She's bringing this up (in her column at WaPo) because of the women who stuck with Eric Schneiderman. It's the old and widespread puzzle. Why do women — even smart, educated, free women — stay with a physically abusive man? If Megan McArdle stayed with a man like that, it seems that anybody would. And if you did, you'd probably be embarrassed to talk about it or still inclined to protect and forgive and excuse what the man did.
We understand why rape victims don’t come forward... But if a man hits a woman, he will not get far arguing that he thought she wanted him to.... And yet, there is shame. As witness the fact that I debated with myself about whether to write this column. In fact, I decided to write this precisely because of my discomfort, to prove that it is absurd....Oddly, she came very close to explaining why we can be with him. He's not a monster. He's a human being. McArdle's funny, brilliant, feminist boyfriend had hit her once and never hit her again, and the hit may have been accidental, as he was was "gesturing wildly" in one of his "frequent, vehement rages."
I’m remembering the man, who was funny and brilliant. And who was, like Schneiderman, a staunch public feminist. There were many reasons I wanted to be with him, and none of them were simple, because neither was he. He was a human being....
Dividing the world into men and monsters makes it harder for women to explain why they sometimes continue contact with their abusers, and therefore harder for those women to speak. When they do speak up, this false division makes it harder to believe them because, after all, that guy doesn’t seem like a monster. And it leaves us flailing when we realize that some man we love or need has, whatever his other virtues, still done something monstrous, and we can’t be with him anymore.
Now, I think the reason to get away from that guy was that he had "frequent, vehement rages." The one instance of making physical contact seems much less significant than the pattern of rage and all that it meant about what this person is really like inside. Maybe some day we'll have a #MeToo from the women (and men) who have been dominated and controlled by a man (or woman) full of bottled up and explosive rage.
पोस्ट्स
१४४ टिप्पण्या:
“If Megan McArdle stayed with a man like that, it seems that anybody would.”
First explain your fascination with McArdle.
Odd that no man has ever stayed with a rage-prone woman.
I really don't see the automatic equivalence of a character flaw and a threat. Being a dangerous driver might be more of a threat actually. I can easily understand wanting to stay and help someone you love.
I know a man that stayed with a rage filled woman. They would probably still be married if she hadn't found someone new to abuse.
I am also fascinated by Megan McArdle. I see myself in her. Because of that, this article was brutal.
How many men stay with women who are violent and abusive.
More than zero and some even as worldly as McArdle.
It sure seems like a lot of male "feminists" are abusers of women.
> Odd that no man has ever stayed with a rage-prone woman.
Not true. I've known two men -- curiously, both mathematicians -- who stayed married many years with violent women. Nor were they wimps, one an college football player from West Texas who had played in the Rose Bowl, the other a physically powerful man who grew up in hard circumstances. Both were good at their craft, one even famous. AFAICT, both stayed with their wives because they loved them. Why they loved them is a different question, involving the mystery of love, but there you are.
It's just this war and that lying son of a bitch Johnson and…I would never hurt you. You know that.
If a woman thinks a man should stay with a woman who has hit him ( and not pressed charges ), thrown something at him then they damn sure should understand a man in the heat of the moment doing the same. Constant abuse is one thing but a minor smack in the heat of the moment is quite something else.
He didn't hit her on purpose, so it doesn't really count.
This is just the typical progressive excuse making for violent, misogynist abusers who have the correct politics. The women coming forward with their stories of abuse usually also tell of other women who told them they should keep the abuse to themselves, because of the abusers political utility to their various causes.
"It's just this war and that, that lyin' son-of-a-bitch Johnson."
If Trump were a Democrat, the same people hunting for his scalp over his alleged "misogyny" would be making excuses for him too. Progressives are disgusting hypocrites and should be ignored when they climb on the morality bandwagon of the day, because it's always just more politically expedient bullshit.
”Now, I think the reason to get away from that guy was that he had "frequent, vehement rages."”
No doubt, but if the hit was accidental the reason for her writing (and us reading) the piece evaporates.
haha ignorancs is bliss, yea you got it.
"Now, I think the reason to get away from that guy was that he had "frequent, vehement rages."
McArdle was dating Ritmo?
I would never throw a punch at Megan McArdle. She's bigger than me.
"Now, I think the reason to get away from that guy was that he had "frequent, vehement rages."
Lots of rage boy shitheads hide behind being "male feminists". The #metoo thing has revealed a lot of them.
McMegan fell apart in her early blogging days over some harsh criticism, some of which was over the top. Since then, I haven’t thought of her as a particularly strong nor completely rational person. I believe that she moderated her published views since that time.
"Now, I think the reason to get away from that guy was that he had "frequent, vehement rages." The one instance of making physical contact seems much less significant than the pattern of rage and all that it meant about what this person is really like inside. Maybe some day we'll have a #MeToo from the women (and men) who have been dominated and controlled by a man (or woman) full of bottled up and explosive rage."
Yes.
But a full self-reckoning is still far off. In the Schneiderman case, politics kept women from speaking up. McArdle vaunts her "funny and brilliant" boyfriend's "public feminism." She refers to men we love "or need." But no indication of why many women "need" such men in the first place, why they seek raging bad boys and deeply want to fix them, why the wealth and power of the Weinsteins attracts chicks, why they act so weakly while claiming equality and agency--evident still in the very tone of the McArdle piece.
The men and women of #MeToo, and the women and men, respectively, who invite them.
A friend of mine was having a serious argument with his wife while driving one time. He finally turned and slapped her face.
He said the feeling of hitting her gave him a rush of pleasure that scared him.
He never did it again but they divorced about a year later.
She had been unfaithful to him multiple times.
He married someone else in 1977 and they are still married.
The age of chivalry was ended by women, not men.
People are flawed; they are always flawed. Whoever you are with you are going to be dealing with some problem.
And then of course, there are a huge range of different problems. People are not the same. You have alternatives but what you don't have is some perfect saint to choose. What you don't have is the wonderful people you see on TV and that aren't actually what you will encounter in the real world.
With people you are always making a trade-off. There are the good things about the relationship and there are the bad things. Most people really don't want to be alone and are willing to tolerate quite a few problems for the good side of having someone with them.
