Yes, to authors wanting to narrate – the need for heroes and heroines - or the evil is always the unknown…

In the article “Yes, to authors wanting to narrate” in a local newspaper here in Sweden you can read that last Saturday seven younger authors came with a manifest saying that they wanted to make alive and speed up the Swedish prose. They promise that they won’t write detective stories, chic lit-books or do language laboratory experiments for a small circle of language and form interested readers.

Their models were listed in a quite long list of Swedish authors like Selma Lagerlöf, Moa Martinsson, Vilhem Moberg, Karin Boye, Stig Dagerman, Eyvind Johnson, Kerstin Ekman, Elsie Johansson and Inger Alfvén.

They are trying to start a debate about imaginative (pure) literature.

The author of the article writes that he thinks the monstrous boom, lacking all portions, of the detective story literature in Sweden coincides with that the welfare in its original form is dissolved today.

The need for heroes and heroines has never been greater he thinks. And he writes that the evil is always the unknown (concerning the enormous interest in detective stories, see earlier postings on evilness; Miller's and Ingeborg Bosch's view on this for instance). Each new screen version of Beck and Wallander is adding to the prejudices about scoundrels from Balkan and East Europe.

The publishing firms are governed foremost by economies demanding fast profits. The number of serious authors has decreased. There is no longer any room for gentle author souls to slowly mature for bearing fruit in, let’s say, ten years. But so far as to criticizing the publishers’ publication policy no one of the authors of the manifest wants to stretch her/himself. Or even discuss the commercialism’s deep injurious effects on the art of literature.

The quality literature you find in the small publishers…

Yes, why do we need heroes or heroines and scoundrels? Somebody to look up on and somebody to have as scapegoat?

More on discipline…

[Edited March 19]. Some loud thoughts around the following concepts: Conformity and discipline are killers for creativity. Compassion.

The kind of discipline the current minister of education in Sweden is “recommending” is a kind that kills. Killing not only creativity, but other things, as maybe for instance compassion. And it is also lack of compassion and love it expresses, even if the ones exercising it probably claim the opposite (I think the Nanny-programmes are recommending highly manipulative things too).

This is what poisonous pedagogy is about?

Grown up fury and rage in a grown up is something else than the child’s fury and rage in a grown up?

And leveling fury and rage at scapegoats only gives temporary relief. You have to direct the anger and fury at the true, real, original source to truly and really heal and to really recover.

But there are different sorts of “discipline”: a self chosen and one that is forced upon you. You can work hard for something you really, truly and genuinely want and feel for, in that way discipline you (is discipline an adequate word in this case though?).

The enjoyment of destroying for oneself and other people…

A leader writer wrote in the leader “Lessons from a demonstration” today about a demonstration here in Sweden against the bombings of Gaza by the Israelis as follows in my a little free translation:

“The tragic thing is the tail (train) of so called autonomous anarchists, masked and violent, that is becoming a real burden both for the left and for the right /…/ and for the whole democracy – not to talk about how they are blackening the anarchism’s great tradition of thoughts. Their record during this decade so far is frightening.

For example they contributed to the destruction of parts of the credibility for the Attac-movement and the last years this ‘movement’ [the autonomous anarchists] is well on the road to transforming the country’s right-populists to martyrs, as when they are walking at the head of sabotaging the meetings the Sweden-democrats have the right holding.

It is high time scolding these autonomous, whom by the way not at all are autonomous but are living in symbiosis with the police and right extremes, and to establish that they are cowards and that they are destroying for a serious left. /…/

Another lesson from this demonstration the minister of education Jan Björklund gave us. At all costs he wants to see anti-Semitic motives in the criticism of the occupation politics of Israel and in the organizations now demonstrating against the [Davis Cup tennis-] match [between Sweden and Israel]./…/

In reality Björklund is making a conflict ethnic that ought to be seen exclusively in terms of international law and human rights.

In this way he contributes to the destruction of the democracy’s publicity.”

Spontaneously this leader and earlier thoughts on similar issues gave me these thoughts:

“The enjoyment of destroying. Voting for politicians and parties pursuing a policy which in fact treats oneself unfairly. A pleasure or enjoyment in this, are they feeling?

A form of sadomasochism or self destructiveness?”

