Misogyny at the root of anger towards wives

Josh Smith wrote: I have an issue with you in that you seem to be heavily into deflection.

Richard, I'm talking about misogyny in you, me and Leo.

Lol, you want to talk about you, me and Leo. Okay, fair enough.

Along the continuum that I described in my previous post, I would state that between the three of us, Leo falls furthest from the rabbit hole. I would fall somewhere between you and Leo and then you would fall closest to the rabbit hole. I don't know if you have actually fallen down the rabbit hole. Have you?

So Richard, I'm assuming that to be on this forum you have anger issues like me - am I correct? (please answer)
I'm assuming that, like me, the worst of your anger is directed towards your partner - am I correct? (please answer)

Nope and a big double nope. Way off on both counts.

Richard, when you finally stop deflecting, are you entirely innocent of this?

Do you mean innocent of any and all behavior throughout my entire life that one might ever find and want to classify as misogynistic? Nope. I'm not innocent of that. I'm not perfect, I'm human and the same as I certainly have been selfish, jealous or at times had other behaviors of which I'm not proud, most certainly at some point in my life I am willing to accept that some of my behavior could be labeled misogynistic. Never has this behavior been anger.

Or do you mean innocent of being a misogynist? Yes. I believe that I am not a misogynist. If in your world, opening doors, buying flowers, giving over my coat on a cold day, giving up my seat on the train, buying dinner, etc. make me a misogynist then label me a misogynist. I'm good with that.

Or are you really here to promote yourself and Decision Skills?

If I were in here to promote Decision Skills, I would first be doing so in my signature. Second, I would be promoting some service or product. Go through my thousands of posts. You won't see me promoting anything. That is not why I participate.

Josh Smith wrote: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)

Oops. Not sure why this didn't click, but you think that your anger directed towards your partner is because you are a misogynist. I don't know. That is up for you to decide.

Consider that you can think you are better, entitled, superior, more intelligent, etc. than your partner and it doesn't make you a misogynist. It only becomes misogyny when the reason for these feelings is due to you being a man and her being a woman. If for instance you went to college and your partner did not, you might feel more intelligent. The cause is that you are better educated, not because you are a man and she is a woman.

quietvoice wrote:

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.

Oh!

Hi Quiet Voice.

Hmmmm. the quiet ones are the most discerning. 'The Talkers have Nothing to Say, but the Quiet Ones See Hear and Know Everything'. I think that was from Kipling....or Twain....

Anyway, Yes, as an Exception, I have seen the Same Thing you have Seen; BUT, I sort of Ignored It.... maybe for a totally irrelevant reason, BUT, for Guys to Take Charge, well, they need to be Assertive and Attentive to Every Infraction and Make Big Deals out of all the Infractions that annoy them. they NEED to take up the Whip, and Crack It! I hope they just crack It in the air, to Terrorize their poor spouses into Submission, BUT, we all realize that a Horse or Ox does not Fear the Whip until he, or she, has FELT IT.

WHAT, civilized and cultured Man wants anything to do with such a Methodology.... so I ignored it.

BUT, you were entirely correct to bring it up to make me address my feelings on the issue. It seems to only Help.

Oh, Dear God.... I wish I could learn to be Quiet... and Wise... just like you....
+

Hi Richard,
That's right didn't put your business name in the signature. However, you did make it very clear in your user name who you are and where to find you - at Decision Skills. You used the same image in your profile as you do on your website. So, are really saying to me that that was all accidental and that you're not contravening the Gross Misconduct rule of " Joining the psychology forum purely for the purposes of publicity"? Be honest with yourself - and we will let the moderators consider that one.

One interesting dynamic about being on this thread in your professional identity is that it precludes you - unless you're interested in professional suicide - of revealing your shadow, shameful side. You profess that you don't have anger issues. If that were really true then you saw a post saying "Misogyny at the root of anger towards wives" and thought to yourself "well, I don't have anger issues so I don't have any genuine, personal experience of this so I'll change the subject and give the participants the benefit of my views on cultures, contracts, bell curves and rabbit holes." May I respectfully suggest that if you want to talk about these things, you start a thread about them.

