Probably a little bit of all of these, but I think denial is also probably a pretty strong factor. They don't see their behavior in the same light that an objective outside observer would see it.
It's interesting because one's political alignement is more dependent on signaling and traits like sense of humor than actual convictions. If I want to signal that I am "nice" and "tolerant", and I enjoy late night show type humor, then I align liberal, regardless of my convictions. If I want to signal that I'm manly, Christian and maybe I like dark humor, then I'll be conservative.
There is also the fact that people's intellectualizations don't translate to behavior. I can think nice things and support altruistic causes in my head all the while neglecting my duties toward my family, or not taking any step to address my shortcomings. What I think in my head is easy to change, adopt, linger on. Actually examining my behavior and shortcomings is very hard and painful. Doing that AND translating it to actual belief is incredibly difficult for most people.
On a last note, this may be an avenue to explore how sexual abuse is not a feminism issue, but a broader human nature issue.
Conservative abusers probably don't believe in normalizing sexual violence either. (They might estimate the damage to the woman as being less than a feminist might, though.) I think the points you raise could be just as easily applied to mainstream conservatives, although less #1 because they aren't nearly as strident when they denounce sexual assault.
Don't think the "liberal" tag is needed, better truncated to just "abuser".
Abusers come in all flavors agnostic, radical, conservative ....
With a more expansive view of abuser it is obvious that all the possibilities operate and are mixed differently into each abuser. The question is how to change abuse mindset to reduce abuse.
Adjacent to hypothesis 1 (global insincerity) is that liberal abusers have constructed a public persona that "cares" about liberal causes, because a politically fashionable persona advances their professional and social interests as they understand them, much as people applying for a job might construct a persona that is passionate about the idea of doing job X and specifically excited about doing it at genericorp Y, rather than being motivated by mercenary considerations like compensation. Many people who do this don't reflect very much consciously about the contradictions between different personas, or between those personas and their "true self" if any. They might be ashamed of deviations between their private behavior and professed preferences, but unlike guilt, shame causes avoidance and unseeing, not reconciliation: https://benjaminrosshoffman.com/guilt-shame-and-depravity/
"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
Thucydides
Many convicted criminals believe that rules and laws are for "the little people", while they, themselves are entitled to behave as they will. Indeed, a good number of them seek to violate norms or laws on principle, to demonstrate that they are not weak, and can.
2, 5, and 6 all seem plausible to me, but I think another possible explanation is that they don't think what they are doing is abuse or a crime because they are the ones doing it. It is pretty common for people to view "abuser" and "criminal" as something someone is, rather than something someone does. They may think that their actions could not possibly count as abuse because they are a nice person, not one of those criminals they always hear about. Abuse is something other people do, they always have a good reason for their behavior that makes it not count.
Matthew, boozing it up with his buddies courtesy of the hapless taxpayers he'd just strong-armed, when fingered to follow Jesus as an apostle: "It it I?" ("You sure you got the right guy?")
He left his power and drink on the table and submitted.
Probably a little bit of all of these, but I think denial is also probably a pretty strong factor. They don't see their behavior in the same light that an objective outside observer would see it.
It's interesting because one's political alignement is more dependent on signaling and traits like sense of humor than actual convictions. If I want to signal that I am "nice" and "tolerant", and I enjoy late night show type humor, then I align liberal, regardless of my convictions. If I want to signal that I'm manly, Christian and maybe I like dark humor, then I'll be conservative.
There is also the fact that people's intellectualizations don't translate to behavior. I can think nice things and support altruistic causes in my head all the while neglecting my duties toward my family, or not taking any step to address my shortcomings. What I think in my head is easy to change, adopt, linger on. Actually examining my behavior and shortcomings is very hard and painful. Doing that AND translating it to actual belief is incredibly difficult for most people.
On a last note, this may be an avenue to explore how sexual abuse is not a feminism issue, but a broader human nature issue.
Conservative abusers probably don't believe in normalizing sexual violence either. (They might estimate the damage to the woman as being less than a feminist might, though.) I think the points you raise could be just as easily applied to mainstream conservatives, although less #1 because they aren't nearly as strident when they denounce sexual assault.
Don't think the "liberal" tag is needed, better truncated to just "abuser".
Abusers come in all flavors agnostic, radical, conservative ....
With a more expansive view of abuser it is obvious that all the possibilities operate and are mixed differently into each abuser. The question is how to change abuse mindset to reduce abuse.
Adjacent to hypothesis 1 (global insincerity) is that liberal abusers have constructed a public persona that "cares" about liberal causes, because a politically fashionable persona advances their professional and social interests as they understand them, much as people applying for a job might construct a persona that is passionate about the idea of doing job X and specifically excited about doing it at genericorp Y, rather than being motivated by mercenary considerations like compensation. Many people who do this don't reflect very much consciously about the contradictions between different personas, or between those personas and their "true self" if any. They might be ashamed of deviations between their private behavior and professed preferences, but unlike guilt, shame causes avoidance and unseeing, not reconciliation: https://benjaminrosshoffman.com/guilt-shame-and-depravity/
I personally suspect a lot of 4.
"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
Thucydides
Many convicted criminals believe that rules and laws are for "the little people", while they, themselves are entitled to behave as they will. Indeed, a good number of them seek to violate norms or laws on principle, to demonstrate that they are not weak, and can.
2, 5, and 6 all seem plausible to me, but I think another possible explanation is that they don't think what they are doing is abuse or a crime because they are the ones doing it. It is pretty common for people to view "abuser" and "criminal" as something someone is, rather than something someone does. They may think that their actions could not possibly count as abuse because they are a nice person, not one of those criminals they always hear about. Abuse is something other people do, they always have a good reason for their behavior that makes it not count.
Matthew, boozing it up with his buddies courtesy of the hapless taxpayers he'd just strong-armed, when fingered to follow Jesus as an apostle: "It it I?" ("You sure you got the right guy?")
He left his power and drink on the table and submitted.