It is a mistake to let others tell you what is acceptable. You're the one that has to deal with it and it is your life. For whatever reason it seems easier to complain about people than to see what's good about them. If you focus on the negatives I think it is easy to persuade yourself that your partner is terrible.
And maybe they are, or maybe compared to the alternatives they are okay.
Many (most?) women love dangerous men, at least to some degree.
A great deal of modern courtship advice (the pick up artist stuff is really just that) advocates seeming dangerous, as a general rule.
There is a great deal of hard-coding in human nature no doubt.
I loved my dad, but he had tremendous anger issues through most of the time I lived with him (parents divorced when I was a teen). I understand you don't choose your parents, but even with the rages, and, in today's view, physical and verbal abuse, I did not and would not abandon or turn away from him, even if could (he died a few years ago).
Almost no one is a total monster, even majority monsters are rare, and everyone has a little monster (from a Christian point of view, we all have a sin nature, and even the saved still continue on in sin). The question becomes what is your individual tolerance and what is the monsters behavior?
We tend to elevate some aspects above all negatives (great in bed, rich, funny, a Democrat) and some vices beyond all redemption (intimate violence). And many gray areas where is depends on the individual (cheating, porn, financial mismanagement, jealously). We tend to have an idea of Deadly Sins, that there is some sort of absolute standard that means a person cannot be in a relationship. I don't see that.
Anyway, back to my dad, in the latter half of his life, he became a much gentler, kinder person, to go along with his life long work ethic, charity, personal integrity, and intelligence, making him in most eyes, a wonderful friend and citizen. I am proud to be his son, and wish I (and my sons) had more time with him.
"Maybe some day we'll have a #MeToo from the women (and men) who have been dominated and controlled by a man (or woman) full of bottled up and explosive rage."
I can't imagine how this problem could be addressed with a #MeToo-like approach that targets and destroys individuals. It would be too hard to describe credibly what went on in a relationship. It's too complicated and would require high-level storytelling talent. I think it would be best to use fiction to tell stories like that. The physical contact is much more susceptible to public storytelling. It's an actual crime in a way that the yelling and getting-in-your-face kind of abuse is not. In fact, I think there are some abusive rage characters who refrain from physical contact but aim to trigger the other person into hitting, so I would not assume that the one that made the physical contact is the real abuser. And I'm not saying the defense of self-defense would help you if you were arrested for hitting someone in a situation like that.
Why would a person dwell for a quarter century on an incidental contact like that? I doubt that there is any young male who played sports or engaged in normal horseplay who didn't get clocked a few times. It's no big thing. If your partner scares you, leave -- otherwise get over it.
D. B. Light said...
Why would a person dwell for a quarter century on an incidental contact like that?
I don't think it is the possibly incidental contact that she has been dwelling on. It is her reaction to it, and her continued (for a while) relationship with someone who displayed that kind of rage.
I've heard that most women who put up with it grew up in violent homes, either hit by father, step-father, or momma's boyfriend, or witnessing him hitting momma.
OTOH, my bad-tempered, lying, demanding step-monster of 24 years could not have been more different from my mother, Dad's mother, and his aunts. I don't think he knew there were women like her.
"Why would a person dwell for a quarter century on an incidental contact like that?"
That is a good question, related I think to the idea of power and victimization. Life is hard and painful, regardless if the source is genetics, disease, injury, or relationships. And in the end, we will die. To let the bad things define and constrain you life is to give into death early.
Rather to be Lou 'The Luckiest Man on the Face of the Earth' Gherig than Dave 'I was kicked out of Metallica' Mustaine (and even though Mustaine has won grammy's and been ball all other accounts tremendously successful, just not as successful as the group that booted him.
Way back during the Clinton scandals of the '90's I recall seeing a TV interview with Shelby Steele which has stuck in my head all these years. Steele said that the WWII generation paid lip service to private virtues, even if they often did not live up to all those ideals. Not all of them bravely stormed the beaches at Normandy or Imo Jima or were Ozzie and Harriet. Many were not faithful spouses or good family men (or devoted mothers) or honest, hard-working and gentlemanly or ladylike, but those traits were admired and recognized as necessary for the functioning of a decent society. However, that generation as a whole also tended to be complacent about institutional racism and sexism.
The boomers turned that around. Racism and sexism became the worst sins possible, while the private virtues prized by the older generation were mocked or deemed hypocritical and secondary to one's political stances. That led many people to believe that it was OK to behave like a shit in private as long as one's professed political beliefs were acceptably liberal. Hell, that became the M.O. of most of Hollywood.
And, of course, as I noted last night, it is always very convenient when the acceptable liberal beliefs dovetail with one's own selfish interests. Contrary to feminist belief, it makes perfect sense for horndogs with a contempt for women to fully back abortion rights and feminism. They get tail without any responsibility attached! How many men marched in feminist parades alongside women in the '70's because they hoped that after the march a Germaine Greer wannabe would hop in the sack with them? And if she got pregnant, well, the abortion clinic would take care of that.
As for returning to an abusive man, well, women have always fooled themselves into thinking they could change men. McArdle shows that even an educated feminist can delude herself just as badly as some woman in the projects who thinks she can make her ex-con baby daddy love her more than those bitches he's been running with. The educated feminist simply develops more elaborate and sophisticated rationalizations.
A big part of the problem is the mental health community. Borderline Personality Disorder is dramatically underdiagnosed in men. It's much easier to say that a man is an angry asshole and a villain who chooses to be the way he is.
And that is what the mental health community does. You are a man, you are choosing to be this way. You need anger management.
Do we really still believe in souls? Seems like it.
"It can be very difficult to identify BPD in women much less men. In fact, BPD can become very confused with bipolar disorder I (mania and depression). Some research suggests that BPD is a disorder often identified and diagnosed mainly in women. Rarely is it ever diagnosed or even considered a diagnosis for a man. Why? Because the pre-established gender norms (that are limited) have made identifying symptoms of BPD difficult in men. This is why most males are misdiagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder, attention deficit disorder, conduct disorder, and even psychosis. As a result, it is important that we understand what BPD symptoms can look like in males. It is even more important to determine what BPD traits (symptoms of BPD) look like in adolescent males who cannot be diagnosed until age 18."
https://namimc.org/male-borderline-personality-disorder-know/
"Why would a person dwell for a quarter century on an incidental contact like that?"
