SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE 5 - Marxist Feminist

I've been wanting to write something about the very strange belief some of my progressive friends seem to have - that you can tell who has the power in a relationship simply by knowing their sexes (or race, or age). This seems to me such an obviously silly belief (and a pretty crass form of biological determinism) that I can't quite understand why intelligent, moral, thoughtful people would not question it. It's pretty common though. The idea seems to be that despite many of the woman I've known being better paid, having nicer homes, better jobs and just generally more status than I'll ever have, that nevertheless I'm supposed to treat them as if I'm the one with the power. 

It originates in Marxist political theory but that's about bosses and employees - where essentially, you can't be a boss unless you have power. A boss without power isn't a boss. Not so with male people (or white people, or old people) who are often in terrible trou-ble. Men are more likely than women to be addicts, homeless, criminals, and suicides. There are more men at the top for sure, but there are also more men at the bottom. (Women are more clustered in the middle.)

The rationalisation for this belief seems to be that since men have all this power, if we wanted to make things better we'd have done it by now - but most people have no power to speak of. Though on average men are better off and more violent, most men are neither rich nor violent. We can't treat people as examples of an average. We should treat them as individuals, and most people - men and woman - are poor, badly educated and under-privileged.

The consequence of this simplistic way of thinking is that men who have struggled all their lives get laughed at and ignored when they talk about their problems. For some-one like me that's just been very disappointing, but for many men it's literally adding insult to injury. 

I've been a feminist most of my life, but I no longer believe that women in general are especially badly treated compared to men, at least in the UK. Feminists think women are worse off because they either don't know about men's problems, or don't take them seriously. When I talk about men's problems no one ever asks me about them. Often they laugh. Generally, if they engage with me at all they give me a long list of women's grievances - grievances I've been hearing about all my life and know by heart. But the point is not that women don't have problems - of course they do - because we all do. No, the question is, are the woman's problems worse than the men's? To assess inequality you have to make a comparison. If you only know one side of the equation and just as-sume the other side is bigger it will always appear unequal. 

People don't want to hear about men's problems for various reasons - one is the belief that they're self-inflicted - that we could solve them if we wanted because we have so much power - but it's systemic - it's built into society. Men and women are heavily conditioned to take up certain roles in society and most people have neither the time nor the education to challenge them. I've been trying all my life, and I still have a load of masculine crap in my head - ways I'm supposed to be, things I'm supposed to do - guilt and shame for not measuring up. A man with a full-time minimum-wage job and kids doesn't stand a chance. He just needs to fit in to survive. 

The other common assumption is that men's roles are simply better, but I don't see many women digging up the road, emptying the bins, or joining the infantry. My lived expe-rience of being a man is that it can be pretty wretched - trying to measure up, not complain, keep your problems to yourself. 

There is of course a very visible minority of male high-achievers - politicians, business leaders, professionals, stars of various kinds - it's the last bastion of sex inequality, but the vast majority of us aren't among them. Most of us, men and women, are in trouble. The world is not set up for any of us.

SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE - Introduction

"So you're a right-winger now?"
"No. I believe in redistribution of wealth, caring for the environment, and equal rights and opportunities for everyone. I couldn't easily be more left-wing."
"So how come you're against women's rights?"
"Again - I'm not - I've always believed women should have the same rights and opportunities as men. I just don't really believe that men and women are all that unequal any more, at least in the UK."

"Well it's not really up to you to tell women what to think is it?"

"I don't think it's up to anyone to tell anyone what to think. We all have to make up our own minds. I think the study of how men and women relate to each other has been taken over by feminism, which has given us a huge amount of insight into woman's experience but ignores the other half of the story."

"Oh I think we know more than enough about men thanks."

"Yes - I know you think that. Women often claim to know more about what it's like to be a man than men do. And if we disagree they accuse us of being in denial, or lying. But it is remarkable how often women are wrong."

"Well you would say that wouldn't you."

"Prove me wrong."

