Men’s and women’s different reactions…

Görel Wentz and Ulf Lundberg.

Struck me this morning that it stands somewhere that men and women react differently to stress, and searched for this in two books I have. One was Peter Währborg’s “Stress och den nya ohälsan” (“Stress and the new ill health”) and the other “Stessad hjärna, stressad kropp – om sambanden mellan psykisk stress och kroppslig ohälsa” (”Stressed brain, stressed body – about the connections between psychic stress and bodily ill-health”) by the professor at the Institution of Psychology and the Centre for Health Equity Studies (CHESS) at the university of Stockholm Ulf Lundberg and his co author Görel Wentz, journalist.

Währborg writes in his book on page 78 in the chapter “Differences between men and women” that Christina Maslach establishes that burnout looks different in men and women, even if this condition is as common in women as in men. In women the emotional exhaustion (the emptiness feeling) is more intensive and more usual. Men react with depersonalization and frigidity (känslokyla).

Lundberg and Wentz write at page 179 in their book in the chapter “Psychological differences” that in the stress research, as in so many other research areas, most studies are performed on men, For a long time one hasn’t been aware that men and women react differently to stress.

And they also write that it is rather psychological factors and sex role patterns (könsrollsmönster) which are decisive for the differences between the sex’s manners in reacting to stress.

Yes, we are raised and met differently from the beginning, because we are seen differently and the demands are put differently on us? But don't small children, no matter what sex (or for that matter what individual the small child is) , have the same needs, and maybe exactly the same needs (is it true that different individuals has different needs? Or can belief/idea be about the parents needs, a projection of their totally unconscious needs? And IF different individuals should have different needs: are they SO different? And IF children have different needs, can it be that they entered this world in different ways? Things we grown ups aren't sensitive to maybe at all or very little? Because we in turn had to make ourselves insensitive to survive?)?

And later we take our early unfulfilled needs out in different ways and on different persons, in different circumstances, some have more power than others and others less, so the effects of this are more or less large and directed on different targets (the more power a person has the more damage his/her unprocessed has?).

And that we take our unfulfilled needs out in different ways always causes problems, bigger or smaller, and misinterpretations and misunderstandings? Bigger or smaller wars?

---

And there was a small article in the local newspaper about the incest man in Austria, where it stood that he was a classical tyrant... He was big and strong? And had much more physical strength and power than, at least, his wife and daughters? Which he didn't hesitate to use at all.

And it already stands about this case in wikipedia!

And which are the consequences of child abuse - on the political level? For who we vote on in elections? If we vote at all? If we want a savior, maybe even a "strong leader" solving all our problems and keeping things in order by punishing those who don't live in a certain way, and how the leader sees criminals (criminals need hard punishments for instance) etc. etc.? If we believe we have influence on things on different levels (in our private life, at the work place, in the society, in the world) or if we don't think we have? If we are still paralyzed with unprocessed helplessness or not? Because we were so badly treated, and had no protector?

And if we fight for things so they don't harm ourselves either...

And our (really lousy) current government uses the classical tool with scapegoats! Gathering people in chasing certain groups like those on sick pay. I am rally horrified over many of our politicians, whom are younger than me many of them, over the views the have and give expression to. Really horrified.

And I have thought for long that it is opportune to chase the ones on sick pay for instance, because most of those on sick pay are women. At least here. I have thought for myself that if it had been more men on sick pay the politicians would have taken steps in preventing illness due to stress and work place conditions/work environment (psychosocial not least).

Playing on many people’s tendencies to contempt for weakness? Beating their breasts!

Morning reflections...

Ain't no sunshine

Ain't no sunshine when she's gone.
It's not warm when she's away.
Ain't no sunshine when she's gone
And she's always gone too long anytime she goes away.

Wonder this time where she's gone,
Wonder if she's gone to stay
Ain't no sunshine when she's gone
And this house just ain't no home anytime she goes away.

And I know, I know, I know, I know, I know,
I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know,
I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know,
I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know

Hey, I ought to leave the young thing alone,
But ain't no sunshine when she's gone, only darkness everyday.
Ain't no sunshine when she's gone,
And this house just ain't no home anytime she goes away.