She doesn't "dwell" on it that much, but she remembers and contemplates it from time to time.
I know I remember incidents from my entire life and continue to try to understand them. I remember things that were said to me as long ago as a half century or more, and I still think about what I could have said and done differently. I still wonder about how I could have allowed certain individuals to behave the way they did toward me and why I did not come up with a better response. I often have serious discussions even now about such things — even things that are twice as old as what McArdle is talking about.
"A big part of the problem is the mental health community. Borderline Personality Disorder is dramatically underdiagnosed in men. It's much easier to say that a man is an angry asshole and a villain who chooses to be the way he is."
Yes, I think this is a very important insight. People should be aware of the symptoms for Borderline Personality Disorder. I stumbled into it once when I was looking up the phrase "walking on eggshells."
More of Althouse’s bullshit Marxist feminist grievance against men.
As many commenters have already pointed out, abusive relationships go both ways.
When are you going to stop the fucking Marxist feminist lies, Ann? You’re a tedious liar.
"Why would a person dwell for a quarter century on an incidental contact like that?"
I have wondered about Ladybird Johnson after reading about how horribly LBJ treated her. I don't think he hit her but he was verbally and emotionally abusive.
Maybe his "Johnson" was really that big.
Maybe the power was that attractive to her.
" I remember things that were said to me as long ago as a half century or more, and I still think about what I could have said and done differently."
Me, too.
Most of the time I reflect on what I said or did, and how I could have done better, sometimes to the point of being self-absorbed and gloomy. However, to get out of the dumps, I make myself to reflect on successes as well as failures.
Ah, Amadeus! Ah, humanity.
It is tedious especially when I think about the college professors and administrators who were abusers towards myself and other mentally ill students.
Your capacity for lying endlessly is horrifying, Ann.,
You apparently have no shame over it.,
You’re and incredibly obnoxious, vicious scold.
I’m beginning to wonder whether you’re a decent human being.
You keep proving every day that there is good reason to hate some women. Is that your goal?
"One of these days, Alice, One of these days. Pow ! Right in the kisser"
She didn't stay for the monster. She stayed for the man.
I get Megan McArdle confused with Jen Rubin of the WaPost, who has morphed into a crazy neverTrumper.
Is McArdle a crazy neverTrumper? I hope not.
“The liberation of women!”
Can you believe that this rich, pensioned off, idle woman, Althouse, actually uttered this ridiculous phrase yesterday?
Ann, you’re ridiculous.
I have having some difficulty right now being objective, however, I do think Althouse is moving the conversation forward on this issue, and I appreciate that.
My next buy will be from the portal.
"Many (most?) women love dangerous men, at least to some degree."
But it all depends on who they are dangerous to. To someone breaking into my house, my husband would be extremely, possibly fatally dangerous. To me, however, he isn't dangerous at all. In fact for me, he makes the world less, not more, dangerous.
Lawyers, in general, are fucking assholes.
Hell, I worked for the elite in NYC. They were invariably, male and female, fucking assholes. They paid a premium to their staffs to put up with their supreme fucking assholery.
I put up with them for as long as I could.
They were often drunk and coked up, male and female, and they were fucking abusive bastards to their support staff in the workplace. Spoiled rotten children from Ivy League schools with insane notions of entitlement.
A woman or a man who tries to advance in social and financial rank by courting one of these assholes should know what she or he is getting into. Don't bitch about it after the fact.
Althouse is only imagining she is any different. She isn't.
“As for returning to an abusive man, well, women have always fooled themselves into thinking they could change men.”
Some people are capable of change, but most are not. A man who hits his wife or partner will do it again, because there is a serious pathology in that person that just won’t go away the more one loves them, coddles them, walks on eggshells, etc. Some women have their own pathology that clouds their reason and then it’s the perfect storm, the man who will abuse and a woman who begins to feel she deserves it.
Ann writes: "Now, I think the reason to get away from that guy was that he had "frequent, vehement rages." The one instance of making physical contact seems much less significant than the pattern of rage and all that it meant about what this person is really like inside."
Doesn't it depend on the cause of the rage? Suppose the woman was being outrageous?
Granted, in either case the relationship should be ended.
"Some women have their own pathology that clouds their reason and then it’s the perfect storm, the man who will abuse and a woman who begins to feel she deserves it."
Or vice versa.
Watching some cowboy movie from the sixties, Dean Martin beats the hell out of the woman. Old movies, woman says no, guy forces a kiss, she melts in his arms. Women getting slapped around for mis behavior not un common in old movies..
“As for returning to an abusive man, well, women have always fooled themselves into thinking they could change men.”
She thought he would change. He thought she wouldn't.
"Some women have their own pathology that clouds their reason and then it’s the perfect storm, the man who will abuse and a woman who begins to feel she deserves it."
“Or vice versa.”
Yes, I agree.
McArdle is MUCH better than Rubin - but of course McArdle never pretended to be a Republican, unlike Rubin.
McArdle's very much Trump-skeptic, and she did, prior to the election, write one over the top column about Trump causing nuclear war, which got a lot of pushback and/or mockery from her usual fans.
Personally I disagree with McArdle on a lot of things, but she's also intelligent and interesting, unlike that hack Rubin.
Not "me too" but "me maybe" "I'm an adult respect my choices and my privacy. And the same for others" Isn't it ok to forgive someone, or stand by them in good times and bad? "throwing ashtrays and not?It's going to be a fascinating decade as we watch everyone change their mind change their mind same time, in U.S. if not further. Perhaps catalyzed by T but more likely everyone saying " enough already isn't this silly?" Must be terrifying to those on the other side who care.
To someone breaking into my house, my husband would be extremely, possibly fatally dangerous. To me, however, he isn't dangerous at all. In fact for me, he makes the world less, not more, dangerous.
I'm reading the book about the "Golden State" serial killer. The writer has an interesting observation.
In the couples that were attacked but not killed, the early cases in the Bay Area and Sacramento, the men were more affected often than the women.
They had failed to protect their spouse and the marriages often did not survive. The attacks were particularly humiliating.
The attacker would make the wife tie up her husband, then he would rape her repeatedly. He would sometimes stay for hours.
