Misogyny at the root of anger towards wives

I think the thought process has some validity. My only counter would be to say it is narrow in scope. A more broad interpretation is to say absolute power corrupts absolutely. This applies to both men and women. It applies to mother, father, teacher, priest, police officer, general or anyone in a situation where they have certain authority. This is also not a psychological problem, but a structural issue, a moral problem based on the cultural norms.

Targeting misogynist cultures and/or sub-cultures is IMO appropriate, just narrow.

Josh Smith wrote:Lundy Bancroft's book "Why does he do that?" argues that, when it comes to marriage, "anger management" is misleading, What we need to do (if we're men) is to undo the misogynist attitudes of entitlement and superiority that lie behind the anger. It's not really a psychological problem that abuser's have, it's a moral problem. What do think about this?

Interesting Question.

To Anthropologists there are two kinds of Society… within the context of which we are speaking… Patriarchal and Matriarchal -- in the first, Men are nominally the “Boss” and in the Other, Women are nominally the Boss. Of course, in both forms of Society the ‘inferior sex’ has many necessary functions, and so must be placated and appeased, simply for the sake of Cooperation… that everything goes Smoother when everyone is getting Along. But, as a World Traveler, I have Seen Matriarchal Societies at Work. Oh Dear God! The Men could not drink in front of women at social events… they had to have their own party off in the Jungle… and that was only if they were a Bachelor or estranged from their Spouse. A man in good standing with his wife or girlfriend would have to hang close to her… hold her plate… at serve yourself dinners… hold her purse… be quiet when she would speak… hmmmm… now that I think of it, I don’t think the Men were even allowed to talk… it would be interrupting the Women. Well, I choose the Party in the Jungle. Even a few of the Women attended…. They don’t seem to like how a Totally Matriarchal Society works out either.

Anyway, this Book you Read is by a woman who is gearing up to Change Things. Somebody has to have the Final Say. If She refuses Nominal Superiority to the Male, well, that means that she wants Women to be Boss.


Fine! Let her have her way. BUT, the Matriarchal Society on the Islands only works because the Girls catch the Men while they are still young and ignorant. As the Island Men mix with other societies and realize how denigrated and abused they are, well, God Bless Them, they leave their Wives… let them hold their own plates and carry their own purses, and Men will Talk when they Feel Like It!

But, yes, I understand the Lady’s Point… SHE does not want to be the Nominally Inferior Party. Who Would?

THEREFORE, Marriage, really, is a Dead Institution, or should be. Who in their Right Mind would want to get Married as Equals? Instead of Living Your Life Exactly As You Would Like, being Married, you have to surrender and give up many of the things that make you Happy, to appease the Other. Living a Life of Compromise. You know what they say: “Relationships take Work!” Well, they sure, so one has to wonder why people seem to be lining up for them. Doesn’t Everyone Have Enough Work Already? Then there are the Arguments… and many of them legitimate. Theoretically, Compromise should be split Evenly. But when does that ever happen, or is perceived by both parties to happen. One or the Other will always feel like they are getting the Business End of the Poop Stick.

The Problem is that That Lady probably Likes the Institution of Marriage. However, is already the Viewpoint of Men that Women have far too much control over their own Lives already. If Women Want So Much More… well, it Breaks the Balance. Men will no longer submit to Marriage on those terms. Let Women Marry Each other. They can now. And we can all stand by and See how That works out. In any case, I think that Single People… single by Choice… are happier than Married People.

Leo Volont wrote: But, as a World Traveler, I have Seen Matriarchal Societies at Work. A man in good standing with his wife or girlfriend would have to hang close to her… hold her plate… at serve yourself dinners… hold her purse… be quiet when she would speak...

Where? I would really enjoy watching a matriarchal society at work.

THEREFORE, Marriage, really, is a Dead Institution, or should be. Who in their Right Mind would want to get Married as Equals?

This is a tough one. I don't think marriage should be dead.

My reasoning is marriage is just another word for "contract". People enter contracts all the time and they never enter the contract in order to make things more difficult or to be worse off tomorrow than they are today. People sign contracts for mutual benefit. The baker enters a contract with a farmer, because the baker has an oven and the farmer has grain. It is mutually beneficial. A solo lumberjack can only cut down a tree with an axe, but two lumberjacks can cut down 5x the trees if they work together and use a large saw, therefore they enter a contract.

Marriage is the same...or should be. You enter into a contract to make your life better. Together you can accomplish more than you can alone. There are certain things, like having a family that you really cannot do by yourself. Nature dictates man and woman are needed to create life. If you want to have security as you become older you need family...at least for 194,000 years it has been that way. Only the last few thousand years has it become easier to grow old without family.

