What makes men angry with women?

[Italiangreyhound]

What makes men angry with women?

Is this article of any interest? Does it offer any incites?

goodmenproject.com/featured-content/hidden-reason-men-angry-women-over-nothing-chwm/

Thanks in advance if anyone reads it.

“IN ONE IMPORTANT WAY, an abusive man works like a magician: His tricks largely rely on getting you to look off in the wrong direction, distracting your attention so that you won’t notice where the real action is. He draws you into focusing on the turbulent world of his feelings to keep your eyes turned away from the true cause of his abusiveness, which lies in how he thinks. He leads you into a convoluted maze, making your relationship with him a labyrinth of twists and turns. He wants you to puzzle over him, to try to figure him out, as though he were a wonderful but broken machine for which you need only to find and fix the malfunctioning parts to bring it roaring to its full potential. His desire, though he may not admit it even to himself, is that you wrack your brain in this way so that you won’t notice the patterns and logic of his behavior, the consciousness behind the craziness.”
― Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men

It came to me that the premise of the post is the guy (men) is(are) angry - that's incorrect according to Lundy B so I thought a few quotes may assist.

These abusers con us into thinking they are angry and thus there must be a legitimate reason for that anger. Both are incorrect. They are not angry but entitled. It's not his feelings that are at fault but his thinking that is disordered - though he will always deny that and deflect us into thinking we have done something to cause his reaction.

This thread has made me think of two separate things I read many many years ago, so apologies as I won't be able to link and may even have misremembered!

The first was reading The Accent of Woman when I was around 18. The part that always stayed with me was when she talked about being upright and sex. Her argument was that being upright meant that we had to change position for sex to face to face. This meant that the men who worked this out and forced women into their backs were more successful in producing offspring and thus violence and sex became linked in a way that it isn't for other animals. Having read what others have written I wonder if there is an innate knowing in men that this is wrong and they are constantly being presented with this conflict. And of course it's often easier to lash out than accept one's own pain, and this is compounded when society is set up to justify your position. Women have force them into this position, therefore they deserve the blame.

The other interesting study was that social structures in rats break down well before resources such as food are threatened and the thinking about that seemed to be that space was actually very important. Once the rats became too crowded they exhibit violent behaviours towards each other including rape.

I wonder who said that? It sounds like something a man who would say to get laid!

Ah. Well.

This is what I was talking about earlier and other posters have raised.

So on one hand you have the testosterone and all the aggression that accompanies that. The biological prehistoric stuff.

On the other?

The points I mentioned about male vulnerability and social structures.

Men DO NOT ever want to be perceived as weak due to the hierarchical nature of male groups and the way they think they have to be a man in society.

This is exhausting to keep that front up all the time. It's an exhausting way to have to be. Never show weakness. Be a hero. Be a winner. Get the girl. Be a 'man'. Don't fail. Don't let anyone walk all over you.

Only they are human. And flawed. And weak, actually. Very weak. And insecure.

Women are much stronger in all ways.

As soon as a man doesn't feel he has to impress you; because the biological prehistoric urges have been neutralized, you see a different side to them. They cry, they feel pain, they get hurt. Only they express this via anger most usually, as it's an acceptable emotion for a man. As is violence. Because that's preferable to crying ie showijg weakness. It's a toxic cocktail.

Little boys don't suddenly stop feeling hurt when they fall over just because they are now 6 foot and 25 years old. Or get hurt by someone saying something they don't like. It's just hidden rather than overt.

Complex and simple at the same time.

I sound like I am sticking up for men. I'm really not.

I think alot of their issues are of their own making and they won't change. On the other, if you can't see you need to change or how to change, it's hard. Only it's women and society that suffer in the long run and so my sympathy died a long time ago.

I like to try and understand it I suppose. Why they act like they do.

But no, it's not successful in evolutionary terms. Hence my points about men being in big trouble. They are. It won't be in my lifetime but as time progresses and the world changes more and more; their way of being will be less and less needed. This is why there are so many male suicides. A crises of male identity is in full swing right now. I don't know what the answer is.

**I agree, however it's not a description of my reality. He perceived himself as alpha but wouldn't have sex, was massively disinterested in my welfare, in letting me be me.

