Interesting. "Misogyny" means hatred, aversion to, or prejudice against women. I have none of them. I adore my two daughters and adored my wife until she walked out. So perhaps you can prove such a dramatic claim, using my own words. Remember the definition.
So Tom here are some quotes from yours and other threads and I am doing to help you see that you are playing the victim role to a "T"
You say this:
She talked about counseling for years. And, like an idiot, I was pretty dismissive. Mostly because I didn't have the time! My clients, and my bosses, would not understand if I couldn't take week-long trips because I had to sit down with a therapist on Wednesday afternoons! I did solo therapy once, during a job that didn't have big travel demands, and it did nothing for me. Nothing. I stopped after about 4 sessions.
Then you say:
For one, I think she was afraid I would talk over her, which was a legitimate concern of hers -- before the divorce filing. Yes, I was the dominant male and no doubt that is one thing that she wanted and loved at first but rebelled against after so many years. The second reason she wouldn't talk -- I'm guessing here -- is that she knows she doesn't have a good answer to why she didn't try to work things out years ago; why she didn't do the decent and proper thing and get us into counseling; why she wasn't honest and open and tell me at least once that "our marriage isn't working out."
You again act like you don't know why and here are some of your quotes:
"She is not an especially sophisticated person so talking rarely fixes things for her. I know that sounds contrary -- she wanted communication but communication didn't work so well for her -- but it's true."
"She said a few times that I treated her like she was a piece of furniture."
"Problem is, with me, my STBXW thought I was too dominant, too male, too dismissive of her thoughts."
"If you asked my ex, I expect she might say that I was emotionally abusive; I found evidence that she might have concluded such."
Now for the misogynistic quotes:
"As for the timing when I begin to date again, thanks for your perspective. I think the right approach is to start slowly, tasting a lot of the wares out there, and make good choices. There's more I could say but probably not here."
"A woman's sex drive is always strongest when she wants a man, or wants a child with a man. A woman's sex drive usually (not always) wanes after having children. Male LBS are always susceptible to this trap."
"Stay-at-home moms tend to let things go."
Look Tom we can all do better. I hope this sheds some light on what happened and how you can improve in the future.
I dislike when people are labeled. People often do it as a tactic to shut down opposition or to win an argument. Instead of labeling him a misogynist, maybe we can respond to his individual posts and propose a better way of thinking.
I haven't read all of Tom's posts, but I did read some of his recent posts. I didn't see much that would make me think he's a misogynist--more like somebody who is deeply hurt and feels betrayed. There was one that made me cringe. It was his response to scout12. It wasn't so much where he was coming from, but I think Steve had a good response.
Quote
It doesn't have to be gender specific. A husband can also change things for the benefit of his W. I think this is what you were getting at in your response to Scout. (For full disclosure, I am devoutly Christian, but unfortunately the "man is the head of the woman" belief is scoffed at in modern western societies.) The bald, Texan TV psychologist likes to say that if you want a better marriage, be a betters spouse! It takes someone that is deeply flawed (sociopath, psychopath, narcissist) to not respond positively to positive changes. So yes, being a better W can improve the marriage. Being a better H can improve the marriage.
People see the part about what a wife should do for her husband, but often forget what a husband should do for his wife. And vice versa. A husband should love his wife as he does himself, as Christ loves his Church. He must always, publicly and privately, honor his wife. He must protect her and her dignity. He must provide her spiritual leadership. And many more.
As husbands, I'm sure we've all failed our wives at some time.
"As for the timing when I begin to date again, thanks for your perspective. I think the right approach is to start slowly, tasting a lot of the wares out there, and make good choices. There's more I could say but probably not here."
"A woman's sex drive is always strongest when she wants a man, or wants a child with a man. A woman's sex drive usually (not always) wanes after having children. Male LBS are always susceptible to this trap."
"Stay-at-home moms tend to let things go."
Look Tom we can all do better. I hope this sheds some light on what happened and how you can improve in the future.
Yeah, the first one is something best left unsaid--even if there are both divorced men and women who probably feel the same way.
The mistake in the second one is speaking in absolutes.