The evolutionary tendency for women to be attracted to "dangerous" or strong men might have the effect of seeking protection and the effect on a man who could not protect his wife might be devastating.
A rapist rapes the woman and also, by proxy, rapes the man as well.
@Shouting Thomas
If your goal is to convince the world that you are a worthless piece of filth, then I have two words for you, sir:
Mission accomplished.
I know I remember incidents from my entire life and continue to try to understand them. I remember things that were said to me as long ago as a half century or more, and I still think about what I could have said and done differently. I still wonder about how I could have allowed certain individuals to behave the way they did toward me and why I did not come up with a better response. I often have serious discussions even now about such things — even things that are twice as old as what McArdle is talking about.
I thought I was the only one ... Thanks.
But it all depends on who they are dangerous to. To someone breaking into my house, my husband would be extremely, possibly fatally dangerous. To me, however, he isn't dangerous at all. In fact for me, he makes the world less, not more, dangerous.
5/9/18, 10:50 AM
That's it. Many women, myself included, melt when we see those photos of big brawny firemen carrying small children to safety. To me, that exemplifies masculinity at its' best - strength employed to protect and save the vulnerable. Predatory men do the reverse.
In today's climate, any display of manly strength is condemned as "toxic masculinity," which is incredibly stupid thing to do. The outcome of a war featuring gelded pajama boys on one side vs. feral males on the other is not difficult to predict.
"How many men stay with women who are violent and abusive."
By all reports, Bill Clinton, since Hillary has been said to rage and throw things at people.
Anjali Ramkissoon and Colleen Campbell are two examples of rage filled partners of the vaginaed variety.
Granted, women usually aren't big enough to cause the damage a man could.
Like Bill Burr said, if a guy is bitten by a rattle snake, or a house fire starts, generally people ask 'how did it happen'?
No one wants to break down exactly what was said or done before an episode of domestic violence. Megan, for example, could have been pushing him, mocking his manhood and telling him she slept with his worst enemy.
But context is a Vone Vay Street for some women.
Granted, women usually aren't big enough to cause the damage a man could.
“God Created Men and Sam Colt Made Them Equal!”
I personally have a great deal of respect for Megan and offer the above only as a hypothetical.
But context: if some big bosomed starlet, who was making (and sharing) big bank, and letting me hob nob with the elite and screwed like a minx once in a while laid one across my chops, particularly if I deserved it...not sure I'd walk out immediately. Depends on how hot the make up sex was and which model Mustang she got me for my forgiveness. Why would women be any different?
Women can be just as venal and Megan is...really tall. When one's mating options are not exactly wide open, it makes one...thoughtful.
It's common for humans to get addicted to things that are very bad for them, even when those things make them violently ill or ruin their lives, so putting up with abuse is not uncommon or hard to understand. Addiction is what happens when you remember what you like while forgetting the cost for a while. This is really easy for people to do over and over.
The Lutheran minister across the street from us in the 70's built shelters for prostitutes in his downtown DC church. At home he beat his sons and dominated his wife. The eldest was nice but died in the 80's and the other two were nasty kids and later always in trouble with the police.
Do people who have rages know that everyone rolls their eyes behind their backs? To rage is to beclown oneself.
I assume the abusers are addicted to it as well. The abuser when caught really does pay a higher price, and they probably regret it most of the time, but it does something for them that keeps them doing it just as soon as they can forget the cost. Humans, like most animals, have very poor self-control.
The trick is to get yourself addicted things that are mostly beneficial or at least less damaging: work, exercise, productive hobbies, masturbation, jigsaw puzzles, blogging, etc.
"To rage is to beclown oneself."
Not if you do like I do in the Shakespearean style with proper costume changes.
Kristian Holvoet:
Your 10:03 post is moving and thought-provoking. Thank you.
holdfast, 10:58:
"[McArdle] did, prior to the election, write one over the top column about Trump causing nuclear war,"
If memory serves, she was appalled that Candidate Trump met with some people in the nuclear enterprise and asked, "Why shouldn't we use them if we have them?" And she wrote as if the question meant Trump saw no problem with using nukes and was likely to do so at a low threshold. Personally, if I were running for president, I wouldn't want anyone advising me on nukes who didn't have a damned good answer to that one.
Like you, though, I find her writing interesting.
Imagine if every man left his girlfriend if she struck him in anger.
As the poet observes, it's hard to tell the dancer from the dance. Or maybe, the Hammerstein line: "What's the use of wondering?" I've never been on either side of a physically abusive relationship, but none of my relationships were idyllic except for a brief, introductory moment. I don't think that has much to do with my character or discretion. I'm not an especially good person, and some of the women I've been involved with also had their problems. I don't think it's a particularly high bar to refrain from hitting a woman, but it happens and apparently there's some dark bond that abusers share with their victims. .......I'm trying to frame a coherent thought here, but it's all chaos.
What about an addiction to food?
Specifically, back in her 20's, any young woman, not just McArdle, is likely resource poor. A married woman who spent any kind of time in child rearing is making FAR less than her husband most likely.
So is a one time slap followed by ample apologies and protections of love grounds for moving to a studio apartment and living on ramen? Maybe with roommates and kids?
Not sure what Althouse would say, but Feminists believe in divorce if one is not FULLY SATISFIED with one's partner, much less if they have flaws. Most women are much more thoughtful than that.
Kristian Holvoet expresses the confusion admirably.
Protestations not protections
Freeman Hunt said...
But it all depends on who they are dangerous to. To someone breaking into my house, my husband would be extremely, possibly fatally dangerous. To me, however, he isn't dangerous at all. In fact for me, he makes the world less, not more, dangerous.
This is a foundational aspect of healthy male female relationships.
It is a failure in this aspect that leads so many leftist pajamaboys like Bill Clinton and Schneiderman to be so abuse to the women they should be protecting.
Women do chemical calculations. It might come out any way.
Kristian Holvoet said...
Anyway, back to my dad, in the latter half of his life, he became a much gentler, kinder person, to go along with his life long work ethic, charity, personal integrity, and intelligence, making him in most eyes, a wonderful friend and citizen. I am proud to be his son, and wish I (and my sons) had more time with him.