At this point my interlocutor will give me a long list of bad things women have to put up with, none of which I disagree with. What they're missing out is the bad things men have to put up with. Everybody has to put up with bad things. I agree the bad things may be different, but the overall levels of bad things men and women have to put up with are just not that different any more. At this point my interlocutor either laughs, tries to insult me, or leaves. The idea that men suffer in any serious way is ridiculous - unthinkable - not worth serious consideration.

And yet they do. For example, according to ONS data men are far more likely to die young than women by every means except child-birth. This seems pretty serious to me. In particular they're twice as likely to be murdered, but also far more likely to be killed or injured at work, or die from 'self medication' (addiction) or 'self-harm' (suicide), or taking risks trying to prove themselves as men. 
Why does this not matter? I think there are three interlocking reasons - people believe 1. that men have the power, so if they get into trouble it's their own fault, 2. that men are big and tough so they can handle it, and 3. that they probably deserve it because they're bad people. In contrast women are 1. powerless and oppressed, 2. the weaker sex, and 3. innocent victims. In my experience most people buy into at least some of these beliefs. Indeed I used to believe them myself, until recently.

The first is orthodox feminist theory - men simply are more powerful than women. It's the patriarchy. It's a man's world. "If you wanted to change things you'd have done it by now." And yet the vast majority of people - men and women - have no real power or wealth at all. Most people are poor/working class. The world is run by a small number of mostly old white men. There is an old boy network for sure but most of us are not part of it. There is no patriarchal trickle-down effect. The pay gap exists (and is getting wider) because the male average is skewed by that tiny minority of very wealthy, very powerful men. It's not men vs women - it's those few powerful men vs the rest of us.

The other source of power is violence. Recent feminism has been telling women that violence is a normal part of male behaviour. "We can't trust any of you." they say. "You could kill me with your bare hands." "We'd rather take our chances with a bear." 

But violence is not normal - it's a crime, and the vast majority of crimes are perpetrated by a small minority of reoffenders. Most criminals are men - true, but most men are not criminals. We are all likely to be the victims of violent men at some time or another, but the vast majority of human interactions are not violent. Men are at least as likely to be the victims of male violence as women. There is a perception that men being attacked by other men is ok - that it's consensual violence. Lads fighting among themselves are generally not reported as crimes unless someone ends up in hospital. "He got into a fight" they say, but most attacks are by a few hard men on those they perceive as different or vulnerable in some way, and few of us are able to defend ourselves. We just run away or lie still and hope they get bored. 

Violence against men is not taken seriously. Films and dramas and computer games are full of men being injured, tortured and killed. It's fun. Violence against women is far more disturbing. In war, casualties among women and children are reported, but not men. They don't really count it seems. Men are expendable cannon-fodder - both in war and industry.

Beyond these two principal measures of male power - wealth and violence - women complain of a myriad other smaller, more subtle injustices where men criticise, deride or disrespect women. Again though there's a failure to consider how life is for men. Do men respect other men? Do women respect men? (Do women respect each other? I have it on good authority that they don't). Derision and criticism are normal parts of human life. People dislike and disagree with each other for all sorts of reasons and express it in various ways. If feminism was campaigning for all of us to be kinder to each other it would make more sense, but they're not. Women can be as unpleasant to men as they like, but men criticising or ridiculing women is sexist or even misogynist. The argument is that men criticising women is 'punching down' because women have less power. I've talked about this above but in any case, on an individual basis it makes no sense. I know many women who are better off than I am, have better jobs, nicer homes, and more status generally. Am I still supposed to relate to them as if I'm the one with the power? 

SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE 3 - Do you have a problem with women?

"Do you have a problem with women?" she asked.
"I think I have a problem with people, to be honest. I seem to upset everyone. I can show you a list of all the men I've had to block."