From where does this come? From nowhere?

No, I don’t think so. It comes from (probably extremely) cruel treatment of those persons when they were kids, by their parents. Humiliation of the child.

But these experiences are no excuse for their behavior today.

Freedom, autonomy, arrogance, cynicism, xenophobia, societal approval, and needs...

[Slightly edited in the evening and a little February 24, seeking, searching the words]. Quickly some notes thrown down.

On my walk this morning I thought on the notion “freedom”… What is this about? What should it be about?

I also thought on the notion autonomy, and further on arrogance and cynicism.

Miller has written about autonomy, for instance in “The Drama of the Gifted Child” (in my translation from the Swedish edition):

“A patient with ‘antennas’ for the unconscious in the therapist will immediately react on this [the therapist's needs of another, weaker person’s childish dependency on him/her]. He will quickly ‘feel’ autonomous and behave in this way if he notices [on a conscious or unconscious way] that it is important for the therapist getting autonomous patients with a secure behavior quickly. But this ‘autonomy’ ends up in depression [sooner or later], because it isn’t genuine.”

I think she is right. Many (all) patients seeking help are used to filling other persons' (parents', caregivers' and their substitutes') needs. Actually the patient isn't to blame for being stuck in depression. But many patients tend to blame themselves, blaming themselves for being failures, impossible.

Miller also writes about manipulative measures concerning depressive patients, and the vicious circle of contempt showing in too many helpers too...

She also writes,about autonomy (in the same book):

“The difficulties to experience and develop own genuine feelings results in a permanent bond that makes a demarcation [liberation] impossible./…/ …the child hasn’t gotten the opportunity to develop an own security.”

And this is often met with contempt for weakness, not empathy or understanding/enlightenment about the roots to this state. Too often also from so called helpers, such as therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists. And thus the person in question is stuck in shame and becomes even more tied up, even more unfree.

Contempt for weakness and instilling shame.

I also thought about needs, bottomless needs, originating in the child’s unfulfilled early needs. And those needs can never become filled afterwards, but you can acknowledge and recognize them and maybe grieve them and then be capable of filling you adult needs… Instead of the childhood needs. Trying to fill our childhood needs always causes problems, bigger or smaller.

It’s important that you don’t belittle or minimize what happened though, or rather this is even crucial for recovery to occur.

What we see (and have seen through history) are needs (for power and wealth) need that are never fulfilled, expressed in different ways, more or less violent. Persons never getting satisfied. And this is nothing we are born with is my true conviction, but has a reason.

Miller also writes about directing our anger (and other feelings) at scapegoats (symbols, symbolically dealing with early things), something that will never liberate us. Only of we direct those feelings at the true and original causes we will become liberated. Which doesn't say that any of this is easy, unfortunately. So if we could prevent this...

Yes, it’s this with xenophobia too… See for instance the American neurologist Jonathan H. Pincus and fascism (“Hitler and Hatred”), and about societal approval… See earlier posting on Pincus on terrorism. And also see earlier postings under the label bigotry.

Child abuse...

Things I threw down in my diary after starting to read about a child's experiences:

"Pushed into a corner. Siblings with alloted roles. A parent exercising power. Acting her/his things out? Things that had nothing to do with the child/ren.

Breaking the child's will?

Jenson wrote in her book about abuse of a more subtle sort and thus more difficult to see or grasp [as she seems to see it. Now I see in the Introduction that she writes that because her experiences of growing up in a dysfunctional family * weren't so apparent - she wasn't beaten and usually not shouted at either - it took a long time for her to understand how her childhood had affected her. Not until she had been in traditional therapies for years she discovered how you can uncover experiences that had been unconscious. Then she understood why and how childhood experiences still affected (disrupted, disturbed, interrupted, spoiled, marred) her life].

Reacting at scapegoats only give temporary relief..."

I had a father coming home and acting his irritation, anger, frustration out... Incapable of being present really... He was never really there. Impatient. Have I adopted parts of this? Though in a female way? (But I have been admired for my enormous patience in many circumstances, for instance in my work...)

Was he ever aware of this or even wondering over this? Did he ever question this side of his? Did he understand the roots for this ever? Did he want to understand? Did he have to understand?