We learn to be a dad from our dad.
Women learn how to interact with men from their dad.
If you were taught improperly it takes a long time, sometimes forever, to figure it out on your own.
Daddy Issues are pretty much the core topic of this thread.
I call it the demise of toxic masculinity.
Dad explained to me there was never a reason to physically respond to a woman. 'Hey what if she starts it?' I said. Well you're not much of a man if you cant out run a woman, was his response. The culture I grew up in had zero tolerance for a man hitting a woman, and that person was shamed without letup.
Fathers are important.
I also explained the same to my son,(and daughter) physical assault was zero tolerance, I explained to my daughter, and also explained to her, that fights with her spouse, were her problem, leave her parents out of it, work it out together, or not, but we didn't take sides. But even raising a hand to her in anger was a red line. She should run, and never return, and of course we would be her shelter as long as needed.
We used to have a social contract that held men responsible for their actions. As Insty points out, there are responsibilities to both men and women in that contract. Leftist have made it their lifes work to trash those societal norms and reasons they existed to start with.
Megan McArdle: "[W]hy in heaven’s name did I go back [to the man who hit me?]"
Why do an apparent majority of women have rape fantasies? (62% of the subjects of this study.) Why do murderers attract fangirls? ("Crazed girls flood Parkland school shooter Nikolas Cruz with fan mail"). A large percentage of women seem to be wired in a way that doesn't begin to correspond to our assumptions about how a civilized mind should work.
I spent a summer working at a public defender's office during law school. One of our clients was charged with a double murder, and the staff attorneys seemed sure he was guilty. I don't remember the details of the case anymore, but what sticks with me is that one of the lawyers, a cute blonde in her mid-20s, had an embarrassingly obvious crush on the guy.
Some women find violent men attractive.
If Megan McArdle stayed with a man like that, it seems that anybody would.
Let's go with "could".
Granted, women usually aren't big enough to cause the damage a man could.
Local small woman perforated her husband with 18 bullets.
How does physical punishment as a child from a parent factor into this discussion? Most of us have been spanked; I know many teenage boys have been roughed up by their dads at one time or another. But we usually don't call it abuse. Is it intent?
FullMoon said...
“As for returning to an abusive man, well, women have always fooled themselves into thinking they could change men.”
That was the essence of an old joke I repeated often to my peers as we were marrying age.
Do you know why so many marriages fail>
She thinks he will change, and he won't.
He thinks she will never change, but she does.
I'm not certain the argumentative violence McArdle documents is analogous to the sexual violence that Schneiderman's victims experienced and tolerated. Related, perhaps, but different enough that the distinctions matter.
I once heard a very large, very strong man postulate that he thought men like himself were much less likely to be violent than smaller, weaker men. He said he based this guess on the relative danger. "For example," he said, "[a man like himself] and I would not, unless it were totally unavoidable, get into a fist fight. A fist fight between us would probably leave one of us maimed or dead." He extended the same calculus to violence generally.
No idea whether or not this is true. Certainly most small men are not violent, and there are plenty of large men who are. Perhaps someone has done a study.
It just goes to show you that feminist women should get their rights. And few lefts too.
If only he had led with a jab and then an uppercut she might have stopped yapping before we had to listen.
Certainly most small men are not violent, and there are plenty of large men who are.
My father was immensely strong. I have seen him carry a juke box (his business) up a flight of stairs on his back. He also had a bad temper. I never saw him make any sign of abuse toward my mother, perhaps because he knew she would take after him with her cast iron frying pan.
I still have her frying pan that I made pancakes in when I was 9. People did not go out and g]buy all new cookware like they do now.
" A large percentage of women seem to be wired in a way that doesn't begin to correspond to our assumptions about how a civilized mind should work."
The attraction some women have for violent psychopaths has always baffled and disgusted me, since it seems to fly in the face of evolution. A strong man will protect you and your offspring; a psychopath is as big a threat to you as he is to others. Did women who thought Ted Bundy was dreamy imagine he would somehow make an exception for them?
@Birches
How does physical punishment as a child from a parent factor into this discussion? Most of us have been spanked; I know many teenage boys have been roughed up by their dads at one time or another. But we usually don't call it abuse. Is it intent?
I am not sure if you are referring to what I commented earlier, but as an adult, I know what my dad did crossed the line. By the time I was 9 or 10, I knew his reaction was irrational. The behavior of abusive parents does come up with how or if families go on with a close relationship. Sometimes, leaving is one and done. Sometimes it there is a reconciliation. Sometimes the relationship never truly breaks. This same dynamic can occur both friend and partner relationships as well.
The why reconcile or why stay is not a simple "Because: Love" or "Because: Stupid" or "Because: Patriarchy" or whatever.
It is partly for this, I feel so ambivalent about #MeToo. Some behavior is so outrageously out of line, it is hard to feel pity for the defrocked. In other cases, at what point is the past the past (And IMHO, if you took a payoff, then you've waived you right to demand more)? Sometimes the past behavior warrants punishment on it's own (Golden State Killer).
At my dad's funeral, I said 'You don't get to choose what other people remember about you' (and then reeled of some funny, some bittersweet memories that my family had). My concern is that what other people remember is a) partial at best and b) a different person than 25 pr 30 years later. And some people fail miserably in some roles (father, husband, son, whatever), but are still worth knowing, working with or even loving.
Freeman Hunt said...
No idea whether or not this is true. Certainly most small men are not violent, and there are plenty of large men who are. Perhaps someone has done a study.
It is less about big and small and more about the level of understanding. The least likely people to commit random or cruel violence are those who are professionally violent.
Big men are constantly reminded of the damage they can do and there is a natural cultural awareness. But this also extends to anyone who practices and trains for violence.
exiledonmainstreet said...
The attraction some women have for violent psychopaths has always baffled and disgusted me, since it seems to fly in the face of evolution.
How on god's green earth can Daddy Issues be baffling at this point?
Women who had poor/abusive/neglectful/absent fathers seek out men they are comfortable with or seem closer to what they know.
"Big men are constantly reminded of the damage they can do and there is a natural cultural awareness."
This is one hundred percent crap.
If you are a big guy you know that it is always the little guy who wants to start a fight in the bar. It is the Napoleon thing.