I wonder what affected him? I wasted so many years, putting myself through counseling, tying myself in knots over how to behave and support him.**

My money would be on performance anxiety.

Sorry, I've not read all posts but here's my theory.

All male violence stems from the need to be the alpha male. Being the alpha male means fighting off other males, yes, but it also means having as many females in your group as possible and being able to father as many offspring as possible.

The most physically strong male tends to be the one who 'succeeds ' here.

In certain civilisations it is still the norm for men to have many wives and mistresses.

womanformallyknownaswoman that posted quote about he dorsn't have a problem with his anger- amazing.

And "And he will keep feeling that you are controlling him, because he doesn’t believe that you should set any limits on his conduct or insist that he meet his responsibilities"

Very chilling.

I wonder why women stay so long in abusive relationships ( I am not asking in a judgmental way, just in a what is the thought pattern).

I guess it is fear, necessity etc but I wonder if it is also optimism; I can change him.

I wrote what I just wrote before I read this...

'He wants you to puzzle over him, to try to figure him out, as though he were a wonderful but broken machine for which you need only to find and fix the malfunctioning parts to bring it roaring to its full potential.'

That does fit with 'I can fix him' mentality.

I've just finished rtft. So many interesting and insightful comments here. All far more insightful than the psychoanalysis in the original article ime. I am not at all convinced by psychoanalysis. It is neither scientific nor 'rings true' for me.
One thing I have noted is that a lot of responses are mainly considering mysogynistic hatred with regard to actual or potential sexual partners. But in my experience mysogynists also direct their venom at old women and sisters, for example; people who would never be sexual partners.

I also agree with others that any explanation needs to take into account the timeless nature of these behaviours and also the fact that male violence against women is worse in less equal societies so cannot be seen as any kind of reaction to the development of women's rights per se.

So here's my take on it; I agree with those who say it is about entitlement.

Inequality is the fundamental cause, combined with a kind of natural law that tells us all that inequality between human beings is wrong.

The deficit in empathy arises from inequality. Rich white people also had an empathy deficit for their black slaves (both men and women).

Inequality of human beings (in the sense where some are deemed more human than others) is morally wrong but men and white people benefit from it. Many react to that combination of facts with a mixture of shame, contempt, anger etc.

If testosterone was the cause the issue would not be so widespread and more women would behave the same. Family attitudes are a much more powerful predictor of male aggression than testosterone levels. Testosterone levels also rise when people are afraid (both men and women) so we may be getting cause and effect the wrong way round with that argument.

womanformallyknownaswoman your post are brilliant and I think true of abusive men.

I personally think most men are not abusive but I do think most men seem, on some level, to be angry with women in some way that women are not angry with men.

secretskillrelationships do you mean men stopped having sex face to face or started doing it?

I don't think the anger is innate.

'Once the rats became too crowded they exhibit violent behaviours towards each other including rape.' That's horrible. But dors make sense, control eith limited resources and space, how horrible. I wonder if they did any experiments eith female rats only?

AngryAttackKittens

From the NYT article.

(“It isn’t actually about sex, it’s about power,” I read in The Guardian the other day. How naïve must you be not to understand that sex itself is about power every bit as much as it’s about pleasure?)

For women it's not though, ime. So even the author who on the face of it is trying to grapple with the problems with masculinity has totally failed to recognize that women possess subjectivity and that if a man wants to know how sex works for us maybe he should ask us, rather than projecting his own pathology onto us.

Yes yes all to the yes

He has not seen us as people
He has not asked
He has assumed he can speak for women, that he knows how we think and feel
He does not

This is a massive issue and combined with the fact that men automatically support each other, is why our testimony is worth next to nothing.

'Men DO NOT ever want to be perceived as weak due to the hierarchical nature of male groups and the way they think they have to be a man in society'

Now this feel a bit more like a part I want to explore. It's about how men interact that might make them angry. But it is not safe to be angry with other men. So they are angry with women.

I know some men abuse women and all the bits on here about men's abuse are true and sad and infuriating and heartbreaking. But it is the flawed, weak average male that I want to understand.