Are other people forced to understand because their alternatives/options are none? And other people have the possibility to come home and pour things out and thus stay "healthy" and sane?

He died in malign melanoma when he was almost 83, 5 years. He was never a sunbather. Stress research has shown connections between depression and skin cancer... Searched on this on the net and found this.

Links between diabetes and depression see here for instance.

Also see the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study (the ACE-study) on almost 18, 000 people.

* Jenson has written in her book about the results of just changing dysfunctional behavior to a functional; that it too often doesn't change so much (however a method that is most often used, i.e. you just understand these things with your brain). The feelings are often the same or even worse after this sort of therapy... You need to understand these things on a deeper level, get help understanding them on a deeper level. If you have to do this work on your own it will take a lot of time...

But physicians like Vincent Felitti, Anna Luise Kirkengen and Eli Berg for instance have shown that just giving a patient the opportunity to speak up, break silence can lead to tremendous relief and recovery.

A different view on ADHD...

When I was writing about the school and health I came to think about hyperactive children. Some children react with hyperactivity (like ADHD) and others with being noisy and in some cases they even react with violence.

See the posting about the Swedish documentary "The Scapegoats" (with a letter to Alice Miller on this documentary) and also here about his documentary on how children behave in school due to being (in this case in first hand) spanked at home. About children directing things at other people than those who originally abuse them.

A quiet thought: and this easily triggers abusive counter reactions from responsible in school, making the bad even worse... So we dealing with kids ought to have a lot of self-knowledge! And being interested in developing it. Many of us ought to be interested in this, not only a few. But I as a single teacher maybe can't create miracles in the whole milieu? In the best cases for single students.

And there are probably also kids being silent and clever, hiding things (maybe even carrying heavy loads, of abuse, maybe subtle, on their shoulders, pretending to themselves everything is fine at home) managing to reach adulthood and enter into it quite successfully, but who later end in smaller or bigger crisis of different kinds, in important relations, with people close; people they live with or are having close relations with, or with troubles at work (as being too clever there as they have always been, maybe managing everything on their own, not asking for help, afraid of being a nuisance), landing in what we call the 40-year crisis. But what are those crisis about in the bottom?

On ADHD see this question on ADHD in a preschool kid about alternative treatments and the replies to it, especially the fourth reply which I thought was great!

Earlier postings on ADHD, see here. And about hyperactive children. There you can for instance read:

"Alice Miller writes about “hyperactive” children in her book ”The Body Never Lies – The Lingering Effects of Cruel Parenting”. She writes at pages 176-177:

“With support of the enlightened witness represented by such a therapist, a hyperactive child (or a child suffering from any other disorder) can be encouraged to feel its perturbation [förvirring eller oordning in Swedish], rather than acting it out, and to articulate its feelings to the parents, rather than fearing them and dissociating from them. In this way the parents can learn from the child that one can have feelings without heeding to fear disastrous consequences, that, on the contrary, something can develop from this which gives support and creates mutual trust.

I know of a mother who was actually able to escape from the destructive attachment to her parents thanks to her own child. After several years of therapy, she was still concerned to see the good sides of her parents even though she had been severely abused in her childhood. She suffered greatly from the hyperactive and aggressive outbursts of her little daughter, who had been under continual medical care since birth. The routine had been the same for years. She took her child to the doctor, gave her the medicine prescribed for her, went to see her therapist regularly, and went on seeking justifications for her own parents. At a conscious level, she never suffered because of her parent’s treatment of her, only because of her daughter.

One day, however, she finally flew into a rage in the company of a new therapist and was finally able to admit to the extreme anger at her parents that had been pent up inside her for thirty years. And then the miraculous thing happened (although it was anything but a miracle): in the space of a few days, her daughter played started to play normally, lost all her symptoms, asked questions, and was given straightforward answers. It was as if the mother had emerged from a dense fog and was seeing her daughter properly for the first time. A child who is not being used as the object of projections can play quietly without having to run around like a mad all the time. She no longer has the hopeless task of saving her mother, or at least of confronting her with the truth by means of her own ‘disorder’.

Child abuse...

How can one leave this child on its own?? This is child abuse! And nothing to laugh at! Why do people laugh at this? Leaving a child crying and screaming like this is cruel, seen from the child's point of view.

