550. The Irrationality Of Diatribes In Personal Interactions

550.   The Irrationality Of Diatribes In Personal Interactions

Whenever I am the recipient of a diatribe or angry rant, I am puzzled about why people bother to approach me in this way, even though this is not a method to gain anything.   The last good example is a comment to entry 549.   

http://dictionary.reference.com

Diatribe
noun:  a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism:
Rant
noun:  ranting, extravagant, or violent declamation.
noun:  a ranting utterance.

The following is not about the benefits of people sharing the same grievances against any third party while being in harmony with each other, nor is it about someone finding relief by telling grievances to a sympathetic friend.   Many important social and political movements have been initiated by a few justified diatribes. 

It is about the irrationality of sending me diatribes by email or blog comments.    Such diatribes are as irrational as is the man's behavior in Watzlawick's story:

A man wants to hang a painting. He has the nail, but not the hammer. Therefore it occurs to him to go over to the neighbor and ask him to lend him his hammer. But at this point, doubt sets in. What if he doesn’t want to lend me the hammer? Yesterday he barely spoke to me. Maybe he was in a hurry. Or, perhaps, he holds something against me. But why? I didn’t do anything to him. If he would ask me to lend him something, I would, at once. How can he refuse to lend me his hammer? People like him make other people’s life miserable. Worst, he thinks that I need him because he has a hammer. This is got to stop ! And suddenly the guy runs to the neighbor’s door, rings, and before letting him say anything, he screams: “You can keep your hammer, you bastard.” (Paul Watzlawick, “The Situation Is Hopeless But Not Serious: The Pursuit of Unhappiness”)

There are many reasons, why any man and I are not suitable to have any beneficial contact.   The rational reaction of such a man is to zap without wasting any further thoughts on me, when while reading this blog or my profile on a matchmaking site he notices such reasons.
In the case of doubt, a friendly question invites a friendly clarification.    Any provocation on my part is not intended and it is no invitation to hostile arguments.    There is no rational reason to express anger by attacking me with diatribes.  

The irrationality of sending diatribes indicates, that the sender has some problems, concerning both the cause of his anger and his hostility when coping with it:

1.  Entitlement and grandiosity delusion. 
A man feels entitled to get anything and this is justified for him by nothing more than his wish to have it and/or he believes himself to be god's gift to women, who cannot have a valid reason to reject him.    Therefore he considers the choice of a partner only justified by his own selection or rejection. Being rejected is not acceptable to him.   Even anticipated rejection due to my clearly expressed criteria is for such a man a reason to be angry.   A woman's disagreement with his grandiosity is also a reason to be angry. 
2.  Displaced anger.   Something in my text triggers anger, which is caused by his own experiences and has nothing to do with my person.   This something can be either a provocation by any real attribute of mine or it can be something misunderstood and misinterpreted.   

3.  Paradoxical coping with the anger.   The devaluation of what is not available as in the fable of the fox and the sour grapes are a valid coping strategy as part of realistic resignation.    Attacking someone with the declarations of devaluation by email is absurd.    

When people write emails, they enhance the probability of getting a reply by showing as much appreciation for the recipient as they can do sincerely.   In the case of intended manipulation, appreciation is insincerely exaggerated.   

An email of devaluations is supplying the recipient with reasons not to reply and not to communicate.   Therefore there is no reason to ever bother to write devaluing emails, while not writing has the same effect without wasting time.  


The diatribe comment on entry 549 gives examples.   His (assuming the commenter to be a man) attacks me for being German.   This indicates displaced anger about Germany or German culture or maybe some German individual.   Now he attacks me for being German in spite of my explicit declaration of not identifying with being German.

I cannot know his level of formal education.   But his attack on my valuing a university degree makes it obvious, that he has none but does not accept this as a reason to be not suitable for me.  

He calls me 'dogmatic, unscientific, irrational, dictating, intolerant, sexist, emotional, arrogant'.   These being obviously all unacceptable attributes in his opinion, I can fully agree with him that any woman, whom he subjectively perceives as having such attributes, is not suitable for him, no matter who and how she really is.   I have no problem with being perceived as not suitable by an unknown commenter.   But his bothering to write a comment, which forfeits any communication, is weird.  


Expressing and sending a diatribe is a distorted method of counterproductive communication.    Constructive communication motivates the recipient to reciprocate an interaction perceived as beneficial.   Diatribes create antipathy for the hostile sender, who presents himself as someone to be avoided, not as someone to interact with.    Everybody writing and sending diatribes just wastes his own time and gains nothing.  

