The responsibility for the society is shared by all...

my student playing and singing.

In the report ”The responsibility for the society is shared by all” you can read:

”The conception that the individual's independency increases if the political decisions are thrust back in favor of the market is false; even 'the market' is built on societal structures posing limits for the individual.

It is on the whole no matter of course that the individual's freedom increases because the politics is drawn back. If the void after the politics is taken care of by other organized interests, or if inequal power conditions makes so certain groups can increase their manouvre space on behalf of other people, the netto result may well become decreasing freedom for many.”

Blaming the victim(s)…

Who has to pay (most) for the current gigantic economic crisis? The ones that caused it? And what (or who) caused it? How has it been through history, with people causing crisis and sometimes even catastrophes and the ones who have had to pay for them?

Thought on responsibility and guilt. On civil wars.

Are we directing the anger at the true or original sources? Or at other, (much more) innocent, who maybe had nothing to do with this crisis, people who have been working and taking responsibility for themselves maybe their whole lives?

Yes, each person has a responsibility for her/himself as single unit, citizen and human being, but, there’s a but…

In Owe Wikström’s last book “In defense of longing – or the melancholy in Finnish tango” he writes at pages 92-93 (referring to Albert Camus and what he has written about Sisyphus) that the human being has come into his world with the capacity (ability) to think and plan, to chose and take responsibility. Thrown into the existence and endowed with a freedom we hardly can carry – not to talk about the other side of this freedom: the responsibility and the guilt, we are standing there quite unable to act before the strange that nobody knows – and this is Camus’ point – nobody CAN know either about what this existence/life is about. Camus talks about trials running away from those ontological and moral questions – through leaning on scientific models, political ideologies or fixed belief systems.

The struggle not fleeing to the seemingly secure systems demands courage. This struggle remains the human being’s nobility mark. Why do we need those easy answers and quick fixes?

The last fifteen years (since we got a right government the first time on more than ten years), at least, we have spoken here in Sweden about “freedom under responsibility” (the power’s idea!?), for us employed for instance (and not least). And also about loyalty to the workplace and its ideas or programs. Hmmm, loyalty to what and what not??

When I was reading Wikström and thinking on other things at the same time my thoughts went this way:

Responsibility: for ourselves, but as a separate individual what’s reasonable doing? The ones taking on bigger tasks HAVE a greater responsibility and have more power (because they have more power through their position, have taken more power on them. And many people don’t want to have all those responsibilities following with a lot of power, because they can imagine how it would be, how this is. Maybe we don’t get the ones hat would be the best in leader and power roles, but this is another discussion?).

But the small human being can’t accordingly disclaim ALL responsibility! The small human being has still a responsibility, but one can’t put responsibility on her for conditions (structural for instance) she as a separate individual have no possibility (or maybe slightest power) to change. We “must” condemn the right thing or person.

We ought to direct the anger and fury at those who deserve it. As Miller says; if we direct the anger at scapegoats (and not the true sources for our anger) nothing will become dissolved (we won’t really recover).

The leader also needs to have the courage to condemn systems he/she can’t beat! Because even for the one with a lot of power there can be conditions he/she can’t master or cope with, because they are beyond his/her human capacities.

Unless we don’t live in a totalitarian regime we are never totally helpless (even if it can truly and genuinely feel like that) though. Saying like this can really become misused and become a source for moralizing… And yes, it can maybe be a little dangerous.

It’s important to put the blame right and where it belongs and the responsibility where it belongs actually. And it’s probably easier blaming certain people (people with less power and societal status)?

Once again: who have to pay for what other people have caused and done? If those who have to pay (and because of this suffer in different ways, economically for instance) at least were honored and confirmed!!!

Interview with the daughter of Camus.

Human rights or survival of the fittest...

It stood in a small notice in a local newspaper “Human rights- the only way”. The UN declaration about the human rights "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" celebrates 60 years. Progressive and forward aiming thoughts worth celebrating. Namely all human beings equal rights. All peoples’ freedom. Fight against death penalty, torture and other injustices.

If only good powers prevailed and the bad could be combated.

A wish in vain!? But where does evilness come from? See earlier postings on evil child (monster child) and evilness . And how do we fight this?

Further thoughts: The organization at work is a real mess… The last decade with the economic steel bath a lot of people became burnout or “just” exhausted, preferably women have become. The conditions have become worse at workplaces… Not better or improved. People have become more and more selfish. Nobody care about anybody else. All have so enough with their own affairs. All only care about their own things.

A Thursday some weeks ago I met a female colleague at town and she muttered very angrily there. She was on her way to a lunch concert. Now it was the guitarists turn. Guitarists with guests. The other guitar teachers are men. My female colleague is the only female guitar teacher and her master (major?) is actually not guitar. She switched to recorder during her precollege education.

She said that she had to take the whole responsibility for the concert. All men left everything to her.

“But let it break down!”

I tried to say to her.

No, she said she couldn’t.

Oh, those stupid women!!! Do they have to take the responsibility always!?? Well, she can only blame herself!!! Then. It’s her own fault if she becomes exhausted!! Of course she has responsibility for herself and for her health and wellbeing. Everything is put solely on individual persons’ shoulders though… The workplaces or anyone in power have nothing with this to do. And if you can’t handle things, well, then you can just founder! Survival of the fittest.

Commentators on blogs and to articles in the newspapers are mostly men. And most of them are neoliberals. And they are really, really rude! Many probably what you would call Internet-trolls. Scaring other more reasonable people away. Taking up all the space. Shouting loudest and most, till nobody else is heard. Of course you can wonder where this comes from. Why they are like this. And how to deal with this. If you shall deal with it at all, and who shall deal with it? Whose duty dealing with it?

Of course you can wonder who shall solve the problem(s)…

In the meantime people can founder!!!???

What sort of people remain after a while? Only the toughest, hardest? The ones with empathy deficits?

I thought about this with focusing yesterday during and after our lunch concert with our cleverest students. And what Cleese and Skinner wrote about the politicians reaching the power. That it’s more likely that the ones only focused on politics reach the top, gets the most power. I couldn’t help drawing parallels to my profession and being successful there.

One of our former students is now student at the Conservatory. His aim was and still is becoming the best! And he is on his way. And this is a young man (16 years I think) who has some autism traits. So, yeah, he can focus in a way many other people can’t and don’t.

At the concert yesterday a young woman played a movement from a Handel-sonata. She has played it so well and it has been so fun playing with her. She is new in the group and has made a great progress since she sought to this course only half a year ago. She is a girl you really can rely on! Taking responsibility, thinking of others etc. She presented the concert in the beginning. Was asked only an hour before, and she said yes and did it excellently.

But when she should play her solo she was a bit too nervous… And missed things she hadn't missed before.

High demands on her together with thinking on others, i.e. not only focused on what she should do, but on a lot of other things.

And such people can founder!!!!! They have to change! The (most) selfish people don't have to change, because we can't change them? Or?

Is it the most talented that reach the top – always? Is it the most worthy? The best people? What sort of society would be a good one for people to live in? How do we create this sort of society? Is it possible to create? Or is it only survival of the fittest it is about?

What is important? Reaching the top? Being, becoming the best? Can all be the best? And if you don’t become, then what? Or?

Who and what is rewarded in the society? Is it really as van Dyke says:

"Use what talent you possess - the woods would be very silent if no birds sang except those that sang best."

If you aren’t the best you can be the most attractive, the most beautiful??? The youngest, strongest?

Van Dyke has also said:

“To desire and strive to be of some service to the world, to aim at doing something which shall really increase the happiness and welfare and virtue of mankind - this is a choice which is possible for all of us; and surely it is a good haven to sail for."

Martin Luther King Jr. said:

"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."

And E. Sue Blume has said:

"Protecting the innocent is not a job for only the survivor. It is a job for all of us. As long as those who are directly charged with their care are abusing that trust, if the rest of us do not take on the job, these children are being sacrificed."

I am entitled to speak up, as woman, as belonging to the weak sex, from my perspective and my experiences, from what I have read, heard, seen, sensed, am I not? Entitled to question and see as wrong? And react strongly against? Or should I become silenced? Is my voice worth being silenced? Am I stupid, don't I have anything to come with?

Till anybody can truly and genuinely convince me about something else, that conditions and people aren't as I see them and experience them? Do I have to protect the already strong and powerful? Unless they don't really deserve it? Because human rights are for them too!

Kirkengen for instance has spoken about power imbalance, and what responsibility that comes with that... A somewhat greater responsibility or at least an awareness about the fact that there exists a power imbalance in a relation, as between a doctor and his/her patient/client, a teacher and her/his student etc.

Power abuse, power hunger, power exercise, power misuse are also phenomena that exists. How do we deal with them? Can or should the society deal with them?

And there also exists the phenomenon power of definition.

Yes, Judith Herman writes about the silence from the bystander, too... More postings on the label Judith Lewis Herman here.

Addition in the evening: see this article "The return of the society" (in Swedish).

Yippee! I loose my job – or For my Own Good…

from Christmas fair (market).

In a leader the Swedish writer Johan Ehrenberg writes that sometimes you read things making you understand that those saying there only exists one world are wrong. It has to be many parallel worlds, at least ONE globe more seen to how some are resonating.

Björn Lindgren on The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise says:

“The one loosing her/his job is forced doing something about her/his situation, which becomes a boost or a big step forward!“

Or:

“Half of those losing their jobs are winning on the wave of notices [losing their jobs].”

Is he living on another planet than we other people? Ehrenberg wonders. See earlier posting on working life (in Swedish).

On this planet a security-sickness is ruling, with people not understanding their own best and people don’t daring or caring to move further. How good that there are companies wanting to fire people so something good can happen to them!

Because, you know, all problems are individual problems! You are the problem yourself and you are the solution yourself.

My comment: Yes, of course we have responsibility for ourselves each of us!!! But how is it actually with taking responsibility? And how about golden parachutes (fallskärmsavtal)?

If you try to tell such an ideologist that half of those notices (varsel) are leading to tremendous personal troubles and those who are said to ”become happy” by being fired in fact should have been capable of changing both jobs and direction of work and life anyway, this is like shouting right into nowhere.

They just can’t understand this. Because their ideology makes them blind. Do they understand what the word “freedom” means?

Freedom is being able to choose things yourself, being able to change your life because you want to. Being able to choose between different jobs and not – because of the fear of loosing your incomes - becoming tied up with what is there.

Because the reason why people don’t change jobs is due to insecurity. Not because of security.

The freedom The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise is describing is something entirely different.

It is being forced under threat, a change somebody is forcing upon you. Not freedom. As individual you have to “do the best of the situation” (of course), i.e., try thinking positively and move on. But to draw the conclusion that being fired is GOOD is to live on another planet.

Our government is saying that the finance market in the bottom is sound… Our prime minister is the last fundamentalist among the ruling? He recently said something about corrections in the market, something in the style that if people don’t ask for Swedish cars, there has to be corrections in the market. I don’t know… There are many statements that are really confusing! Because people (in for instance the ones with power) don’t know hat they are actually talking about, they are drive by forces they have denied and suppressed early? And we are used to confusions from early in life many of us more or less, so we are more or less lacking capacities to see confusions and contradictions through really??

July 2003, thus 5 years before the crisis, according to the archives, a Bernie Saunders wondered in the American congress, what world Alan Greenspan is living in! If he had any clue or idea what was going on or happening outside the finance-institutes marble-walls (see John Cleese and Robin Skinner on having interests besides politics/work). About Bernie Saunders see here.

Saunders said something in the style that he was worried because he didn’t think Greenspan understood what sort of needs the middle and working class families have. Instead he thought Greenspan only saw as his duty to represent the wealthy people and the big corporations. He suspected that Greenspan simply doesn’t know what is happening out there in the real world. Greenspan was at this time talking about a growing economy…

Saunders tried with saying:

"But the last three years we have lost three million jobs in the private sector. The long-term unemployment has become three folded. 1, 4 million people have lost their health insurance. Millions of pensioners can’t afford medicine. The middle class can’t send their children to college."

Greenspan replied:

”We have the highest living standard in the world.”

“Not at all,”

Saunders replied.

“Look at Scandinavia, where the citizens have considerably higher living standard when it comes to education, health care and jobs where they are decently paid.”

Greenspan:

“But we have the highest living standard for a country of this size at least.”

But what country did he compare the USA with? Indonesia maybe? Or maybe Brazil? Pakistan? Bangladesh?

And economical experts are wondering how things could turn out as they have.

Also read "Dominic Lawson: In a hidden corner of the EU, defenceless children are suffering unimaginable cruelty."

Freedom...

statue of liberty or frihetsgudinnan in Swedish.

I have had the notion freedom in my back head for a long time… What is actual freedom?

Is it to take care of your old parents with the promise to inherit their house when they are dead? Is that freedom?

What sort of freedom do we need? Or what sorts of freedom do we endeavor for?

What is sound and a freedom we are entitled to? And what is unsound, destructive?

Struck me: has this with autonomy to do? Is it autonomy we are endeavoring for?

Is it about respect for our boundaries? Boundaries that were violated early in life?

What is what?

Working life in Sweden and market fundamentalism...

“The Culture of the New Capitalism”

From a review of "The Culture of the New Capitalism" by Richard Sennett and a paper for a university degree by Kristina Finnholm here in Sweden (see my earlier blogposting in Swedish about this review here, here is my amateur-translation from Swedish to English of parts of this earlier posting):

“…the new capitalism’s culture creates non-free people.”

Contrary to what we are told.

“…it was long since the state and the capitalism created a common security/safety with long-term relations./…/

…when the big institutions have become fragmented peoples’ lives have become fragmented too.

…Sweden and Norway [can be stressed] as good societal experiments. The social democrat welfare model showed that stable societies aren’t economically stationary or stagnant.

Here a successful combination of relative stability and growth was combined (or shown). On top we had managed to combine a more fair distribution of the welfare and a generally seen higher standard of living, internationally seen, than USA and England.”

I think this is true. And possible to create in other countries too.

“The physical work environment has in many ways improved, but not the psychosocial work environment. A new human being is about to become created. A person that rejects his/her history and lets go of her/his past. A human being living in short-sightedness.”

This felt so good to read, because I think it’s sound, psychologically, to have contact with ones history and past, ad thus confirmed feelings I have. It feels so good realizing one isn't alone in those feelings.

“The market has become the superior norm beyond dispute forming human beings.”

No, we haven't been and still aren’t really allowed to question the market as superior norm beyond dispute!

“However, the sociological research has for a long time shown that most human beings don’t function in this way. We need a constantly continuing life-narrative containing a confirmation that we are clever craftsmen/women (or workmen/women) at the same time as we are glad for the experiences we have gotten [during our lives, both as private people and in working life, glad and proud over them when there are reasons for this. But when we aren't: why is that??].

The new ideal in working life more resemble the dream about the consumer glad for buying. The one whom is prepared to reject everything that is old and replace it with new things - even if these old things are fully functional.”

And we treat human beings in this way too! Replacing old people, throwing them away... But of course you can wonder why? Do they deserve it?

”In those days there are no margins or social considerations among the employers any more/…/

…increased economical growth doesn’t automatically lead to more jobs. This mantra – economical growth – stands out like a fundamentalist religion. A sort of natural law you definitely can’t call in question. Many have lost their jobs even when companies have shown record profits.

…many companies ignore their employees./…/

There is also a blind faith in consults. Many industrial managements have no self-confidence and put their trust to this consult whose business concept in fact is both about being salesman and adviser. How many are capable of examining the consults suggestions and recommendations?

In praxis it is exactly those consults that are governing the companies at the market. All are frightened to silence and the treadmill [ekorrhjul] is spinning more and more violently.

Nobody dare to protest. All are exchangeable. The stress is increasing as the social maladjustment. The one not managing the pressure has nothing at work to do. The problem is your own, nobody else’s [that about blaming the victim]. Is this the sort of working life we shall have? Is this sort of working life, and world, a natural law? How far shall the market powers govern? The four-part-alliance closed The National Institute for Working Life here in Sweden. The work environment at Swedish working places didn’t improve by this.”

The superclass and oppression…

We had thralls or trälar (slaves) too here in Scandinavia, for instance during the Viking-era. And later people were held as thralls, but in another sense. They weren't literally in villenage, but still villeins in many senses.

Apropos the book ”Superclass; The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making” by David Rothkopf a commentator on a blog wrote about oppression, here my a little free translation and additions:

“One can scream oneself blue and it doesn’t matter or make any difference. But remember that the power, the oppression is dependent on psychology to a large degree. It’s dependent on that there are enough stupid people. Not unintelligent, of course, but self-righteous and dumb (foolish, stupid).”

The blog-owner replied:

“Of course you are right, and do you know this is also what David Rothkopf points out, who means that it’s ‘smooth’ for the superclass to govern so long as the voters in the democracies don’t take their responsibility and inform themselves so they can vote rationally.”

Yes, the power has interests in that the people under them don’t!?

For instance, we should all be interested that all people got enlightened! That all had good schools for instance, and had the same chances getting good education, with well-educated teachers (in all respects). I.e., that we all pay taxes for this or contribute.

But it isn’t only a question of money; that we for instance pay for other people’s children (even if we don’t have any own kids), but not least that we don’t want competition on equal terms!!?? I don't have own kids unfortunately and I come from a well-educated family... From the middle-class and maybe not the lowest either. Something you maybe don't see (self-irony)??

And by the way, it feels to me as people use the systems how high or low taxes they even pay. I even get the impression that people use it more (and even much more) in those countries where the taxes are lower… I don’t know if it has with a “national character” to do. :-) I think people are alike all over the world from the beginning though.

However, in some countries people seem to be more loyal to the system - still? But the power has interests that people stop being loyal to it??? They use the method divide and rule more or less consciously. People are played out against each other. And they let the (invisible) power play them out against other people!?

I draw this even further to how it probably was in the family, what many of us all over the world, in all countries and cultures, have in our backpacks (things many had to suppress ad deny and pass to oblivion, and it’s the ones in most denial who needs the power the most!? Once again I think the psycho-historians are right about that the most defended tend to lead, and that power exists as a defence); parents playing out their kids against each other to keep being in power, being the “authority”… As if they should need this??? Can’t they earn it in other ways? More naturally so to say or how one would express this.

And siblings who aren’t exposed join their parents to avoid becoming exposed to the parents’ treatment. Something the therapists Jean Jenson and Ingeborg Bosch have met with clients in therapy. Who painfully and with difficulties have discovered exactly those things; how siblings joined the scorning of them for instance. It’s the same, or the similar, phenomena in the adult world, for instance in politics?? We re-enact things there whether we are aware or want it or not. Where for instance media join the power so they get the feeling that… I don’t know…

There is no true indignation or fury from people in the media for instance. Or those who show indignation or fury are very few, so we hardly notice them, and they don’t get as much space in media as other people get. I wish there were more courageous people in the world. Yes, people with more civil courageous!? I.e. people with more “heart”!

See more about divide and rule, in English and in Swedish, about backward psychoclasses.

Being obedient and keeping quiet…

taken February 2, 2007.

Earlier postings under the label “being obedient and keeping quiet”… Political correctness today is to consume and keeping quiet!? What would the real, genuine rebellion be??

A friend had written a blogposting this morning "Sex, gender and loyalty". And I wrote a posting on my other blog the other day on "Progress or retrogression..." And I have also recently written a posting about "A new (or old) view on man..." And yesterday one about "Provokers..."

The themes in these postings: What is freedom actually? And what about being silenced? Who are being silenced and who are allowed to speak up? Who, what people, do we respect and who do we respect less, even look down on? Why? Some are worth more, others less? (some are met with contempt for their weakness and inability, but threated as they were entirely insensitive). Who are what and why? How come? And who are looked down upon??

What is actual freedom of choice, the honor of being human –what is that?, Paulo Freire and the pedagogy of the oppressed (who are actually oppressed and why?), about culture, the wish for unquestioning, unresisting obedience, working like beavers, keeping quiet and not whining or complaining… Taking yourself in the collar - if you have one?? As always , it is the victim's fault??

And that about oppression…

We can fight about who the oppressed are and if anyone actually is oppressed?? But what about mutual respect, where all are met equally? With the same respect and response?? And demanding the same responsibility of all (but more of the ones with most power!!??). Wouldn't it lie in all involveds interest ? But, yes, it is probably very painful... So we avoid it? And, no, you can't change anyone else! You can't tell "You should! You ought to!" Each person must realize her/himself?? And that can be very painful if the person you like (or think you like)don't want to change?? And what can our needs (of changing another person) be about?

Each one of us have responsibility for ourselves, what we do, say etc.

And if you have no one else to oppress, who do you then oppress? The cat on the rope...

Is oppression something innate? I don’t think so… I don’t think all has needs to oppress anyone else. That there doesn’t have to be a fight about power, who is above and who is below.

And I think these relations are the best?? There you can really enjoy each others?? You can relax and use your energy on other things?? On more constructive and life-giving, life-supporting?

Life is no lack of pain, and will never be?? But you can handle it better or worse?? Depending on how much you have in your backpack – or how little?? If you have little (or have got the opportunity or had the luck to process what you have, or had, there) you handle inevitable difficulties better?? And hopefully don’t contribute to harm, to wars (bigger OR smaller) etc.?

In some newspapers here it has been standing that feminists (who are said to hate men!!?) are better in the bed… But maybe that's too scary for some men?? See for instance here, here, here ... But this too can lead to other forms of oppression!??? A sigh...

What is true compassion, empathy, care? And genuine respect?

How was it now with Procrutes bed?

"Procrustes (the stretcher), also known as Damastes (subduer) and Polypemon (harming much), is a figure from Greek mythology. He was a bandit from Attica, with a stronghold in the hills outside Eleusis.

