Lundy Bancroft

[Mantara]

Why is he treated like some sort of demigod on this forum?

It's just 1 man's opinion. None of it is proven fact.

I don't doubt there is some truth in some of it but there's also loads of convenient , often incorrect, labelling gained from quoting him.

Lundy Bancroft isnt a lone voice speaking against everybody else. He is a highly experienced professional who has written an insightful book which is accessible to those who feel that it might be useful. It isn't lundy Bancroft against the rest of mankind.

Yep, I have brains, and I could see that lundy was describing my partner accurately. He didn't fit all the categories, and I shouldn't think that anyone does, but he fitted quite neatly into two of them.

If you've got out of a relationship you were unhappy in, then I'm pleased for you. Not all unhappy relationships are abusive, but mine was and reading lundy bancroft helped me a lot. Don't dismiss it as "just opinion " because it didn't happen to fit your circumstances exactly.

I'm still confused about why this book has made you feel so defensive and angry.

So your wife decided that you're not a man worth staying with, is it?

And you're looking for someone else to blame?

What a surprise.

Welcome to mumsnet, Mantara! What an interesting first post...

There is much more to an abuser than what a woman sees...in fact, many women don't see it..which is what makes it easy for the man to abuse

Oh & I have never seen women use his book as a stick to beat men with..interesting that you would use violent phraseology here too!

any not sure if your post was referring to mine?
I was being sarcastic to op suggesting that people just take mn or lundy without thinking.

I've found ops base point tremendously patronising which is what I was trying to convey (possibly badly). He came across to me as saying that women here just accept the lundy stuff without thinking which really annoyed me.
If I came across badly please accept my apologies. My reasoning is that if it hits a chord with women that's because there's a good chance that he's right. Not because we are somehow following the herd.
It's the second thread this week along those lines and it appears to have hit my sore points.

The last thing I'd ever want to do is suggest that someone was not thinking by accepting that lundy was right in their situation and I'm horrified if my post came across like that when I actually meant the complete opposite.

Oh I'm so sorry ninety nine, I misread while rushing out to school and thought your post was by the op no wonder I was confused! It all makes sense now. Oh dear, I didn't mean to do that to you

OP, whether you are male or female is irrelevant , POV like yours make women like me stay with abusers because society doesn't want to listen.

So you are welcome to minimise my rape, or my broken ribs, or my broken jaw or my PTSD as much as you like and you can chastise people for labelling abusers but people like Lundy Bancroft do enormous amounts more safeguarding and prevention than they do harm so long may the reign.

As long as I've not told an abused woman that she's brainless that's cool!

Can you tell that my brand of man always made me feel that I had to apologise.

The way they muck with your head is depressing isn't it? Always questioning yourself.

And people like op really are like a red rag to a bull for me these days because of all the soul searching I (and the rest of us no doubt) had to do to escape.

I don't think the OP has actually read Bancroft.

The OP just wants to stir up shit. Quite likely someone who's been kicked to the kerb by a victim. OP doesn't deserve to hear anyone's stories at all. I've read this book, at a time I needed to and it helped. Im sure its on Amazon..or somewhere similar..and underneath in the reviews/comments section are a whole heap of bitter sounding men yapping on and criticising the book. & a load of women wasting time getting into detailed arguments with people who are just there with an axe to grind. Surprise surprise.

Yes i could have googled or used wiki but its more interesting to ask on here. Thanks.

I haven't read it . I was pointed to 1 "type" and thought "well that doesn't sound like me really" Half of the things I just don't do at all, and the other half you could loosely fit any man or woman into at one time or another. Especially if they were arguing. I've not read the rest of the types and I don't agree with smacking birds, or birds smacking blokes or bullying of any sort.

I didn't once say I had a problem with him or his book, just asked a question so no need for all the furious accusations , sisters. He clearly knows his stuff.

"no need for all the furious accusations , sisters"

Spoken like someone who really knows how to talk to women who've been abused - not.

aka abusive prick with too much time on his hands snd now has to resort to bullying women online. "Furious" is arseholes who are bleating at loss of what they perceive as their "power" is victim has got away or kicked you to the kerb so...here you are.