Anytime she goes away.
Anytime she goes away.
Anytime she goes away.
Anytime she goes away.

I thought further on my former posting; about prevention and avoiding a lot of problems and sufferings a man on the net wrote:

”Having mental/emotional illnesses accepted as ‘normal’ is not the way to go in my opinion, there are reasons why they happen, they are signs of an underlying problem with us humans. It simply is ‘not’ good if someone has to live with voices telling them they are shit, or having a compulsion to wash their hands 500 times a day, or whatever. Its just not! It’s better to see and accept a problem that IS there because then you can do something about it. If we all accept that mental illness is normal then were all stuck with it aren’t we. The causes will not be dealt with.

What I’d like to see is the causes found, and categorically (bestämt) and conclusively [slutgiltigt] ‘proved’, and I expect the best place to look is the way people are treated as babies and children. If 99% or more of mental/emotional illnesses are caused by the environment we are born and brought up in then there are only 2 options left open to us;

• either we change the way we treat babies and children and try to ‘prevent’ mental/emotional problems from happening in the first place and be ready and able to deal with any emotional problems effectively as soon as they turn up,
• or we keep everything the same, and in that case we will all have to accept that some people in our societies are going to get ill, and are going to suffer, and are going to be dangers to the public or themselves; all because they are dealing with problems they themselves did not create!
  
  

The first option is a rational way to deal with a problem; how long will the second option continue to be even remotely (avlägset, fjärran beläget) acceptable to us?”

But society is still in Denial about these things to such an extent? Or in denial to how common it is? And that not only a few but almost all of us have been exposed, even if not all have been harmed as much or maybe little. And we are in denial about that it isn’t only physical and sexual abuse that is harmful, but emotional abuse is too, and maybe as much? And often children are exposed to all these forms too.

I think society is in denial to how common sexual abuse is too and what sexual abuse actually is?
Searching myself further, wondering…

Crying...

sleeping baby, and not sleeping in a parent's arms...

[Updated in the end January 28]. I thought further on the former topic when I did other things and wondered if Ingeborg Bosh hadn't written anything about perfectionism. I didn't find anything on that though (skimmed the book very swiftly), but I found something else, instead; about crying (at page 132 in her book "Rediscovering The True Self"). And about honoring all feelings and letting our children express their feelings. She writes that:

"There are no exceptions. When they feel pain, are frightened, confused etc. it is important to listen to them, let them fully express their feelings, and then, see if a solution can be found together, if the child so desires. Be sure to allow enough time so that the feeling can be fully experienced by the child and not stopped before it has run its natural course. Never try to make children stop crying! It's the crying in the presence of an empathic adult that has a healing effect on children."

And then it stands about crying:

"Crying is the only way a newborn or small baby has to communicate its distress and it should be taken very seriously. It is as terrible for he baby as it sounds. Often young parents will say: 'Well we pick her up when she cries, but not immediately. We let her cry for 15 minutes or so. Sometimes a little longer. We can't react to her every whim.'

Harvard researchers Commons and Miller show how devastating this treatment can be to the young child. Alvin Powell write about this research: 'Instead of letting infants cry, American parents should keep their babies close, console them when they cry, and bring them to bed with them, where they'll feel safe, according to Michael Simmons and Patrice Miller, researchers at the Medical School's Department of Psychiatry.

The pair examined child-rearing practices here and in other cultures and say that the widespread American practice of putting babies in separate beds - even separate rooms - and not responding to their cries may lead to more incidents of post-traumatic stress and panic disorders among American adults.

The early stress due to separation causes changes in infant brains that make future adults more susceptible to stress in their lives. Parents should recognize that having babies cry unnecessarily harms the baby permanently (italics by author). It changes the nervous system so they're sensitive to future trauma."

I came to think of the small baby, the sixth, to a mother that was near 40... The mother had had five children earlier, was "experienced", and felt she needed her sleep?? So the baby was put in another room, though next to the parent's (but not with doors between the two rooms). At bedtime the small baby started to cry. Now she was going to be left alone? The house had become silent. No noise of people - no signs of any kind of living human beings near!? Alone in the world? So the baby started to cry.