A more severe problem is that many women feel they can haul off and hit a man without consequences. As in all things liberation is a one way street. There are many instances of spousal abuse by woman hitting men that are laughed off and ignored.
I appreciated your comment Kristian, but no, I think you were describing abuse. I'm contemplating that most of us have been hit (spanked) by our parents but it doesn't color the rest of the relationship. Why? Does it depend on intent? Is it age? I just find it interesting. One time in a romantic relationship will change everything, but I don't think it does in a parent child relationship. Is a spank just different?
"Big men are constantly reminded of the damage they can do and there is a natural cultural awareness. But this also extends to anyone who practices and trains for violence."
That makes sense.
I just looked up statistics on Lesbians yesterday.
It seems that Lesbian couples engage in physical and verbal abuse at levels which match that of straight couples.
So is domestic violence a 'mans game'...or is female domestic violence woefully unreported.
I remember my mother kicking me after she put me on the floor. I was under 12. Happened once, but it happened.
Something for ladies to be thoughtful about before they throw too many stones.
I think good old Megan is safe now.
I don't know any dude that would say "I'd hit that."
Crises averted.
The least likely people to commit random or cruel violence are those who are professionally violent.
Like professional football players?
It's pretty damn easy to look this up.
Police Have a Much Bigger Domestic-Abuse Problem Than the NFL Does
I haven't looked up the data on librarians.
We are coming full circle on how the standards of behavior between men and women, back to a conservative etiquette that strictly defines how the two sexes interact. Or rather, to a set of various standards of behavior, all of which would be familiar to someone in the Victorian era.
Why? Because men are men and women are women, and people are people, and these codes of conduct were part of who we are long before we built the first cities -- longer even than we were humans. Maybe longer than we were primates -- which is over 65 million years ago.
My mom and dad spanked when my sister and I were little. My dad didn’t hit me until I was in high school. Luckily it was only a few times.
Explosive rage wasn’t an issue. My dad had a deep, dark, and cold anger that scared the bejeezus out of my sister and I from the beginning of my memories. My grandfather (who was much more abusive than my dad) called him a cold hearted son of a bitch right before he died. A genius level IQ, alcoholism, and a deep seated anger made him scary. He was just mean.
I’ll give him this he tried very hard to be better than his father.
Can you believe that this rich, pensioned off, idle woman, Althouse, actually uttered this ridiculous phrase yesterday?
Nothing borderline about Thomas, no.
I agree with what Dave had to say about Borderline Personality Disorder. With men, it is often confused with Narcissistic PD. That is partly because PD symptoms tend to overlap.
One thing important to know is that the PDs are acquired through experience (cf. Bipolar Disorder which is largely a genetic phenomenon). Ted Millon (the foremost expert in the PD area) described PDs as resulting from repetitively reinforced maladaptive behavior.
We have known that reinforcement strengthens behavioral tendencies since Ed Thorndike wrote about it in the 1930's. Men who verbally abuse their female partners often graduate to pushing, slapping, hitting, etc. It gives them release from anger and increases their sense of control. IMHO, Anger Management classes have less of a success rate than AA (<10%).
My first response when a female patient says that her boyfriend pushed her is to "Move on. It will only get worse, and you will be involved in a criminal court case at some point."
@Henry, I will suppose that there are many, many more crimes committed by librarians than professional athletes, if only because there are many more of librarians.
Yeah, rage is a bitch. I left my then-fiancee as she was getting progressively more aggressive physically and I was not going to let myself knock her out.
Of course, it also meant I had to take a savage beating on the way out which ended up getting her arrested (Had I defended myself, I would have gone to jail as well).
Once violence starts, it is time to depart.
Henry said...
The least likely people to commit random or cruel violence are those who are professionally violent.
Like professional football players?
No, not like football players. Football has equipment and rules meant to minimize physical injury. Football is more of a test of will and tactics. The vast majority of them feel bad when they actually injure another player.
It's pretty damn easy to look this up.
Police Have a Much Bigger Domestic-Abuse Problem Than the NFL Does
Tangentially relevant to what I said.
Most police officers are not what I would consider "professionally violent" either. They should get more training.
One example I would bring up in seminar is the officers that beat Rodney King by accounts hit him over 200 times with night sticks.
That is absurd. If a prone target is not incapacitated after 1 or 2 strikes you suck.
One of the issues with most abusive actors is they are really poor at actually hurting people physically. They do more damage to the will and psyche.
Achilles wrote:
"Women who had poor/abusive/neglectful/absent fathers seek out men they are comfortable with or seem closer to what they know."
I guess I wasn't talking about "ordinary" neglect or even abuse of the sort Schneiderman is accused of but murderously criminal behavior along the lines of a Bundy or Manson. Did every woman who penned an love letter to those two have a rapist-murderer father?
Men who verbally abuse their female partners often graduate to pushing, slapping, hitting, etc. It gives them release from anger and increases their sense of control.
Much the same occurs with serial killers who begin as peeping toms and need more stimulation to get the same thrill.
I don't recall how Ted Bundy began but the Golden State killer was a peeping tom, then a serial rapist, then had fantasies, expressed to victims, of killing, then murders, often after observing through a bedroom window, possibly of sex by the victims.
You can't really believe articles like this. It could be completely made up to provide a victim credibility, or it could be understated to protect the guy.
Did every woman who penned an love letter to those two have a rapist-murderer father?
There is a whole genre of women who write to and often marry killers in prison. The Menendez brothers and the Night Stalker are two examples. I have not seen any articles about them.
One example I would bring up in seminar is the officers that beat Rodney King by accounts hit him over 200 times with night sticks.
That is absurd. If a prone target is not incapacitated after 1 or 2 strikes you suck.
Rodney King was high on something and those LAPD guys saved his life. Melanie Singer, the CHP cop who stopped him, was ready to shoot him when they arrived and took him down.
Have you ever seen an amphetamine overdose ? I have.
damikesc said...
Yeah, rage is a bitch. I left my then-fiancee as she was getting progressively more aggressive physically and I was not going to let myself knock her out.
She was only comfortable in a relationship where the male exhibited physical dominance. To the point she would provoke you to the point you would demonstrate whether you were capable or not.