The contract of marriage should be used to help define roles. Equality is fluid, not a static equation. In some cases the woman takes the lead and in others the man.

Where I think the OP is focused is not on societies where Patriarch and "nominal boss" exist, rather cultures where misogyny is fully embraced.

Hi Leo - a quick point of information - Lundy Bancroft is a man - he has talks on youtube if you want to get a sense of the guy.

Josh Smith wrote:Hi Leo - a quick point of information - Lundy Bancroft is a man - he has talks on youtube if you want to get a sense of the guy.

A "MAN" being so flagrantly in the avant-garde of stripping away all our Patriarch ally based institutions and laying everything now to the Responsibility of Women?

Oh! Rest assured.... HE doesn't believe any of it! His Target Audience is Women. the guy is just out to make some Money. he is a Man talking against Men to bring in a Big Female Audience. his Lady fans can listen to him and take notes and go home and tell their Husbands or Boyfriends... or both... that they heard for a Fact, from a Really Smart Lecturer, that Men Really Should Ought to be the Slaves of Women. Yes, that is a bit of an exaggeration of what the Guy is actually saying.... in so many words.... but EFFECTIVELY... the way thing Happen in the Real World... well, He could not possibly Mean what He says unless he really wants to swap Positions with Women and be the New Institutionalized Inferior.

there's plenty of men who identify as feminists & they seem sincere enough. with the idea being actual equality i assume.

Where I think the OP is focused is not on societies where Patriarch and "nominal boss" exist, rather cultures where misogyny is fully embraced.

Hi Richard, no, my OP was focused specifically on marriage and the misogyny and chauvinism in us men that results in a power battle that we wage against women in the form of overt and covert aggression.

So, focusing on Leo's take on marriage, thinking that Lundy Bancroft was a woman you say:

She refuses Nominal Superiority to the Male, well, that means that she wants Women to be Boss.

I take this to mean that you see power in marriage as polarised - either men are superior or women are superior. Presumably, in your opinion, equality does not exist or can not exist. It's black or white - either I'm to be the boss or my wife is. Lundy Bancroft does not polarise the issue in the way you do, Leo, he is for equal rights for men and women in a marriage. And that's what I'm for too. The thing that I'm upset about is that is, far from being the good and fair person I thought i was, I have discovered a deep level of misogyny that I am determined to root out.

Who in their Right Mind would want to get Married as Equals? Instead of Living Your Life Exactly As You Would Like

Good question Leo. Well me for one. Up the age of forty I was mostly single, was very successful professionally, earned all the money, had the show-off car, travelled extensively, etc. Why would I want to get married, share everything and give up batchelor freedom? Well, because the shadow side of freedom in isolation is loneliness and meaninglessness. I wanted to love and be loved in a committed relationship and have children. Am I completely alone in this? Leo says:

[quote][I think that Single People… single by Choice… are happier than Married People./quote]



Well, the research on married vs single repeatedly shows that married people are happier than single people and the wellbeing is also reflected in health and longevity. In fact, I found this quote: " psychologists have pointed to marriage as the single most reliable happiness indicator". Part of the longevity difference is that single men have such a high suicide rate. Nearly 8 in 10 suicides are male, the male middle-aged group being the most represented. Victor Frankl in his book "Man's Search for Meaning" found that those who survived the WWII death camps were those who had something to live for . They thought of their families and the people they loved.
In my professional work, I've investigated people's sense of meaning and purpose and "living for oneself" does not really work as purpose in life - it just creates the "so what?"question. People who experience a strong sense of meaning in their lives want to feel connected to others and serve others (as opposed to being servile to others).
It is for these reasons that I dispute Leo's claim.

What do other people think?

The first key to a successful, happy marriage is the correct choice of spouse.

Josh Smith wrote: Hi Richard, no, my OP was focused specifically on marriage and the misogyny and chauvinism in us men that results in a power battle that we wage against women in the form of overt and covert aggression.

I think like many issues there is a continuum that exists.

On one end of the continuum you see indications that misogyny is alive and well, heavily influencing the behaviors of men in certain cultures. Most people in western cultures agree that things like stoning a woman to death for disobeying her husband is just a tad bit misogynistic.

On the other end of the continuum you have cultures that provide equal rights for women. Marriages are contracts, couples define roles and agree to share power. Misogyny within the marriage is not an issue. If the marriage goes bad, the courts split assets 50/50.

