Why sure, little lady; anything for the weaker sex. As an added bonus I'll even start with a definitive demonstration of your myopic chauvinism!
In post #350 you ask for "proof" that "wife beating...certainly wasn't anywhere near as frequent as feminists have tried to portray" without offering anything what-so-ever to support the veracity of the feminist claim.
You want him to prove something wrong that you accepted without any kind of critical review, or reference to same.
Furthermore, after the infamous "Superbowl Sunday" hoax, it is fair to conclude that women as a distinct social group are loathe to let truth stand in the way of a good story...particularly when that story allows them to vicariously cast themselves as "Cinderella."
That is "chauvinism" by definition.
Next, "blatant hyperbole," and "histrionic cliches" can both be demonstrated by you post #253. "So the only way to have a solid family...etc," is a perfect example of hyperbole. While "for women to be...like in Islam...," demonstrates histrionic cliche on the level of AOC's "concentration camp" comments.
Finally, I'll point out your willingness to "diagnose and prescribe" for HIM, based entirely on what was related by HER demonstrates a strong likelihood your identification with this story is at least partially autobiographical.
It is also clear you have absolved yourself of any wrongdoing by placing the onus to act on him, conveniently ignoring the tendency to "hold something over" an indiscrete partner is by no means a solely male tactic.
The burden of proof lies on he who makes the claim. I thought a big smart man like you knew that.
Furthermore, after the infamous "Superbowl Sunday" hoax, it is fair to conclude that women as a distinct social group are loathe to let truth stand in the way of a good story...particularly when that story allows them to vicariously cast themselves as "Cinderella."
So one untruth condemns the entire sex as liars? Does one violent rape make all men rapists? Just checking.
That is "chauvinism" by definition.
Well, I've never seen anyone more qualified than you to lecture on chauvinism, I'll admit that.
Next, "blatant hyperbole," and "histrionic cliches" can both be demonstrated by you post #253. "So the only way to have a solid family...etc," is a perfect example of hyperbole.
No, that was me trying to get another poster to clarify his stance. I said that women were financially trapped in the past, and he seemed to be saying that freeing them resulted in the destruction of the family, so I was asking him if those were the only two choices.
While "for women to be...like in Islam...," demonstrates histrionic cliche on the level of AOC's "concentration camp" comments.
No it isn't. Remember that Islam and ISIS are not quite the same. That is, all crows are birds but not all birds are crows. In most Muslim countries, women have fewer rights than men, but they aren't all as extreme as Saudi Arabia and ISIS. In Malaysia, Indonesia, UAE... even in Iran under the Shah, women's status was lesser than mens but not any worse than in Victorian England and post-Civil War America. You forget that until the 20th century, women couldn't vote, and had no laws insuring they could get credit, have bank accounts, get a university education, or be gainfully employed above the level of secretary.
Finally, I'll point out your willingness to "diagnose and prescribe" for HIM, based entirely on what was related by HER demonstrates a strong likelihood your identification with this story is at least partially autobiographical.
It is. My second husband had very little experience with women before he met me, whereas I had already been married once and was older than he, and he obsessed over my past (mild as it was, it was still a bit more extensive than his.) He was an angry fellow. His own family admitted it. Now, that was 30 years ago, but in that time I've talked to quite a few other women and I have come to the conclusion that it's pretty safe to say that a man who obsesses over a woman's past has some issues.
What's interesting to me is how upset men here on FR have gotten over me calling him "angry." I didn't call for his death, or condemn his character, I didn't call him scum, or a bastard, or anything else. I just said he was angry and BOY DID MEN GET ANGRY at me saying that. I clearly touched a major nerve. Meanwhile, men on here are tossing around words like "bitch" and "slut," ... I swear, it's been almost a caricature of what liberals think conservative men are like: foul-mouthed misogynists who judge every women who dares to open her mouth, but if you say, "Wow, you're angry" they flip out. How DARE a woman call them ANGRY.
It is also clear you have absolved yourself of any wrongdoing by placing the onus to act on him,
Well, yes, if he wants out of the relationship, he should put on his Big Boy pants and break up with her. Is that controversial? (Is any criticism of any male by a woman controversial? It seems to be.)
conveniently ignoring the tendency to "hold something over" an indiscrete partner is by no means a solely male tactic.
Oh, no, I know women remember things forever. That just wasn't the topic of the thread. I'm surprised to have to point that out to a big strong smart alpha male like you. Or is your screen name more appropriate even than mine?