1. Daddy issues.
2. So many women seem to need this sort of physical abuse from the male that there has to be an underlying biological driver. If we could honestly discuss the topic I would say that women want to see their male be able to protect them and this would be a way to force you to show you can defend the cave.
When it came to punishing my kids, I always thought that the punishment should be done AFTER you calm down, so the rage and the punishment are not conjoined.
Michael K said...
Rodney King was high on something and those LAPD guys saved his life. Melanie Singer, the CHP cop who stopped him, was ready to shoot him when they arrived and took him down.
Have you ever seen an amphetamine overdose ? I have.
The issue is they strike people in places where an amphetamine overdose and the resulting adrenaline spike and increased pain tolerance would provide a benefit to the target. Hitting such a person in the shoulders/arms/ribs doesn't make a lot of sense.
I understand they are trying to take him down "softly" without maiming or killing him and that makes things difficult. But there are still targets like the occipital lobe or the sciatic nerve if struck properly or the solar plexus not even struck particularly hard are immediately incapacitating. Small joint manipulation etc.
"Night sticks" are also terrible weapons. They were popular for a while with police and I have no idea why.
They were popular for a while with police and I have no idea why.
Dunno. Training films like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfvWAz_qMcI
Badass cop takes down two muggers with no real injuries! Huzzah!
exiledonmainstreet said...
I guess I wasn't talking about "ordinary" neglect or even abuse of the sort Schneiderman is accused of but murderously criminal behavior along the lines of a Bundy or Manson. Did every woman who penned an love letter to those two have a rapist-murderer father?
Not sure the context of your query, but most of the women who hung out with Bundy probably didn't know he planned on killing them. If they knew he was a murderer specifically of sexual partners that is somewhat inexplicable.
The women who hung out with Manson thought he was going to kill other people. That is an easily ascribable biological motivation.
I was in a relationship with a woman for a while who, I think, ended the relationship because there were no fights. My guess is that her father was one of those quiet undemonstrative types. The only time he showed strong interest in his daughter was when he was angry. So she was unable to see that someone cared if they we not violent towards her. She needed that violence to convince some part of her mind that she was loved.
An interesting possibility, though unproved.
But there are still targets like the occipital lobe or the sciatic nerve if struck properly or the solar plexus not even struck particularly hard are immediately incapacitating.
You must know more about night sticks/batons than I do, then.
Melanie Singer, after they saved her from a bad shooting, proceeded to testify against them at both trials (Clinton version double jeopardy) and then retired on stress disability.
I sent money to Stacey Koon's family while he was in prison.
Kristian Holvoet said...
Dunno. Training films like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfvWAz_qMcI
Badass cop takes down two muggers with no real injuries! Huzzah!
Yeah that was pretty bad. Typical. Things never go down like that especially for police.
They had recommended videos for extending batons on the right. Those are excellent weapons.
As for men who stay with abusive, rage-prone women ~ perhaps for some of them it's a misguided sense of responsibility and protection of the woman from her self and others from her.
My husband's first wife has BPD and severe substance abuse problems. They became a couple at 19 years old and ultimately stayed together for 25 years until he finally left her at the encouragement of a therapist. Her difficulties gradually worsened and by the time he realized how bad his life with her had become ~ she was unable to keep a job, alienated all their friends and family with her behavior, had been arrested several times for assault, attacked him with her fists and with objects, deliberately destroyed his possessions, and hosted sex romps with her party friends under his own roof while he was working to provide for her ~ he felt he couldn't leave her because she would end up homeless and giving blow jobs for weed. He just mentally checked out and made sure he was at home with her as little as possible. It's easy to judge how absurd that is but I see it as a misfiring of his naturally protective instinct, and a result of having been raised by a mother very similar to the first wife (alcoholic, abusive, but smart and witty when sober).
She needed that violence to convince some part of her mind that she was loved.
Interesting idea. I was married to a woman who would argue and argue. If I went to bed and tried to go to sleep, she would bounce on the bed to keep me awake and I finally, a couple of times, would have to go out and drive away.
Michael K said...
But there are still targets like the occipital lobe or the sciatic nerve if struck properly or the solar plexus not even struck particularly hard are immediately incapacitating.
You must know more about night sticks/batons than I do, then.
The "Night stick" has that stupid raised handle. The most useful strike with it is to hold that handle and punch with the short end. Gives you 6 inches of reach and smaller harder surface than your fist. Good for use on the core. Otherwise you would switch grips and use it more like a stick to strike the head or forearms if they have a knifeish weapon with that stupid raised handle on the backside.
With great relief, it is nice to announce that Megan McArdle's husband, Peter Suderman was not likely dating her 25 years ago. Suderman is 38 years old... minus 25 .... Megan McArdle is 57.
I sure that Reason.com where Peter is a managing editor is joyful as well.
Now, if she were a public school teacher the math wouldn't be terribly encouraging.
McMegan is 45.
Men and women stay in abusive relationships because they don't know how to have healthy ones, and it's still less painful than being all alone.
The sad thing is we have the ability to teach these couples how to fix their relationships. We don't because it is counterintuitive: we do not know how to separate the specific incident (assault) from the relationship itself (domestic violence-as-pattern) and so we treat the relationship itself as a crime, with a "perpetrator" and a "victim", rather than separating the issue of "justice" (bringing charges for a specific act of assault) from the issue of addressing the problems in the relationship. So we use court orders to compel serious criminals to attend anger management training, while the people who actually want and would benefit from those classes are put on never-ending waiting lists (never-ending b/c the court ordered cases are always bumped to the front of the list). It's like not allowing anyone to treat the disease until it's proven it's too far gone - WTF?
If you don't fix the problems in the relationship, it doesn't matter if you persuade the woman to leave the man: she'll just find another guy who is exactly the same, and he'll just find another woman.
The correct measure of success should NOT focus on breaking up the couple, but removing the violence from the relationship - specifically, teach them (both of them) how to manage their time & resources, & how to manage their emotions (like how to recognize that they're angry or anxious or sad before it's out of control). That's what they need & we know how to fix it (google Cognitive Behavioral Therapy). We just don't because it's emotionally unsatisfying to let this couple decide for themselves whether they want to stay together, when we would much rather take over for them and make decisions for them about how they ought to live.