Women's rights people often assume (that word again) that if you question feminism in any way at all, that you're anti-women but in fact I'm the opposite. Most of my life I've been quite strongly anti-men, with quite a hefty dose of self-loathing thrown in. Misandry, despite protestations, is a real thing - many men I know are somewhat ashamed to be men, despite being caring, sensitive, insightful people. Some acknowledge their own privilege despite the fact their wife is in a much better paid, more prestigious job than they are. They somehow feel accountable for the things other men do - criminals and oligarchs - even though they're ordinary working class blokes and have no more power to change things than their wives, and are just as badly affected by the injustice. 

I had a lot of trouble with men and boys when I was young. I spent the first five years of my life alone with my mum, who was depressed. I'd never met any children before I started school and I had no idea how to deal with them. I still don't. I kept to myself. Later my dad became worried that I wouldn't survive so they tried to make me into a proper boy. I was an embarrassment. He tried to get me interested in games and engines, maths and physics, and fitting in with the other boys, but the more he pushed the more stressed I got. I was useless. I was interested in nature and drawing and collecting things. I spent a lot of time in rockpools and steams. I liked books and records. As a teenager I had a room full of fish tanks and houseplants - and then I started doing the garden. The feeling though was that none of this would get me a 'proper job' and was dismissed as childish things - to be put away. They suspected I was mentally handicapped or lazy, and probably 'queer'. I ended up with no self-esteem at all. I was very good at useless things and no good at what I should be doing. Only now do I know that what I was doing was studying, researching, educating myself, and I should have become an ecologist. When I applied to university at 18, two polytechnics would have accepted me to do marine biology with just passes and without interviews because they could see my potential but I was so stressed and had so little confidence that I failed utterly. I tried again in my thirties - got myself an MSc distinction in ecology - but got no further due again to my lack of confidence. I went back to gardening.

I don't really want to blame them - they thought they were doing the right thing. It has been hard though to forgive those men who tried to make me like them. They were not brutal or violent but they were contemptuous and dismissive. One thing was certain - I did not want to be like the boys or men I knew. The boys were rough and unpredictable. Men's work was dirty and exhausting. Dad was a foreman at Shoreham power station - an electrical fitter - having crawl in the still-hot turbines, breathing heavy metals, coal dust, asbestos and all kinds of exotic hydrocarbons. I didn't want his life. He had a good steady skilled job and yet there still never seemed to be anything to show for it. All he did was work, come home, eat, sleep and go to work again. At the weekend he rushed around trying to fit everything else in. It was exhausting. What was the point of that? What is the point of living that way? He just looked forward to his retirement but died at 60 of a mesothelioma from the asbestos. And they wanted me to be like him. Sometimes it felt like I was being corrupted.

Throughout though I admired the girls at school. They were the ones to beat with their neat handwriting and quiet composure. I desperately wanted a girlfriend too, from the age of about 10, but it was not just sexual - I just thought everything about girls were fantastic. Needless to say they didn't want me because I was a weird geeky boy. It took me a long time to get any social skills, but my closest friends were always women because I could have a proper conversation with them. I wasn't expected to compete or banter. I've always been very open about how I feel I don't really know how to hide it, and because I had so many problems getting on in life I was always trying to ask others who maybe knew something I didn't. Boys don't do that - they don't talk about their fears and problems, though they undoubtedly all have them. I've never really worked out how to be friends with men. All my jobs (bar work, care work, teaching and gardening) have been traditionally women's work or unisex. In the 80s, in my early twenties, I discovered the women's rights movement and I empathised entirely with how women were kept down and disparaged. Women were the future. Mum had always been very dismissive of men, who she saw as crude and uncouth, smelly and loud. This was a pretty common view among women in our friends and family. Men were just the ones who went out and got the money. It was women who held everything together - who did the real work. Dad told me this. He was very much 'of his time' but he had a lot of respect for women. For her part, mum felt very hard-done-by at home all day doing the housework. Even so I was very sure even then whose job I'd prefer, his or hers. Born 10 years later she'd have had a good job, probably running an office or clinic, and probably with no kids or husband, neither of which she enjoyed. They were very different people. Born 10 years later there's no way they'd have been together.

SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE 2 - They're all as Bad as One-another

Do male murder victims matter less than female because they're killed by men? It's a very commonly raised point.

Why does it matter who hurts you? Certainly most criminals are male. Does that make their male victims any less injured than their female victims? It's a point worth un-packing.

I suspect the thinking behind it (because I used to think this way) is that somehow we men are all on the same side, so it doesn't count if we hurt each other (that is unless the victims are gay or black of course). The implication is that the victims and the perpetrators are all the same. We're all as bad as each other - any of us might kill any other of us at any time. There's also the belief that we men are about equally able to stand up for ourselves so it's like a sport with well-matched opponents. In fact judging by what some women have said to me they think male on male violence is just two blokes squaring up to see who is the toughest.

It's not like that. If you've ever been attacked by some tough guys on the street at night you'll know that it's terrifying - you don't fight back because you know it'll only make it worse (or if you do you could be killed or badly injured - with a broken bottle or being kicked in the head for example). As with those gay and black men - those guys at-tacked you because you're different and/or vulnerable.

What women don't seem to realise is that most men are not tough or good at fighting, and tough guys pick on us for that reason. My guess is those women have been watching too many cop shows or action movies, where men fighting is a bit of a laugh. It's not like that irl. Also - those guys who do choose to get into a fight together don't get in the crime stats unless one of them ends up in hospital.

Violent men are the minority (<10%?) but they do a lot of damage - my experience as a young man was that the local tough lads attacked someone most weekends - probably more. None of us were like them - we avoided them as much as possible - avoided eye-contact, didn't walk the streets alone, didn't wear anything provocative, maybe carried a knife, and sorry to say we never reported it because the police would have laughed and told us we needed to learn to stick up for ourselves. My parents would probably have said the same. I don't know how much things have changed since then. Practically every young man I knew was attacked at some time or other. I've been attacked 5 times I think. 

Male and female victims should be taken equally seriously.

SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE 1 : The Casting Couch

There was a post on Facebook about women being expected to have sex with men to get on in life. I commented that "many men would 100% sleep their way to the top if they could, but it's not an option generally available to men". It was meant to be a quip but as usual it was not taken lightly. As always, me being me, I try to think of male equivalents and a moment's thought made it obvious that men also have to jump through some hoops to get ahead - the main one being violence. Men often have to accept that they could be seriously injured or killed at work. 

Accidents at work are much higher among men than women (ONS). Some of it is part of the job but a lot is about taking unnecessary risks to prove yourself man enough. Roofing, scaffolding, tree-work, road work and working around heavy machinery are common examples. Some is just filthy degrading work with garbage or sewage. Men work in mines and on the trawlers, and of course they go to war. Accepting this inevitably leads to a certain hardness which can easily lead to cruelty. Women are not expected to put up with any of this. My dad worked at the Shoreham B power station in the 70s and was expected to crawl around in the still hot turbines breathing coal-dust, asbestos, heavy metals and random hydrocarbons. He died at 60 of a tumour in his brain stem. 

Being a soft lad, I largely avoided hard manual labour. I mostly did care work when I was a young man which was less well-paid but also less terrifying. My worst experience was when I was about 21 working for a landscaper in the Sussex countryside. I had a place at Askham Bryan agricultural college conditional on me getting a year's work experience in horticulture. Landscaping is not like gardening - it's all concrete and power-tools. Plants are generally an after-thought. It was a hot summer day - we were cutting a field hedge off the back of a farm trailer with hand-held hedge-cutters. It was sweaty and crippling and dangerous. The boss wouldn't let me work in shorts and tee-shirt - I had to wear the company overalls - to look professional and I was sweating profusely and no water was available. I didn't normally get hay-fever, but I was sneezing uncontrollably, and my nose was bleeding all over my face. I kept having to stop to mop up. Later he got so angry with me he dragged me out of the van by my hair. It was unacceptable behaviour of course but I was young and felt it was my fault so didn't tell anyone. This was what I had to do to get on at work. As it was I left the firm and didn't go to college. Probably it was a lucky escape given that college's reputation.

