The Sexist

On Chivalry and Internalized Misogyny

Yesterday, the c-word—chivalry—arose in the comments section of this blog, in the context of the outdated gender code's unfairness to men. Ah, chivalry: That old code of behavior that men must follow in order to protect the "honor" of women they know. Through chivalry, a woman's honor becomes a man's responsibility; her honor brings honor to him, and her shame brings him shame. Chivalry isn't just offensive because it forces men to protect women, but also because traditional ideas of what brings  "honor" and "shame" to women are often highly sexist. And so, chivalry also works to encourage women to internalize misogyny in order to preempt shame from befalling men.

Three recent events that provide an insight into chivalry, and how it functions:

1. In a recent post on Holla Back DC, a woman describes being harassed by a group of firemen while out celebrating her fiance's birthday. As her fiance stepped away to retrieve cash from an ATM, she stepped to the curb to look for a cab. She was "dressed up," but "did not look slutty," she says; the firemen disagreed:

As I was looking down the street at oncoming traffic, a fire engine drove by. It was not on its way to an emergency, as its lights and siren weren’t on and they were driving at a somewhat slow speed. However, they honked their loud siren at me and started cheering out of the window. This was of course just as my fiance was walking out of the ATM. He was offended that men in uniform would do that, and to tell you the truth, it made me feel like common street trash and that they treated me like a hooker. Even if my fiance was outside with me and it happened, nothing could really have been done. He may have yelled after the fire engine, but that wouldn’t have accomplished anything.

I was really embarrassed and am still embarrassed when I think about it. I even felt embarrassed on behalf of my fiance, as I thought others may have thought he was with a hooker. I don’t know if that’s rational or not. It makes me want to cover up more when I go out, but I shouldn’t have to. I was dressed quite nicely, yet I still was treated in this manner. It was disgusting.

For this anonymous Holla Back DC poster, being treated "like a hooker" was a stunning insult of her value as a woman, and therefore a great source of shame. (As far as traditional expectations of women go, being confused with a sex worker is, unfortunately, pretty low on the "honor" list). This woman's reaction may help to explain why some victims feel shame after being sexually harassed or assaulted. When women are treated as less-than-human, there are often two conflicting internal reactions: (a) anger at the harassers who devalued her based on her gender, and (b) being forced to consider the idea, however briefly, that she has no value.

Our writer presents a third reaction: A secondary source of shame, derived from the possibility that someone "may have thought [her fiance] was with a hooker." Since the woman's fiance is responsible for her shame as well, he may have a similarly conflicted reaction: (a) anger at the harassers who devalued her based on her gender, and (b) shame that he is associated with a woman who is considered by other men to be valueless. Chivalry encourages him to take personal offense to this, inciting one of two reactions: (a) engaging in a verbal or physical altercation with the harassers in order to compensate for the woman's shame with a display of manhood; and/or (b) chastising the woman for bringing shame upon him, i.e. "Don't embarrass me in front of other men"; "Don't go out looking like that"; "See what you made me do."

In this case, there's no indication that the fiance openly chastised this woman for dressing inappropriately (though he may have gone after the firemen had he had the opportunity). The actual display of chivalry isn't necessary to instill in this woman a sense of responsibility for her fiance's honor. The realization that a man may be shamed when she is harassed for being a woman makes her want to dress more conservatively in order to preempt any further shame on him in the future.

2. This weekend, I had a conversation with a guy visiting the District from Turkey. We got to talking about the evolving tradition of women wearing headscarves in his country. About half the women he knows wear headscarves, and half don't; his mom wears one, but his wife doesn't. In Turkey, he said, a woman who doesn't cover her head brings society's shaming not only upon herself, but also upon her husband. Insisting that a woman wear a headscarf is considered a man's responsibility, and a woman with her head uncovered can reflect a personal failure on the man assigned to enforce the rule. "If you follow all the rules of the religion, you get an A+ in being a Muslim," he explained. If your wife doesn't cover your head, you can still be a good Muslim, but your grade gets knocked down a few points.

Not all women wear the headscarf because their husbands or fathers or brothers tell them (or force them) to. Some choose to wear it for personal, cultural, and religious reasons. And some choose to wear it in order to preempt any possibility of shame being brought upon the men in their lives. They want their husbands to get an A+.