'This is exhausting to keep that front up all the time. It's an exhausting way to have to be. Never show weakness. Be a hero. Be a winner. Get the girl. Be a 'man'. Don't fail. Don't let anyone walk all over you.'

I can see that would be exhausting. Do all men really feel that imperative? Gay men? Old men? Academics? Geeks?

'Only they are human. And flawed. And weak, actually. Very weak. And insecure.' Again I wonder. There is a theory about bullies being insecure etc, but I question question that.

'Women are much stronger in all ways.' Again I disagree. I hope you don't mind? ( my female socialization makes me ask)

I do not think women as a sex class have more physical strength/resilience etc than men. I don't know whether academically they are better, or would be if not held back.

But I do think they are better at emotional intelligence. Is this innate, because we bare offspring, or is it learned because this was the only main 'arena' left to us?

'As soon as a man doesn't feel he has to impress you; because the biological prehistoric urges have been neutralized, you see a different side to them.'

When does that prehistoric urge get neutralized?

'Little boys don't suddenly stop feeling hurt when they fall over just because they are now 6 foot and 25 years old. Or get hurt by someone saying something they don't like. It's just hidden rather than overt.'

Totally agree! Yay!!

'I think alot of their issues are of their own making...'

Yes, as a sex class.

'... and they won't change.'

I am an optimist. I hope for change.

Patriarchy hurts men too, when they understand they might start to dismantle.

'But no, it's not successful in evolutionary terms. Hence my points about men being in big trouble. They are. It won't be in my lifetime but as time progresses and the world changes more and more; their way of being will be less and less needed. This is why there are so many male suicides. A crises of male identity is in full swing right now. I don't know what the answer is.'

I totally agree.

mellongoose 'In certain civilisations it is still the norm for men to have many wives and mistresses.'

Maybe, but how do you know that's not just about wanting lots of sex?

SarahCarer

'One thing I have noted is that a lot of responses are mainly considering mysogynistic hatred with regard to actual or potential sexual partners. But in my experience mysogynists also direct their venom at old women and sisters, for example; people who would never be sexual partners'

I do agree. I think the having sex angle is over played verses the simply being the sex you are!

And thank you for reading the thread.

I link to what people say because I find it hard to read a thread where it just says o agreed with pastyface etc! But I recognise my linking makes it lo her! So well done!

100% agree it is not a reaction to women's rights. Some men throw acid at women in societies where the women have no rights! So tgis is not some reaction to women's lib!

'Testosterone levels also rise when people are afraid (both men and women) so we may be getting cause and effect the wrong way round with that argument'

Very interesting points.

And if it were all down to hormones - why have we as a society not figured out a way to temporarily 'mute' hormones? I don't think it is testosterone yo blame.

makes it longer

Thank you all for all comments.

Does anyone have any links about specifically male or female anger, or human anger? I know anger can lead to abuse but it is really the anger I am keen to explore.

The anger is that of a spoiled child whose toy isn't doing what it's supposed to

IME

On the some cultures multiple wives thing

In many countries child marriage is practiced, including (shockingly) USA (some christian communities), and in the UK we as women who were girls are well aware that girls are seen as "fair game" from teh moment they start getting visible breasts and many many men are very very interested in girls this age (10-16 say).

It is actually not biologically beneficial to impregnante girls this young >> the risks for both the mother and baby are much higher because her body is not fully developed. Also, interestingly, the vaginal biome in a developed woman gives her a certain amount of protection from STDs (not saying to stop using condoms!) while in younger girls they don't have this.

So, not biologically sensible. Your sex partner can become sick, die, lose pregnacies, baby dies etc etc all not good if it's about a biological drive to impregnate.

Something else is going on. What that is >> and again women have been saying this forever but men simply do not listen / aren't interested >> is that younger girls are far more easy to control than fully grown ones. A 13yo is way easier to manipulate, control, coerce, and is far more likely to look at you with stars in their eyes even if you're a total bastard. Far easier than a 20yo say (although obviously women get controlled etc at all ages, girls are particularly vulnerable). They are also physically smaller at that age >> not finished growing up or out.