Women will say this is not the same of course - because for women the 'hoops' are sexual - ie. dirty and shameful, which they claim is worse. I spoke to one woman who told me being raped is worse than being killed - literally 'a fate worse than death' - but I'm pretty sure most women would submit to sexual assault if threatened with violence. Those women are very clear about which is worse. UK crime stats (ONS) show that men are as likely to be the victims of male violence and twice as likely to be murdered as women. I understand this is true throughout the western world. 

I was listening to interviews with victims of Harrods owner Mohamed Al-Fayed on BBC Radio 4 recently. Their experiences sounded miserable to be sure but all of them said that they submitted because they wanted to keep their jobs. They'd made their choice - if they wanted to work at Harrods, or other high-end London retail outlets, submitting to Al-Fayed was the price they had to pay. That was what they had to do to get what they wanted so they did it. 

It's not a good choice I agree - the whole capitalist edifice is based on poor people having to submit to scary degrading treatment by more powerful people if they want to get on - but that's true of men and women. The women's price is perhaps more psychological - shame and humiliation - than the men's but one mustn't underestimate the trauma involved in being victimised by hard men, or the terror of a life-threatening injury. The only difference is that traditionally, we take crimes against women more seriously than those against men. That's just how it is - it's deep in the culture. Sexual and domestic violence are taken more seriously because they tend to be the crimes women are victims of. Being killed or maimed by some stranger in a public place - which is what usually happens to men - just isn't that important. Plus men talk about it less than women - we keep it to ourselves and we certainly don't ask for help. 

"Muslim invaders"

Thinking about the phrase "Muslim invaders" last night after listening to coverage of the NZ shootings. Trying to think of any part of the world that Muslims have invaded lately. Can't think of any. Maybe some bits of Sub-Saharan Africa? Not sure.

I can think of Muslim countries we Westerners have invaded - Iraq and Afghanistan most obviously. Then there's the attempted eradication of Muslims in the Balkans and Caucasus following the break-up of the Soviet Union, and the imposition of the State of Israel on a Muslim country by the British and the mess over the partition of India, also by the Brits. And then there's Burma/Myanmar ethnically cleansing it's Rohingya Muslim minority and China 're-educating' it's Uighur Muslim minority

Dare I use the H word yet?

Self-help for sceptics

Yesterday I began to try to explain to a good friend what I meant by using science to sort myself out. I didn't get far. It's not hard to explain but it's not something I can encapsulate in a few sentences drinking coffee outside a cafe in Shoreham. This isn't helped by the fact that most people don't really know how science works. They maybe remember what they learned at school about repeatable experiments, and later they read the often controversial and mind-blowing claims about climate change and vaccination, cosmology and subatomic particles. At best they maybe watch documentaries or read popular science but most people know very little about the process of ordinary everyday science.

I’ve made some immense improvements to how I deal with my life over the last few years, after 50 years of struggling and being very unhappy, and frankly I’m as amazed about that as anybody. As it stands I’m pretty much the only person I know who has suffered from debilitating low self-esteem, depression and anxiety all his life that has succeeded in working his way out of it, mainly by thinking it through. I’ve been a little surprised and disappointed that nobody’s wanted to know how I did that, considering so many of them suffer similar problems. You’d think they’d want all the ideas they could get.

I certainly spent a lot of time asking people how they manage – hoping for some sort of useful insight but instead I’ve been told I’m obsessing, over-thinking and being paranoid, navel-gazing, being self-indulgent or self-involved. If I feel unhappy I should simply be more positive they say. If I’m struggling to get on in life I’ve been told I should just believe in myself – ‘just do it’. People who’ve given me advice have been exasperated with me for not simply doing what they say. I’ve been told I don’t really want to be happy – that I’m just wallowing or attention-seeking.

