Att kollidera med patriarkatet: vad handlar reaktion i det blå, eller explosion som kommer till synes från ingenstans, om?
April 21, 2017 § 6 Comments
Levant skriver att män visar aggression utan att ha blivit provocerade, medan kvinnor behöver bli provocerade innan de reagerar aggressivt. Dvs kvinnans reaktion kommer inte utan provokation, inte ur det blå alltså.
Vilka rollmodeller har vi växt upp med? De modeller vi haft kan också trigga uppror: om pojken haft en eftergiven, stoisk far, så försöker mannen hävda sig som vuxen, överdrivet? En mamma med obegripliga utbrott i det blå påverkar ens kvinnosyn och -relationer.
Hon, som dotter, borde ha fått lära sig bättre än hon fick om hon är värd att bli anklagad och aggressivt behandlad. Hon borde ha fått lära sig när hon kan avvisa det:
“Det där handlar inte om mig!”
Eller att lyssna på berättigad kritik. Och avgöra vad som är berättigat och inte! Inte minst vad som inte är berättigat.
Hon tenderar att ta åt sig. Göra ett så kallat rollövertagande? Se tidigare bloggning “Vad är kärlek?”:
“…en avgörande ingrediens i ojämställdhet är att kvinnor gör så kallade rollövertaganden i en helt annan utsträckning än män. Kvinnor försöker leva sig in i andras situationer medan män i mycket högre grad tenderar att fokusera på sig själva och sina behov.”
Han skjuter allt ifrån dig:
“Jag har inte gjort något!”
En reaktion som hade varit högst berättigad hos den lille pojken mot sin mamma för länge sen. Idag blir den reaktionen ett problem! Nu har han makt att avfärda allt. Han slipper all rannsakan eller avgörande om vad som inte handlar om honom och vad som gör det.
Ett av exemplen på att han inte förstår. Som om det inte kopplar? 😦 Och – det blir svårt att lära sig.
Varken man eller kvinna måste svälja sånt som inte är sant, men att bara avfärda är inte bra för nån relation och dess utveckling och i slutänden fortlevnad.
Susan Faludis pappa verkar inte fatta varför hans äktenskap med Susans mamma slutade i skilsmässa. Ett fenomen som inte är ovanligt?
“Like the Kingdom of God, the Republic of Gilead is both now and not yet. Margaret Atwood’s 1985 novel The Handmaid’s Tale conjures a theocratic dystopia—a version of the United States taken over by fundamentalist Christians after a terrorist attack on Washington.
Women are now divided into rigid classes determined by an idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible. Atwood’s protagonist, Offred, is a Handmaid—a fallen woman who is forced to bear children for righteous couples—and the book follows her sufferings under the Gilead regime. Atwood paints in garish strokes intended to shock: This new society calls homosexuality ‘gender treachery’ and forbids women to read, own property, or choose their own clothing.
Since the novel’s publication three decades ago, Gilead has existed as a paper nightmare that gains or loses dimension based on the state of our national politics. Of course, we don’t divide women into classes of Marthas, Handmaids, Econowives, and Wives; we call them ‘the help,’ ‘surrogates,’ the working class, and the one percent.
America has never forced fertile women to bear children for infertile ones, but Trump’s pussy-grabbing presidency has given cover to the sort of blatant misogyny many thought consigned to the past.
‘In Trump’s America, The Handmaid’s Tale matters more than ever,’ The Verge declared the day after Trump’s election. In February, the book overtook George Orwell’s 1984 on the Amazon best-seller list. Texas is Gilead and Indiana is Gilead and now that Mike Pence is our vice president, the entire country will look more like Gilead, too.
America is rich in Serena Joys. One need look no further for her contemporary counterparts than Michelle Duggar and her daughters; or Paula White, the televangelist who allegedly led Donald Trump to Christ; or his aide Kellyanne Conway, who defends him as a ‘great boss’ to women.
The character Atwood invented is an amalgam of Phyllis Schlafly and Tammy Faye Bakker with a dash of Aimee Semple McPherson. The spectacle of the female fundamentalist celebrity is not recent, and she is not an anomaly. Her existence is proof of American fundamentalism’s durability, and a reminder that it could not thrive without the enthusiastic backing of women.
