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Yesterday, the c-word—chivalry—arose in the comments section of this blog, in the context of the outdated gender code's unfairness to men.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

Comments

  1. #1

    This is a great post, and I totally agree, I wrote an angry screed about this a while ago.

    I think Chivalry works in insidious ways to remove a woman's agency and break down gender equality. And chivalry is part of our culture in so many ways, not just the big concepts of honor but down to little othering things that men do to women because it is considered polite.

    While men are to be treated with courtesy and respect, women are treated with chivalry, to be protected and coddled from nasty things like opening doors or rude people. It is part of what turns women into a different class of people, and I think every manifestation of it from opening a door to starting (or finishing) a fight in a woman's honor is othering.

    I think my least favorite has to be when men single me out from a mostly male group and apologize for cursing in front of me. It's not like hearing the F word kills my eggs guys, I've seen a rated R movie, i think I can handle it. (Plus what if some of the men present are offended? Why apologize to the least offended person there?)

    I personally would prefer to open my own doors, carry my own boxes, curse, and finish my own fights. I don't need men to assume I need their assistance just because my sex organs are on the inside. (I am in fact capable of asking for assistance if I need it.)

  2. #2

    it makes me sad that chivalry is something that is used as a tool to enforce sexism. Men should protect womens honor when asked, and should look out for the best interest of women whenever possible. Some men feel that as they are physically stronger they have a right to control a woman. A chivalrous man should be protecting women against these sorts of men.

  3. #3

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

    This is hate speech, does male dominance and misogyny cause lesbians to batter each other at x3 the rate of heterosexual couples?

  4. #4

    mdesus

    "Men should protect womens honor when asked, and should look out for the best interest of women whenever possible. Some men feel that as they are physically stronger they have a right to control a woman. A chivalrous man should be protecting women against these sorts of men".

    Men have no such obligations to women, men are not the personal body guards of women and egalitarian men should help women to become truly independent and equal by insisting on equality.

  5. #5

    I was listen to some Philly radio show about a Long Island Soliciter General who called a woman protesting some sort of gun function a "c-nt" and it was like a debate on whether he could be fired (which was inane, because his employer has that right, but whatever). But what offended me more than anything was the host claimed that it was acts like this that would lead to a society where "men talked to women the same way talked around other men" and while some women "said that eff word and acted classlessly, not all women do" and I was sort of shocked at this antiquated notion. First of all, I am an eff word connoisseur, and this guy was from Philly, so his behavioral norms I doubt would go over well with other local women. But to say that men should hold their tongues because our lady ears might not be able to handle it, is the kind false respect that is held over women's heads, promised to them only if they behave a certain way. That kind of "respect" isn't promised to the classless ladies that use the eff word.

  6. #6

    This is thought provoking. I just twittered (with levity) with a woman friend on our mutual preference for being called Miss instead of Ma'am. We are both middle aged. I'm not sure if she is from the south or not. I am, and I believe some of this is cultural. I call most older people in my culture Miss or Mr., out of respect for their age.

    The mores in Turkey regarding scarves don't really compare to US mores, but certainly exemplify the common theme of cultures world-wide-that they are patriarchal.

    I get where you are coming from. In fact, I sat through a sermon at my mother's church on Mother's Day, while the pastor preached the most inappropriate, misogynist message I've ever heard in church. It was very offensive, but I didn't want to break the family peace and said little.

    I've raised 2 sons, and I've tried to be realistic with them. I also can be sexist myself. I appreciate that my husband honors me as a woman and puts me at the center of the family. He considers me the heart and soul of the family, and treats me with utmost respect. I don't think this in itself is wrong, but I do understand the link between this and misogyny, or sexual abuse & domestic violence, neither of which have been an issue in our marriage. He does not feel he has to protect my honor, and I do not feel he or anyone else has to. My honor is intact through my being an honest, fair person, not through anything having to do with sex acts or gender.

    I have experienced many of the things women in our society experience because of misogyny--sexual assaults, harassment, shame, guilt, etc. It is a complex issue. I've worked in Domesic Violence, and understand the cycle of violence, and can usually tell if someone is either an abuser or is being abused.

    However, as the mother of sons, I'm not sure my message to them was feminist. I told them that our society judges women and men differently when it comes to sex, and I wanted them to wait as long as they could and make sure their partner was 100% comfortable with it. I didn't want them to be in a position of being responsible for a woman not feeling good about herself. It needed to be discussed before the heat of passion entered the picture. I also wanted them to be emotionally ready, and that's what I've told them. It seems to have worked so far-they are 16 & 19.

    We've also taught them to hold the door for women, etc. I consider this good manners. Men and women are different, and I don't think it's wrong to distinguish our differences, but I wonder if some of my "good manners" is perpetuating the patriarchal society I often protest.

    I do believe we are responsible for ourselves. I don't believe in a victim consciousness. At some point we have to be responsible for our lives, and if we expect something else to change before we are responsible, I believe it is a mistake, because changes of this magnitude take centuries, perhaps millennia. The woman who was harassed by the firefighters is responsible for her response. She did nothing wrong and had no control over what they did. She needed to put that back on them, their behavior was shameful. She and her fiance need to hold their heads high. They did nothing wrong.