These people are of course expressing their own impatience with my unhappiness rather than trying to help, and that means I’ve almost never had a constructive conversation with anyone about it and have had to work it out for myself. Furthermore, I’ve never found the idea of Gods, spirits or souls, or any ‘consciousness’ beyond our own (and perhaps a few other animals) made much sense, so I’ve had to work it out without being able to fall back on any of that. I can’t put my trust in a higher power or ask the universe because nothing about my experience suggests that makes any sense. I can’t simply put intangible things down to ‘energy’ or ‘spirit’ because I have no idea what those things mean (I know what energy is in a pure physics sort of way, but not in the way New-Agers talk about it, which seems very muddled)

Of course, none of our experiences are completely objective. Science goes to enormous lengths to minimise the effects of personal perception and interpretation by making the process as open and impersonal and disinterested as possible. Peer review is about laying your work open to people who don’t necessarily agree with you and want to find fault. But this is impossible with introspection. Psychoanalysis has made a lot of money out of our ability to delude ourselves about what’s really going on in our own minds, but I think it’s possible to achieve a useful amount of objectivity if two things are true:-
1. If you genuinely want to get better. If you use the wrong information the treatment won’t work, or it’ll only work superficially but won’t tackle the deeper causes, so the problems will re-emerge in a different way. If you really want to get better you need the best possible information about what’s happening or there’s simply no point. There’s no point pretending – you’ll only be fooling yourself. Even so the information you gather will always be incomplete and any conclusions you reach will be uncertain. All you can do is make as coherent a theory as the evidence allows, and be ready to revise it when new evidence comes along.
When you come up with a hypothesis you have to test it to destruction – you have to try to think of anything that might disprove it. You learn to spot that nagging feeling that something about your new hypothesis isn’t quite right – that it’s too easy or too generic. You need to be ruthless – no comforting half-truths or convenient rationalisations.
With a bit of experience you’ll know when you hit the right explanation because you can feel it fit, and the change happens like that - whether you try or not. It simply works. You don’t have to practice or say something over and over or believe in something. If it’s right it works, in exactly the same way as using the right component fixes an engine.  If it doesn’t work you try something else.

2. If you can take an inquisitive and fearless view of whatever you find. Simply be interested in the contents of your mind - in whatever comes up. Don’t cherry-pick evidence to support a preferred story. In science, there is no wrong answer. The evidence you uncover might lead in a completely unexpected direction. Go with it – see it as interesting rather than disturbing, exciting rather than unacceptable (after all – nobody else needs to know). I suspect many people stop when they come across something they don’t want to know, or that they think reflects badly on them and instead of exploring further, just pretend it’s not there, or cap it off with a lie. I understand that if you’ve been through something deeply traumatic this might not be easy (none of this is easy) but it might be doubly good – debriding the wound – getting in there and clearing the junk out so it can heal properly.

Another thing you must be prepared for is for it to take a long time and to involve a lot of going around in circles (this is when people think you’re obsessing and wallowing). The first part of any scientific project is the collection of data. You’ll need to really get into the feelings that come up on a daily basis, in order to see what they consist of – to unpack them and trace the components back to their origins. As a scientist, I assume that things are not random - that causality applies - so I’m looking for connections and patterns. I’m not going to go into the details here, but the fact is, unless you find the workings of your mind intrinsically interesting, you won’t be able to do this, because it’s time-consuming. Personally I think minds are fascinating (not mine especially – it’s just that mine is the one I happen to have handy and which is giving me trouble). Looking at other people’s minds, just by talking and observing and/or by taking in a little psychology and neurology really helps. A bit of anthropology and philosophy helps too but none of this is essential - an ability to think critically and a ruthless honesty are really all you need.

Where to start? I begin with the time-honoured idea that how we are for the most part comes from our childhoods. Traumatic experiences can over-write that but for most of us, who we are is based in the time before we were able to make conscious choices about how to be and life just was whatever it was. If I understand it correctly, the research tells us that we’re more or less 50:50 nature/nurture, but in any case we take after our parents genetically and form our characters mainly in response to the behaviour of the people we spent most time with in those early years. Probably the amount we change after that gets smaller and smaller the older we get with a small peak at adolescence.