Still...you must be deservedly feeling like a sack of shit in order to feel a pressing need to find victims by any means possible so, crack on then. I am sure satisfaction will be yours for..a little while, just think of all the sarky comments you'll be able to make, rubbing your grubby little ( I suspect big, hairy hands though) hands gleefully at "winning" again. What a fun-filled life you must lead, eh

If someone has gone to the effort of showing you the book and identifying you as an abuser maybe you should be a little more humble about it? Try reading more than a few pages and see if you have an epiphany.

Hang on....

There's two separate issues here -- the quality (or otherwise) of Lundy Bancroft's analysis, and the OP's motives in posting on it. Am I the only one who is a bit disturbed at the fact that just because the OP is questioning him it is assumed that s/he must either be an abuser or an abuse apologist?

I haven't read the book but have read enough from it to know that its obviously very well researched with brilliant analysis and clearly has helped a lot of women in abusive relationships. I think its also very important that there's a "set text" for people recovering from abuse. So nothing whatsoever against Lundy Bancroft.

But I know what the OP means, its treated almost like a bible among people who are working through, or have left, abusive relationships and I don't think that's terribly healthy. You should be able to question the book without being accused of sucking up to the enemy... intellectual freedom means nothing if you can't challenge the dominant view, whatever that view is...

I just think it would be good if there were more voices on this subject.

My concern is that bancroft does not have any qualifications in psychology or psychiatry, and given the nature of his work that is a significant flaw.

I also do not agree with him when he states alcohol/substance abuse, childhood trauma and mental Illness are nt factors, my experience is to the contrary.

As he does not cite footnotes it's hard to tell how well researched his work is, and his dismissal of the work of others in the field who disagree with him is arrogant.

He does not explore why some people are attracted to abusers, which is a surprising omission in his work.

The OP makes a fair point about his uncritical reception, is something cult like about his following.

Hmm. Call me cynical, but suspect the OP isn't coming from a completely objective standpoint here.
And let's face it , no abuser when presented with the book is going to have an epiphany and say "yeah, you know what, that sounds just like me".

I'm interested to see examples of people who work in the same field who disagree with him, what aspects they disagree with and so on.

I have seen posters (notably CES) express reservations about Bancroft. So I don't buy into OP's hypothesis that there is a unified view. Or that it's handmaidenly.

OP: if you think that the advice you see is wrong, you need to take it up on the thread and post the advice you think is going to be more helpful

I've posted that in quite a few threads recently, all of which like this TAAT are taking issue with (unspecified) Things That Are Wrong.

He can't question the book newname. He hasn't read it!

Op, when you refer to 'smacking birds' do you mean women? I pity the women in your life if that is your attitude.

What Bancroft does so well, IMO, is not accept any excuses for abusive behaviour and neither does he put any blame on the victims of it

Newname, someone has indeed identified the OP as an abuser - the op has told us this. sounds like his P or XP has done this.

My abusive XP would say pretty much the same as the OP is talking about. He is willingly blinded by his ignorance. He also wants to stay in the dark re his abusive behaviour.

Exactly AF

Yes at 'birds'

I don't know if you know this OP but abuse is about a lot more than smacking.

Northernparent I agree with your criticisms of the book and was about to come on and say the same things. I recently wrote a masters dissertation on abuse and did not find Lundys book academic enough to be useful, although it is more accessible than some. M-F Hirigoyen's Stalking the Soul: Emotional abuse and the erosion of identity and TM Loring's Emotional Abuse: The trauma and treatment are both much better in this way but written by and for therapists (Hirigoyen is a psychoanalyst) so not so good for the layman maybe.

I am putting together some training around emotional abuse and I won't be referencing Lundy as I just think it comes across as a bit lightweight. That's not to say I wouldn't recommend it to clients though, I do. Just doesn't have many academic credentials, imho.

I was pointed to 1 "type" and thought "well that doesn't sound like me really" Half of the things I just don't do at all, and the other half you could loosely fit any man or woman into at one time or another.

So, you're utterly open to examining your own behaviour and your own responsibility, without looking for excuses, then, Mantara.

That's nice.