Along the path from one end of the continuum to the other there is a point of diminishing returns.

For anyone spending their time and resources combating truly horrific marriages, misogynistic cultures, protesting the stoning of women and human trafficking I applaud them. It is a much needed endeavor. For those working in domestic violence centers, for police officers and social workers dealing with domestic abuse I applaud them.

On the other hand, those that waste their time and resources focusing on the other end, emotionally pursuing anything that might possibly offend, I feel sorry for those misguided individuals. I wonder where they became lost, how did they fall so far down the rabbit hole of political correctness? Is it fear, driven by low self-esteem to tackle the real issues? What makes them unwilling to focus on children being sexually abused, instead spending their time trying to convince others that a man is a chauvinist if he opens a door for a woman? I wonder.

I doubt many people fall on the extremes of the continuum. The bell curve suggests most people will fall somewhere in the middle. Given you created the thread I would guess you fall further to the politically correct side than most. I'm not saying that is a bad thing. It really just depends on how close you are to the rabbit hole. Don't fall in.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

Leo Volont wrote: But, as a World Traveler, I have Seen Matriarchal Societies at Work. A man in good standing with his wife or girlfriend would have to hang close to her… hold her plate… at serve yourself dinners… hold her purse… be quiet when she would speak...

Where? I would really enjoy watching a matriarchal society at work.

Before I forget... Matriarchal Society... PALAU ....Koror...
THEREFORE, Marriage, really, is a Dead Institution, or should be. Who in their Right Mind would want to get Married as Equals?

This is a tough one. I don't think marriage should be dead. ......

Of Course, Richard, you are Right about Marriage as a Contract... a contract that people go into with some intelligent forethought. But... and this may be changing with the times... marriage, as I understood it from the Twentieth Century, was not so much a 'Contract' as an Expectation. People DID IT because they were Expected To. "Fall In Love... Get Married". where is the Contract in That?

But, YES, I do hope you are more Up with the Times than I am. I did not mention it before, BUT, SOME guys DO WELL with Marriage. Maybe they were a bit Dimwitted and actually Needed a Woman to Take Charge of them, and they Appreciate it. But, I have NOT seen a situation in which a Dominant Male has successfully tamed and trained a Female to be submissive and do his Bidding. The Natural Tendency is for Women to Be the Boss. Yes, some Guys don't Mind That. Oh! Some Guys do Consciously Want a Submissive Wife, but figure that the Western Hemisphere no longer has Women Like That, and so they 'Mail Order" brides from the Philippines or Russia ..... big Mistake with Russia, as I suspect those Girls are rather more sophisticated give them credit for. BUT, even with obviously Third World Women, once they get Into the Western Culture... and Women DO talk to each other.... they Find Out Quick that they Don't Have to Take Any Crap From Men, and that THEY Can Be Boss. Men can't Win. Yes, IF a Man Wants to be the Submissive Person in the Relationship, then, of course, All is Well.

OH! About the Matriarchal Society. the Island of Palau... Koror. Many of these Island People move around and don't stay in their Home Islands, but when they go somewhere else, they bunch together and try to keep their Culture going... which works for the First Generation of Immigrants. the Cleaning Lady at Work.... before I 'was' retired... invited me to a afternoon party which I attended and which I had described. I asked around and apparently not All of the Islands are matriarchal, BUT Palau sure is. and It is very beautiful, I hear. If you need a good "working vacation" I could not think of a better place to send you....

quietvoice wrote:The first key to a successful, happy marriage is the correct choice of spouse.

But that can be so Difficult!

During Courtship and Wooing, the 'players' tend to put on 'masks'... they put forward their best behavior, and in a large part conceal their true selves.

I heard a Horror Story from my Anger Management Psychologist.... I was so good at doing all of his assigned 'homework' that we had time to 'talk' about other stuff during the Sessions.... the subject came to marriage counseling, and the Doctor told me, as I said, this Horror Story of marriage. This Guy found the Perfect Woman! She Doted on him... was completely loving and devoted.... for an Entire Year. Then they Got Married. After the Reception... the first that they were alone after having been Married, the Lady Laughed in her husbands face, and told him that he was now Her Slave, and better get used to it quick. You see, he was 'targeted'.... he was 'known' 'Good Catholic' and could be assumed not to run off to get a Divorce at the drop of a hat. anyway, She made the Poor Guy miserable from the Very Start... of the Marriage.... BUT, before that SHE WAS ABSOLUTELY PERFECT.... or acted that way.