I think it’s crucial to understand what your early years were like as much as possible – not just the events, but how your parents felt and behaved, and not just in terms of how it was good or bad for you (this is not about blame). You can’t avoid being very much like your parents, so it’s best to get to know them as well as you can. You may have taken after them or rebelled against them, or a bit of both but you need to know. It might be worth doing a bit of history – see what the world was like when they grew up – what the dominant culture was then (mine grew up in WW2 but were too young to remember much about it, but they remember the post war austerity and were just too old to enjoy the 60s, unlike some of their friends who had their children only a few years later) Find out how their parents treated them and what their early memories are (my dad did his best to be nothing like his own father, who was a very angry man) Observing other people’s children, it is obvious that their basic characters are already well developed by the time they’re 2 – whether they’re withdrawn, adventurous, curious, fearful, dominant, sensitive, confident, proud, caring, or mischievous – it’s all there. It gets added to and modified over the years but in many ways, once it’s set it takes an enormous amount of deliberate effort (and possibly therapy) to change and generally it’s not really possible. It would be like changing the foundations without dismantling the house.

I’ve found the Freudian Id/Superego/Ego model very handy – especially as transformed into the Child/Parent/Adult model in transactional analysis (the Ego/Adult in this case is a rational, mature, disinterested person – not a selfish authoritarian one. The Parent/Superego is the authoritarian). I think this makes sense because of what we know from child psychology about how children’s minds develop. Those early Child /Parent interactions aren’t rational, whatever the actual real-life parent may intend. To the child, life is all emotions and instincts and conditioning. It is what it is – natural, common sense, normal, obvious. You do as you’re told or you get into trouble (or you get away with it). And of course, much of the time adults are no more rational than their children. Only later can we think about fairness and whether doing things another way makes sense but by then it’s too late - the deep feelings are set. We can (with a lot of effort) change our behaviour superficially (wear a smile, force ourselves to get up in the morning, repress our rage) but the deep feelings are there, and if the behaviour and the feelings are at odds there’s going to be a struggle.

For those of us who are struggling, this all sounds a bit hopeless but the iota of hope in all this is that the foundation is, as I said, never completely coherent – it is made up of lots of misc bits and pieces and the number of permutations, even among a small number of components, is large. We can’t be anything we want, but we can find a way of combining them to make a foundation that works better and allows the house to be improved. Some of the old components can be reused or they may become redundant (they’ll always be there but not actually doing anything, except maybe getting in the way.)

For me, locating a whole load of components that had been ignored was the key – things from my Child that had been dismissed as useless but which were undoubtedly there, and strong, from the start. I had gone through life viewing my Child the way my Parent did, which at its worst, was with contempt and exasperation – an unrealistic, immature, lazy, and somewhat stupid child. I’d somehow dismissed all the other things I was, and which I still am. I had to go in and see all the different ways I was back then, what I did, what I wanted, and also how other people responded. More than anything I had to look at my Child not as my Parent did, but as my Adult, with understanding and compassion and curiosity (because that tends to be how I look at other people) and I found a creative, conscientious, imaginative and enthusiastic child with a good heart. And as I said above – when I found the right components they fitted and my new way of doing things simply worked. It’s almost like I can’t see myself the old way now (or at least, only sometimes when I’m very tired). As a bonus I learned to look at my actual parents that way too, and to let them off.

It’s taken a very long time but maybe if I hadn’t had to work it all out from scratch it might have happened sooner. I don’t know. No doubt this ‘method’ is not original. I’m sure it’s been thought of before. I’m not a fan of self-help books or self-improvement courses so it’s probably out there. That said all those I’ve come across do seem to rely on either some form of spiritual belief or some sort of rigorous practice to keep it going, so if you’re a sceptic or don’t have that kind of self-discipline but really enjoy thinking, maybe this could help.