Are there people on this Anger Management forum who do have anger issues with their wives and who won't hide behind their professional identities? I'd love to here from you.

Hi Leo, I noted your response to Quiet voice.

I wish I could learn to be Quiet

Do you really think that being quiet would bring you anything positive? All the anti-women attitudes that you're holding will not bring you real peace or happiness or wisdom whether you're silent or vocal about them. It is those attitudes that are your real enemy, not women. They are what lead you into suffering. Suffering alone at the moment is better than having a partner because you would only be constantly angry with her and she with you. But suffering in silence is a dead-end road. What about having a critical look at what you currently believe?

Josh Smith wrote:. . . I'm assuming that to be on this forum you have anger issues like me - am I correct?

Answering or commenting in this particular forum labeled 'Anger Management' does not mean one has anger issues. It may mean simply that one likes to read the content and at some points join in the conversation on this public site with many sections where one can look at 'Active Topics' from across the board.

Regarding so-called anger management, one doesn't have the feeling of anger without having an angry thought. We live in the feeling of our thinking moment-by-moment. Have angry thinking, have angry feelings, which may lead to having actions coming from those feelings, if one doesn't understand their relationship with thought.

You could then say that it's more about thought management. It's not that even. It's understanding and changing through insight one's relationship with thought. One can see, through self-reflection, that thoughts don't have to be taken seriously enough to develop into a full-fledged thinking spree. Thoughts come, thoughts go, and new thought comes, it's like the river of life.

Josh Smith wrote: It is those attitudes . . .
. . . a critical look at what you currently believe?

What are attitudes and beliefs but thinking certain thoughts over and over again, taken seriously? Habits of thought, they are, brought into reality via consciousness. Know that, and let them be, let them pass, let them come to rest. It also helps to know that when in a low mood, this 'let them be, let them pass' is especially important to realize.

Josh Smith wrote:Hi Richard,
That's right didn't put your business name in the signature. However, you did make it very clear in your user name who you are and where to find you - at Decision Skills. You used the same image in your profile as you do on your website. So, are really saying to me that that was all accidental and that you're not contravening the Gross Misconduct rule of " Joining the psychology forum purely for the purposes of publicity"? Be honest with yourself - and we will let the moderators consider that one.

Too funny. Thanks for making my Friday Josh. You have a total of 20 posts in this forum and you believe that you have it all figured out. Just because I have chosen not to participate as an anonymous person, doesn't equate to "purely for the purposes of publicity". The moderators are well aware of my participation in this forum.

One interesting dynamic about being on this thread in your professional identity is that it precludes you - unless you're interested in professional suicide - of revealing your shadow, shameful side.

Really? Even though in my very last post I admitted to misogynistic behavior in my past and other behaviors of which I am not proud? Lol. Was that not professional suicide or in your opinion will it only qualify as suicidal if I provide the nasty details of things I have done? Just because I don't have anger issues doesn't mean I don't have faults. I fully admit having a shadow, shameful side. I'm human, I'm not without flaws and I don't hide behind anonymity in the forum.

You profess that you don't have anger issues. If that were really true then you saw a post saying "Misogyny at the root of anger towards wives" and thought to yourself "well, I don't have anger issues so I don't have any genuine, personal experience of this so I'll change the subject and give the participants the benefit of my views on cultures, contracts, bell curves and rabbit holes." May I respectfully suggest that if you want to talk about these things, you start a thread about them.

So you think when a thread is posted, then only people with direct experience of the topic will post their opinions? So if I create a thread about greed, in your world anyone that responds to the thread must be greedy or else they wouldn't respond. And if they deny being greedy then it is latent or they are hiding their greed behind the shadows, etc.?

That is not how it works in my world. I don't think quietvoice has anger issues, either actual or latent simply because of participating in this thread. People participate in particular threads for a variety of reasons. I chose to participate in this thread because I find the theory interesting. I find it interesting that misogyny would be considered the root of anger towards wives. That doesn't make me angry or have latent anger towards my wife, simply for choosing to participate. A rather hilarious assumption.