I am glad I had that little Talk with my Shrink. At the Time I was Seriously Dating one Fine Woman with view to Marry her. But I decided I better watch her Closely. No Woman can Keep up and Act 24 hours a Day and Seven Days a Week. and I saw breaks and lapses in her Total Devotion to me. So, I decided that Her 'Lapses' were probably the True Her and that her being Nice was an Act. So I bailed out. I was right. she was so angry she kicked my Cat to death... the poor thing had its ribs smashed in... the poor thing lingered for close to Month. and I Almost Married that Demon of a Woman... that Harpy! Oh... a year later, I was going into a Health Food Store and this Frail and Pale .... enervated... sad.... and broken down woman dodged on past me to the door. Her strange behavior was what caught my attention, and then I noticed it was HER. well, apparently I had been something of Her Last Hope and she had really Cleaned Up for me while we were going together.... But.... as I saw her that day... it was like she aged 20 hard and bitter years. And I was SO GLAD I had dumped her.

Leo Volont wrote:But, I have NOT seen a situation in which a Dominant Male has successfully tamed and trained a Female to be submissive and do his Bidding.

I most certainly have. I'd known about a certain man for over a year. He was (probably still is) on the market for a woman. He's got some money. His wife passed five years previous. He had a reputation as a womanizer and controller in the circle I was then hanging around, but I didn't take it too seriously. So, I spent about a month with him, about five months ago. I'd met a friend of his who was his late wife's best friend. We got to talking. His late wife hated being married to him, but divorce was out of the question. She did his bidding for him, a snap of his fingers, and she was there. They'd met in their teen years, so I suppose he got her trained early. Now, he's looking to "replace" her, but good luck with that, mister.

Leo Volont wrote: But, I have NOT seen a situation in which a Dominant Male has successfully tamed and trained a Female to be submissive and do his Bidding.

You and I must live in different worlds.

Women bloody, bruised, battered, sometimes sexually assaulted and in tears, that is the world in which I live. During my years as a police officer, I saw plenty of dominant males. I saw entire shelters of submissive women, trying to escape bad marriages. Sometimes the call was at the home, other times the shelter, other times the hospital.

This is just the marriages/relationships I saw. This does not include the prostitution and sex slave trafficking. In all my years as an officer not once did I meet a female pimp.

And in my travels around the world, from Ecuador to India, I have seen dominant males and submissive women. In Vietnam I watched a woman beaten to the ground by her boyfriend/husband on the side of the road with family/friends watching. In India and off the coast of Kenya on the island of Lamu, the dominant male and misogyny is alive and well.

It is amazing you have NOT seen in your world.

So your world and my world are quite different.

OH! About the Matriarchal Society. the Island of Palau... Koror.

Thanks. This kind of stuff fascinates me. Just like the above, where you and I obviously live in entirely different worlds, I am confident Palau would be a different world. I enjoy traveling to places that exposes me to new knowledge, different views and opens my mind.

Hi Richard at Decision Skills, Thank you for your posts. I have an issue with you in that you seem to be heavily into deflection. I start with wanting to explore misogyny in marriage and you say

it is narrow in scope. A more broad interpretation is to say absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Mmm maybe that was a one-off. But no:

Where I think the OP is focused is not on societies where Patriarch and "nominal boss" exist, rather cultures where misogyny is fully embraced.

You're off again talking about cultures "out there". No, Richard, I'm talking about misogyny in you, me and Leo. Leo has outed himself as anti-women. His "solution" is to abandon the idea of having a committed relationship. That is fair enough for him, it's only tedious that that he tries to sell his avoidance game to others along with his capital-lettered diatribe.

So Richard, I'm assuming that to be on this forum you have anger issues like me - am I correct? (please answer) Also, I'm assuming that, like me, the worst of your anger is directed towards your partner - am I correct? (please answer) But what I get from you is a stance of interested observer. But then, wait a minute, you let something slip with your flippant remark:

Most people in western cultures agree that things like stoning a woman to death for disobeying her husband is just a tad bit misogynistic.

What does this tell me? It tells me Richard that you have a little store there of coldness, aloofness which you resist exploring by focusing on all those:

truly horrific marriages, misogynistic cultures

where you are not implicated - you can applaud those who combat them because you're busy not exploring you. I'm not talking about stoning or battering our wives, I'm talking about the attitudes of entitlement and superiority that we have and from which we direct unwarranted anger towards our partners. Richard, when you finally stop deflecting, are you entirely innocent of this? Or are you really here to promote yourself and Decision Skills?