I'm not even sure what the third one is relating to. What do they let go? I doubt stay-at-home Moms are all like-minded. Treat each person as an individual. I think Tom is guilting in labeling groups of people--which I just defended him against.
"As for the timing when I begin to date again, thanks for your perspective. I think the right approach is to start slowly, tasting a lot of the wares out there, and make good choices. There's more I could say but probably not here."
"A woman's sex drive is always strongest when she wants a man, or wants a child with a man. A woman's sex drive usually (not always) wanes after having children. Male LBS are always susceptible to this trap."
"Stay-at-home moms tend to let things go."
Look Tom we can all do better. I hope this sheds some light on what happened and how you can improve in the future.
Well, I got your Irish up and you must have spent an hour doing your homework!
You've not proven I hate women. But you've proven I have opinions, sometimes blunt ones. For that, yes, I am guilty!
For your information: Quote #1 came from a friend who separated a number of years ago, around age 55. Would you be overreacting the same way -- screaming at women "Misandry"!! -- if a cougar friend of yours talked about picking up younger men ("e.g., sampling the wares") at a pickup bar? Of course not! You'd claim she was exercising her sexual freedom. Quote #2 is my personal experience; maybe I shouldn't have generalized it but other friends made the same observation and ... sheesh, I've written a lot of words here! Quote #3 is from my own ex-spouse! She made the comment about herself and some of her friends, also SAHMs. It's common sense; the act of staying home with children, especially three of them, and managing them full-time, is a sacrificial act. You would expect people to invest less time in themselves.
Call me blunt, call me un-PC, or whatever. I use colorful language. None of that makes me hateful toward women. And I have never bowed to, or cowed to, the language police.
[P.S.: Sorry, I just stereotyped the Irish with my colorful language.]
The definition of misogyny is not only hatred and nothing but hatred towards women. Hatred, dislike OR ingrained prejudice toward women is the definition. And I can't see anyone here screaming "misogynist" at you. Ginger said she can sense misogyny and LH pointed to some misogynistic comments.
Saying you can't be that because you adore your two daughters is kind of like people who say they can't be racist because they have black friends.
Quote two is your personal experience you say and "maybe you shouldn't have generalized"? Changing that sentence to begin with would have made a difference. "My personal experience and some of my friends have been, rather than "A womans sex drive is always strongest" would make a world of difference. That's not being language police. We are not correcting you grammar here, one sentence makes sense, the other is borderline outrageous.
If one person was saying this, fine but several of us have noticed and as you say, call you out on it so as CW said, maybe time to self reflect and consider this can come across as more than just being blunt.
Me: 38 Stbxw: 35 No kids Mini bd: February 6, 2019 ONS confirmed Sept 7, 2019 Told her to move out: September 8, 2019 W moved out: September 28, 2019 Divorce filed by me: September 23, 2019
Yo Tommy I don't think you hate women, I just think you don't understand women.
You were brought up in a time when a man's only role was to provide for his family.
I bet that is how you were raised and that is how you acted in your marriage. I don't think you intentionally tried to hurt your W but my guess is she just wanted to heard and understood.
None of us were perfect spouses or we wouldn't be here unless we married sociopaths.
We are all here to learn and grow because we don't ever want to go through this again.
The definition of misogyny is not only hatred and nothing but hatred towards women. Hatred, dislike OR ingrained prejudice toward women is the definition. And I can't see anyone here screaming "misogynist" at you. Ginger said she can sense misogyny and LH pointed to some misogynistic comments.
Well, you, LH, and Ginger all said it--with you saying MANY people have pointed out his misogynist posts. Terms like "misogynist" and "racist" shouldn't be used lightly, but there are. In my day the term basically meant "sexist pig", but it was used sparingly and the target was generally a "sexist pig."
Then again, Tom's most recent post was quite combative, so maybe I should go back into hiding. I get that he may feel people are piling on though.
I hope we can all learn from each other's point of view though. Like LH said, we all live and learn.
Yo Tommy I don't think you hate women, I just think you don't understand women.
You were brought up in a time when a man's only role was to provide for his family.
I bet that is how you were raised and that is how you acted in your marriage. I don't think you intentionally tried to hurt your W but my guess is she just wanted to heard and understood.