The mom picked her up and sat in a rocking-chair in the hall outside the two bedrooms. The other two bedrooms (for the four oldest) lay one stair up together with a TV-room in a hall between the bedrooms.

The fifth child in line slept in her own bed in the parents' bedroom.

The mom put on some music on the recorder, a special song which was popular that time, and sat there with the baby which calmed down and stopped crying.

The other children got calm too?? Because it was distressing for them too to hear the small baby cry?? And it disturbed their sleep too?? And they should get up early and go to school too... And the baby was put back in her bed in her own room. And fell asleep of pure tiredness?

This went on for the baby's first three months I think...

Later this child grew up to an adult with high demands, fairly easily stressed, yes, with anxiety and perfectionist problems... Problems with her stomach, often ache in it...

I know her... And met her yesterday, newly operated... What help has she got to process this, or even to decipher this?? With the reservation I may be wrong in my thoughts, that I am rewriting a history? But am I? I was there. I was 12, 5 years then...Thus not so small... I get so angry, because this woman has been in therapy a lot for her self-awareness sake (gestalt-therapy). And, yes, a period she got panic-attacks...

What did the older children experience in this way?? Yes, they were all separated from the mother directly after birth, taken away to be bathed. The second in line cried so much after his birth that the mother still remembers it. And the fist child was blue at birth... And when she was bathed she was thrown down to her mom with the words:

"I have never seen such a blue baby!!"

This baby had an enormous fontanel. Was it something wrong with her?? Was she hurt, damaged? Did she have"water in the brain" (Hydrocephalus)?? It showed she wasn't. She was not unintelligent, maybe the opposite... The next child, a boy also had, as the fourth, also a boy. But b then the mom (very anxious mom) this was nothing to be afraid of.

---

About Michael Commons' and Patrice Miller's (I am not 100 % sure I ave linked the right persons) findings see the article "Cry it out". And "Children Need Touch and Attention" here and here. The same text though an all these sites??

In the second text it stands for instance:

"The pair say that American childrearing practices are influenced by fears that children will grow up dependent. But they say that parents are on the wrong track: physical contact and reassurance will make children more secure and better able to form adult relationships when they finally head out on their own.

'We've stressed independence so much that it's having some very negative side effects,' Miller said."

And in the second (my italics below):

The way we are brought up colors our entire society, Commons and Miller say. Americans in general don't like to be touched and pride themselves on independence to the point of isolation, even when undergoing a difficult or stressful time. /…/

‘There are ways to grow up and be independent without putting babies through this trauma,’ Commons said. ‘My advice is to keep the kids secure so they can grow up and take some risks.’

Besides fears of dependence, other factors have helped form our childrearing practices, including fears that children would interfere with sex if they shared their parents' room [but if parents bond better and ore with their children they are better protected from harming them in any way?? Including sexually abusing them??] and doctors' concerns that a baby would be injured by a parent rolling on it if it shared their bed, the pair said. The nation's growing wealth has helped the trend toward separation by giving families the means to buy larger homes with separate rooms for children.

The result, Commons and Miller said, is a nation that doesn't like caring for its own children, a violent nation marked by loose, nonphysical relationships.

‘I think there's a real resistance in this culture to caring for children,’ Commons said. ‘Punishment and abandonment has never been a good way to get warm, caring, independent people.’”

But I don’t think only Americans have those childrearing practices. And this way of handling a child is a fear of spoiling the child, and what might then happen!??

Addition January 28:
But see earlier postings about what Bosch writes about respecting physical integrity (and touch) and about emotional needs (and their essential role for survival) from last summer. None of these postings are edited... I have only skimmed them now... I let them stand there as they are, at least for now... As spontaneously written as they were then.

Also see earlier posting on Kirkengen and boundary violations.

"I feel so angry, sad, and disappointed!!"

"But you shouldn't! Look... Maybe it can be so or so..."

Told what to think and feel is abuse according to Pia Melody. And when I hear such things I don't get less angry, but more!! :-) As if it is forbidden to feel, and feel strongly!!?? And forbidden to feel negative, difficult feelings!! I think people view me as grounded in the earth and calm?? But there are a lot of feelings under the surface... Maybe they also see that!??