I saw this sort of thing more times than I can remember... get a domestic violence call, wife hysterical, says hubby beat her up.
I haul hubby off to jail.
Wife shows up to bail him out before I get the jail intake paperwork done...
And, on many occasions as hubby is walking out the door, I heard him say "Just wait until we get home."
You don't need to see that more than a few times to give up on trying to understand it.
Megan McArdle is well over six feet tall. I'm merely guessing, but I'd imagine she could hit back.
exiled on mainstreet wrote: "Did women who thought Ted Bundy was dreamy imagine he would somehow make an exception for them?"
Check out a memoir called "The Phantom Prince." It was written by Ted Bundy's girlfriend. They not only dated, but lived together when he was going out killing women. To her, he was wonderful. To her child, he was caring.
The only problem she had with him was that he'd slip out during the night and come back sweaty and disheveled. But you know? He never brought his work home with him.
Kristian Holvoet expresses the confusion admirably.
Agreed. I cannot imagine hitting my wife. (Or put up with being hit -- I've been hit exactly once in my life, except for childhood spankings that I only vaguely recall) I never saw my parents strike each other. But there were other issues in their relationship that have caused me problems over the years. Teach your children well.
Megan McArdle is 57
McArdle was born in January 1973. She is 45, not 57.
So, 25 years ago would make her 20. Might explain a thing or two about her column.
"Men who verbally abuse their female partners often graduate to pushing, slapping, hitting, etc."
Some of us graduate to harming ourselves instead (that is one of the hallmarks of borderline personality disorder). These days I take my wife with me to any counseling or doctor's appointments. The last time, about a month ago, I was verbally attacked by a young mother in the waiting room for pleasantly asking her son what he was reading. Then, I was attacked by the female psychiatrist who had no idea I was just attacked 5 minutes prior. She went on to be extremely rude to my wife as well. That was helfpul. Had I been alone, it would have just been another case of me being the villain.
I am filing complaints against the psychiatrist and the lady in the waiting room who attacked me. Surely, even a man seeking treatment can count on the treating facility to be a safe space.
On the complaint form it asks what I think needs to be done to reconcile the problem. I am going to recommend diversity training for the psychiatrist. She seems to think men can only be violent villains ... as do so many others including some commenters here.
Hybristophilia is a paraphilia in which sexual arousal, facilitation, and attainment of orgasm are responsive to and contingent upon being with a partner known to have committed an outrage, cheating, lying, known infidelities, or crime—such as rape, murder, or armed robbery. The term is derived from the Greek word ὑβρίζειν hubrizein, meaning "to commit an outrage against someone" (ultimately derived from ὕβρις hubris "hubris"), and philo, meaning "having a strong affinity/preference for".[1] In popular culture, this phenomenon is also known as "Bonnie and Clyde Syndrome".[2]
Many high-profile criminals, particularly those who have committed atrocious crimes, receive "fan mail" in prison that is sometimes amorous or sexual, presumably as a result of this phenomenon. In some cases, admirers of these criminals have gone on to marry the object of their affections in prison.[3][4]
Imagine if every man left his girlfriend if she struck him in anger.
Many, many years ago my wife got very mad at me. And I kinda deserved it.
She hit me - not in the face - but with a closed fist and as hard as she could.
Her immediate reaction was fear because .... oh, fuck. Now I've done it.
My reaction? I chuckled. "That's all you got?"
The tension was broken. The issue passed. We never came remotely close to that level of a fight again.
Shit happens. It's somewhat surprising it doesn't happen more often.
Bill Peschel said
" Check out a memoir called "The Phantom Prince." It was written by Ted Bundy's girlfriend. They not only dated, but lived together when he was going out killing women. To her, he was wonderful. To her child, he was caring."
That's quite creepy. However, (not knowing anything about the memoir) I take it she was completely unaware of his gruesome extracurricular activities. Ted Bundy fooled many, many people. True crime writer Ann Rule worked with him and observed nothing abnormal in his behavior. She too thought he was a swell guy.
That wasn't what I was referring to. I was thinking of the women who wrote to Bundy after he had been arrested and tried, knowing full well what he was capable of.
How about all those European girls headed to the Middle East to marry ISIL members?
Dave, I wish you well with your treatment. I certainly do not think only men can be violent.
Walter, thanks for posting that. I didn't know there was a medical term for such behavior, although I'm sure the Germans have a word for it.
McMegan is 45.
5/9/18, 3:37 PM
OpenID indiana118 said...
Men and women stay in abusive relationships because they don't know how to have healthy ones, and it's still less painful than being all alone.
Terrific comment.
I don't know where the "Megan is 45" came from.
Thank you. Perhaps you might also consider this: not all men who become angry and agitated also become violent. I have said many times: I wish I could just break down and cry when someone hurts me. Being the victim in our society is much preferable to being the villain. Unless you're Charles Manson of course, cuz he gets all the wyrmyns.
One of the issues with most abusive actors is they are really poor at actually hurting people physically. They do more damage to the will and psyche.
No, Achilles, that's technique. What you said is what they want. You can't expect a young woman you are whoring out, for instance, to be successful at selling fellatio, if you have busted her lip open, let alone broken a tooth. So pimps have expertise in delivering carefully graduated quanta of violence to do exactly what you describe, terrorize the victim without decreasing her productivity. There are many ways to inflict pain without leaving a mark.
Indiana118 is in the money. This is also why I don't begrudge Ray Rice and his wife staying together. It's possible to change.
Recent genetic evidence shows that up until about 8000 years ago, the majority of women had children, but only about 1 in 18 men. You can be pretty sure those were some mean sons of bitches.
indiana118 said...
Men and women stay in abusive relationships because they don't know how to have healthy ones, and it's still less painful than being all alone.
Dated a woman 20 years back whose dad was a drunk jerk and deceased husband was a millionaire drunk jerk. She told me she was breaking up with me because I ‘didn’t treat her shitty enough.’ Read that as didn’t treat her shitty at all.
She was also depressive and bi-polar and receiving treatment.
She said: ‘I’m a mess and if you love me that means you’re REALLY a mess’.
Nope. It means YOU can’t function in a normal relationship. The sad part is at the time she was 35 and inherited $15mm.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा