Misogyny at the root of anger towards wives

Hi Richard,

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.

I don't think it unreasonable, but I do find it amusing.

So I did/do find your assumption hilarious

It doesn't make it any less amusing for me.

To paraphrase Shakespeare "Methnks he protests too much".

One thing I found jarring in your last post was the statement:

not all abuse is rooted in misogyny.

Presumably, you are talking about the topic of thread: misogyny at the root of anger towards wives. How do you come to state "not all abuse is rooted in misogyny" as a fact? Where is the evidence for this? As you haven't the personal experience, have you read something on this topic? The contrary evidence is embedded in Lundy Bancroft's book "Why does he do that?". He spent his whole professional career working with wife abusers and he explains how the misogynist beliefs culminate in abuse.

Josh Smith wrote:One thing I found jarring in your last post was the statement..."not all abuse is rooted in misogyny."

How do you come to state "not all abuse is rooted in misogyny" as a fact? Where is the evidence for this?

It is simple propositional logic, philosophy 101.

Person X maybe very well abuse individuals A, B, C, D, E and F.

Unless individuals A, B, C, D, E, and F are all women, then the root cause of the abuse is evidently not misogyny. How can you claim otherwise?

If A ='s B and B ='s C are you aware of that logically A then must also = C? Or is that not something of which you are aware?

There are two logical possibilities with Person X.

-1- That the abuse of person X is rooted in misogyny as it relates to female individuals A and B, while the abuse is rooted in some other cause related to non-female individuals C, D, E, and F. Or;

-2- That the abuse of person X is NOT rooted in misogyny for any of the individuals, rather the same root cause of the abuse of non-female individuals is the same root cause for the abuse of female individuals, i.e. the abuse of individuals A...F is not rooted in misogyny, regardless of gender.
___________________
Given the above is as mathematically pure as 1 apple in addition to another 1 apple will give you 2 apples, I will go so far as to say Lundy Bancroft would not argue against such common sense. This leads me to believe that you have taken Bancroft's work out of context in believing that 100% of all abuse towards a wife must always be attributed to misogyny. If on the other hand Bancroft does believe all abuse towards a wife must be rooted in misogyny and that there is no other possible cause, then Bancroft also needs to go take a math class.

Here is another example:

A person that abuses animals may also abuse humans. Do you agree?
A person that abuses animals is not a misogynist as animals are not women. Do you agree?

There is man named Jim. Jim abuses animals. Jim may also abuse humans. Is Jim necessarily a misogynist if the human he abuses happens to be female? No. The same root cause for the abuse of the animal may very well be the cause for abusing a human, regardless of gender. Do you agree or do you think Jim absolutely must be a misogynist and there is no other possible root cause?

I guess I can't make it any more clear the flaw in the logic that all, 100% of abuse of women by a man is rooted in misogyny. I take full responsibility for my inability to clearly communicate something which I find rather obvious.

Josh Smith wrote:One thing I found jarring in your last post was the statement:

not all abuse is rooted in misogyny.

Presumably, you are talking about the topic of thread: misogyny at the root of anger towards wives. How do you come to state "not all abuse is rooted in misogyny" as a fact? Where is the evidence for this? As you haven't the personal experience, have you read something on this topic? The contrary evidence is embedded in Lundy Bancroft's book "Why does he do that?". He spent his whole professional career working with wife abusers and he explains how the misogynist beliefs culminate in abuse.

Simple logic, my dear:

Venn Diagram! Why didn't I think of that?

*Slaps self on forehead*

Luckily hitting myself on the forehead is male on male abuse, therefore I can safely continue to claim I am not a misogynist.

Darn it, couldn't fix my spelling mistake quick enough. This will hammer it in, though.

An interesting question...

Is it possible that some misogynists would also not be abusers? While 100% of abusers are not misogynists, does it hold true that 100% of misogynists are abusers? Or could there be a portion, however small, of misogynists that while they hate women and/or feel superior they are not abusers, i.e. they don't act on their beliefs? Or is this impossible?

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:Is it possible that some misogynists would also not be abusers?

That is most probably the case, Richard.
I made my diagram based on this posting (#30).

Josh Smith wrote:One thing I found jarring in your last post was the statement:

not all abuse is rooted in misogyny.

. . . and he explains how the misogynist beliefs culminate in abuse.

Josh Smith wrote:One thing I found jarring in your last post was the statement:

not all abuse is rooted in misogyny.

.

Dear Mr. Smith,

There is something that maybe you should be aware of regarding Strict Scientific Stud, and that is that everything needs to be reduced to just One Variable and just One Control... when you change This, what happens to That. That is What Science Does... and when you look at it Practically, it is utterly too simplistic. Given the tight Criteria of having only One Variable and One Control, well, Science in a Very Complex World, is simply a Simple Minded Distraction. Isn't there Always more than Two Things going on?

A recent study came out saying that Cats, if they were larger, would turn against their owners and eat them for dinner. the Study concentrated on Size of Prey... that was the only thing they looked at... after all, they were Scientists and trained to have One Variable and One Control. So, yes, in that Simplistic World of just Two Considerations, Cats would eat their owners if only they were small enough. BUT THE REAL WORLD.... Owners Love Cats... Cats Love Owners... and Simplistic Science is simply Simple Minded.

So, Josh, is it your position that we should evaluate all of our behavioral decisions in the most Simple Minded way possible, for, what? to get the Noble Prize in Science... while still not getting anything Right. LIFE is more complicated than Controlled Scientific Experiments.

You probably Know That Already, but your Tendency to Anger is just reaching for a Good Excuse to Fight and be nasty and Be a Big Drama Queen.. No? Tell me I am not spot on....

Hi Richard,

Regarding your propositional logic. What you conveniently dropped was the front end of what you quoted of me. I actually said:

Presumably, you are talking about the topic of thread: misogyny at the root of anger towards wives. How do you come to state "not all abuse is rooted in misogyny" as a fact?

So, do i have to repeat myself over again - I'm not talking about cultures and societies, I'm not talking about person XYand Z, I'm talking about the unwarranted and abusive anger that husbands inflict on wives. And it is in that context that I'm asking you to declare your evidence when you state:

not all abuse is rooted in misogyny.

as a fact.

Where is your evidence? I declared my source:

The contrary evidence is embedded in Lundy Bancroft's book "Why does he do that?". He spent his whole professional career working with wife abusers and he explains how the misogynist beliefs culminate in abuse.

If you can't give credible evidence, we may have to conclude that your "interest in theory" is more accurately described as "personal interest in conjecture". Let's see what you have got.

Hi Quietvoice,

Thank you for taking the trouble to produce Venn diagrams. Unfortunately, yours appear to have no basis in fact - they are purely conjectural. When we investigate the facts as presented by Lundy Bancroft in his in-depth study of wife abusers and convert that into sets, we find that that the set of wife abusers is identical the set of husbands who have misogynist beliefs.
But perhaps, unlike Richard, you do actually have credible sources of evidence rather than wishful thinking. What do you have Quietvoice? If we can't share our experience and stories on this topic because noone admits to having anger issues, at least we should be able to share our research sources, don't you think?

By the way, I find your subtle aggression of the Venn play a bit more authentic than your "let it all go" stance. Maybe you could come out a bit further still - more aggression, less passive-aggression.

I also find it intriguing why you want to support Richard in diffusing and deflecting the fact that wife abusers have misogynist beliefs - what would be your interest in doing so? Mmmm...

Hi Leo,

You seem to be under misapprehension that Lundy Bancroft's study of wife abusers in his book "Why Does He Do That?" is a strictly controlled scientific experiment. It is no such thing. It is an account of his 20 years of case work with wife abusers in which he demonstrates how abusive men consistently hide their underlying misogynist attitudes - they deflect, diffuse, get stupid - much like the dynamics of this thread in fact. So, let's start again, Lundy Bancroft is a man, he believes in equal rights in marriage, the basis of his book is not a controlled scientific experiment. I know what, Leo, rather than repeatedly declaiming what the book isn't, why don't you read it and then write from an informed point of view? It is strange to me how people on this site insist on revealing how little they actually know under the guise of rational argument.