3. Today, WTOP reported that Vladimir Djordjevic has died after spending three years in the hospital attempting to recover from the extreme burns covering his body. Djordjevic, a manager at District strip club Good Guys, was "doused with gasoline and set on fire" on Nov. 4, 2007, after he ejected a patron for breaking a house rule—he took a cell-phone photo of a dancer's butt. The patron, trucker Vasile Graure, returned to the club with a gallon of gasoline and proceeded to light Djordjevic—and then the club—on fire. (You can read a complete account of the trial here; Graure was sentenced to 30 years in prison, which may be increased in light of Djordjevic's death).

So: Graure thought he had complete authority over the naked woman in front of him; Djordjevic informed him that he did not; Graure set Djordjevic on fire.

Djordjevic's death is an extreme example of how chivalry facilitates the transfer of misogyny from women to men. As Amanda Marcotte noted earlier this year,  "when it comes to the patriarchy, sexist men will enforce the rules not just on women, but on other men who seem insufficiently committed to the art of oppressing women," she writes. When Graure set Djordjevic on fire, he applied his misogynistic rage to the man who would not sit back and allow him to control women. You see the same kind of transfer of misogyny with guys who, thanks to chivalry, will "Never Hit A Woman"; instead, they'll hit the closest guy.

This kind of misogyny transfer doesn't just result in the tragic deaths of guys like Djordjevic (who, as club security, had the unnerving professional task of protecting dancers from misogynistic patrons). It also helps to obscure the root of the violence, which is an extreme hatred of women. By placing a male intermediary between a misogynist and the intended recipient of his misogyny (a woman), the misogynist can walk away from a chivalry-induced fist-fight patting himself on the back for how much he "respects women." Meanwhile, some blame for said fist-fight can be conveniently transferred onto the woman for failing to take the punch herself. In order to avoid both the fist-fight and the self-blame, the woman has one line of defense—don't do whatever you think caused the misogynist to get so angry. Don't wear a short skirt. Don't protest when he takes your photo in a strip club. Don't get angry when he sexually harasses you.

"The lesson here is not that women should be more eager to be treated like subhumans," Marcotte writes. "The lesson is that sexual harassment is a dominance display, and the harassers will often resort to violence to maintain the dominance they desire. 'Never hit a woman' doesn’t really do much to address the underlying cause of violence against women, which is male dominance and misogyny."

Chivalry encourages a form of preemptive internalized misogyny that results in the policing of women, how they dress, where they go, how much hair they show, and whether they stand up for themselves when harassed or assaulted. In the future, the woman harassed by the firemen may dress more conservatively, or avoid standing on the street corner alone, in order to prevent her husband from ever being associated with someone who is confused for "a hooker". A woman may choose to wear a headscarf in order to preempt any shame being brought to her husband. And a woman who is victimized by a man may not speak out, in order to avoid the chivalrous man-next-door from starting a fist-fight—or criticizing her for somehow encouraging the harassment.

Chivalry works to unfairly displace misogyny onto men. But focusing solely on that particular failure of chivalry ignores the obvious truth—that misogyny is unfair for everyone. Women, too!

Photo via David Spender, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

  • Suzanne Sugerbaker

    I don't care what anybody says, I think the man should have to kill the bug! Oh, and anyone who equates holding a door and chivalry with misogyny is a twit.

  • http://pokemontaco.wordpress.com/ Lasciel

    Maybe they were hooting at her fiancee.

  • Jesus Son

    @Eo

    Not a myth, a fact. If you read any of the literature on inter-gender violence instead of cherry picking data to prove your own ideological point. Fiebert's own papers point to the fact that while the rate of violence is similar, women are far more likely to be seriously injured as a result of domestic violence.

    You're an ideological hack and no better than any of the brainwashed automatons unwilling to concede a point that doesn't toe the radical feminist agenda (ie. half the people who post on this blog).

  • S

    Saurs.

    Yeah I should take your reassurances as gospel when AA is the very definition of institutionalized discrimination.

    If you wanted to right past wrongs AA is probably the worst way to go about it, for so many reasons.

    Jesus Son.

    Even if that were true (women tend to use weapons), the aggressor does not get to dictate the terms of the retaliation. If you attack someone expect to get what you gave twofold.

    Lasciel

    Maybe there is nothing wrong with hooting, being made to feel offended, shame or whatever is not a crime.

  • Eo

    Jesus Son

    "Not a myth, a fact. If you read any of the literature on inter-gender violence instead of cherry picking data to prove your own ideological point. Fiebert’s own papers point to the fact that while the rate of violence is similar, women are far more likely to be seriously injured as a result of domestic violence".

    You are not dealing in facts, you are dealing in what are called factoids.

