You know how it can be to have a recently divorced friend. Hen can sit by your kitchen table for hours, diluting their glass of wine with angry tears and tell me the one painful episode out of the marriage after the other: ”And then she said… Guess what he did then! And all the money she should have…”
Then listen, of course, and get out of their dutiful ”Oh well… But oh!… It was the worst of it!” Setting up with full empathy. What you rarely do is take the version of their relationship as the objective truth.
I heard Ebba Witt-Brattström take the honor and glory of Horace Engdahl. In Monday’s … it was time again. She is ”tired of talking about exmaken,” she says. You may give her that she time and again in a heroic way manages to get over this fatigue.
”A woman must not criticize her husband,” she says. ”There is a pact that goes out that men are allowed to do anything against their wives but if wives protest, it is disloyalty.”
Excuse me? The pact I have not heard of, so I am. Rather, it sounds like another pattern for a offerkofta. If a man were to speak out about his ex-wife in the same way as Witt-Brattström talking about Engdahl, I believe, rather, that it would result in an outcry. What is he mansgris to reduce a woman to ”a cute nerd that smelled of dust, or loneliness”? (Witt-Brattströms words in the SvD.)
To put the blame on the brainwashing is synonymous with ”I was innocent, in fact, I was also a victim.”
It is not prohibited to one of exmakarna speak out publicly after a divorce. However, we should remember that it is the very definition of a degree of self-government.
The only thing that is less rewarding than reading Witt-Brattströms witnesses if the marriage is when she speaks about the Swedish Academy. In the SvD does she do a ”quick scan” that lands in that Horace Engdahl is a mansgris. Oh really?
of the fingers in English literature, but when she comments the Academy, it is equally informative as if they had Angelina Jolie review Brad Pitt’s efforts in the ”Deadpool 2”.
What’s worse is: She continues to duck away from his responsibilities in the case of kulturprofilen Jean-Claude Arnault. ”She am not blaming himself so much as the circumstances,” it says in a scathing summary.
completely brainwashed. I let myself be fooled,” she says herself about how she turned a blind eye to Arnaults abuse against women in the surroundings. So could well also Engdahl say, and all others looking away from the crimes.
rather than ask which is the own responsibility can reach a more självrannsakande, and thus braver, answers. To put the blame on the brainwashing is synonymous with ”I was innocent, in fact, I was also a victim.”
with Ebba Witt Brattström says: ”Horace Engdahl has been invited to read and respond to the parts of the text that is about him, but has declined.”
Say what you want about the conflict in the Swedish Academy, but has Engdahl handled well: He has not after his divorce has taken every opportunity to mock his expartner in public.