You wrote:

your Tendency to Anger is just reaching for a Good Excuse to Fight and be nasty and Be a Big Drama Queen.. No? Tell me I am not spot on....

No, you are not spot on. The interesting thing is that I posted the thread with the intention of sharing experience with other abusers. What I found are people who want to express opinions that have no basis in fact or experience and even spew phoney logic to hide their ignorance - weird stuff isn't it? Weird until you consider that they might have an unacknowledged interest in suppressing the truth of what Lundy Bancroft discovered and what I discovered in myself.

Josh,

You don't understand math, that is okay. Lacking this understanding, I completely understand why you would reject math as a form of evidence. Instead, you want to rely on the theory of a single individual. Got it.

As an analogy, you are listening to the opinion of one man that has a theory the earth is flat. I'm pointing to the horizon and using math, showing how the angle of the sun, the shadows and how they move demonstrate the earth is not flat.

You reject my math, and instead accept the man's opinion as proof, because this man has been studying the shape of the earth for many years. You want to know where my man is that is saying the world is round. I don't need a man on my side, I have math.

Fair enough.

Propositional logic, i.e. math clearly demonstrates that all psychopaths are not misogynists nor all misogynists psychopaths. Maybe you disagree? Both psychopaths and misogynists may abuse their wives, but for different root causes. There is the possibility that a psychopath is also a misogynist.

Point being, even if you want to argue all psychopaths are misogynists there are a ton of other possible causes for abuse, e.g. animal abusers. Are all those that abuse animals also misogynists? We can go on and on, but at the end of the day the idea that misogyny is the only possible cause for abuse of women is flat out wrong.

But hey, we can agree to disagree. You stick with your 1 and only "expert" and his opinions and I will stick with math. You don't have to recognize math as evidence. If in your world math doesn't count as evidence, what can I say...it must be an interesting world in which to live, a world that functions math free.



I do wonder why is it so important for you to believe that misogyny is the one and only cause of abuse of wives? Do you think if it is true then you can solve your anger and if it is not true then solving your anger is not possible? Is your ability to resolve this issue with abuse solely based on the opinions of this one man? If so...believe what you want. Go on believing whatever helps you resolve your anger and gets you to no longer abuse women.

And if you are relying only on the opinions of this one man, then really there is no need to get your opinions validated in this forum. Maybe you can reach out to this man, go to his seminars, buy his tapes and in doing so find like minded individuals that will support that world view. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It is probably a better approach for you.

define: misogyny
noun
— dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.

Why would one who holds such beliefs get married to begin with?

Josh Smith wrote:Thank you for taking the trouble to produce Venn diagrams. Unfortunately, yours appear to have no basis in fact - they are purely conjectural.

As I stated in a previous post, I based the diagram strictly from your own statements. I don't claim to have any additional facts on the matter.

Josh Smith wrote:When we investigate the facts as presented by Lundy Bancroft in his in-depth study of wife abusers and convert that into sets, we find that that the set of wife abusers is identical the set of husbands who have misogynist beliefs.

Not quite what you had stated earlier.

Josh Smith wrote:By the way, I find your subtle aggression of the Venn play a bit more authentic than your "let it all go" stance. Maybe you could come out a bit further still - more aggression, less passive-aggression.

The 'let it all go' stance you say I have is taken out of context. It refers to understanding that not all thought has to be taken seriously. It is wise to use this understanding in times of anger, or insecurity, or fear, or worry, or resentment. It does not preclude one from engaging in making comments on a forum.

Josh Smith wrote:I also find it intriguing why you want to support Richard in diffusing and deflecting the fact that wife abusers have misogynist beliefs - what would be your interest in doing so? Mmmm...

The point you're making is that all wife abusers have such beliefs. If one wife abuser is ever found to not have such a belief, what does that say about Lundy's stated research? Also, as was alluded to by Leo in post #5, what makes you think Lundy doesn't skew results based on his own unstated agenda(s)?

