Glad you're moving on with your life MrsAnonymous. I think confusion about all these issues is a clear sign that you're really recovering. Finding your own path through the shades of grey areas is the way you make your peace with this IMO.
1. Do abusers know what they are doing? Is it calculated? Do they know the impact it has?
Some will and won't care as long as they get their own ends met. These people are truly sociopathic. Most abusers, however, probably don't recognise that they are abusive IMO. They may well act in a calculated fashion (e.g. I'll show her by doing x when she does y) but they won't recognise that behaviour as abusive because in their minds their victim was at fault for doing y in the first place and x is just them putting things back as they should be. Most abusers are masters at the self-justifying perspective. Abusers are not gifted in the self-awareness department, despite often being highly intelligent in other ways. Where they are aware of the impact of their behaviour, they won't care. More likely is a self-justifying minimisation of it, because that allows them to carry on with the belief that they're in the right.
2. Do abusers ever change? Do they ever want to?
IME no. Lundy Bancroft estimates about 5% probably change long-term. What happens more often is that the abuse becomes more subtle/manipulative and much harder to call. Like any problem behaviour, the key to changing it is the recognition of it in the first place and the acceptance of personal responsibility. Both of which are necessarily absent in the psyche of a typical abuser. If they were capable of that level of awareness and responsibility, they probably wouldn't be abusive in the first place.
3. Is it abuse if both parties are happy with the dynamic? For example, a couple may adopt 'traditional' roles where the woman does housework and childcare and the man is the breadwinner. Whereas some women would find this dynamic domineering/controlling, others may be happy with it? Also, for example if the woman later changed her mind and says that she wants to work and share housework and childcare and the man reacts negatively and refuses is he being abusive? Or are they just not compatible?
Traditional is not the same as abusive. It's all about the power balance. It's perfectly possible for a SAHM for example to be a complete equal in her relationship if her partner recognises her contribution to the arrangement, considers her his equal in every way, ensures she has equal access and control over money, and recognises that she has the right - as does he - to want to alter his/her role subject to negotiation. It may be the case, for example, that the costs of a woman returning to work are prohibitive when looked at in a family income scenario, even if it is recognised that not all benefits from paid employment are financial. This is no different from a family man realising he can't give up his steady career to follow a dream if it means the family experiencing poverty. However, both partners should appreciate each other's desires and see it as a mutual goal to try to enable them where possible, even if that means upsetting a perfectly good arrangement. Everything should be considered negotiable, with no one person having the 'final word'. It may be the case that the viewpoints are not compatible, in which case each party reserves the right to leave the relationship, but a non-abusive position would be to recognise that "what we want is not compatible" not "if you do this, I'll leave" or "it's your fault this is happening".
4. Are all men potentially abusers? It's been noted that many men do not show abusive nature unless the woman becomes a) more dependent (e.g. Financially or pregnant) or b) more independent (e.g financially or socially). It's been implied on these boards that abusive men may not abuse until the woman is in situation a) as the man then feels safer to get away with it? Is it really that premeditated ?? Or does the situation put pressure on the man and we all behave less well when under pressure? Similarly in situation b) would a man be reacting badly as they are scared to lose relationship but are unable to communicate feelings? Just some of my thoughts, be interested to know other views.
Yes and no. There is no gene attached to the Y chromosome that makes men potential abusers. Rather it is a power imbalance that sows the seeds for it. Power corrupts, and that's been well known for millennia. Sadly, even good people can fall foul of it. It takes integrity, personal responsibility and self-awareness to make sure you don't; and many people don't possess those traits in the quantities required, but because men generally possess more power (as expressed through financial independence/superiority), more men than women are likely to abusers. It's no accident that as gender equality increases, the number of female abusers is too.
5. Can any medical reason explain abusive behaviour? For example depression? Or other mental health issues?
Yes, but TBH it's not as common as many abusers would like to claim. Most MH illnesses most emphatically do not manifest as abusive behaviour. Many people suffering from depression will direct any anger inwardly and become withdrawn rather than aggressive, for example. Unless a MH illness causes someone to behave completely out of character in other ways as well, I'd say that anyone citing a MH issue as a reason for their abuse is talking BS.
There are other physical illnesses that can cause aggression, but again this is rare in terms of the number of abusers affected in this way.
The root of abusive behaviour is psychological, but that's very different to saying they are pathological.
6. How many relationships out there are completely free from any abuse from either party 24/7 for their duration? When I say abuse, I mean everything on the scale, not just extreme such as physical aggression but shouting, sulking, name calling, silent treatment, lying, criticisms etc. no-one is perfect and I'm not sure how realistic it is to expect someone in a relationship to always act in a 100% appropriate?
Abuse is generally defined as a pattern of behaviour. IME there is never any excuse for violence and name calling. I have never resorted to either in my relationships. However, most people will have sulked or sniped at some point. Relationships are to some extent about tolerance and forgiveness for human frailty and being loved despite our faults. Again, it's about balance. Some faults should not qualify for tolerance (e.g. violence) and other more minor ones should only be tolerated as long as they are the exception rather than the rule. Any regular occurrence should be considered abusive, IMO.
I'm on my third LTR. One was abusive. The other two (including the one that ended in divorce and remained amicable throughout) were not. Out of the people I know, the majority are in non-abusive relationships, though some of them definitely have the potential for abuse if the man in them was inclined to manipulate the power balance. Fortunately, they are not those kinds of men. You can tell these men because they're the ones who talk about their partners in positive, equal terms.
To come back to your question about where it comes from - childhood, etc. Yes, I think childhood is often the reason for their behaviour. But trauma is not an excuse. We don't let off murderers, rapists, thieves or muggers just because they had a terrible childhood. It's fine to feel compassion for the child the abuser once was, but that's not the same as making excuses for the adult they now are. The most they can hope for is respect and support if they choose to tackle their behavioural problems themselves and make a concerted effort to beat it.
Hope you're enjoying the thread OP. Makes interesting reading.