People have anger towards their parents, friends, children, neighbors, wives, relatives, co-workers, etc. What is the "root of anger" towards each of these? Not misogyny. There are other root causes of anger. Therefore, is it not possible that misogyny is simply one possible cause, not the cause? Could the root cause of anger towards a wife be the same as the root cause of anger towards a parent or a co-worker?

Josh Smith wrote:Hi Leo, I noted your response to Quiet voice.

I wish I could learn to be Quiet

Do you really think that being quiet would bring you anything positive? All the anti-women attitudes that you're holding.... ?

Honestly, Josh,

I wish that People could read more subtly and thoughtfully. If you really look at what I said, there was nothing "anti-women" about it. I have a complete Respect for Women. THAT is why I can't LIVE with them. It would re require treating that equally and respectfully at all times. There! That is the Problem! I said repeatedly that living with Women correctly would take Compromise and Effort. it is SO MUCH EASIER TO LIVE ALONE, no?

So, really. So People should Read with attention and then Think about what they read, instead of taking off on the Impulse if their Premature Internal Dialogue to attack the character of people they simply failed to understand appropriately and with due consideration.

Hi Quietvoice,

Well, I agree with you that thoughts produce anger and you imply that attitudes and beliefs produce thoughts. However, when you say...

What are attitudes and beliefs but thinking certain thoughts over and over again, taken seriously? Habits of thought, they are, brought into reality via consciousness. Know that, and let them be, let them pass, let them come to rest. It also helps to know that when in a low mood, this 'let them be, let them pass' is especially important to realize.

...I would say that attitudes and beliefs are key ideas that can be expressed in words but just letting them pass is not very realistic for dealing with misogynist abusers such as myself. In his book, Lundy Bancroft reports that (having worked with thousands of abusers) abusers feel their emotions very intensely but are typically unaware of the attitudes of entitlement that have spawned them. They, like me, have a lot of tactics to ensure their bad attitudes are not exposed or discussed. So the mindful, Buddhist-type, meditative recipe of "letting go" is probably not going to work. Take me, for instance, I took Buddhist refuge way over twenty years ago, have been on many retreats, took the Bodhisattva Vow, have sat in uncountable hours of shamatha meditation. Only now, at the ripe old age of 60 do I discover that I have misogynist attitudes when I thought I was an equality-loving, good guy. So for me the "letting go" approach definitely didn't work and, perversely, supported my ego in thinking what a nice person I am. We, the abusers in marriage, need different tools.

Hi Richard,

Yes it's a:

A rather hilarious assumption.

to think that if someone posts with a username @mybusinessname in a forum where they might pick up clients, that they are looking for business and are they there in their professional identity.
The idea that you are really revealing yourself by writing:

I admitted to misogynistic behavior in my past and other behaviors of which I am not proud

doesn't really wash with me.

By the way, on reflection, I made a mistake in the title of the thread - it should have been "Misogyny at the root of unwarranted (or abusive) anger towards wives". I meant it to be even more specific than was stated.
Do you think people who post in this forum are mostly interested in theory (like you), interested observers (like quietvoice), or given up on marriage (like Leo)? I was hoping to converse with others who have anger issues and want to deal with them - maybe I'm in the wrong place?

Josh Smith wrote: if someone posts with a username @mybusinessname in a forum where they might pick up clients, that they are looking for business and are they there in their professional identity.

I understand how you made the assumption. What I found hilarious about the assumption is that in 3 years and over 5,000 posts you are the very first person to make such an assumption. At least you are the first I can remember to actually post such an assumption. I don't think it unreasonable, but I do find it amusing.

Of course there is no way you would have this knowledge as you approach 25 posts, but there are members that do promote or have promoted their business in the forum. Typically they place a link to their business in their signature and then attempt to convince people to sign up for a coaching session, etc. One of the most prolific "life coaches" recently has gone silent. So I did/do find your assumption hilarious, because I have context which with 25 posts is not available to you. It doesn't make it any less amusing for me. It is like a brand new employee that shows up the first day to work and starts telling people how things work and then wonders why people are smiling.

By the way, on reflection, I made a mistake in the title of the thread - it should have been "Misogyny at the root of unwarranted (or abusive) anger towards wives". I meant it to be even more specific than was stated.
Do you think people who post in this forum are mostly interested in theory (like you), interested observers (like quietvoice), or given up on marriage (like Leo)? I was hoping to converse with others who have anger issues and want to deal with them - maybe I'm in the wrong place?