When Atwood wrote her novel, Schlafly had already established herself as one of America’s most visible and influential conservative women by leading a successful campaign against the Equal Rights Amendment. A committed Catholic, Schlafly hurled herself against feminism’s second wave with all the conviction of the activists she loathed. ‘The women’s libbers don’t understand that most women want to be wife, mother, and homemaker—and are happy in that role,’ she asserted in 1972.
But like her fictional doppelgänger, Schlafly was no homemaker. She traveled the country; she appeared on television; she influenced policy. The world she wanted to build could not coexist with the world that allowed her career. These contradictions did not, however, trouble Schlafly’s supporters. She defeated [omintetgjorde] the ERA by mobilizing them; her mostly female volunteer brigades harried [ansatte] legislators into rejecting the bill.”
Läs hela artikeln i länken.
I “Read our full conversation with George Lakoff on ‘your brain on Trump'” kan man läsa vilka katastrofala effekter uppfostran kan leda till även på högre nivå, inte bara på nära relationsnivå:
In 1996, he wrote an influential book called ‘Moral Politics,’ which describes the science behind how liberals and conservatives think. Lakoff shares his analysis of President Trump’s linguistic style and the effect it can have on your brain. An edited version of their conversation is below./…/
Lakoff: I study the mind, the brain and language. Most thought is unconscious, about 98 percent. And we have found ways of studying unconscious thought in all kinds of ways over the last 40 years. And that’s what I do. I study mostly unconscious thought and its contribution to conscious thought.
Wood: And its contribution to, kind of, politics and society too, which seems extremely relevant as it happens right now.
Lakoff: That’s right. I’ve been doing that since 1996.
Kai Ryssdal: So, and this time around, you predicted — although we should say you are no fan of Donald Trump — you predicted that he would win based on what he was saying.
Lakoff: Based on what he was saying, how he was saying it, and how he very cleverly managed to manipulate other people’s brains to his advantage as a super salesman, which he’s been doing for 50 years. And he instinctively knows exactly how to do that. He knows what to say, and those tweets that he gives are entirely strategic. There are four types. Each of them fits a strategy, you know, and he has an advantage when other people think that he’s just crazy or stupid.
Ryssdal: So let’s play some tape actually, we have tape of the president. This is not long after the election.
Trump audio: When I was young, we were always winning things in this country. We’d win with trade, we’d win with wars….
Ryssdal: He said it so much, I can almost repeat the next line. “There’s going to be so much winning, you’re gonna be sick and tired of winning.”
Lakoff: Right exactly. Yep.
Ryssdal: And he knew what he was doing.
Lakoff: Boy, did he know what he was doing. He knew perfectly well what he was doing. First of all, there are in this country about 35 percent of Americans who have what I call a strict father morality. That is, they understand that they, in their households or whatever, they believe that father knows best, that their father is the authority, that what he says is right. That if children don’t obey him, they have to be given tough love and punished until they do, and that this gives rise to a view that you have to be disciplined. That is not to do what feels good.
You’ve heard of feel-good liberalism? That means they don’t have a strict-enough father. The main thing is that this is a natural thing that this is how the world should be how it is. And if you look at history, you will see that the strict fathers win. And you can take a look at who wins, and they win because they’re right. That morality and authority go together, that the strict father knows right from wrong. So that if you want to see who’s better than who, you look at who beat who. And so you have religion won out, you have God above man and you have, we have conquered nature, you have man above nature. We can take anything we want for our use. You have the strong above the weak. We need a strong army, and so on. You have the rich above the poor, who deserve it, because they’re disciplined. The employers above employees, because they’re richer. The adults above children in 21 states. Teachers and coaches can beat children with sticks if they don’t just obey them and if they ever talk back. You have Western culture above non-Western culture. We won out. You have America above other countries, men above women, whites above non-whites, Christians above non-Christians, straights above gays. That hierarchy follows from one idea, not a bunch of different ideas. It’s strict father morality as applied to all aspects of life.
That is what Trump not only believes, he hacks and he assumes is correct. And he knows that about 35 percent of the country — the 35 percent who still support him — that, you know, who also believe this, even if they’re poor. And it doesn’t matter, this just a matter of material resources. The main thing is that if that is your worldview and that’s your morality, that defines who you are as a person. It’s self-definition, and people don’t vote against their self-definition. Not only that, it doesn’t matter if Trump lies to them, and they know he’s lying, because there’s a higher truth, which is strict father morality itself, which has consequences and that they are truer than any lies. And that if you deny that, if you accept the lies as more important, you’re denying your self-identity. That is why there are alternative facts.