There, he had an iron bed into which he invited every passerby to lie down. If the guest proved too tall, he would amputate the excess length; but if the victim was found wanting in height, they were then stretched out on the rack until they gained the required inches.

Nobody would ever fit in the bed because it was secretly adjustable: Procrustes would stretch or shrink it upon sizing his victims from afar [!!!! I didn't know this part of the story before].

Procrustes continued his reign of terror until he was captured by Theseus, who 'fitted' Procrustes to his own bed and cut off his head and feet (since Theseus was a stout fellow, the bed had been set on the short position). Killing Procrustes was the last adventure of Theseus on his journey from Troezen to Athens."

People being adjusted... To a norm, that wasn't really communicated by the power? Smart!! People don't knowing exactly what to react on?? I see a father in a family here... Exercising power, and reigning by terror. Changing the rules as suites him.

And we see this in other circumstances: where some are squeezed into a form, made smaller etc.? And being silenced of different reasons... And in different manners?

Of many things, of regard for others who would feel too small if this wasn't done?? Oh, what view on man??? Were do our values lie?? How do we value man? Who are valuable and who less valuable?

Procrustes was an oppressor!!? And there are other smaller (and subtler) oppressors here and there??

Maybe we don't see this ourselves!!?? That (when) we behave as our fathers (or mothers) behaved?? But it IS a difference when it comes to our behavior against other grown ups compared to that of kids??? But, yes, we have always responsibility for our behavior. How harmed we even are. As grow ups we ought to be able to talk about it... But yes, I guess this can be extremely painful... Why we often avoid it... No, this isn't easy!!!! But shouldn't the "understanding" be mutual??

Still feeling out of balance... An older friend said to me that I am thinking so swiftly and make connections between things, in a way all don't, and that this could be disturbing for some (!!!! Of course shall think of this!!??)...

Maybe I am like this as teacher too?? Making all sorts of connections between things?? But I am balancing this by being an organizer too?? Yes, I think this old friend also had noticed this actually? It can be too much of this; it can be harmful for myself if it isn't harming anyone else??? Enormously responsible-taking!!?? Too much still?? This people also have seen? And appreciated, and maybe also taken advantage of and relied on (let me work).

And our "director of studies" once said something about my loyalty to my work-place (oh, I get creepy feelings in my capillary matrix).

Hmmm, yes, I guess I AM artistic??? That I in fact have such talents?? Writing and saying it - scary... Hearing, seeing, sensitive (in a way and probably less in other ways?? Yes, I think one can be both/and!)... But we (still) have prejudices about artist-people that they are bohemians and no organizers??? It probably is in some (or even many) in cases, but it isn't always so!!?? Many aren't, otherwise they wouldn't have reached the level they have??

And maybe that's a problem for me; that I have interests in a lot of directions??? Not focused (in that manner)??

And it is true that I am a clever girl!!?? But I wonder if that isn't harming myself more than others??? Harming myself not so little sometimes??

And on top not valuing myself really!!?? Some can't understand this? They can't put it together?? But others see it? That I am not taking a lot of space, and is wanting and needing to be seen and have all the light on me... In fact, that's something scary... Having the light on me, people looking at me, listening. watching?? While there at the same time is so much I want to communicate!! And express. Touch...

I am seldom neutral when I am speaking about things? But I can still be very shy and quiet?

Being allowed to speak up and use the voice you have... That you should be allowed?? Who and what do we silence? And who are allowed to speak up and allow themselves to speaking up?

The effects/results of silencing people??

And, yes, many men ARE bullies, and they have to stand for it!!!

Came to think of Jane Fonda and her autobiography (also see here), where she writes that she until her sixties adapted to the men she had and about her strivings to please them in all possible ways (including joining group-sex with prostitutes when she was married to Roger Vadim and lived in Paris. Not wanting to be accused of being "bourgeois"!! A bit funny today, when things are so "bourgeois"!!). And she looked really great!! Not to loose them... Denying herself and who she actually was... She writes about her eating-disorders (bulimia)...

If we want to Break any Walls Down where do we start?? Or try to start?

"...with adult freedom and responsibility come the potential to break silence, to use voice and language to promote internal integration, deeper external connection, and a social transformation.

Through communication – integration within ourselves and connection between individuals – we can become whole; embodied, aware, vital, powerful”

(Jennifer Freyd in the chapter 'Removing Blinders, Becoming Connected' in her book 'Betrayal Trauma…').