[quote="Josh Smith"]Hi Leo,

.... Lundy Bancroft's study of wife abusers in his book "Why Does He Do That?" is ... an account of his 20 years of case work with wife abusers in which he demonstrates how abusive men consistently hide their underlying misogynist attitudes.... quote]

Dear Josh,

I am so sorry we can't come to a Meeting of Minds, but, well, I thin that Mr. Bancroft is not writing from any sincere Intellectual Viewpoint, but is leaning all of his Arguments to Sell a Book and Make a lot of Money.

People do that, you know, and you always have to be on the look for it.

you can trust me... nobody is paying me to have the opinions I have. But Mr. Bancroft is making money from you and others like you who seem to want to believe that all of their problems with Women are because the Hate Women.

well, have you heard of the Philosophical Tool called 'Ockham's Razor'... basically it means that given more than one way to understand a Situation, we should select the Simplest.... "Think Horses and not Zebras when you see Hoof Prints... that kind of thing" .

As I have said before.... you do not have to hate Women, in order to have problems with a Room Mate.

WHY are you ignoring me? I seem to have a flawless argument. you persist anyway. that is why I think you are just being some argumentative Drama Queen out to start a fight.

and I bet you are having fun. Nobody here agrees with you...but you are still here flogging away on your dead horse.

Apparently you think you don't need Help.

Hi Richard, Quietvoice, and Leo,

Thank you for your latest posts. As I mentioned to Leo in my last post to him, I created the thread with the hope of talking to like-minded people who want to deal with the anger issues they have with their wives. That proved to be unfruitful because noone is saying they too have anger issues with their wives. The debate went to the level of ideas and it became clear that noone has actually read anything apart from me. I think I have made point - that wife abuse emanates from misogynist beliefs - and you all reject that viewpoint for one reason or another. I believe it would be futile to continue arguing back and forth - much as I am tempted.
I think the interesting thing now is to look at how the communication went from an anger point of view. So let's start with you Richard. I believe your style is passive-aggression - anger expressed behind the mask of innocence and fake helpfulness. Why do I believe this? Because I have done this all myself and I can clearly see it in you.
I think the subtle aggression started with:

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.

and later

I don't know if you have actually fallen down the rabbit hole. Have you?

Rather than dealing directly with the content of what I was writing, you belittle me in order to elevate yourself to a higher position. So behind a mask of reasonableness you are having a personal agenda to put me down and elevate yourself at my expense. (you are, oh so enlightened about political correctness, while I am a pure deluded idiot)
Here are a few more examples of your passive aggressive style of communication:

[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.

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.

Here you fake being amused while you are really seething with anger. Obviously, I hit a sore point by saying that you are simply here to pick up clients. (I still believe that as you have not given any real reason why you are actually here. Your argument that you are interested in theory does not wash because theory can be found in books and not on forums. You also showed zero interest in the theory that I wanted to discuss.) So, if I am right, you are not only passive aggressive but also deceitful and have a hidden agenda. Do you really believe people will not notice this, Richard?

You don't understand math, that is okay.

More arrogance, passive-aggression and belittling . (I actually studied math at university.)

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

Here you show a lack of empathy that is truly shocking and reveals your cold heart that is hiding behind your ‘”helpful” persona.

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.

[/quote]
Well, this quote I have simply thrown in to show that you do not listen (read) what the other person is saying. You live in your own world where you invent stories that nobody talked about in order to then fight your (not existing) opponent. You may also have said these irrelevant things in order to change the topic and confuse the thread – a typical strategy of passive aggressives. I have done that many times…
All in all I would like to say that if you are here to pick up clients then you shooting yourself in the foot, Richard. Do you think prospective clients will not notice the arrogance, passive aggression and cold-heartedness that seems to come through more and more as this thread develops?
If you carry on to talk to me in this style I will continue to point out to the thousands of viewers reading this thread your passive aggressive manipulation techniques. It ‘s not what came to do on this forum but analysing someone else’s passive aggression does also help to overcome my own.