    Women are not "far more likely to be seriously injured as a result of domestic violence". They are just as/slightly more likely to commit an act of serious domestic violence, twice as likely to get seriously injured and the strongest predictor of their getting injured is their own violence.

    If that contradicts your chivalrous view of women, tough.

  • Eo

    Jesus Son, the reason those studies were posted was to illustrate the inaccuracy and hate of two bigoted statments.

    In the inital article a bigot said - "‘Never hit a woman’ doesn’t really do much to address the underlying cause of violence against women, which is male dominance and misogyny.”

    And a second bigot followed up with "since most partner violence is against women".

    Both statments are inaccurate.

    Your view that there are different motives for men and women comitting domestic violence is also inaccurate. The Straus study indicates that there is symmetry in motives and triggers with females initiating violence slightly more often than males. Male on female violence cannot "tend to be pathological", only pathological violence can be pathological, most domestic violence is mutual low level domest violence (that would be non pathological), the second most common type is female on male non recriprical and the least common type is male on female non recriprical and this is the group where you will find pathological males along with men who snap after long periods of some kind of non physical domestic abuse.

    The fire engine example.

    The womans discomfort is both subjective and cultural. In south america, hooting etc. is welcomed, another woman in DC could well have welcomed it too and firemen, are well used to being catcalled by women, so with them its a two way thing. I think the woman in the story expects chivalry and to be able to look hot while controlling any responce she might get. It a bit like the topless protesters in Maine getting angry because they couldnt control the response they got from their exhibitionism. She wasnt "harassed for being a woman", the firemen were flirting and showing appreciation for her sexuality which she made an effort to excentuate before she left, the little black dress is fetishised like the firemans uniform is, when women catcall and fetishise firemen, its not because they are men, its because of the uniform and macho nature of the job.

    The strip club example was an example of a psychopath being a psychopath and Muslim culture is a whole other story IMO.

    The best example of common chivalry is on the thread that sparked this one. The sense of entitlement among the feminists that lead them to state that men should put themselves in harms way to protect them.

  • S

    Eo

    I think you've made good points but all your gonna get from them is "don't feed the troll", but still I admire your tenacity.

  • Tasha

    @Jesus Son:

    You said--
    "Still doesn’t change the fact that male against female violence is far more aggressive, does more damage....."

    That is and is not true...if you look at DV stats HONESTLY, you will come to understand that the more aggressive and damaging nature (which is the sole basis from which you get "pathological")is simply due to a size differential. You cannot use a clinical term like pathological here without something to back it up, like hmmmm...idk....a Dx of a personality or mood disorder..some kind of evaluation. As easy as it would be to say that every person who is charged with D/V is insane or 'off' in some way, its somply not the case. Men cause more damage with their fists and bodies because they are *generally* bigger.

    and also--

    "Fiebert’s own papers point to the fact that while the rate of violence is similar, women are far more likely to be seriously injured as a result of domestic violence."

    So which is it for you? Do you then concede that the rates of violence ARE similar? The Straus study is more than valid, its credibility only strengthened imo, by the fact that they disproved their own original hypothesis.
    The fact that women are more likely to be more seriousy injured may be true...but there are also stats showing that those unjuries are often sustained when they are acting as the agressor and inadvertantly hurt themselves and/or when the victim fights back. Your statement is also skewed by the fact that precious few sources Ive found that make broad statements like that define the dyad involved in the D/V...in other words..if you have a lesbian couple involved in d/v, you bet your ass a WOMAN will be the victim...but these stats are used almost exclusively against MEN.

  • Eo

    Jesus Son and Tasha, according to this study, which backs up the straus one, women are most likely to be injured in mutual violence and women instigate mutual violence 70% of the time.

    U.S. CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION
    Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence

    Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7). Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5).

    h ttp://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941

  • Sam

    Amanda,

    I wonder if the root problem isn't that female sexuality has always been / is seen as being more valuable than male sexuality in a game in which sexuality is considered zero sum. Since the value attributed to male sexuality is seen as lower, there's not much point in protecting its relative value - and being overtly sexual actually allows men to gain value (from women). As for women, it's the other way around, because they can lose relative value by being sexual. I'd suggest that, generally, pretty much all over the place, across cultures, likely with the exception of a small group of sexually rather reflected people, sexuality is seen as a net value transfer from a woman to a man, a point of view interalized by women and men. I've expanded this thought here -

    http://clarissethorn.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/manliness-and-feminism-the-followup/#comment-795

  • noodlez

    Eo GREAT POINT IN COMMENT #56.

