The role of an enlightened witness...

[A little edited March 19]. In the leader ”The little we can do” about the Austrian man who held one of his daughters as prisoner for 24 years, raped her and made her pregnant six times the leader writer wrote:

“{The crime was committed in] The country of the Wiener waltzes and the all embracing courtesy’s land – but where a great part of the population welcomed the Nazis and where musty forms of Catholicism and patriarchal tradition in a holy alliance have maintained all sorts of old power structures. Maybe it’s something special with Austria, but still: of course you can’t impose guilt on a whole nation.

Is it Fritzl’s upbringing we shall blame? In the talks he has had with his psychologist it has come up that he had an extraordinary horrible upbringing, fatherless and at the same time he became tormented by his mother. Disturbed for life, full of contempt for women and an unhealthy need for control./…/

But there are many people with a horrible upbringing whom for that reason wouldn't commit any bestial deeds.”

I think Alice Miller is right when she writes that the reason to why all abused children don’t commit horrible crimes is because they have had an enlightened or at least knowing witness during their childhood and/or youth, and that’s why they have been capable of, to certain parts and degrees, condemn what they were exposed to.

Addition March 19: Even if they don't become criminals or commit crimes of different sorts (destructiveness) they can suffer from sickness and addictions or other self-destructive behaviors of different kinds. See the ACE-study and what Miller has written in for instance "The Body Never Lies".

And a horrible upbringing is no excuse for what you commit (if you abuse a child, commit crimes or even murders, initiate homicides etc.), only an explanation.

Power (read: male or patriarchal) abuse...

påskkärring and påskgubbe.

Oh, diligently blogging...

I came to think of what Anna-Luise Kirkengen has written about power imbalance and tried to find it, but found something else. She writes at page 8 in her book “Inscribed bodies…”:

“Actually, my exploration of socially silenced sexual boundary violations [but not only sexual violations, but also violations of the other person's self, dignity, feelings, thoughts etc. in form of verbal, emotional, in form of outbursts, physical abuse, or implicitly or explicitly threatening with verbal abuse, withdrawal etc.??] with regard to health impact has revealed both particular and general dynamics, mutually constitutive, between individuals and society, and between violated persons and health agencies. The violated human bodies have emerged as both bodies unto or into which violence is inscribed in a literal, graphical, etching-like sense, and bodies which are inscribed into the social politics which silence the main impact of patriarchy, namely the societal structures of domination and objectification.

The etching impact of silenced violations, and the sickening impact of the medical aid offered to the violated persons are, indeed, metaphorically spoken: the double costs of patriarchy. Sexually violated bodies are, in this double sense, Inscribed Bodied.”

Who is usually the strongest? Not only physically, but also in other respects? How is this power used? And why does it has to become demonstrated, and to whom does it has to become demonstrated - and why actually? What is this abreaction about? Actually? Does it makes the person's involved coming closer? Or the opposite? Is this a form of metaphorically murdering another person? And why does one want to murder? Does this person deserve being murdered, if though not literally, so in other senses? Does this person need being pushed down? And why if so?? And this murderous rage can't it result in real murder too, after physical abuse???

When I read this and other things in her book I came to think that you can't blame the medicine and psychiatry that a person close to you doesn't get help, and go on violating this person yourself... I wonder if it can't become like that; men abusing women close to them covering it with that it's "the professionals' fault"?? That the profession violates is by no means a justification for private abuse???

And as Miller writes (page 145 in the Swedish edition of ”The Drama…”), a human being who has worked her/his own destiny’s tragedy through consciously (been able doing this, probably with help) can at last (much more) plainly apprehend her human fellow beings suffering, even if that person still has to belittle it.

She can’t make fun of (or scorn) other people’s feelings, of whatever sort they are (may be), if she can take her own feelings seriously. She will not let the vicious circle of contempt continue (or go on and on and on).

And can't abuse or violate another person. And this person also behaves more respectfully towards other people, and don’t abuse them either verbally, emotionally, mentally or physically, sexually. How defended that person even is so long as this person is no harm to other people!!! But of course, if this person’s defences harm other people than we have to react and point this out and maybe need to intervene and even protect a victim… But just reacting with contempt over a persons’ imperfection if it isn’t hurting anyone can be, and is, contempt and nothing less, and sitting on high horses!!?? I am very, very ironical…

And this wasn't a posting about matriarchal abuse... We all know that mothers have the first contact with the child usually, but does this grant fathers (or men) discharge from (all) responsibility??

Men are stronger physically (in general) and have more power in their voices (in general), men's voices are lower and their voices are louder usually, they usually have more power in society and have a higher status too, earn more money usually with all what follows... And as Anja wrote: if we look back on human history, who have murdered and killed the most? Who have created most harm? Yes, women have murdered and killed and created harm too!!!

I don't know if I sound tough and frank here, but...

PS. Of some reason I like Sting's song much, much better than the one I posted after the video with Sting this morning...

PPS. And I don't like the current school-politics in Sweden or our school-minister's (Jan Björklund) ideas about the school!!! I think he stands for a backlash and is really authoritarian!

Abraham and son by Rembrandt I think (the painting Miller refers to in "Thou Shalt Not Be Aware"? I.e. you shall not see?).

A set free sex you don’t have to pay for…

No, you don’t have to pay for set free sex, or force yourself to it either!? We have a law in Sweden (!!! We are so "regulated" in everything!?) since a couple of years prohibiting buying sex.

See this article (in Norwegian) about prostitution and buying sex which I was tipped about by a friend yesterday apropos the International Women's Day. It ends:

“If sex wasn’t seen as a merchandise (??) or service but as a form of communication between two people from voluntariness (of free will) and reciprocity we can talk about a set free, emancipated sexuality. Set free, emancipated sex is gratuitous sex!”