Contradictions and confusions…

Some thoughts on the bike to work, threw those words down quickly on paper when I came to work, before the first student. I write them down here almost as I wrote them down this morning:

Limit setting for children are hotter than ever again, but letting the market totally free is ok, absolutely nothing wrong with or anything to worry about. Children, on the contrary, need restrictions, restrictions for instance the market doesn’t need. How would it be if children didn't get restrictions? Where would it end? Or it's for "their own good" and the world's good? Those children will grow up to good citizens, capable of handling and managing a free market or something?

Liberals are talking about freedom in one circumstance, but discipline in another.

Integrity – what about?

Respect – what about?

True, genuine respect and capacity to that sort of respect…

Freedom for who? And whose freedom?

Confused (and confusing) liberals here at least can’t really point to proofs or explain where they have got things from. Relying on their feelings?? At the same time as they can be depreciating and belittling other peoples’ feelings! And claiming other peoples’ lack of proofs.

Came to think about integrity violations…

You (the people on the bottom and children) need to earn your freedom?? I wonder if all are entitled or worth freedom in a liberal’s world actually if you scratch on the surface?

The same confusing messages many of us got early??

When I was student at a folk high school here in Sweden after quitting the gymnasium we spoke about let-go (låt-gå in Swedish, or laissez-faire), authoritarian and democratic leadership (in teachers in this case I think). More than thirty years ago we were learned that the democratic leadership was the best.

Have some (many) liberals misunderstood what "freedom" is? Confused it with laissez-faire combined with authoritarianism? I wonder quite ironically.

About the FRA-law, the need for power and control - and integrity violations...

a sea of meadow flowers.

The Swedish Riksdag or Parliament has voted a new law (what is called the FRA-law) through where authorities are allowed to check our emails, the text-messages we send, what sites at the internet we visit etc. and to store it. And we have a right-government and a right majority in the Riksdag…

The blogger Jenny W. writes that (a little freely):

“An important reason that this FRA-law is so horrid is that it can be used against dissidents and whip consensus forward through fright. For us who don’t see more than said diseases [everyday and everywhere] when we read the daily and evening papers and in our talk with the rank-and-file [gemene] journalist, the law comes out as a codification of the already present state of affairs than a real change of them (excuse me for not crying myself to death over the threatened protection of sources [källskydd], but it feels as if that isn’t really the obstacle for newspapers writing about ’dangerous’ things – but, fine, it’s sickly serious that the state has usurped this tool of controlling nevertheless, and of course I understand that protection of sources is important)./…/

Say something dangerous instead [she thinks the rage in the bloggosphere over this law is mostly because it is comme il faut, and for people to prove they stand on the little human being’s side], something dangerous, so it feels as if the law really can’t be imported without threatening values which usually ought to be important. Not this sort of copies' rattle against the power, so they can feel as part of the power.”

The need for power, and control from the power! See Bob Scharf’s essay “Leaders,” that

“…the more defended psychoclasses tend to lead.”

Yes, what we see in many (maybe most) politicians, and from where does the need for power come (be it on a familial level or a societal, even a global)? The power’s arrogance!!! And entire lack of feelings or empathy…

Another blogger at Motvallsbloggen writes that

“There is another reason, the more serious, to be critical to the FRA-law [than file-sharing] because it implies a great departure from democratic principles. Such as that this law is just another part of a pattern that becomes clearer and clearer. The pattern shows a strong will from the governing elites' part to control the populations in the West-world before what’s coming, namely the entire abolishing of the democracy and an even greater pressure on the populations, where it won’t feel as important in the future whether you can share files from the net or not. The FRA-law is only part of an even darker and disagreeable pattern.”

This blogger also writes that there is no real opposition today either! Not from the left either!!! True! And this is really scary...

What can this law mean? That we become careful about what we write and express without even being aware of it too?

And is this really a control-instrument against terrorism (as is said)?? Because the ones with bad intentions already have all means to hide their doings??