1.  One possible interpretation of diatribes is to see them as related to real life bullying.    

Based upon his physical strength, a man can sometimes succeed to get his will by intimidation.  A woman cringing under outbursts of anger does not dare to resist.   The woman suffers and is driven away by this bullying.    

Men with long term thinking and wisdom learn, that bullying gets them nowhere and nothing.   But when they are only learning short term direct effects, they are mislead to learn, that expressing anger is a successful method to get their will.    Bullies misinterpret the success of their outburst of anger as if this were a method of influencing the victim's thinking.   They mistake enforced apparent acquiescence with agreement and they believe in their power to obtain agreement by expressing anger.         

As a result of this distorted learning these men are oblivious of the limited reach of the weapon of anger.   Anger and aggression only work in direct contact, when the intimidation triggers spontaneous fear, elicited not in accordance with the probability of a physical attack but by the mere possibility.    

Therefore expressing anger at the target by email is the futile attempt of distance bullying.    Due to not eliciting fear, this does not work.   Diatribes are the consequence of a man's overestimation of the power of his anger without physical intimidation.   

2.  Diatribes are an indication of an asymmetrical attitude to women and of the intention and purpose of a relationship for getting advantages by commodification.   A man pursuing a symmetrical relationship appreciates the information of any woman's needs and preferences for his own evaluation of possible symmetry.   Finding out that he cannot give her, what she needs, is not a reason to get angry and even less to send a diatribe.   For him it is a reason to accept incompatibility.  

532. Bullying And Commodification Are Two Sides Of The Same Coin

532.   Bullying And Commodification Are Two Sides Of The Same Coin  

The words commodification and objectification have two meanings, as the attitude with the mere potential to harm and as a behavior with a harmed target.   The step from the attitude to the behavior is accomplished by bullying.   Therefore bullying and commodification are two sides of the same coin.   They reinforce, enhance and enable each other.

Commodification leads to bullying, bullying is an indication of the attitude of commodification. 

Bullying is a method to take, what is not available without coercion.   Commodification is the attitude of subjective asymmetrical entitlement to more than what is appropriate from the victim's perspective.       
Bullying enables the behavioral commodification by onesided decision.  Successful behavioral commodification of a disagreeing victims requires bullying.  

Men's subjective entitlement to commodify women is merely a preposterous and delusional attitude of pathetic jerks, as long as women are able to avoid being mistreated and abused by them.   Even though there are specific situations of women's self-commodification when breeding, generally speaking women in their right mind do not consciously agree to be commodified.   Instead they resist and refuse compliance and acquiescence, as long as they are under no restrictions to do so.    But unfortunately, disagreement with outrageous attitudes is not a sufficient protection against such attitudes being imposed by asymmetrical power. 

When a man only wants, wishes and expects from a woman, what is fair, just and appropriate, he often gets it without even asking.    Else asking or rationally convincing are usually sufficient methods.   Bullying is not an options.   When the own needs are not met in a relationship without coercion, this does not justify bullying, it is an indication of a mismatch.  

Bullying in a relationship is an asymmetrical method for the purpose of getting benefits from the partner, who does not agree to owe these benefits.   A bully takes advantage of whatever power is available to him.   The average man is so much stronger than the average woman, that he is able to beat her up and kill her without a weapon.   Therefore any display of anger, rage, aggression appears as a threat, which is strong enough to trigger many women's spontaneous fear and cringing, even without the experience of having been beaten.   
Additionally to bullying, there is also sometimes the advantage of asymmetrical situational power, when one of two conflicting goals is easier to enforce then the other.   When one wants to leave and the other wants him to stay, the one leaving has the power to do so, the other has no means to hold him back.  
 

Women cannot be rationally convinced of the acceptability of being commodified by men.  But in spite of the impossibility to rationally justify the commodification of women, bullying bears the tragic consequence of misleading men to misinterpret the bullied women's alleged outward acquiescence and compliance as if it were agreement.   
This is the cause of an unfortunate vicious spiral:   Immature and selfish men start their interaction with females during puberty already with the delusion of being entitled to onesided benefits from objectified and commodified women.  They are reinforced by the social norm of the ubiquitous oversexation of every day life.   They feel entitled to get the benefits by hook or by crook, and thus they bully women considering this as a legitimate method.    Under the entitlement delusion, any absence of resistance, any resignation or external helpless compliance is misinterpreted as agreement.   