  • Anita

    While standing outside of a club, minding my business, a young guy "bumped into" me, penis first, supposedly to ask for a cigarette (I wasn't standing outside smoking at the time). His sobriety and my dress did not excuse him for continuing to invade my personal space when I told him to "Back the fuck off of me."

    His friends saw what he did. My male friend saw what he did. No guys came to MY aid...but his friends pulled him away from me after I elbowed him to emphasize the point that he and his erection were too close to me. While pulling him away, the jackass' friends said, "Man, why you gonna do that with her man standing right there?"...So, it would have been OK to rub up against me, if I was alone, eh? I quickly corrected them on that score and let the jackass know that I didn't need any man to step for me. Instead of apologizing to me, the jackass and his friends apologized to my friend, the guy that I came with to the club.

    My friend isn't a punk. I've seen him stand up to bigger opponents than the one that I faced. However, he didn't jump in to help...lest anyone think (especially me) that that I'm not badass enough to fight my own battles. He sure wouldn't have jumped in if I was in a fight in the ladies' room.

  • Kristina

    Tasha, pathological is not only a clinical term. If I'm not mistaken, Jesus Son is referring to repetition, insofar as one can be a pathological liar, meaning a compulsive and habitual liar. This is true. Where there is domestic violence, there is repetition more often than not because it becomes a natural occurrence in the relationship. I'm not going to posit that in male-against-female violence it's more or less pathological (in that sense of the word mentioned above), but perhaps Jesus Son does have the data to back what he said up.

    That said, Jesus Son, you make excellent points, but arguing with Eo is truly like arguing with a brick wall. Eo is literally only on here to act as a troll. Look at nearly every comment section on this blog, and you will find Eo attempting to get a rise out of people. No matter how founded your ideas, this argument will never end in your favor in Eo's mind.

  • Shinobi

    Wow, I like how our trolls even use the same examples that we have already discussed over and over again as though one anecdote remains valid.

    "People love street harassment in other countries and this one time topless chicks in main got mad even though i don't think they should have." It turns out that these are not convincing arguments, or we would already have been convinced.

  • Acebojangles

    A lot of the arguments in this article are a stretch.

    From the facts reported in the article, I don't see how chivalry played a part in Vladimir Djordjevic being set on fire. It seems that Vasile Graure didn't want to follow the rules of the club and didn't want to be told he had to. The dancer is somehow the victim when Vladimir was set on fire?

    Is it really so terrible to open doors and such? Jeez. I don't mind when someone opens a door for me and I'll open a door for men as well as women. If someone refuses to go through a door that a woman has opened, that's stupidity rather than chivalry.

  • S

    Yes Shinobi, they are going about it the wrong way, they don't really need to justify "street harassment" at all. It is not essential that you be convinced either.

  • Northwesterner

    I think your definition of chivalry is wrong from the start and therefore all conclusions and the extensive discussion below are wrong and needlessly argumentative. Quite simply, you misrepresent chivalry and create a lie, a straw man, that you attack. Well, at the start Amanda, you're just wrong, so at first I wanted to respond to this and now I realize it's just a false game to you, a gadfly journalist response.

  • Kristina

    @Northwesterner: First, you think it's wrong so it must be wrong? Wow. That's logical. Second, you say you "wanted to respond", indicating that you had a change of idea. Yet you seem to have responded. With the word gadfly, no less. Kudos on the word, but seriously faulty and illogical conclusions with nothing to back you up. You should really take trolling lessons from Eo, who at least backs up claims with something akin to research...

  • A Father and a Man

    I have, in my many and varied years on the planet, tried to live up to a simply stated code of conduct. Treat others as you would have them treat you. Some call it the Golden Rule. As i encounter people -- regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, class, origin, citizenship, beliefs, etc -- i try hard to keep that goal in mind and behave (and even think) accordingly. I would certainly admit that too often i fail to meet this standard. But i try -- and try to improve over time. Anyone else trying it? Thinking of it? I encourage all to consider.....

  • Eo

    Kristina

    If i was posting bigoted and inaccurate information about dv like you and most of the rest I wouldnt be a troll, right? What makes me a troll is posting valid information that contradicts the prejudiced and out dated ideas of the majority here.

    "something akin to research" lol

    Its 100s of valid studies that invalidate and highlight your bigotry, hate, willful ignorance and clinging belief in outdated chivalrous ideas about the genders.

