Misogyny at the root of anger towards wives

Hi Bert-Ernie,

In reply to me writing

I would love it if you could write on the topic of the thread from the experience of your own anger issues or write about ideas coming from what you have read and discovered. The frustrating thing for me is that noone here seems interested in that.

you wrote:

plenty of people have already done that in this thread

Can you point out to me where in this thread people have written about their own anger issues in this thread, please.
Can you point out where in this thread people have written about ideas coming from what they have read and discovered, please.

Hi timeout,

you wrote:
[quoteYoure male , is that right Josh? So anyone's anger towards you or belittlement of you cannot be due to misogyny, but instead OTHER REASONS.. Which shoots your own argument in the foot. Had you been female, from what you are arguing you would be now blaming the cause of Richard's (supposed) anger and belittlement on misogyny (WHEN ACTUALLY IT IS NOT A CAUSE).][/quote]

A close reading of the thread would reveal that I was proposing the argument that unwarranted and abusive anger towards wives is caused by underlying misogynist beliefs. Nowhere did I make what would be a ludicrous claim that all anger is caused by misogyny. My foot is still intact, I believe.

Hi Introspectah,

Regarding your interpretation of Richard's communication, you wrote:

i noticed little traces of passive aggression, but oh so many signs of an underlying invalidation of your character and motives

which implies that, in your mind, passive-aggression is a different category to the invalidation of my character and motives. In my mind, the invalidation ploys are a subset of the passive-aggression - invalidation being an aggressive act which in Richard's case is enacted under the guise of being reasonable and objective.
You also wrote:

Richard might be doing all of this unintentionally

I am drawing now on my own experience of my own passive-aggression when I say that he might not be very conscious of his passive-aggression but, my guess is, if he were to introspect in a sustained way, he would find definite aggressive intentions. And so the word "unintentionally" is not quite right for me at least.

Hi Richard,

You wrote:

Why do you think I would be angry with you? For disagreeing with me, for providing me your opinion that I am arrogant? If I were to anger with every person that disagreed with my opinions or expressed a negative opinion about me that would indeed be a very angry life for me, lol.

The covert relationship message here is "I am above yours and everyone else's criticism" which I would term arrogant.

Further you write:

My friend, I am in the business of disagreement. Maybe you have not yet figured that out. Being insulted is not the exception it is the rule. I can't afford to get angry at someone just for the simple act of disagreeing or insulting me.

The covert relationship message here is "I'm such a tougher guy than you - I have conflicts all the time and never get angry". This reminds me of your "I've seen it all" stance as if you are trying to convince yourself that you are now beyond vulnerabilities.

Later still, you wrote:

I still do not understand why you continue to seek validation

and

people have offered up some great opinions

My interpretation of these lines together is that you believe expressing opinions is just great and sufficient in itself. Testing opinion with evidence (experiential or otherwise) is where things start to get interesting.

In a later post you wrote:

is the term "passive aggressive" a negative or positive trait?

I embrace the idea that underlying my conduct is what can be seen as passive aggressive behavior.

In my case, I discovered that my passive-aggression meant that I was never really close to people or to myself for that matter. I was always holding up a mask (as I believe you do) but, despite that, I could get on in life in the sense of being "successful" in material terms. Success in intimate relationships eluded me and it has only been through the challenging on my passive-aggression that has revealed to me how empty a person I was.

Josh Smith wrote:The covert relationship message here is "I am above yours and everyone else's criticism" which I would term arrogant…. is "I'm such a tougher guy… I never get angry”… "I've seen it all…you are now beyond vulnerabilities.

Josh, given you feel this way it is an issue that you need to address, not me. I can’t help if you feel anger, threatened and weaker, simply because we disagree and I don’t feel the way you want me to feel or react the way you want me to react. I don’t feel anger just because you disagree with me. I don’t feel threatened or weaker just because you label me as cold or arrogant.

You seem to find covert relationships and hidden meanings everywhere you look. Undoubtedly you find them during conversations with your wife, boss, coworkers, friends, neighbors and family. Do you ever give anyone that disagrees with you credit for not having a covert relationship or hidden meaning behind what they say?

Testing opinion with evidence (experiential or otherwise) is where things start to get interesting.

And you refuse to test the multiple opinions provided in here. You do not consider logic as a form of evidence. You have the opinion of a single person you appear to dogmatically endorse. That doesn’t sound like “testing” rather than simply seeking out agreement from others for a belief you want to be true.

In my case, I discovered that my passive-aggression meant that I was never really close to people or to myself for that matter. I was always holding up a mask (as I believe you do) but, despite that, I could get on in life in the sense of being "successful" in material terms. Success in intimate relationships eluded me and it has only been through the challenging on my passive-aggression that has revealed to me how empty a person I was.