The more often their bullying is successful, the more their delusion gets worse.   They not only expect the victims' agreement with being commodified, but they also take the alleged agreement for granted and for justified.  


Subjectively for a man, bullying is as much or as little justified as is commodification.   This has also another implication:   When for a man bullying is a principally justified behavior, having become a regular habit, he is prone to use it not only in situations, when he really otherwise would not get what he wants.   He is also prone to bully, when he only wrongly believes this to be the only method available, even though in reality he just has not been patient or outspoken and explicit enough to enable the woman to do, what she is motivated to do.   

Therefore any bullying is also a clear indication of an attitude of commodification, when this attitude has not yet been discovered, because it is incongruent with the man's verbally claimed attitude towards women.

Bullying is a clear expression of depreciation and disrespect for her person, even when the man claims verbally his wish for an equal partner.    An egalitarian man does not bully, a bully is not an egalitarian.    

Being bullied by a man is harmful for a woman on two levels.  A bullied woman suffers from being denied the reciprocal bonding and commitment and from being denied her dignity as an equal person.  


But bullying is only a successful strategy for those jerks, who are satisfied by the short-term commodification, when the abused woman is discarded and replaced, before she has been bullied beyond her endurance into dysfunctionality.    

Whenever a man prefers the benefits of the long-term commodification of the same woman, his bullying impedes his own intentions.  The immediate success of his bullying seems to reward him.   This reinforces the bullying.   

But he is mistaken to think that all is well, only because he experiences it as well for himself.   He is oblivious, that all apparent submission of the woman is only her helpless and powerless lack of resistance on the outside.   On the inside, there is no alleged recognition of his entitlement, on the contrary, her hidden grudges grow with every instance of being bullied.   

She experiences as transgressions, what he believes to be his entitlement.    Every additional such transgressions damages her trust and her feelings for him a bit more. 

  

His greed to get too many benefits by commodifying her leads him to be left in the end with nothing after he has bullied her away by bullying her once too often.   

338. Consequencity

Consequencity

 
Sometimes the existence or absence of a word with a specific meaning in different languages is an indication of possible cultural differences.  

The words 'consequence' in English and 'Konsequenz' in German are a good example.    Only in German the word has a second meaning, that describes a personality trait.    According to a German definition, this second meaning could roughly be translated as tenacity, pertinacity, inveteracy.   But this is not a sufficient definition of this trait, which from now on I will call consequencity.   I found this word only four times in Google, with no clear meaning or definition.   Therefore I have hijacked this word and I will use it henceforth.

Consequencity is a significant part of my personality.   Sometimes I am mistaken for being stubborn or obstinate, but this is not the case, because I am always open and even motivated to being convinced by the input of information.

Rationality and logic are a method of problem solving and deciding.    Consequencity takes this one step further to also acting and behaving based upon rationality and logic.    The essence of rationality and consequencity is the collecting and evaluating of all available external and internal information, the entire combination of facts, evidence, introspection, memorized experience as the premises, and then not only drawing logical conclusions, but also sticking to them, until the premises change.   Only altered premises are a valid justification to change the decision and the behavior.    Consequencity means, that behavior will be changed only as a result of changed premises, but not under irrational and haphazard influences.  Consequencity is behavioral consistency with a conclusion, as long as the conclusion is valid.   

One example is nagging.   Many people give in to nagging and do, what they do not want to do, to stop being annoyed, pressured and stressed.    The nagging person learns, that nagging is successful and uses it more and more often.   
For a person with consequencity, if a 'no' is a 'no' the first time, then it remains a 'no' and nagging is futile.   Only if the other person supplies convincing input to change the premises, this can lead to a reevaluation of the issue and a possible change towards a 'yes'.    

Domination by the method of bullying a disagreeing target is another example.    

A relationship between a person with strong consequencity and someone, who due to his entitlement delusion expects beyond doubt to get everything he wants by merely expressing a demand is a very toxic constellation.   He feels entitled to use aggression, pressure and intimidation, when his demands are not immediately followed by compliance.   Most victims of a bully give in to get temporary relief, thus they reinforce the bully to use intimidation more and more frequently.   The price for short term relief is long-term enhancement of their own plight.   
The person with consequencity refuses to yield to being bullied, s/he will not comply with demands, unless and until the demand is justified by shared convincing premises.   In a relationship, this means it to be inside the framework of a fair balance of giving and receiving and the agreements from the relationship deal.    Resisting the bully is achieved at very high emotional costs.  Being the target of anger and rage and persisting intimidation drains and exhausts anybody to the limits of endurance.      If the bully has already learned elsewhere, how successful intimidation can be, then he will not easily stop this method.
Being bullied and dominated is the highway to devastation.  The more a woman is submissive and conciliatory, the more this prolongs the process, while consequencity accelerates it and the limit of endurance is reached faster.   