Before I was somewhere round 33 years I didn't want to be seen, so I dressed fairly "gray" struck me again this morning...

My youngest brother skied MarciaLonga in Italy yesterday, around 70 km on around 4 hours... I haven't spoken with him though. He turns 49 years in June.

Our relative physical "strength" seen to that we are short, small people does it come of an inner fury I have thought sometimes... And what is this fury about?

Some expressions struck me when I took a shower now: "corrective measures", by telling another person what to feel, think, how to react... Strong feelings, emotions and expression are dangerous - and threatening?? Yes, hasn't Miller written about artistic expressions as socially accepted expressions (though with limits they too)? Even highly regarded! People with artistic talents are often enormously admired?? But does anyone want to know what's behind these expressions? If there is something behind them?

Yes, that about socially accepted expressions and behaviors again... And how shamy it is if a person is imperfect sometimes...

Helpers of all kinds, as therapists, psychologists and other sorts of "healers" (and gurus??) also believe and rely on corrective measures (only)??? That people just need to change, be relearned, need better models and that is the solution?? Maybe it is or feels so? But what has actually changed? If they just start behaving functional instead of dysfunctional, then they are cured?? Or?

What are the healer, therapist doing actually??

Yes, I use to train relaxation with programs (on the mp3-player in my cellphone for instance) and such things... But there is a but... This is only about trying to survive the best way possible... Minute by minute... But what and how much does it actually resolve?

And all those corrective measures, as retraining and relearning what message do they pass forward?? Very ironically... That here is something wrong with you!!?? And the healer, helper doesn't want to know more!!?? Does he/she?? There must really be something dangerous here?? Something that is forbidden to mention and touch upon!!?? Things that already are filled with fear... The healer signals (if not consciously so unconsciously) that this is really something dangerous?? What does this mean? For the one seeking help...

Jenson (and maybe also Bosch) writes about what the idea about "safe places" can imply. As if they are needed!!?? What scary things are then below?

In a hurry to work, making food, planning the day, taking a walk... Hmmm, how was it now with stressing??

Can anyone forbid one to feel neither this nor that actually? Less if you are grown up?! And isn't it as Miller says: it's not the feelings and emotions that are dangerous in themselves, but the actions they can lead to?? So feelings can't harm as long as you don't act them out (destructively or self-destructively), as long as you just feel them, which can be difficult enough...

"But you don't have to..."

As if one has to be protected against feelings (and pain)? As if one is so weak, maybe too sensitive for such things!? Even over-sensitive?? ("Yes think if I am???"). Yes, Miller writes about a woman in upper middle-age, who was protected by her husband... She suffered from severe depressions, but he thought she wouldn't survive processing her childhood experiences. But it showed to be different... To his astonishment (what I referred to in the posting about that love isn't the only thing needed for healing, despite this woman was surrounded by a loving family: husband and daughter, this didn't heal or made her less depressed). But love probably contributes in a positive way!! Makes it easier to face eventual truths!? And I don't believe at all in any truth-telling or other brutal ways of bringing people to enlightenment...

And, yes, does a disconsolate crying baby/child make us feel insecure and worried?

Boundary violations…

But what is she doing??? (the first meeting?)

[updated January 21 in the end]. Now in the morning I came to think about the topic limit-setting of children of some reason. And thought further on boundary violations and Kirkengen.

Boundary violations take place everywhere!? And have different expressions? Some are visible right away and others are very subtle?

How do we handle them when we meet them, if we meet them? For instance: how do we as grown up protect ourselves? I believe we aren't as helpless and powerless as children are concerning this... Except if we don't land in a deep crisis... Then it can become tricky... I have the book by Marie-France Hirigoyen on mobbing and stalkers. It stands about her that she is (was) nun and that she is psycho-analyst now.

And that you see in her book I think, that she is psychoanalyst I mean. She hasn't shaken this off. Is so brain-washed with Freudian concepts. My gut-feeling is that I doubt she can really contribute to solving what's actually the causes to mobbing and stalking.

I see some parallels to the American neurologist Jonathan Pincus and his research on serial killers, he hasn't shaken all old ideas off entirely either.

But he feels less moralizing than Hirigoyen?? And reading him feels better.

But none of these two say that the criminal, mobber or stalker don't carry responsibility for what they do or have done.

Now back to the original thread: There’s a lot of talk here about limit setting of children… And among grown ups the ones with for example exhaustion-troubles are said to have to learn to pose boundaries… And to learn to know their limits… A bit ironically... (Things are made individual problems. But that’s another discussion). Why do people have problems with boundaries? To pose them (and thus protect them,selves) and/or stepping over others boundaries?

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?

I have cooperated with class-teachers (grade 1-3) as preparation for the music-school. An offer from the music-school, as a way to reach all children, not only those having support from home… To give all children an opportunity to experience the joy of singing, dancing, playing… And maybe make them want to go further, and learn to play an instrument. (I want to add: during all my work life there has been discussions round instrumental education; genres not least, to use the music young people listen to, and to use all the new techniques when it came: synths, computers etc. etc. etc. I am a bit tired hearing about this, as the very ambitious person I am, working and working and trying and trying. Hearing ‘you should this and that!!’ And those saying this, what do they actually know about what I, or we, do?? Quite sarcastically to be honest!!). With the ambitions t give all children an opportunity to become active executors not only passive consumers… Does this sound idyllic, and unrealistic, a stupid dream?

And back to the question limit-setting: why do children and young people have problems with boundaries? How do we handle this?

The best would of course be if we did something as early as possible… The best would be before the child was born; informing about a child’s needs (if we know which they are? For this we probably need to have access to our own history… Which would probably demand a tough, hard work on ourselves, and how many are interested in that?).

I don’t know what is actually possible at school: but with a child acting out on others and in the class-room, what should one do? And what is done actually?

I don’t believe in “obey and keep quiet”! The authoritarian, totalitarian method…

Are grown ups afraid of hearing about actual truths? And/or afraid of having to deal with something they don’t know how to handle? The method of solving this is sweeping this under the rug!???

Is it possible to talk to the child face to face, in person, and explain to it, calmly and not moralising that you can’t do this or that, and at the same time be open to listen??? And to hear!!?? This would probably also require that this grown up has support from other grown ups in the environment, so he/she can keep the professional, empathic stand he/she ought to have??

The sad thing is that this I probably so much easier to talk about than to do… Just because I think we all have experienced things we don’t want to be reminded about…

But from some professionals we are entitled to demand more in this respect: not least from psychologists, therapists of all kinds, probably also doctors and at last people in school…

Silently: personal development isn’t highly regarded or rewarded though… At least from some bosses… I wonder if a more seeing co-worker also can be a little dangerous!!?? The more aware and enlightened this person can see other things and question other things and that is “a bit” dangerous… (or very dangerous straightly said!!??).

So children are at risk of becoming revictimized already in school…

I see parallels to what Kirkengen describes in medicine to the conditions at school. But I don’t work in the “regular” school, only in its outskirts.

Another sidetrack: research has shown that the ones that are more empathic are at greater risk of being burnt-out…

What am I taking on my shoulders? To change the whole world? What is my responsibility? Is this only my responsibility? Can I do this on my own? And what shall I do on my own? What can I do? The first step is to articulate things? To say it out loudly? Test the thoughts in that way? And by this also process my own personal things? Discover what is actually driving me, and by this maybe also deal with things more constructively? Not burdened with a lot of own unprocessed, unconscious stuff? Which can make me behave and handle things maybe both self-destructively and destructively, i.e., harming myself and/or others even if I don't want to do that (which I perhaps do)?

And things I meet: what is about me (and are things I should do something about) and what is not about me, but the other person actually??? What am I to blame for, and what I am not to blame for?

PS. It's convenient with people taking the blame on them, with people blaming themselves?? That about defences... Which are actually protections against old pain Bosch and Jenson mean, and they cause problems of all sorts in grown up life. I think Bosch even writes that they can be life-threatening.

On the label "the Primary defence" (blaming yourself). And the label "defences".

