out now??), not least in our current government... The neo-conservativeness, and a neo-morality...

No, now coffee...

Addition after lunch: in the Swedish magazine ETC there was an article today about the Master Suppression techniques and a new book about these... The interviewer in the article asked:

-Why is it so wrong to handle a taxing ruler (master) through an emotional outburst?"

-It offers the ruler a possibility of pressing one down even further. If you are attacking the ruler can say 'Oh, how aggressive you are!' ('You don't have to be aggressive!' I have heard as an advice when I have been upset about something, and wanted to deal with it, as if it is a great risk I would be!? And - what does 'aggressive' actually means in this circumstance? I am not allowed to be angry? I wonder how many that see me as 'aggressive' and attacking in real life? Addition at 7:15 PM: have just seen a café-program at TV. As it is International Women's Day tomorrow there was talk about that. A female politician played a tune on piano, a song they sang 30 years ago with the title "Why are birds having so weak voices?").

And if you are defending yourself the reply can be 'Oh, how sensitive you are!'

What you ought to do is to mirror the situation, and when you are doing this you suppose the ruler maybe isn't aware of that you a moment ago were oppressed. Pose counter-questions as for instance 'What do you mean by that?'

No matter where you are, who you are or what you are working with (or doing) you don't deserve being ruled over the author (a young woman) thinks.

She also refers to Berit Ås, and according to Ås the Master Suppression techniques are an instrument of force men uses to still more fortify the woman's suborder. And why do men need to demonstrate their power, and to oppress other people, both women and men? And why do men OR women want and need to oppress (even if this is entirely unconscious)?

But she thinks that to assert that there are no other rulers than men would be too stereotyped. Men oppress both women and men. Women oppress both men and women she thinks.

She also means that men usually HAVE space (at workplaces, but I would add not only there), which means they don't have to compete in the same way as women have to (men are competing in other manners?). And women are also often compared with each by men. Woman is put against woman, not competence against competence. Not human value against human value (where all are worth respect as the human being she/he is).

Playing people out against each other is a sort of power-tool too? Is a way of manipulating?? Is a sort of Master Suppression technique or a form of oppression of individuals or a whole group?

But why do we need to oppress other people and have power? From where does this need come?

PS. My youngest sister heard the videos with my pupil, she wrote to me that she thought he had copied my way of playing! Fun! "Softly and melodically and not 'hard'" as she wrote! Hmmm yes, my siblings have really heard my playing!!

PPS. From further reading in the magazine ETC, in a chronicle by the Swedish journalist Maria-Pia Boëthius who is writing about power exercise too!! And about dominance and suborder. She is referring to Pierre Bourdieu who has said that the man is as little born to dominance as the woman is born to suborder. All this is instead a result of upbringing Bourdieu thinks, the upbringing from the first start of life (maybe already at birth, in how the small baby is treated? Small boys in one way and small girls in another - my addition and wonder).

She thinks this gives us hope!! Because if it is so it is possible to change! My addition: and this isn't only the women's/mother's responsibility, but also the men's/father's!?? Both have as much responsibility as the other part!! Noone more and the other less responsibility for this. And by the way, I have heard that dad (dads in general) had so much responsibility in his (their) work, so... And the strange thing is that that responsibility was much more worth! What they did and who they were was more worth than being with the kids. The first was more valued! (so how much were the kids worth actually??? Neither women no children were counted!?? When you were grown up - then, maybe! But the women were less wort even then!?? Men more worth! But were they seen as human beings either? With feelings etc.?).

Bourdieu studied a nationality in Afghanistan, in which the men wanted to stand out as 'real men' in other men's eyes, as only men were counted (women were not counted, nothing worth). But also women, wives and mothers demanded that the men should act like 'real men', since this raised theirs - and the family's - status.

Bourdieu meant that some forms of manly courage has its origin in fear of losing the group's admiration. Thus what one calls courage has sometimes roots in a form of cowardice!

The theme in this chronicle was honor killing. In Wikipedia it stands about honor killing:

“An honor killing or honour killing is generally a punitive murder, committed by members of a family against a female member of their family whom the family and/or wider community believes to have brought dishonor upon the family. A woman is usually targeted for: refusing an arranged marriage, being the victim of a sexual assault, seeking a divorce — even from an abusive husband — or committing adultery. These killings result from the perception that a woman has behaved in a way that ‘dishonors’ her family is sufficient to trigger an attack on her life.

Human Rights Watch defines ‘honor killings’ as follows:

Honor crimes are acts of violence, usually murder, committed by male family members against female family members, who are held to have brought dishonor upon the family. A woman can be targeted by (individuals within) her family for a variety of reasons, including: refusing to enter into an arranged marriage, being the victim of a sexual assault, seeking a divorce — even from an abusive husband — or (allegedly) committing adultery. The mere perception that a woman has behaved in a way that ‘dishonors’ her family is sufficient to trigger an attack on her life.^”

Only a little more than 50 years ago it was shamy becoming pregnant before marriage... The hypocrisy...

Also see this readers' letter at Miller's web, here (not about the topic above though).