You might be in the wrong place, simply because of volume of traffic. It is not because this forum is not designed for such a topic, it is just there are not a huge number of members. This is not a big community.

I do believe misogyny could be a cause of anger, just not the cause. There are many causes of anger. As I pointed out in my last response there is anger towards children, parents, coworkers, friends, spouses, neighbors, etc. In my opinion the same root cause of anger towards a spouse could be the same cause of anger towards a neighbor. That would exclude the possibility of misogyny unless both the neighbor and spouse happened to be women.

The added "unwarranted or abusive" is a twist. I think abuse is never warranted. In some cases anger might be warranted, but abuse? No. Yet once again not all abuse is rooted in misogyny. Maybe for your specific case you feel that your anger is rooted in misogyny. Only you would be in a position to make that decision.

Josh Smith wrote:Well, I agree with you that thoughts produce anger and you imply that attitudes and beliefs produce thoughts.

Mind energy produces thoughts. Certain thought can become habitual. Thoughts taken as real and thought over and over again produce beliefs and attitudes, which are nothing but habits of thought.

Josh Smith wrote: just letting them pass is not very realistic for dealing with misogynist abusers such as myself.

Misogyny is a belief, a habit of thought. Your ego has identified itself as being a misogynist abuser. But what is the ego? The ego is a bunch of thoughts, taken seriously. You are not your ego. You are not your thinking. You are that which does the thinking.

Forgot to mention that thoughts are illusory. We make thoughts look real through consciousness. At lower levels of consciousness, all of our thought looks real, and we act on that thinking. The higher in consciousness that we go, the more illusory we see thought, and the more we are able to be discriminating in which thoughts we choose to place our energy to create into our reality.

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?

So does the author also propose that "what we need to do (if we're women) is to undo the misandrist attitudes"?


Sure if you have misogynistic or misadrastic attitudes then it would help to undo them. Pretty obvious. But people who DONT have that problem also get angry with people who happen to be of the opposite sex. I get angry with my spouse sometimes. Not because I am a misogynist with "attitudes of entitlement and superiority (over women)", but because sometimes she does things that piss me off, just as sometimes I do things that piss her off. It's that simple. Massive over-gerneralisations don't add anything helpful in working out what is causing friction in a specific relationship.

Dear Timeout!

Wow! That was a great Response!

This Post Issue is NOT about Sexual Attitudes and Preconceptions! Its about being annoyed by being discomfited by Another Person. the Husband who gets annoyed and angry toward a Wife for dong A B and C would get just as annoyed at a Male Roommate who also does A B and C. Why wouldn't he?

The Real Problem is that Modern Marriage CONFINES husband and wife together almost constantly. for Marriage to Work, well, Husband and Wife, or any set of 'room mates', need their own Space.... homes have to be Divided -- Husband Space... Wife Space... and then the Two should only get Together during brief Ritualized Occasions -- Meal time and maybe Common Evening Time -- watching TV together for an hour or two. A short enough time where it can be easily expected that both can 'suck it up' and be on their Best Behavior.

But it is SO Unreasonable to expect Married Couples to be Constantly Together and ALWAYS BE on their Best Behavior. BUT, that seems to be the Assumption behind most Marriage Counseling... to be Perfectly Agreeable 100% of the Time... and for Men this means to be Inhibited and unnaturally Subservient to Thoughts and Behaviors which might Really Seem quite Silly to them... even while they respect a Woman's Right to think and behave differently from themselves. But it is crazy to expect Men to hang around and put up with it all, no?... not when they may respect it but not care about it in the least, and even be repulsed by it's... well, difference from everything they value, enjoy and believe in.

So Men should have their Own Place to Go, where the women won't bother them, and they won't bother the women...

This is sort of like Dating, where a Man has his Address and the Woman has Her's. It seems like the Perfect way to conduct a relationship. Moving in Together just seems like an Awful Mistake. People do it to Save Money.... "two can live as cheaply as one", but, Oh My, such a decision Costs Far More than it is Worth, no?