Flying confessions of a free woman…

photo on Jennifer Fox.

A friend of mine wrote that she had seen the fifth part of the series (documentary) "Flying confessions of a free woman". Done by Jennifer Fox, travelling all over the world, to different cultures, seeking the answers to how it is to be a woman today.

Here you can see the first part of this series (in English). The series home site. About the series at Swedish TVs site.
My friend wrote (my free translation):

“It is a striking pictures emerging [via the series]: women in all cultures all over the world are controlled by men. Obviously men need to control women. The methods differs from culture to culture [more or less], but it’s the same everywhere. Something interesting is that it is women themselves whom perform the control on behalf of the men. Either through self-control or through controlling other women.”

I haven't seen this series though... And I don't feel a lust seeing it either to be honest of some reason (despite who tipped me about it!)... As my friend's husband it looks! :-)

On the Swedish site it stands something in this style:

”Living the free life.
Jennifer and her friends, all 30+, live the free life in New York. But are they actually as free as they think or believe or maybe pretend? Most of their lives look mostly confused.”

Thinking about the roots again... Why people live self-destructively and/or destructively, about patriarchate, authoritarianism... Playing people out against each others to keep them in control and check - why that need? Occurring everywhere, on all different levels, from the micro to the macro level... Is this inevitable? Does it have to be so? Should it have to be so? What does this mean for relations? For the nearness in them?

Addition: Words coming for me; The need for power… Denial of needs… Perverted needs… Exaggeratedly dependent, or with no dependence needs at all… What is all this expressions of?

The Swedish leader-writer and editor-in-chef Göran Greider wrote in a leader today about "Politics Through Shock - Göran Greider on the Art of Terrifying People to Retain the Power [and Control]" ("Politik genom chockverkan - Göran Greider om konsten att skrämmas för att behålla makten" freely translated to English). And in it it stood about "authoritarian power holders" awakening when people get shocked. He writes that he thinks they love crisis, shocks and frightened voters.

To get unpopular things through politically, things people normally wouldn't accept, the ones with power uses crisis and even provoke them. The Swedes voted "Yes" for EU 1994, but wouldn't have done this he thinks if there hadn't been an economical crisis then (with a coming steel bath, that had started already then, with all that followed and still follows from that steel bath). We were threatened with all horrible things that would occur if we stood outside EU.

But later when we voted for EMU (2003), the economy was better and the Swedish people said "No" to EMU. Even then we were threatened... But nothing of what was painted up as a coming disaster if we didn't join EMU has occurred. But the media is quiet about this.

This morning there was a review of a new book, "Krigets färger" in Swedish by Arkadij Babtjenko, about the war in Chechnya started 1994 I think (Tjetjenien in Swedish). See this article in Swedish "The war made me to a different human being". A war Melane Klein mentions in her book "The Shock Doctrine"...

They mentioned all the war-veterans in the review... How many lives have been sacrificed? For what? Why? Both soldiers and civilians lives...

From where the need to exercise power? See the psycho historians about the most backward psycho-classes...

PS. (More about the theme men and women, and the differences between them). Helle Klein om Doris Lessing som fräckt ifrågasatte

”...Svenska Akademiens prismotivering om att hon skulle vara 'den kvinnliga erfarenhetens epiker'. Vadå kvinnliga erfarenhet? Det är mänsklig, sade Lessing.

I dag skriver Birgitta Holm bra i Svenska Dagbladet om Lessing och 'det kvinnliga'.

'Om jag fick döma skulle Orhan Pamuks erfarenheter, förra årets pristagare, vara mycket mer specifikt manliga än Lessings är kvinnliga.', skriver Holm.

I Pamuks fall sägs inte något om ”manlig”, där heter det i prismotiveringen: ”som på spaning efter sin hemstads melankoliska själ har funnit nya sinnebilder för kulturernas strid och sammanflätning.”

'Den manliga melankolin är hela stadens, mannens betryck, hela Kulturens. Samma sak kan sägas om alla de närmare hundra manliga författare som har fått priset genom åren. Deras erfarenheter är allmängiltiga, det är mannens berättelse som är den universella', konstaterar Holm.

Svenska Akademiens prismotivering för årets nobelpristagare visar att vi ännu år 2007 ser kvinnors erfarenheter som 'avvikande'. Det manliga är norm.
Intressant.

Det påminner om det märkliga uttrycket 'kvinnliga präster'....”

Hela inlägget var så bra, så jag kopierade nästan hela!! Hmmm…

Pratar man om manliga präster?