To sum it up:  If someone wants to influence the behavior of a person with strong consequencity, there is only one successful method.   It is to give a compellingly valid reason to do it.   While it is easy to refuse anything irrational, it is difficult to resist stringently convincing reasons. The behavior of a person with consequencity can only be influenced by constructive communication or else at the point of a gun.   

I am willing to give people, what is fair, I have compassion for people's needs, I am willing to consider and to comply with wishes and suggestions, when I am honored with convincing reasons.  But if someone attempts irrational methods of coercion or manipulation, then they get nothing from me except repugnance.    Anybody, who wants or needs to dominate, should keep away from me, as the catastrophe would be unavoidable.  

295. Intrinsic Commitment and Emotions

Intrinsic Commitment and Emotions

A viable relationship has to be a fair balance of giving and receiving, according to the relationship deal.     I can only last, if both partners feel satisfied with the relationship.    

Entries 262 and 98 are about the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic commitment.   But there are some more differnces:

• How the satisfaction with the relationship is measured.
• If and how information about satisfaction or dissatisfaction is conveyed and shared.
• How a partner handles dissatisfaction.   

Extrinsic commitment is based upon the balance of material and practical benefits and services.   In extrensic commitment, the compliance of the deal or the dissatisfaction of the failure thereof can easily be claimed and evaluated.     If a man demands a  specific service or benefit from the woman, no matter if by agreement or by his entitlement delusion, it is easy to specify and to blame her for what he did not get.    

A man, who considers the woman as a commodity, has the power to bully her to do and to comply with what he wants.    Bullying it the man's method to deal with his dissatisfaction, that the woman does not agree to be a commodity.   She has only the power to leave, and that is, where his power ends. 
Bullying as a love killer (entry 294) therefore only happens, when the bonding-disabled man establishes extrinsic commitment.    Bullying happens, when either the woman wants intrinsic commitment or accepts extrinsic commitment, but as a fair deal and not as his commodity.  

The man remains ignorant, that the woman's dissatisfaction is caused by the imposed role of a commodity, he is deaf to her complaints and blames her dissatisfaction instead upon her alleged flaws.    Bullies are unable to trust, that makes them such a hazard.   The man does not trust the woman, he never believes any of her statements about her feelings, he cannot be influenced to alter his using her as a commodity.  When she tells him, how much a specific behavior is hurting, he believes, that this behavior cannot hurt anybody, because it is his entitlement.   He attributes her feeling hurt as her own flaw and continues his hurting behavior.   Her pain accumulates, until the relationship has no more value for her and she leaves.  


Intrinsic commitment is about emotions, the relationship deal is giving each other the feelings of wellbeing in a safe haven. Nothing can be gained by power.   A man can never bully a woman to love him.   If he wants to be loved and his wellbeing to be cared for, he can win her good will only by treating her the way she needs and wants to be treated.   

The conscious measurement of satisfaction with the relationship is the perception of pleasant and unpleasant emotions elicited by the partner.   While extreme emotions are usually visible, more moderate emotions are often not visible on the outside, but have nevertheless a significant impact upon a person's general wellbeing.   This impact can accumulate.   A person can feel either content and happy or hurt most of the time, but this can be hidden from the awareness of the person causing these emotions.    Therefore sincere communication about the true innermost feelings is the only way to find out with certainly, if the partner is satisfied with the relationship.   This means to ask, to listen and to trust, that the other tells the truth.  

Each partner evaluates the relationship very subjectively by what he feels.  These emotions are real and valid, they are the true measurement of the quality of the relationship, because the only purpose of intrinsic commitment is to be more happy and less unhappy than alone.   The partners can compare notes about the dynamics of their behavior, but the emotional reactions are subjective.   People can react very differently to the same experience.   What is extremely painful for one person can be of no significance to another.    In this case, the subjective experience has validity, no matter, if the cause of the experience has empathy, understanding and insight or not.  
Therefore intrinsic commitment requires absolute trust in the truth of the other's declarations of how he feels, and it requires taking everything said for serious and at face value.    It requires to ask and show interest in the emotional reactions of the other as a result of the own behavior.   Intrinsic commitment is the never ending endavor of making each other perceive the relationship as emotionally beneficial.   