Why is discipline even, or ever, needed, positive or negative, in the first place?? Why does a child react in this way?

See this reader's mail on Alice Miller's website, I just have to quote:

“Dear Alice Miller. Yesterday I watched a Swedish documentary about immigrant children who are a huge problem at school because of their aggressive behaviour and I thought about what you've claimed so many times. The title of the documentary was called ‘The scapegoats’. They were rebels at their school, and teachers were truly afraid of them. Some of the boys even set the school on fire at some point and they were making the place a living hell for the teachers and pupils. This was loudly debated in Sweden some time ago, ‘what to do’...and of course people and politicians would make these worst 20 boys or so the scapegoats. It became so very obvious to me what you've been saying all the time, and the documentary was also angling the problem from a ‘good place’, taking the boys side. They wanted to explore the reasons for the rebellions and destructive behaviour and they found it all right! The boys were all abused at home by their parents, and hit for every mistake or ‘wrong-doing’. The vicious circle was this: They were abused at home and then they took the rage out on teachers and other pupils because in Sweden it is forbidden to use any kind of violence towards a child, and then they knew it was ‘safe’ to act out their rage just as it presented itself to them. The school often ‘had to’ contact their parents and then they would be hit again of course and be more enraged. And this completed the vicious circle. A psychologist/scientist explained very well what he believed himself was the problem. He said that we're not taking it seriously, we're surrendering to that these immigrants have their own culture and that somehow their children are not like the ethnical Swedish ones and we hesitate to interfere because there would be so MANY complaints/so many files...etc.. This was exactly what he himself had been thinking at some point when he was confronted with the social workers' problems of coping. But he said that EVERY child has the right to be protected from their abusive parents not matter ‘culture’. This was also the answer a Muslim family therapist gave. He said that the parents had to learn something new and to understand what they are really doing to their children when they use violence. We always tend to find quick solutions, the laziest ones, so we can protect ourselves from taking responsibility. The children (aged 15-18) were interviewed and asked what they had experienced and their thoughts about it. Almost everybody was totally sure that they would smack their own children because they were convinced that violence is the answer to cope. Only one of the boys was emotional when he spoke of the violence he'd experienced, tears came to his eyes as he spoke and this boy was one of the very few who when asked the question if he would hit his own children said. ‘NEVER’. These boys were used as scapegoats at their homes and then again by the school and society. It was heart-breaking to me, also because I understood my own blindness, my OWN lack of empathy with myself only if it was only in a glimpse. How I've unconsciently done the same thing to myself, never let myself speak up against the violence I experienced. I saw myself in these boys who'd accepted the fact that they had to carry their parents' burden. I could not only see it but feel it, and that is something new to me. Anyway I wanted to share this experience, and also thank you for your great books and your hard work to reveal the truth. I'm too totally convinced that it is possible to change the world if every country would follow Sweden in their striving to never become complacent about children's rights even if some politicians from time to time want to create scapegoats and segregation. It also became clear to me emotionally that fear and suppressed rage is the reason for creating scapegoats. ALWAYS. And how easy it is to fall into delusions over and over again if I do not dare to question my own attitudes. And then I'm left with the question when did that fear enter my own family? It is clear that at some point somebody chose to lie in stead of being compassionate. Then it all comes down to a choice.”

I blogged about the TV-programme mentioned above in the end of November last year, see "The Scapegoats..."

Spankings, blaming co-victim, power abuse…

Some loud thinking, after a really hectic month:

Struck me about blaming the big sister (or big brother) for things that have gone wrong, for needs that haven’t been fulfilled… Is this exactly as it has always been: the big sister (brother) has had to take what should have been directed towards the parents???

And if the big sister or brother has done something she/he is maybe to blame. But shouldn’t the parents have protected the younger child, or been one to hear about abuse from and between siblings and been able of dealing with this??

And is it always the older sibling that is abusing younger?? Maybe older siblings need protection too!??? And I think Miller is right: if you blame scapegoats you won't recover. Only when you are capable of blaming the true perpetrators you will gradually recover. The unjustified anger is endless she writes (if I remember right). And I think that's true.

I thought further, on grown ups, in this case in a forum dealing with childhood issues. In a forum that seems to have the ambitions being a sort of replacement for therapy it seems today (and in the name of a well-known authority). Where the moderator only writes “Post was received” when she (he??) didn’t post a posting. No explanation whatsoever.