None of us were perfect spouses or we wouldn't be here unless we married sociopaths.
We are all here to learn and grow because we don't ever want to go through this again.
Onward and upward Tommy!
I have to know, did you call him Tommy to see if you could get him riled up? Do we know he likes to be called Tommy? I know some guys named Tom who hate being called Tommy.
Yo Tommy I don't think you hate women, I just think you don't understand women.
You were brought up in a time when a man's only role was to provide for his family.
I bet that is how you were raised and that is how you acted in your marriage. I don't think you intentionally tried to hurt your W but my guess is she just wanted to heard and understood.
None of us were perfect spouses or we wouldn't be here unless we married sociopaths.
We are all here to learn and grow because we don't ever want to go through this again.
Onward and upward Tommy!
Well, LH. I don't know whether you had a change of heart of just wanted to be conciliatory for the sake of things. It doesn't really matter anyway!
Read back a bit and you'll see that I posted my 180s. That's where my head is at.
As for my sich, here it is in a nutshell. I couldn't have written this back in August when I joined DB, by the way.
Met XW in my mid 20s and were married two years later. She was attracted to me because I gave off power and confidence; I had an excellent tech education and was already in leadership roles. While my gift was that, hers was relationship. Everyone, everyone loved XW. Said she was a doll, the sweetest woman on the planet. I was fortunate to have snared her. We were very dissimilar but we complimented each other. She wanted to be a SAHM, raising children in a house with a white picket fence; I didn't need that per se but I was so smitten with her charm, her beauty, her ease with people. I was OK with it if the woman I loved wanted to be a mom full-time.
As for me? I might be technical, and excessively logical (and blunt!), but I am also a sweet tender man. [Yes, I'll convince you LH another time!] Old fashioned, too, but that mostly relates to culture, Americana, and -- yes -- vive la difference, as the French would say.
But the seeds of the failure of the marriage were probably already there. I am Mediterranean background -- romantic and sensual -- she is Scottish background, more reserved. I had thought that marriage would make her more comfortable at the romantic and sensual side, but it did the opposite. We had symptoms of a SSM within the first six months; I was too much a nice guy to make too big a deal about it -- who wants to go to counseling 6 months into a marriage when she's the sweetest girl ever? I just toughened myself up and moved on.
Time went on, years went by, and neither of us attended to essential needs. She wanted acts of service. I wanted acts of romantic, sensual love. Our marriage was very functional during many of those years. But we got by, as many many couples do, we had many good years. LH, you caught that comment about her feeling like she was part of the furniture. That's on her. Sometimes I would be dismissive of a comment she made, too much in fact, and rather than talking it through she would sulk, and hurt privately. My Italian background is such that you challenge me, don't let me get away with it, and I apologize! But she acted like she was afraid. But feeling like she is part of the furniture is on her. She had me all those years and never really figured me out!
She was pushed over the edge by some very unique stresses in my personal life that resulted in lawsuits in 2016. I beat them, after three years, yet suffered from some mild depression over those years. I retreated into my man cave a lot during that time. I did not take it out on her, ever! There were some financial stresses although we still have a net worth that would be the envy of many others. Still, the money issue terrified her.
The week before the lawsuits were dismissed she walked out. She said the stress was too great. She never said she didn't love me, but that was very evident as a few months passed. I know her ever so well; she was traumatized by the divorce filing, to be sure, but after 90 days she would have convinced herself that "I can live without him" and "I don't need him."
What could I have done better? Attend to her love languages for one, which is acts of service. Surprise her with dinner. Do the laundry early on Saturday morning before she woke up. Make the bed before she gets out of the shower. Such small acts, yet to her they would be so huge.
Isn't it funny that a couple can spend years, even decades, not attending to each other's needs yet still moving along in the marriage? That's what Michelle's DB book acknowledges, that even smart sensitive people can be so clueless, so stuck in their ways, for so long.
I suppose the only difference, in essence, is that I was in the marriage for life, she wasn't. She had to leave. I also happen to believe that our marriage was salvageable, now that I have read DB and spend four months on the forum here. But it takes two to tango and she did not want to tango with me anymore.