Whenever a woman tells a man, that she feels hurt because of a specific behavior of his, he knows that he needs to change the behavior.   If he continues his hurting behavior and she reaches the point of feeling more hurt than happy, then the relationship has become worthless for her, and she has no reason to stay.  

A sane, decent and mature man in intrinsic commitment is aware of these basic facts:

1. The emotions of a woman are real, true and valid for herself, no matter, what others think or claim that she should feel.
2. The woman's evaluation of the relationship is based only upon her own subjective emotions, as she experiences them.
3. Disagreement, claims, denials, accusations, interpretations can influence and distort, how the man perceives and interprets the expressed and declared emotions of the woman, but he cannot influence, what the woman subjectively feels.  
4. If the man wants to influence the emotions of the woman, he can only change his own behavior, that causes the emotions.   If he wants her to feel happy, he has to treat her well.
5. The only way to make a woman stay in a relationship of intrinsic commitment is to treat her in a way, that causes her to feel happy, and to abstain from all behavior, that hurts her.    
6. A woman has no rational reason whatsoever to be or to remain in a relationship, where she experiences more pain than joy and happiness and the pain is a result of the man's behavior.  
7. Pain caused by hurting behavior cannot be annihilated or compensated with any other benefit.    Such pain can only avoided by stopping the hurting behavior.  

The jerk or the emotional moron asks, how good he feels because of having control over a woman as a commodity.    

The wise man asks, how good he can make the woman feel, when and because she is with him.

294. The Effect of Bullying upon Love

The Effect of Bullying upon Love

When a man wants a woman to do something for him, no matter what it is, he has the choice between two principally different strategies.

1. He bullies her to do it using pressure, threat, anger, extortion or intimidation.
2. He treats her so well, that she cares and loves him enough to do it by her own good will.

The starting point for both strategies is the relationship deal, in which they have agreed to fulfill each other's needs.   

When the man's focus is selfish, then he chooses the first strategy.  His priority is to ascertain, that he gets his needs met by applying whatever power he has, be it physical strength, situational or financial advantage.   As far as he does give something back to the woman, he restricts it to just as little as he believes is enough to make her function.  

When the man's focus is based upon trust and appreciation, then he chooses the second strategy.   He makes efforts to earn the woman's love and care, he gives first, because he trusts her, that the more he gives, the more he will get in return.    With this strategy, love, attachment, bonding grows stronger over time.


Of course, no woman would consciously decide to become a selfish man's commodity, if she would notice, that this is his goal, before it is too late.   But there are reasons, why a woman can temporarily be in a relationship, where she is bullied.   

1. The man fulfills the woman's needs in one aspect, like sharing activities of traveling and attending cultural events.  His bullying does not drive her away immediately, because she attempts to put up with it, as long as her resilience lasts.
2. The man starts like a nice man as described in entry 285 about the abuse-hoovering cycle.   He only converts into the bullying guy after she had already fallen in love with the apparently kind and caring man.
3. She has become afflicted with the jerk attachment syndrome as describe in entry 268.

So there is the situation, that a woman by mistake loves an unworthy man, who bullies her.   She can rationally come to the conclusion, that he is unworthy, she could even take the decision to end the relationship in spite of her fatal love.  But she cannot just decide to stop loving him as a consequence of her insight, that he does not deserve her love.   

Fortunately for her, he himself helps her to get out of the trap, and he is often oblivious of this.   Every time, when he hurts her, and it is not accidentally but by his choice of selfish behavior, the pain she feels decreases her love.    Being bullied to be a commodity is a powerful love killer and when she is cured of her misplaced love, she is free to end the relationship and feel relief.   

A woman can go through this experience either with a jerk and psychopath or with an emotional moron.    But there is one huge difference.  
The jerk knows, that he can bully a woman to serve as a commodity only for a limited time.    After that time, he has to move on and find another victim and he has no conscience to stop him.   The jerk is not bothered, what the woman thinks or feels, as long as he gets, what he wants.   
The emotional moron has no clue, what is going on.   As long as the woman does, what he wants, everything seems ok for him.    He is oblivious of the difference between a woman acting by her own benevolent choice or by intimidation, and he has no clue, that his bullying is a love killer.      His own behavior could even shock him, were he able to get aware of the woman's real agony.  
The emotional moron is misguided by a logical error.   He believes that when the woman yields to his bullying and does or allows without resistance, what he wants, she has automatically changed her mind to agree with his entitlement delusion. He believes, that he is able to coerce her to think, what he wants her to think.   He does not consider his behavior as bullying, but as doing her a favor against her resistance.  He believes to improve her cognition and to teach her her appropriate role in his life.   He has not perception, that she feels hurt by being bullied and dominated.    