  • mdesus

    @Eo
    I just cannot disagree with you more. Equality is not a viable option. Men and women are not equal. They can never be equal. Men will always be bigger, stronger, and have many biologically based cognitive differences. Only very foolish feminists would ever ask for complete equality in all things. We are biologically constructed differently so that certain tasks men excel at, and others women excel at. That is not to say that women, or men are unable to successfully perfom both types of tasks, but to ignore these biological differences is to forget what makes each sex unique.

  • Eo

    mdesus

    Im not saying that men and women are equal, thats an impossibility, no two people are equal.

    Im just posting 100s of studies about the reality of domestic violence which contradict the mainstream and ideological, prejudiced and misguided beliefs on the subject and that is being met with some anger.

  • Pingback: Shame as Ritual « zunguzungu

  • Kristina

    Eo, actually I didn't state any opinions on the matter other than that when domestic violence happens it is usually a repeat offense. Your "hundreds" of studies do not say anything about that. I actually stated that I would NOT posit that repetition is more likely to happen in male-against-female cases than others. Please read before you attempt to refute my opinions.

  • Northwesterner

    Kristina, you tell me how I responded to Amanda's points. If gadfly is a big word to you I don't know where to begin here except spend time with a higher class of people.

    Also Eo, your definition of the word "equal" in the terms of "no two people are equal" is wrong. No one anywhere is suggesting that "equality" means people are exactly the same, which is just dumb dumb dumb.

    There's bad case of straw man here that's creating unmeaningful conversation.

  • Kristina

    Northwesterner, I did not say that you responded to her points; just that you responded. And I'm sorry that complimenting your verbiage was taken as an offense...? I know the word. I thought it was intriguing that someone used it. I said kudos, not "zomg whyyyy don't i understand languageee". Get a grip.

  • A Father and a Man

    Equality is exactly what the intrinsic nature of all of one group and all of another group -- whether gender, race, class, etc.

    Consider the definition of equality...
    The fact of being equal.
    The fact of being equal, of having the same value.
    The equal treatment of people irrespective of social or cultural differences.
    [edit] Synonyms(fact of being equal): equivalence

  • SuperCarolina

    From textsfromlastnight.com:

    (770):
    Her breakfeast in bed consisted of half a pop tart that I didn't want, and water that I slipped birth control into... Who says chivalry is dead?

  • SuperCarolina

    This controversy over opening doors is ridiculous. Any woman who argues with a man just for opening a door for her is an infant going through a cranky phase and doesn't deserve the time of day. The same goes if she gets mad because he DIDN'T open a door for her. Women like that give all women a bad name. The proper response to anyone opening a door for me, man or woman, is 'thank you.' Nothing more, nothing less. People who chose being rude over being polite contribute absolutely nothing to society and should be ignored.

  • Eo

    Kristina, you are just dishonest.

    Jesus Son was wrong and when you changed the definition of pathological to repeditive he was still wrong. Male on female non recriprical domestic violence is the least likely configuration of domestic violence and women are more likely to instigate mutual violence so if any genders domestic violence is repeditive its that of women.

  • Eo

    Here Kristina

    Read an up to date studies and stop repeating factoids, women are more often violent in domestic situations than men.

    May 2007, Vol 97, No. 5 | American Journal of Public Health 941-947
    © 2007 American Public Health Association
    DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
    Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence
    Daniel J. Whitaker, PhD, Tadesse Haileyesus, MS, Monica Swahn, PhD and Linda S. Saltzman, PhD

    At the time of this study, Daniel J. Whitaker and Linda S. Saltzman were with the Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga. Tadesse Haileyesus is with the Office of Statistics and Programming, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Monica Swahn is with the Office on Smoking and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Daniel Whitaker, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, NE, MS K-60, Atlanta, GA 30341 (e-mail: dpw7@cdc.gov).

    Objectives. We sought to examine the prevalence of reciprocal (i.e., perpetrated by both partners) and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence and to determine whether reciprocity is related to violence frequency and injury.

    Methods. We analyzed data on young US adults aged 18 to 28 years from the 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which contained information about partner violence and injury reported by 11 370 respondents on 18761 heterosexual relationships.

    Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7). Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5).

    Conclusions. The context of the violence (reciprocal vs nonreciprocal) is a strong predictor of reported injury. Prevention approaches that address the escalation of partner violence may be needed to address reciprocal violence.

    h ttp://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941

  • Kristina

    Eo, I'm sorry you choose to read what you want. I never said there was more male-against-female violence. I said that domestic violence IN GENERAL FOR ALL SEXES is repetitive in nature. Repetitive meaning that it happens over and over, since you seem not to understand. Such is what happens in an abusive relationship, regardless of who is involved.