A sigh, how pretentious is this? Escape out on a walk, out into the nature?? Disappear? Become invisible??? As I wanted in my teens... Didn't want to be seen, be visible. So when I got new cloths I didn't want to take them on in school!! Wanted to stay like a gray mouse!? Why?

Hmmm, somewhere when I had passed 30 I started to dare to dress much more personally, with more colors... And here I also started to awake with anxiety! Scary to show who I was? To go out there in life thinking I was someone? I have also noticed that my hand-writing changed somewhere here! I use to write my name on all my music-books also dating when I bought the book in question...

And I wonder if I have a dash of Body Dysmorphic Disorder??

PPS. And, yes, I have done a cosmetic operation (pure cosmetic), a big one (no breast or something like that). Being photographed is something I dislike enormously, and being recorded when I am playing, singing or talking is awful too. I can stand it if I don't have to listen to it... Is this something genetic maybe, as suggested in articles about this disorder? Or how was that child mirrored and viewed? With dislike even ranging to disgust sometimes? The musician Sinéad O'Connor in fact mentions this in an interview!!?? Does she suffer from a slight variant of this disorder?

I see people around, have seen and amazed wondered; what's the difference: all these people having relations, and not seeming to have any problems with this... Despite this and that. And I think it may be so, that it doesn't have to have anything to do with a child's intelligence, brightness, beauty what concern parental love. There exist parents capable of loving a child hpw "faulty" it even may be. And this child grows up with this natural belief that it is valuable, and doesn't care at all about how talented or god-looking it is!? But this is probably fairly rare, that a child is treated i this way, that the parent doesn't need of for certain purposes or for filling her/his needs?

And it also struck me now, when I was to the grocery store (and in no time at all did what I should there, very effectively, with a sigh!), that: is this some sort of competition? Who is most harmed and who is less? Who has had it worse? So the one "more harmed" is in a position where he/she and/or is allowed things the less harmed isn't?? Can it be so? "What do you have to complain about??? You who...!!!"

In a similar manner as the father was excused for this and that, because of his lousy upbringing??

"What do you have to complain about; you with your back-ground, all the opportunities you got and had!!??"

Just this fact, does it give others permission to mistreat? And isn't this fairly contemptuous?? Too!!? What have I done to that person? Just the fact that I exist is enough?? And that I exist as the one I am? I have to take this humbly, full of shame for who and what I am (as if what I am, how I live etc. is something to be jealous about at all!!!). Bow my head and just take it?? Shall I?

And have I done that person something? What in that case? Wouldn't it be better I was told that first??

Deemed beforehand, because I am this and that?? As piano-teacher you are..., as teacher you are..., with your background you are...?

And in fact, I have been very quiet with my middle-class back-ground, with educated parents and all siblings, at work etc. (as if it was something so fine or fantastic!!!), where I come from, about the family, what we had, what we did, what we do...

And this background was no bonus either round 1970 and further... (quite ironical. I wasn't mom and dad!! Was I? I hadn't chosen parents as little as anyone else! And what did I experience? I don't know, surrounded with a lot of hypocrisy!!?? People seeing up, blindly admiring, not imagining what could occur in such a family and with such highly regarded parents? So I wonder if things had to be even more suppressed maybe? And the Denial bigger? In a way? So, I don't know, who has had it worse? As if that give anyone some kind of discharge from liability, quite ironical!!! So discrimination what is that? All my life having to excuse and apologize and hide...? And frankly, those who don't understand this can take them in their asses!!! I try the best I can, have always done, and tried not to make any differences on people, whether I have succeeded or not!! And I stand on the "weak's" side, and have always done, but today I do in another way, hopefully?).

I bought two bouquets of tulips in the store... Now some tea and then a walk. When I return home some lunch. Thought I should bake root-crops in the oven, but the oven has to get warm first... A late lunch - again!!

Addition: as if the "more harmed" has rights the "less harmed" don't have!!?? How one measures this actually? And is this some sort of competition either, or? But grown ups between; both have the same rights and responsibilities?? And you ought to be entitled to demand the same treatment, a similar respect etc.?? Or?

Addition January 21: see earlier blogposting on empathy deficits and biomedical scientists.