Thanks for sharing your concept of passive-aggressive and how you believe it impacted your life. Once again you seem to want to believe your world then applies to others, i.e. because you held up a mask, you believe I must be doing the same.

Success in intimate relationships has not been a real issue for me. Sure I have had relationships fail, but when involved in a relationship intimacy has never been a problem. And I have never defined being “successful” in material terms. For the last 4 years of my life I have been traveling the world. The sum of my material wealth fits inside a carry on bag and personal bag. And before you take it the wrong way and believe my claim that I do not use material terms to define success is somehow arrogant, or feeling superior, or better, etc. that is not what I am saying. I’m only pointing out how far off your perceptions can be, believing because you held up a mask and sought material wealth it means I must be doing the same.

Josh Smith wrote:Hi Bert-Ernie,

In reply to me writing

I would love it if you could write on the topic of the thread from the experience of your own anger issues or write about ideas coming from what you have read and discovered. The frustrating thing for me is that noone here seems interested in that.

you wrote:

plenty of people have already done that in this thread

Can you point out to me where in this thread people have written about their own anger issues in this thread, please.
Can you point out where in this thread people have written about ideas coming from what they have read and discovered, please.

Oh My God! you are asking poor well meaning Bert n Ernie to be your Clerk... your little functionary... to make your life easier. Well, No! he shouldn't do it. yes, you would have got by BIG if he had.... read over everything you should read and give you just the little tid bits that you want.... but, NO, it won't hurt You a bit to look over this Site yourself.

But to do all of the Work yourself, well, it would be out of your Nature, wouldn't it, as i suspect you are a Natural Parasite, and you are simply repulsed by the idea of doing any of the Hard Lifting yourself. Honestly, you should be glad that I am not the Moderator on this Site... I'd ban you as being simply an annoying distraction with nothing to Contribute. But the Real Moderator probably feels that all of us Helpers have Something to Learn by Observing a Sociopathic Parasite such as yourself in all of your Annoyingly Dark Splendor and Hideously reversed Glory. So Now we will all have a Solid Image in our Minds of Evil Grown Lazy.

Leo, I think I'll give the guy this one bit.

Josh, please refer to reply #20 in this thread. That would be something "coming from what [ I ] have read and discovered."

Here's the link to that post: Link to Reply #20 of this thread.

which implies that, in your mind, passive-aggression is a different category to the invalidation of my character and motives.

Using my own experiences as basis for comparison, i can easily invalidate someone's character or behaviour in a peaceful state of being.
The invalidation itself may be felt as an act of [passive-]aggression but that doesn't mean the initiator of the condemnation acted from an unquestionably aggressive emotional vibration.

Interesting quote related to the topic at hand:

I am the oppressor of the person i condemn. - C.G. Jung.

In my mind, the invalidation ploys are a subset of the passive-aggression - invalidation being an aggressive act which in Richard's case is enacted under the guise of being reasonable and objective.

Being reasonable and [passive-aggressively] invalidating someone's nature aren't mutually exclusive to one another.
And as far as objectivity's concerned, whoever's able to succesfully pull off that feat in its entirety anyways?

but, my guess is, if he were to introspect in a sustained way, he would find definite aggressive intentions

A specific segment of his first response towards me might substantiate your suspicion.

And so the word "unintentionally" is not quite right for me at least.

It's a confluence of conscious intent and relatively unconscious motive, as far as i'm concerned.

well thanks for the support leo but i think your statements go too far for me.

i would hesitate to label josh a sociopath. i'm sure he's a nice enough guy.

i do agree that i'm not going to dig around and highlight all the instance where i think someone addressed josh's topic. if we can't agree on that well what can we agree on?

it seems the problem was that the ideas expressed didn't include an example from their own lives? or that they didn't reference a book? doesn't a book just contains the ideas of someone else?

bert_ernie wrote:well thanks for the support leo but i think your statements go too far for me.

i would hesitate to label josh a sociopath. i'm sure he's a nice enough guy.

i do agree that i'm not going to dig around and highlight all the instance where i think someone addressed josh's topic. if we can't agree on that well what can we agree on?

it seems the problem was that the ideas expressed didn't include an example from their own lives? or that they didn't reference a book? doesn't a book just contains the ideas of someone else?

Well, Yes, Bert,

Have I ever failed to mention that you are a better Man than I? You exemplary Tolerance and Compassion for Humanity cuts this Way More Slack than I am willing to give him.

and, no, there is not always a book. You See, this guy is cutting New Ground. NOW, our behaviors toward Women are called Misogynic. Before Men were simply accused of not treating Women Equally... that is, Judging Women entirely upon the Same Standards we Judge other Men. Now that We men all DO, judge Women Equally and with the Same Standards with which we judge Men, NOW we are being Criticized and Condemned for NOT treating Women as a Special Separate Case... NOT like Men at All... that is... we are being asked to go back to the Old Inequality Standard.