It’s violation of the integrity of people in general in the worst manner!!

I come to think of parents reading their children’s letters and diaries…

Yes, there ought to be reactions even from the surrounding world!??? Both on what’s happening here and what’s happening in ones own home-countries! It IS very important we try to influence the state of affairs?? By voting if nothing else!?

Once again, yes, we minimize and belittle, if not deny, that we are violated??? In a similar manner as stood in “The Prize we pay for shaming little boys”:

The reluctance of Germans to ‘know about’ what was done to them after the fighting was over reminds me of those three little monkeys: See No Evil, Hear No Evil and Speak No Evil. In my twenty years as a psychotherapist treating survivors of childhood trauma, I am familiar with this tendency of those who were once helpless to minimize the impact abuse has had on their lives. It is the same with my abused clients who trivialize the beatings of their childhood, saying they deserved to be hit, that they were very bad children. People who have been traumatized tend to normalize their traumatic situations.

It is hard for humans to accept that they were powerless to protect themselves from deliberate mistreatment. They are much more likely to take the blame for having been abused."

And that about obedience, instilling it in children, to be in advance of their supposed innate evilness... Arhur Silber has come back to the theme obedience in his Alice Miller-essays... That's what we see in too many of our politicians in our government today?

Conspiracy, sexual emancipation and a little about medication…

Lars Ohly.

Romano Prodi.

George W. Bush.

[Updated June 9 in the end!] Two news-items side by side in the local newspaper today made me think. The leader for the left party in Sweden Lars Ohly said during the congress now that he sees conspiracy behind demands on aircraft security (terrorism in Europe). I searched on the net for this and got some hits there, so people have noticed it.

He said during the congress that once when he was out flying his shaving cream was confiscated. He says that he of course congratulates the European Union for the enormous success in the fight against terrorism which this confiscation marks.

In a speech he said that:

“These rules are an expression for a panic that is created and fills a political purpose. The rulers (the ones in power) want us to believe that the law and order and democracy only can become defended through becoming restricted.”

After the speech he confessed that he believes in a conspiracy.

“Yes, I seriously mean that one does this to create a ground for other changes."

What he means is the increased security leading to a climate where people experience that security is so threatened, that it is justifiable with restrictions in the democratic freedoms and rights (privileges or civil rights).

They asked Ohly whom he thought was lying behind this conspiracy, and he said that George W. Bush after September 11 sent a letter to the European commission’s Romano Prodi with a list on 47 points which USA wanted Europe to introduce.

The other news-item was that many teenage girls have sex against their will. In research the psychologist Gisela Priebe has established that one of seven girls in the upper teens have had sexual intercourse against their own will. Among the boys in the same age one of seventeen have had difficulties saying no.

The press living up to the ideal of sexual emancipation has made it difficult saying no.

This conclusion is made by the psychologist Gisela Priebe who has made research on adolescents being exposed to sexual abuse. This winter her dissertation comes at the University of Lund.

More than 4,000 (4,139) young people in gymnasium-age have answered questions. As many as 65 percent of the girls say that they have been exposed to some form of unwanted sexual action which can be everything from tampering or pawing (tafsande) to sexual intercourse.

Priebe means that the research so far has focused on incest and paedophilia, but abuse between young people in the same age is in fact more common. The girls had been in age 14 in average when they were abused in some form the first time. Eleven percent of the girls had such experiences at 10 or even younger at the first occasion.

Priebe says that it isn’t always a question of physical violence, sexual abuse isn’t always connected to physical violence or force. It’s common with persuasion or that someone uses his/her position. And she thinks there is a widespread picture among young people that one shall be emancipated and sexually accessible. This can make it difficult for many young people feeling they have the right to say no.

Yes, I think Ohly can be right about conspiracies from people in power, giving the power right to control us. And I wondered to what degree this is conscious. From a person like George W. Bush for instance. I reread some pages from “Base Instincts - What Makes Killers Kill?” by the American neurologist Jonathan H. Pincus. He writes about the possible roots for terrorism and about societal approval and also that (page 191):

“The unrestrained approval of violence in certain political parties and gangs may make such groups attractive to the abused. Although we have very little information about the family dynamics of the members of terrorist organizations, I believe that the history of physical and sexual abuse, and even mental illness [also due to abuse] paranoia, and brain damage is prevalent among them.”

I also skimmed the chapter on prevention and treatment and my impression is that medication isn’t always a secure method… But I have to read this chapter better to say he means this. But our current government want to medicate people with means of coercion (medicate all “dissidents” I wonder quite ironically. Another thing this government does which isn’t properly supported by science?). Addition in the evening: see the last posting today "Can a pill make a murderer safe?"

See Pincus on Hitler and Hatred, the essay "George W. Bush's projection and dislocation of self", and here and here are the links to all earlier postings with the label “J. Pincus” and to postings with the label the “ruling classes’ paranoia” here and here.

And that about sexual abuse: why haven’t young people learned to say “no”? I also wonder (ironically) if they have learned to trust their senses and feelings, and been allowed to respect them, by their parents already.

See the article “Childhood Sexual Abuse – Women’s Mental and Social Health Before and After Group Therapy.”

A common denominator to the topics in this posting is "integrity violations" and their effects?? Which all this above is about?

PS. In his youth Lars Ohly belonged to the Liberal Party!!! (I don't vote on them though, and will probably never do).

Addition June 9: Watch this video-clip about chasing terrorists in Indiana, USA, "War on Terre Haute." :-) And read about Terre Haute here. I didn't know it was a city! :-)

Gurus and leaders…

from tea now at around 10.30, with new-baked bread :-).

Gurus and leaders - a topic I have thought of writing about for a long time…

Miller writes about this and the roots to it in her book “Paths of Life” in the chapter “Reflections” and in the chapter about Helga and her therapy in the same book. And she also mention these topics in the revised version of "The Drama of the Gifted Child" and in "Thou Shalt Not Be Aware."

I googled on "Thou Shalt Not Be Aware" ("Du skall icke märka") and found this text from the bible. Also see here. The illustration below is from the last site, illustrating "Thou Shalt Not Be Aware"?

My summary of what she writes (in "Paths of Life") and eventual comments and thoughts below (from the Swedish edition, the last book that has been translated to Swedish of Miller’s books. Why is that? A societal and professional denial? Is it only due to Miller herself? And why has Miller turned the way she seems to have turned?).

Miller writes that we live in a time where it looks as if dictatorships seem to be replaced by democracies. But at the same time we see how totalitarian systems are growing in different sects.

People who have grown up with freedom and respect and whose distinctive characters have been tolerated and not been throttled with the help of education, would scarcely voluntarily let themselves be drawn into a sect or at least not stay in it if they by coincidence or skillful manipulations should land there.

But many people don’t seem to bother that there exists mechanisms which once again will deprive them of the freedom of thoughts, actions and feelings/emotions (see Pia Mellody about codependency and violations of a child's inner life). They don’t seem to worry that they are put under totalitarian control and are forced to obedience in a way that they will never free themselves from, because through the years they will become objects for an indoctrination which makes it impossible for them to acknowledge or of seeing what damages their personalities have suffered - once again.

Miller writes that the form of secterist groups she has been occupied with are the ones with the unconscious manipulation; the way in which parents or therapists suppressed and unconscious childhood-history influences their children’s and patient’s lives, without anyone observing. In their education they have learned to handle conscious manipulation, but not the unconscious. They haven’t sufficiently dealt with their suppressed history Miller thinks. Other therapists have similar ideas.

Stettbacher says something I think is true; that we ought to protect the watchers of life in ones children. Which means treating our children from the first moment with all the respect we are capable of, so they don’t have to suppress things, so they have to suppress as little as possible? And this is the best way to protect them.

Schools of different kinds and educational methods are never free from all risks for manipulation, how fine ideals one even has. I have had a discussion about Summerhill school system. Not even that system can entirely guarantee anything!? And there has existed things there too from the (very) little I have heard... And also see these experiences of private schools or rather boarding-schools in England. by a former boarding-school student.

In my work I have also seen things I have reacted against, maybe less harmful than other things though… Methods that almost becomes like sect-like things, with a guru a top… For instance as in the Suzuki-metod, we also use the Montessori-method etc. etc. etc. (not inthe music-school though). Noone of us are free from all those tendencies?

Miller writes that among the sect’s founders there are many paranoiac and megalomaniac psychotics who, in the crowd of followers, are seeking protection from their own agony, in that they offer themselves as helpers and healers. They want to avoid their childish powerlessness and impotence and fight this on the symbolic level. At the same time they offer themselves as saviors, because through their followers eulogizes they at last feel powerful instead of powerless/impotent.

But as soon as they fear being seen through they force their disciples to silence. Scary.

See what Arthur Silber has written about obedience and the obedience culture in his Miller-essays. What our early experiences of obedience can mean and lead to even (or not least) on a societal and political level too.

It’s not only the victims but also the leader/guru that regresses to the childhood Miller thinks. The leader/guru also looses the contact with reality (to different degrees) through the followers’ praising-songs, depending on how much or little he has suppressed or later processed (to what degree he is willing to question himself).

Gurus obtain a common assent through fatherly and motherly care, which blends the masses and through regression to early childhood makes them caught in a limitless admiration. In this regression critics of parent-figures as leaders and gurus are not possible at all. And self critic from the part of the leader also disappears in the power-inebriation and self-idealization.

The jubilation of the masses works like a drug on the leader’s excited affects and all the jubilant people doesn’t realize that he uses them only for this function.

The followers don’t question if they are sent out into wars (literally or metaphorically) by their loving and supposed loving leader, just because his personal history demands this. They join, don’t think, leave the thinking to him (and he wants them leaving the thinking to him), they trust him as small children, who don’t have any conception of future and planning yet, they are just trusting that their “father” wants their best - and knows best. They stop thinking themselves (or many do?). Even if he (metaphorically) comes home from work, shouting and with his hand lifted, greeting and correcting them, he is only doing this for their own best (and he knows better than them what is the best for them), he says.

Often well-formulated theories are offered, which despite the scientific façade has nothing with science to do, because they only replace lasting facts with those they make up or deduce from their own theories.

And I think Miller is right concerning failures in therapy (my amateur-translation!!):

If one uncritically cling to old methods' alleged infallibility (and she includes regressive techniques here AND primal therapy) 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.

How many haven’t experienced the same (or similar things) as Helga experienced, in this case in therapy (another form of manipulation)? I think I will write about her story too in a later posting.the not best well-mannered dog at the table, begging (I have serious problems resisting him)!! :-)

Addition after lunch: On my walk (with a dog that has to arm himself with an enormous patience before anyone is ready to go out. It was wonderful out; sun and a blue sky, and we met a woman on a horse and a man with the dog in the forest! So this forest isn't so wild as it maybe looks!?) I thought further on what Mellody has found about violations and abuse:

The child could be violated by being told how to

• think,
• behave,
• feel,
• not think,
• behave,
• feel,
• what friends the child should have,
• and not have,
• which cloths it should wear,
• and not wear…

It was told:

• how it was
• and how and what it wasn’t,
• how it thought,
• and didn't' think,
  
• how it felt,
• and didn't feel,
• how it reacted
• and accused for not reacting, feeling, sensing…

How does a child meet this?

"No, I am not! I am not thinking that way!!"

Words, feelings, thoughts, reactions etc. put in its mouth?

Which Mellody thinks are violations and abuse. And disrespect for the child as person, a disbelief and distrust in its wishes and strivings. Mellody calls this “excessive control of reality” (my translation from Swedish).

And this is also abusive adults between and seldom leads to anything constructive (if it ever leads to something constructive)!? How do one meet:

“You are!!”

With:

“No, I am not!!”

How does one prove neither the first nor the second?

Projections has to be worked out in some way? And they aren’t (are they) by saying

“You are!!”

But it’s very tempting to use these words sometimes?? And where are the limits for when it's no idea to go on trying???

Using these words, is that to take responsibility for oneself? And to say things like that one need to be very self-aware?? Knowing what is about oneself and what is about the other part. But this is tricky! Is the alternative entire solitude??

How would the best way be to communicate? Taking responsibility for what we say, do, how we behave? We will probably go on making bigger and smaller mistakes with all what follows, but we can try to communicate???

No wonder there are wars in this world? But from where does this enormous rage and fury come where you are capable of killing, not only verbally but also literally? Did he child once experience its fathers outbursts as threats for life??

And both parts probably have to want to develop, and care about the relation? And this isn’t always the case? Thinking loudly here... Wondering, thinking (WHAT?? "Thinking!!!??" If one is emotional than one is too emotional and not thinking?? And when one is thinking, one is thinking too much and maybe also insensitive. Yes, it's that too: "You shall not think so much!!" that is also an expression of "excessive control of reality"?), not trying to write a hand-book...

Jenson writes something: from where does all the… in the world come? All needs for mood-rising medication? It’s obvious that there is something lacking? Is it the child’s….?

Mellody speaks about other emotional violations, as demands on perfectionism, neglect, abandonment (both emotionally as physically) etc too, and she is one of those who have pointed out that there exist emotional abuse and disrespect too.

Easer said than done all this!?? With all we probably have in our back-packs??

We can and maybe should communicate how we feel, react etc. And ask

“What did you mean? I reacted in this and this way! It felt...”

or I don't know. Think if there existed a hand-book in this!!??

See Bosch on boundary violations and a posting under the label integrity violations.

From an earlier posting:

"I came to think of the Norwegian doctor Anna-Luise Kirkengen and that she has written about boundary-violations and their effects (if not immediately so later), and the concept revictimization.

There were several references to boundary-violations in her book “Inscribed bodies”, and in the first the concept bio-medicine was mentioned too.

At page 2-4 she writes (my italics):

“Those human conditions which are embedded in interpersonal relations, societal values, and culturally constituted meaning, are, through the very logic of biomedical theory, made invisible. The logic of the dominant methodology also renders them incomprehensible. Finally, they are deemed ignorable or irrelevant since values and meaning are non-issues according to objective science. The result is that the power implicit in social rank and the humiliations of human beings due to abuses of power are turned into non-medical logics, making medicine, inevitably blind to the adverse effects which abuse has on human health [the results of abuse isn’t ‘only’ psychological ill-health to different degrees!]. This becomes even more the case whenever the practice of such abuse is either societally legitimized or culturally taboo./…/

As medicine is a respected societal institution, and in its guise as a science, the normative character of biomedical epistemology accrues crucial influence. It effects central decisions with regard to what is, and what is not, to be considered relevant in drawing medical conclusions. Purporting to apply objective scientific knowledge while actually applying societal norms, medicine as a practice maintains the mandate to define the categories of ill health and malfunctions. By defining these categories, medicine has the right to include any conditions which meet the categorical criteria. Thus, according to the rules of formal logic, medicine also has the power to exclude those conditions which fail to meet those criteria. This distinction between ‘proper’ and ‘improper’ states or conditions plays a role in every medical decision. The norms of biomedicine are embedded in the practice of any medical examination and treatment, and affect every living person who addresses a medical institution in the role of a sick patient. Through application of these norms, distinguishing the ‘proper’ from the ‘improper’ within a formalized societal context, medicine has the power to stigmatize people who ask for help for ‘improper’ conditions. While acting in the name of giving help, medicine may, in fact, violate a person’s dignity. But even those who present apparently ‘proper’ conditions may risk stigmatization if presumably appropriate medical interventions prove ineffective. According to objectifying medical theory, such measures ought to result I a predictable outcome. If they consistently do not, the most probable question is not, ‘what is wrong with medical judgment and medical theory?’ but rather ‘what s wrong with this patient?’ Failures stemming from the foundations of professional judgment, namely medical knowledge acquired by applying rules requiring objectivity, are more likely to be attributed to those whose conditions fails to improve. In other words: Medical norms exclude, marginalize and then stigmatize.”

Side-track: is this the case even more today, with doctors’ limited time with each patient?

And in school: shouldn’t we all try to improve the school in general, together, isn’t this our common concern?"

Here a sender-in in a newspaper here in Sweden on ”Abuse, a tool legitimized by the goal?”

Seeing things as wrong...

Some thoughts I have had or gotten recently… About therapy. About being allowed to question and see as wrong.

On a walk (or a couple of walks) I came to think: If the therapist listens to his/her client smiling when the client narrates what she/he has experienced… (what message does this therapist forward? That he/she doesn't believe what the clients says, doesn't see it as serious, minimizing and belittling the experience? And maybe that's also whathe/she ruly feels: what is this to make fuss about!!) What effect does that have on the client? Does that allow the client to realize/recognize what he/she was exposed to??

And how is this client then supposed to react towards others, for instance those under him/her in power (own and others children for instance)?? What sort of understanding does this client get? Of what is actually damaging and harmful – and painful??

Miller writes about successful group-therapy with fathers accused for incest. How these (some, not all) realized what they had done (the life-long harm to the ones they had sexually abused) when they were allowed to question and see as wrong what they had been exposed to themselves. And also to a certain degree emotionally caught this!

But there are other forms of abuse too: subtler, as emotional abuse... Which is even more belittled and minimized, but damaging too (maybe more damaging than we believe)! And making us more or less insensitive to others and ourselves!?

But he therapist mentioned above really minimized this form of abuse?? What was that? Nothing to him?? And what about possible other forms of abuse under the emotional (disrespect)?? As sexual abuse (even if it was "only" about improper touching??). Or not even about spanking the child?? He diminished all these things? Didn't he? The grown up child's fantasies etc.??

A client maybe struggling to see and wanting to avoid hurting or damaging others…I get so upset thinking about this.

How is this client supposed to be sensitive to others, to others suffering etc.? Especially young people, still powerless and helpless and dependent to different degrees…

I also came to think about ability and willingness to develop as human being, to learn… Becoming a little more mature by the years…

Are some forced to become? Others less forced?

How many are actually prepared to change and to “learn” or develop?? Or maybe even wanting to change? Maybe it’s more the latter? Wanting to, even if the success is small, of different reasons? What can one see between ones fingers with? And what less maybe?

Now I am thinking more generally, but also more specifically, about a former boss, who has gone from job to job, all highly qualified… That about realizing ones limits… Some are told they ought to realize their limits, and not take a lot of work on them for instance… Who are told the former and who are told the latter? Some just have to, but others don’t have to??

“No wonder you get angry!!”

a female physician and gestalt-therapist said…

“What? Am I allowed to get angry??? To react??”

Yes, it so it is or can be:

"What? Am I allowed to get angry? Are there reasons to get angry? To question and see as wrong?? Is there nothing wrong in me because I am reacting?"

And it should be like this in therapy, when a client talks about his/her early experiences, even more concerning them, than in actual events?? Not that actual events should become diminished or belittled (oh, my fantastic English).