So, men's desire to control and coerce and manipulate women, their desire to have one as a posession that will do what they are told etc, outweighs their desire to have a partner who is likely to survive childbirth / have live babies,

Now, that is quite something.

many pointers around something having gone wonky.

Is it the rat thing? We are overcrowded. As a species we have no need to have more children. We are very very safe. Has this led to disruption in the expected biological urges?

Are people in less crowded places less likely to try to get underage girls as partners (outside the family >> csa inside the family is not what I'm talking about) / want women as possessions / beat them to death the whole time?

"So, not biologically sensible. Your sex partner can become sick, die, lose pregnacies, baby dies etc etc all not good if it's about a biological drive to impregnate. "

Reproduce rather. Successful reproduction.
Just impregnating and then killing everyone you got pregnant for eg would not be a successful strategy for passing on genes.

Because some of them are entitled bastard. Does it have to be more complicated than that?

The anger is that of a spoiled child whose toy isn't doing what it's supposed to

Yes. Generation after generation of men, going back thousands of years, with each generation teaching the next that women are things created for their use, and the new generation becoming newly enraged when it discovers that instead women are people. At which point they then attempt to remove our status as people in order to force us to be useful toys/tools.

Really interesting discussion, lots of good insights. A couple points:

I think NothingonTelly may be on to something with regard to overcrowding/dysfunction. We now know that environment has a big effect on what genes are switched on or off in developing humans. This is one reason why the idea that we are "hard-wired" to do things by our genome is too crude. Genes have an influence, but are by no means the entire picture.

Also, issues like "why would a man kill endanger his pregnant partner" need to be looked at, IMO, through a realisation that evolution doesn't rule out disfunctions at the margins of the population. A small percentage of disordered individuals may be driven by conflicting drives to do things that harm their personal chances of reproducing, but as long as those drives "work", evolutionarily speaking, for the majority, they will continue to be replicated.

mellongoose 'In certain civilisations it is still the norm for men to have many wives and mistresses.'

Maybe, but how do you know that's not just about wanting lots of sex?

But the thing is that, for evolution to work, it doesn't have to be about anything else than just wanting lots of sex. If 'wanting lots of sex' leads to a male having more surviving children than 'not wanting lots of sex', then over long evolutionary time-scales, the genetic trait of 'wanting lots of sex' will be the one that is more successfully and frequently passed on to offspring, and will become more and more common and eventually become the norm.

Because until 50 years ago or so, "wanting (and getting) lots of sex" and "having lots of children" were pretty much inseparable things. The second was an inevitable consequence of the first. Because no birth control. So all you needed, from an evolutionary point of view, was for men to want lots of sex (and be able to get at least some).

Which is presumably why there are now plenty of men who are happy not to have any children at all - but very few who are happy about not having lots of sex.

NothingOnTellyAgain there are men interesed in under age girls but 10-16 (being mostly under age).

I do not believe this is most men.

And I find the collation of anger with paedophiles unhelpful.

Many men seem to experience anger towards womem but they are not all pedophiles and do not all act on that anger.

I'm thinking personally of the average man.

bluetrampolines 'Because some of them are entitled bastard. Does it have to be more complicated than that?'

To me that does not explain anger when for millennium, and still today across the world, men get to 'indulge' their entitlement.

kesstrel 'But the thing is that, for evolution to work, it doesn't have to be about anything else than just wanting lots of sex. If 'wanting lots of sex' leads to a male having more surviving children than 'not wanting lots of sex', then over long evolutionary time-scales, the genetic trait of 'wanting lots of sex' will be the one that is more successfully and frequently passed on to offspring, and will become more and more common and eventually become the norm. '

But what has that to do with anger?

I'm not disputing men eamtong sex leads to a spread of human race, woman wanting it as much less to it further. And yes it has 'evolved' but I don't necessarily see it as a part of the evolution of the species the way we evolved opposable thumbs.

If you liked lots of sex and did the mating dance animals did and got lots of sex and the species grew, why the need for anger? It seems a lot of arguments that are contradictory are conflated to explain men's anger backwards from men's abuse. Thsy might be right, but it might be only part of the story.

eamtong ???? Wanting