Ryssdal: OK, well yeah, but here’s … oh, my goodness, so many questions.
Wood: I know. I have 10 to 100 questions as follow ups.
Ryssdal: So here comes just one. All this pointing out of lies and alternative facts and all of this that the media is doing. Spinning our wheels to no effect, is that what you’re saying?
Lakoff: To no effect with the 35 percent.
Wood: Well and it almost — some of your research seems to argue not only to no effect but to counter effect.
Läs vidare i länken!
“In the 1900’s, as part of my research in the cognitive and brain sciences, I undertook to answer a question in my field: How do the various policy positions of conservatives and progressives hang together? Take conservatism: What does being against abortion have to do with being for owning guns?
What does owning guns have to do with denying the reality of global warming? How does being anti-government fit with wanting a stronger military? How can you be pro-life and for the death penalty? Progressives have the opposite views. How do their views hang together?
The answer came from a realization that we tend to understand the nation metaphorically in family terms: We have founding fathers. We send our sons and daughters to war. We have homeland security.
The conservative and progressive worldviews dividing our country can most readily be understood in terms of moral worldviews that are encapsulated in two very different common forms of family life: The Nurturant Parent family (progressive) and the Strict Father family (conservative).
What do social issues and the politics have to do with the family? We are first governed in our families, and so we grow up understanding governing institutions in terms of the governing systems of families.
In the strict father family, father knows best. He knows right from wrong and has the ultimate authority to make sure his children and his spouse do what he says, which is taken to be what is right.
Many conservative spouses accept this worldview, uphold the father’s authority, and are strict in those realms of family life that they are in charge of. When his children disobey, it is his moral duty to punish them painfully enough so that, to avoid punishment, they will obey him (do what is right) and not just do what feels good.
Through physical discipline they are supposed to become disciplined, internally strong, and able to prosper in the external world. What if they don’t prosper? That means they are not disciplined, and therefore cannot be moral, and so deserve their poverty.
This reasoning shows up in conservative politics in which the poor are seen as lazy and undeserving, and the rich as deserving their wealth. Responsibility is thus taken to be personal responsibility not social responsibility. What you become is only up to you; society has nothing to do with it. You are responsible for yourself, not for others — who are responsible for themselves.
Winning and Insulting
As the legendary Green Bay Packers coach, Vince Lombardi, said,
‘Winning isn’t everything. It’s the only thing.’ In a world governed by personal responsibility and discipline, those who win deserve to win. Why does Donald Trump publicly insult other candidates and political leaders mercilessly? Quite simply, because he knows he can win an onstage TV insult game.
In strict conservative eyes, that makes him a formidable winning candidate who deserves to be a winning candidate. Electoral competition is seen as a battle. Insults that stick are seen as victories — deserved victories.
Consider Trump’s statement that John McCain is not a war hero. The reasoning: McCain got shot down. Heroes are winners. They defeat big bad guys. They don’t get shot down. People who get shot down, beaten up, and stuck in a cage are losers, not winners.
The Moral Hierarchy
The strict father logic extends further. The basic idea is that authority is justified by morality (the strict father version), and that, in a well-ordered world, there should be (and traditionally has been) a moral hierarchy in which those who have traditionally dominated should dominate.
The hierarchy is: God above Man, Man above Nature, The Disciplined (Strong) above the Undisciplined (Weak), The Rich above the Poor, Employers above Employees, Adults above Children, Western culture above other cultures, America above other countries. The hierarchy extends to: Men above women, Whites above Nonwhites, Christians above nonChristians, Straights above Gays.
We see these tendencies in most of the Republican presidential candidates, as well as in Trump, and on the whole, conservative policies flow from the strict father worldview and this hierarchy
Family-based moral worldviews run deep. Since people want to see themselves as doing right not wrong, moral worldviews tend to be part of self-definition — who you most deeply are. And thus your moral worldview defines for you what the world should be like. When it isn’t that way, one can become frustrated and angry.
There is a certain amount of wiggle room in the strict father worldview and there are important variations. A major split is among (1) white Evangelical Christians, (2) laissez-fair free market conservatives, and (3) pragmatic conservatives who are not bound by evangelical beliefs.”