Isn’t this quite authoritarian (and totalitarian, as the moderator is the one in power)?

Of course if the subscriber had been repeatedly abusive and got this pointed out, and really being listened to and had gotten all opportunities to explain what she/he meant but continued being abusive, then I can understand that a moderator doesn’t think it’s any idea to explain anything.

But if the subscriber hasn’t been really met or listened to, and not been abusive till that point, I think such treatment from a moderator, especially on a list dealing with such things, is ABUSIVE! And can be very harmful!

What about talking as grown up to grown up?

Alice Miller videos...

By Alice Miller

Why spankings, slaps, and even apparently harmless blows like pats on the hand are dangerous for a baby?
1. They teach it violence.
2. They destroy the absolute certainty of being loved that the baby needs.
3. They cause anxiety: the expectancy of the next attack.
4. They convey a lie: they pretend to be educational, but parents actually use them to vent their anger; when they strike, it's because, as children, they were struck themselves.
5. They provoke anger and a desire for revenge, which remain repressed, only to be expressed much later.
6. They program the child to accept illogical arguments (I'm hurting you for your own good) that stay stored up in their body.
7. They destroy sensitivity and compassion for others and for oneself, and hence limit the capacity to gain insight.

What long-term lessons does the baby retain from spankings and other blows?
The baby learns:
1. That a child does not deserve respect.
2. That good can be learned through punishment (which is actually wrong, punishment merely teaches the children to want to punish in their own turn).
3. That suffering mustn't be felt, it must be ignored (which is dangerous for the immune system).
4. That violence is a manifestation of love (fostering perversion).
5. That denial of feeling is healthy (but the body pays the prize of this error, often much later).

How is repressed anger very often vented?
In childhood and adolescence:
1. By making fun of the weak.
2. By hitting classmates.
3. By annoying the teachers.
4. By watching TV and playing video games to experience forbidden and stored up feelings of rage and anger, and by identifying with violent heroes. (Children who have never been beaten [or treated badly in other manners, my addition] are less interested in cruel films, and, as adults, will not produce horror shows).

In adulthood:
1. By perpetuating spanking, as an apparently educational and effective means, often heartily recommended to others, whereas in actual fact, one's own suffering is being avenged on the next generation.
2. By refusing to understand the connections between previously experienced violence and the violence actively repeated today. The ignorance of society is thereby perpetuated.
3. By entering professions that demand violence.
4. By being gullible to politicians who designate scapegoats for the violence that has been stored up and which can finally be vented with impunity: 'impure' races, ethnic 'cleansing', ostracized social minorities, other religious communities etc.
5. Because of obedience to violence as a child, by readiness to obey any authority which recalls the authority of the parents, as the Germans obeyed Hitler, the Russians Stalin, the Serbs Milosevic.

Conversely, some become aware of the repression and universal denial of childhood pain, realizing how violence is transmitted from parents to children, and stop hitting children regardless of age. This can be done (many have succeeded) as soon as one has understood that the causes of the 'educational' violence are hidden in the repressed history of the parents.

To “understand” and “forgive”…

visited one of my old schools today (see here too.).

I had even more reflections over the phenomenon ”understanding” and ”to understand” when I drove to a service of my car and during the service of it today…

To understand OTHER people! But can you if you don’t (and haven’t been allowed or got the opportunity) to understand yourself? Doesn’t one have to start with oneself? And maybe understand not so pleasant things about oneself? Even very painful things? Truths about oneself and ones life?

Each one of us ought to have that responsibility understanding oneself?

Thought about forgiveness once again, and forgiveness connected to understanding. If you forgive you are a good, broad-minded, grown up person! But WHOM and WHAT have one understood actually? The forgiving is a higher standing human being, even morally? Is a better human being? And gets universal improvement and applauses!!!?? If you are faithful to one or both parents you get applauses! Even from so called helpers!! (therapists, psychologists etc.).

The back of forgiveness and understanding is what? Or what can it lead to?

Exploitation and being used? For some, preferably women (but probably also for many men).

You understand and forgive once again in a false hope of changing the other person/part? Or you use false power anger or false power denial of needs to avoid being forced to deal with anything that demands realization, recognition of a painful truth?