  • Kristina

    Sorry for the double post, but also: repetitive and reciprocal are not the same thing.

  • Eo

    Of course its not

    Jesus son incorrectly said that male on female violence tends to be pathological, it was pointed out to him that this is incorrect. You said he made a good point and changed the meaning of pathological to repeditive.

    I then pointed out that female on male violence is more common than then male on female demonstrating that Jesus Son was still incorrect even after you changed the meaning of pathological to repeditive.

    Women instigate 70% of reciprocal violence. Female in male violence non recriprical is the next most common form of domestic violence and male on female non recriprical domestic violence is the least common form.

    So, female on male domestic violence is more "pathological/repeditive" than male on female domestic violence.

    So, Jesus Son didnt make a good point, he/she just said something that was inaccurate which you then said he made a good point, likely because you are of the mistaken belief that male on female domestic violence is more more common than female on male domestic violence.. through little fault of your own really, its just a matter of not accessing or believing up to date information.

  • Kristina

    http://www.answers.com/topic/pathological

    Or, to make it easier, "Of, relating to, or manifesting behavior that is habitual, maladaptive, and compulsive: a pathological liar." If you need the definitions for habitual, maladaptive, or compulsive, I bet there are dictionaries that have those too. I did not change the definition. Pathological can mean habitual or repetitive.

    Also, your own study stated that men were more likely to inflict serious physical injury. I believe that was the point Jesus Son was making way back when.

    But clearly you know better than I do what I mean when I say something.

    Your tenuous grip on the English language seems to be impeding your ability to discriminate between what I say and what I mean in your head.

    The word is repetitive by the way. Spell it with me: R-E-P-E-T-I-T-I-V-E.

  • Eo

    Katrina

    The fact that women sustain more serious injuries was never in dispute. It was pointed out and backed up that the strongest predictor of a womans injury is her own violence, the inequality in serious injuries are to do with strength and size differentials not pathology and that female on male domestic violence more common than male on female.

    The only reason it even came up was the inital dishonesty in the article...

    – “‘Never hit a woman’ doesn’t really do much to address the underlying cause of violence against women, which is male dominance and misogyny.”

    then a second bigot followed up with “since most partner violence is against women”.

    Then Jesus Son stated that "male on female dv tends to be pathological" but this is also incorrect because female on male non recriprical dv is more common than male on female and 70% of recriprical DV is instigated by women.

    And here we are 10s of posts later bickering because the actual information contradicts the out dated prejudiced beliefs mainstream beliefs that are held by many here.

    And please dont try to insult me Kristina I was kind to you when I said " likely because you are of the mistaken belief that male on female domestic violence is more common than female on male domestic violence.. through little fault of your own really, its just a matter of not accessing or believing up to date information" instead of calling you a bigot.

  • Kristina

    You're right. I'm a bigot, I hate men, and reciprocal isn't a word. It's reciprical. And reciprocity proves repetition which proves that women suck and are trying to rule the world. Hooray.

  • Eo

    Typos and spelling are irrlavant Kristina. The facts are in, bigot A, bigot B, Jesus Son and you, made inaccurate and hateful statments about males and domestic violence and now thats been made clear you are resorting to childish taunts and correcting spelling instead of conceding with grace.

  • Kristina

    Irrlavant....

    Is that a band? I mean, you'd know. Because you know everything about everything ever created and ever done, especially where the women-folk are concerned. But I'm a dumb bigot draconian feminazi. So explain life to me.

    Thanks.

  • Julia

    My favorite example of chivalry-meets-feminism was on my prom night. I (a woman) drove to the prom and picked up my date (a man). After I picked up my date, he walked to the drivers side, opened my door for me, then walked around again and got into the passenger side of the car, and I drove us to prom. I didn't get offended or anything, but it really made me realize how absurd chivalry was.

  • beelzebib

    Eo you are so wrong and you post so many lies but the weird thing is you keep writing and writing. I pity the poor sucker who takes any of your BS "studies" seriously. Everything you wrote is wrong and if you believe any of it, you need to talk to the therapist of your choice, medical, social worker or pastor/priest, but what you need to do is print out everything you wrote, especially the lies, and show it to an impartial third party because you need to figure out why you were compelled to spew the lies. It is really, really pretty sick.

  • Pingback: Mark Twain Thought Chivalry Sucked Too « Shitty First Drafts

  • Pingback: feminist blogs in english » » Where does courage come from?

...