286. The Micro Cycle of Abuse

The Micro Cycle of Abuse

The Abuse-Hoovering-Cycle in entry 285 is a macro cycle, but there is also a micro cycle of abuse.   In entry 124 I used the example of a couple walking through a city and the man suddenly stopping in front of a ticky-tacky restaurant to illustrate the difference between a caring man and a jerk.  

A considerate mature man would only suggest to her to eat there.    If she does not like the place, they would agree on a compromise.   They would look around for a while, maybe an hour, if they find another place, that they both like, but if not, they would come back.    
The considerate man also is someone, who informs a woman in advance of what is going on, so that she can be a part of all decisions.  He does not wait to tell her of his wish to eat, until he stands with pangs of hunger in front of a restaurant.  He takes note of first signs of getting hungry, and before he is craving for food, he suggests to find a place to eat that both like.

The jerk feels entitled to get, what he wants, immediately and the woman is a commodity to serve his needs.    The jerk is alone in this world, he has no shade of a doubt, that no alternative exists to his executing and enforcing his solitary decision, what to do about a need, as soon as he gets aware of having it.   Any other person in his reach is either a tool or a hindrance to his decision.  
If the restaurant scene is in a foreign country, the woman is the commodity to translate the menu.   With the jerk, she has no chance to have her needs and wishes considered as equal to his.    He either bullies her with an outburst of so much anger into the restaurant, that she has no choice but to submit, before it escalates into a public scene.   Or if he outwardly agrees to find another place to eat, even if indeed they find a really nice place where he does enjoy the food, he still blames her forever for her resistance to submit to his needs in immediate obedience.    He perceives her resistance to be a commodity as an outrage and not as her right of an equal partner.

If the woman is someone like me, then the most important part of a relationship is the closeness of reciprocally sharing all the innermost feelings.    That means, that he tells her his true and uncensored feelings, but also, that he is interested in hers and that he wants to know her true feelings in his attempt to treat her, how she needs and wants to be treated.  

After having been bullied into the restaurant, the woman feels extreme pain due to this act of devaluation and disrespect, of not being asked but dominated, of having his will forced upon her, of her needs not even being considered.     Mistaking him for a good natured and decent man, who just was not aware of what he is doing, she later on attempts to share her feelings with him.   She tries to make him understand, how much his behavior has been hurting her, and why.   Under the assumption, that he cares for her, she attempts to support him in learning how to treat her in the future with more respect and consideration.   
But instead of getting signs of caring understanding, she talks to a wall.   With some annoyance, he keeps on repeating, that he was hungry, as if being hungry is enough justification for his domination.   He firmly believes, that when he is hungry, he alone has the right to decide, what to do about it, as if she did not exist.   This for him is just self-evident and nobody and nothing can instill any doubt about this in his mind.   

She talks to a wall, when she craves to get the understanding of a mindmate.   She feels alone, but she had entered a relationship to be the safe haven of being understood and considered.   The pain of feeling alone and not understood aggravates the feelings of having been humiliated by the bullying.    She wants to find relief from her pain, and the only possible relief for her is getting through the wall and change his attitude about what is the correct way to treat her.   

She repeats her attempts to explain her feelings, her experience, her perception to him, but it is as futile as the attempts of a fly to leave through the window pane.    In the meantime, he continues to use rage and anger to get her compliance with whatever he wants, and thus things are getting worse for her.   

After a while, her craving to influence him to stop his hurting behaviors becomes a compulsion, and the futility finally makes her loose her countenance.    When she calls him an idiot and an a**hole and such, then this confirms his belief, that she is inferior, flawed and hysterical.   It enhances his already strong belief, that what goes on in her mind is of no significance at all.   
He had started the abuse by bullying her into the restaurant, but in the end, he can point out, that it was her, who used abusive language.    This reinforces his delusion, that his behavior is correct, and her disapproval and her sufferings are indicating, that she is flawed.   He feels even more self-righteous, when he continues to bully her.   As a consequence, she suffers more, her self-control gets weaker, her outbursts get more frequent and more vehement. 

 
If the woman does not have the wisdom and the strength to get rid of that jerk, before it gets too bad, then she will break down one day.