A fourth way is blaming oneself, maybe even harshly!!

And many possibly switch between these protection strategies or defenses…

And never the two really meet!

And you keep on directing things at scapegoats or symbols!? And this strategy will never solve anything. Because I think Miller is right: trying to solve your problems symbolically will never lead to recovery. Not even a slightest bit of recovery??

I think Bosch and Jenson are right here…

PS. And the whole society suffers from a cleverness mania! From cleverness at work to being able to walk further whatever has happened to you!!! Of course some manage with this!!! But why do they? And why do other people have difficulties with this? I don't think this has with genes or inherited traits to do!

I tried to find to whom Jesus said "Take your bed and go" and found a site called "The Bible-school" (Swedish site) and dropped my cheek over the underlying moralistic tone in the text!!! As I read it at least!

Miller on scapegoats and hatred…

the scapegoat * by William Holman Hunt, 1854. Hunt had this framed in a picture with the quotations "Surely he hath borne our Griefs and carried our Sorrows; Yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of GOD and afflicted." (Isaiah 53:4) and "And the Goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a Land not inhabited." (Leviticus 16:22).

[Updated May 12 in the end]. On my bike ride I came to think of anger, justified and unjustified, and scapegoats…

Wondered what Miller has written about this.

Yes, for instance she writes at page 146 in the paperback edition of “The Drama…” (the revised version) that human beings who have got help discovering their past, whom in their therapies have learned to unravel (reda ut) their feelings and find their true causes out, are no longer ruled by the compulsion to cast off their hatred on innocent people to spare (skona) these persons who really deserved their hatred. They have the capacity hating what’s worth hating and loving what’s worth loving.

As they dare to know who deserves their hatred they can accommodate to the reality without falling into the blindness the mistreated child fell into, the mistreated child who had to spare her parents and therefore needed scapegoats.

There is no point in appealing to love and reason so long as those steps for clearing the early emotions up are protected of fear for our parents (whether in client or therapist). And most often we need help with this.

One can’t fight the hatred with arguments; one has to realize their origins and use tools which make it possible dissolving the hatred.

Experiencing the justified hatred liberates, not only because the body gets relaxed (the inner tensions are released), but particularly because this experience open our eyes for realities, liberate us from illusions, gives us our repressed memories back…

When one at last has experienced the hatred and understood its justification it becomes dissolved, and is only shown when there are real, true reasons for it. If not, it comes back and comes back. It’s bottomless. And even creates wars, of different sizes. From personal vendettas between two persons or between two (or more) families to world wars.

It is the unfair, to innocent cast off or displaced hatred, that is endless, and can never calm down. Not the justified. The justified gets dissolved.

And about therapy: Miller thinks we need more than the pure intellectual insight. The pure intellectual insight isn’t enough for healing and recovery. But an important (first) step. Some therapists (Bosch and Jenson) mean that cognition, behaviour and emotion are equally important. But I am not sure regression or primal therapy is the only tool to recover and heal. But reading their books has meant a lot. They also talk about the False Power - Anger defense.

And Miller also writes (at page 145) that it isn’t the therapist's task to “socialize” his client or educate him. She thinks all education is guardianship (förmynderi?). Yes, how often isn’t it poisonous pedagogy (svart pedagogik)?

* In wikipedia it stands about the scapegoat:

“The scapegoat was a goat that was driven off into the wilderness as part of the ceremonies of Yom Kippur/.../

The word is more widely used as a metaphor, referring to someone who is blamed for misfortunes, generally as a way of distracting attention from the real causes.”

My amateur translation to Swedish:

“Syndabocken var en get som drevs ut i vildmarken som en del i ceremonierna runt Jom Kippur/…/

Ordet används bredare som en metafor, syftande på någon som är klandrad för olyckor, allmänt som ett sätt att distrahera (dra bort) uppmärksamheten från de verkliga orsakerna.”

PS. Also read ”See No Evil -- A political psychologist explains the roles denial, emotion and childhood punishment play in politics,” Michael Milburn interviewed by Brian Braiker in Newsweek, May 13, 2004.

Addition May 12: have blogged about the interview with Milburn om my other blog, see here.

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!