I know of a woman telling her therapist (a male therapist) how her parents behaved, how it was earliest in life; with a dad coming home pouring out his frustration and anger at the family, being irritated, with no patience and a very short fuse (stubin)… The therapist just smiled, showed no indignation… This was nothing to talk about?? No damage done? This didn’t hurt or damage the child?? Or was this client fantasizing? Making a hen of a feather or?? Was/is it:

“But you know, he had it tough at work!! You know he had his things (it wasn't so fun when he grew up) in his backpack!!”

No, the child didn’t understand this!!!?? Observe the irony, because I think that’s exactly what a child can “understand”, and put her/his own back…

Despite this father acted his things out, he didn’t get healed!!?? By symbolically reacting his out, at children and wife (human beings who had nothing to do with his early history) it didn’t make him less angry…

Symbolically reacting things out doesn’t heal. Yes, I think Miller is right there. How does one do then?

Can this anger (or the milder expression inform of irritation) be a way of avoiding the pain and thus the truth?? Giving the one pouring out his/her anger a sense of strength and powerfulness?? Giving her/him power? Does he/she need this power and strength in this circumstance (yes, maybe)? Does he/she need to exercise and demonstrate this power? Does he demonstrate his/her power against the ones he/she ought to demonstrate it against and protect her/him against??

Yes, I think Jenson is right: if you are (unconsciously) rewriting your history the failure is unavoidable.

How many misunderstandings and misinterpretations does this cause??

Blaming and accusing oneself is also a defense... Protecting oneself against an even greater pain? But it isn't just to start behaving differently (but you can't use this as an excuse either for not doing anything?). Maybe you succeed doing this though, changing your behavior I mean, but it doesn't automatically change your feelings, reactions etc. If it feels as if nothing has changed actually despite all you know you should do - and not do, despite how enlightened you even are, how strong your will even is, it's because no real integration has occurred?? Due to lack of proper help or because you were so harmed so this work is so difficult...

And no, you can't solve this with your intellect or with intelligence!? But understanding, cognitively knowing/understanding isn't bad, maybe an important first step? But yes, intellect and intelligence can block too?

And the client above: did this make her seeing things even better?? Did she really dare to see her therapist trough? Is a more harmed client more caught in such therapy? More unable to believe what she sees, hear, senses? The less harmed (and thus less needy!!!) can leave more easily? Dare to question such a therapist? And leave him.

Staying in such a therapy, what does this mean? Maybe for many years? Years have been spoiled and things have been sacrificed? The sacrifices have been added with more sacrifices?? Where she should have gotten (and expected) to get help...

And a therapist behaving like this, smiling (of what reason) is revictimizing his client??? He behaved disrespectfully?

I also saw these words now when I was searching about other things: integrity violations... Because that's what disrespect is about?

It is very painful thinking that despite all knowledge one has probably behaved disrespectfully without seeing or knowing it??

How was it Freyd wrote about removing blinders, becoming connected?

Thinking further in the shower: Treating your child disrespectfully is playing your in the hands of abusers later in life! And/or making them to abusers of different degrees??

And knowledge isn't enough. I came to think of the father reacting at how his father ones treated him (and his siblings), shouting to his/them i front of others, the humiliation this caused... But he exposed his own children for the same/similar things... So, no, knowledge isn't enough...

You have to process this in a certain way for not passing this further!? Being allowed to see it as wrong and question the whole behavior: had I as child given the parent (other grown up/person) reasons to treat me like this? If so: what reason? The punisher should be able to tell for what and why he/she punishes??? Shouldn't he/she? And it is a question of not belittling or minimizing what as (is) done?? But we have tendencies doing this: I deserved it! It doesn't matter? That was then! etc. Denying the truth!? We probably do in a lot of ways??? More than we are aware of!? With what follows... I probably do too... But as grown ups we can always communicate things?? Try the best we can to do that??

Do I have a flu in the body? Not breaking out? Think if one could go to bed and draw a blanket over oneself... Do nothing... Can a blind lead a blind? Am I very self-occupied? And that is absolutely forbidden??