Really, They can't have it Both Ways... to be Equal, and THEN to have special exceptions for their infirmities!

Men are being Damned if the Do and Damned if the Don't!

Really, this Misogynist Argument simply does not Play in the Real World. It Presupposes that Men who are Angry with Women, are NEVER angry with Men.... that these Angry Men are All Good Buddies with the Entire Span and Collection of Men... despite Class, Political Party, or the Team they root for during the Play Offs. Clearly this is not So. The Modern Man is Enlightened Enough to Only be Angry at a Woman for doing something that a Man would do which would also make him angry... in parallel situations, of course.

Josh Smith wrote:Hi timeout,

you wrote:

Youre male , is that right Josh? So anyone's anger towards you or belittlement of you cannot be due to misogyny, but instead OTHER REASONS.. Which shoots your own argument in the foot. Had you been female, from what you are arguing you would be now blaming the cause of Richard's (supposed) anger and belittlement on misogyny (WHEN ACTUALLY IT IS NOT A CAUSE).

A close reading of the thread would reveal that I was proposing the argument that unwarranted and abusive anger towards wives is caused by underlying misogynist beliefs. Nowhere did I make what would be a ludicrous claim that all anger is caused by misogyny. My foot is still intact, I believe.

Hi Richard,

You wrote:

You seem to find covert relationships and hidden meanings everywhere you look.

Do you ever give anyone that disagrees with you credit for not having a covert relationship or hidden meaning behind what they say?

Try looking at Friedmann Schulz von Thun's model of communication: [urlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-sides_model][/url] where you will find that there is always a relationship message behind the matter being presented. The difference is that some people are more open than others about what the relationship message is. You can't get away with hiding how you relate. Take Leo, he doesn't mince his words - he thinks that I'm a sociopathic, trouble-maker, drama queen. I admire him for being straight with me even though I dislike and dismiss his views about women, relationships and myself.

Now, your communication has of the subtle put-downs behind it, some of which I've been pointing out. Has anyone other than myself and Introspectah said that you're passive-aggressive?

You wrote:

Success in intimate relationships has not been a real issue for me.

and later

For the last 4 years of my life I have been traveling the world. The sum of my material wealth fits inside a carry on bag and personal bag.

That sounds like you've been travelling without a close partner for 4 years, is that true? If so, how is the statement that having intimate relationships has not been an issue for you really true?
Maybe I'm old school, but my assumption would be that if you are good with intimate relationships you would, in middle age, be with your life partner.

Josh Smith wrote:

Success in intimate relationships has not been a real issue for me.

and later

For the last 4 years of my life I have been traveling the world. The sum of my material wealth fits inside a carry on bag and personal bag.

That sounds like you've been travelling without a close partner for 4 years, is that true? If so, how is the statement that having intimate relationships has not been an issue for you really true?
Maybe I'm old school, but my assumption would be that if you are good with intimate relationships you would, in middle age, be with your life partner.

Again, based on simple logic, what you've said here is not necessarily true. Even if Richard had no intimate partner for the past four years, does not preclude having an intimate relationship previous to that. And . . . who says that one must be with a "life partner" in order to prove that intimate relationships are not an issue?

Josh Smith wrote: Take Leo, he doesn't mince his words...Now, your communication has of the subtle put-downs behind it.... Has anyone other...said you're passive-aggressive?

I believe we already covered this. I have been labeled the entire spectrum. Have you not? It is possible your path in life did not expose you to a wide variety of labels. I have been thanked for being open and straight forward as well as criticized. You name it, I have been called it, from angel to the incarnation of pure evil. I have found in my experience that however I am labeled depends less on me and more on the person doing the labeling.

You wrote:

Maybe I'm old school, but my assumption would be that if you are good with intimate relationships you would, in middle age, be with your life partner.

I'm not sure if it is "old school", but I will agree that you and I have a different definition of what it means to have success or to be good. You stated in previous posts that you defined success by material wealth and you have anger towards your wife (life partner). If that is how you define "success" and "good", fine by me.

And please pardon my laugh, but I find your logic flawed that simply because a person is single past a certain age this proves they cannot be "good" when involved in an intimate relationship.

Edit: Lol, what quietvoice said.

quietvoice wrote:Leo, I think I'll give the guy this one bit.

Josh, please refer to reply #20 in this thread. That would be something "coming from what [ I ] have read and discovered."

Here's the link to that post: Link to Reply #20 of this thread.

Dear QV

Oh, yes, ... oh I admire you for your technical know-how in directing to particular threads... Yes, you are So Right. I like the way your explained Anger Management as "thought management", which seems to be a core concept in my Pet Psychological School Concept of 'Cognitive Behavior Therapy'. The basic idea there is that people Act Weird only because they Think Weird. Make people examine their Thinking, and many problems simply go away.