    Remember that song, Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me? I believe our responses can effect enormous change. Anywho, sorry to ramble. Thanks for the post. You really got me thinking! juliawb on twitter

  7. #7

    @Shinobi & @mdesus I think one of the more disappointing things about chivalry is that it's often conflated with what is otherwise basic human decency, were you to remove the gender element. There are some requirements of chivalry that are actually nice things to do for other people---like standing up for another person when they are being hurt or disrespected, when you are in a safe position to do so. But if a man chooses to stand up for a woman under Basic Human Decency principles, this act is also sometimes accompanied by the idea that this sort of behavior is expected per gender rules (as opposed to human rules), reinforcing the idea that women should be treated as women (and not simply as fellow humans). Some people take the death of chivalry to mean that men have no obligation to treat women with respect or fairness; actually, they're simply being encouraged to treat people with respect and fairness, as people. That includes not only not hitting women, but also not hitting men instead.

  8. #8

    How is it hate speech to note that misogynists often fight over women instead of with them?

    As for the lesbian battery rate, three things:
    1. I would like to see your source.
    2. Assuming the stat is accurate, lesbian individuals often have a different relationship with gender and relationships than straight women since they are so differently treated by society.
    3. The never hit a woman ethos would probably reduce domestic battery in straight couples since most partner violence is against women. If some of that is being transferred to other men then violence against women would be lower.

  9. #9

    Agreed. When they are able and feel comfortable, stronger people should help weaker people (i.e. in lifting things), first people should help second people (when arriving at doors), friends should stand up for their friends, and pretty much nobody should wait for ladies to get out of the elevator first because that is fucking annoying.

  10. #10

    Absolutely Amanda.

    I think as a woman who is larger and stronger than the average man I end up with a weird perspective on this. You really see the inherent sexism in some "courtesy" when someone 3/4s your size is insisting that they should carry your heavy box/luggage for you. Ditto with dealing with aggressive behaviors.

  11. #11

    Katie

    No

    Either lift your own shit or pay someone to do it for you.

    If you want the stronger to help you then you can never be equals.

  12. #12

    I'm with you Beth - but don't feed the troll.
    The biggest fail is doods who says 'Brilliant, chivalry is dead! Now I'll go and punch all of those uppity whores in the face because you can hit women now!'
    Way to uncover that not-so-latent misogyny.

    This is why a man going way out of his way to open doors for me is insulting and irritating, and we will most likely get into a crazy door standoff. Infantilising and othering me is not a sign of politeness; you are trying to control me. Men who get offended 'on behalf' of the woman insulted in their presence are erasing the woman as a person in her own right, as though she is merely a device for communication between real humans, aka men. Why can't the chivalrous men see this?

  13. #13

    S

    No

    You missed the part where I said "able and comfortable," and I mean that nobody should EXPECT anything, but it's nice of stronger people to help out. I'm not talking pianos here. You're filling in pictures, assuming I meant men helping women, and I said PEOPLE.

  14. #14

    @EmilyBites: agreed, biggest pet peeve is when guys find out I'm a feminist (surprise!) and the FIRST question is: so does that mean you think it's ok for men to hit women?

    Buhhhhhhhh.

  15. #15

    Beth

    Beth, said
    “most partner violence is against women” –

    Which is not only inaccurate, its hate speech, and then you have the gall to ask me for sources.

    You need to update your information, most domestic violence is commited against men by women and the strongest predictor of a woman being injured in a domestic situation is her own violence.
    h ttp://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf

    And lesbian relationships are by far more violent than heterosexual relationships.

    “Nor is the incidence of DV among lesbian cohorts minimal. In fact, abuse among lesbians occurs with far greater frequency than among heterosexuals (given as 24% by the study above), and far more frequently than male-on-female abuse. Estimates of abuse have ranged between 47% and 73% (Coleman, 1990; Bologna, Waterman, Dawson, 1987; Lie. et al. 1991) among lesbian subjects who responded to questionnaires assessing prevalence of some form of physical, sexual, or emotional-psychological abuse in at least one relationship. Estimates of verbal abuse in lesbian relationships have been as high as 95% (Kelly & Warshafsky, 1987). About half of lesbian subjects who participated in research surveys indicated they had experienced 10 or more abusive incidents during their relationships, and about three-quarters had experienced 6 or more (Renzetti 1992)”.

    h ttp://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1546465

  16. #16

    Great post, Amanda.

  17. #17

    I open doors for everyone, why would we get into a stand off? If I'm opening a door or helping someone getting harrassed I'm not really taking gender into a count. Also with the firefighter chick, if they're going to honk they don't think you're a hooker. And if you think your husband is going to feel shame because of something a 3rd party did to you then he doesn't love you screw him.

  18. #18

    I have to say....this is the most foolish collection of opinions I have ever encountered. Chivalry was the code of the Knighted class, it was not about controlling women, nor was it about protecting their "honor" in any sexual sense. Chivalry was a way of life, not just a collection of behaviors...much like Bushido in the east, it was the philosophy of the warrior class. It was centered around the protection (physical) of those who where of higher rank or station, and of those who were lesser able to physically protect themselves. All of the "traditional" behaviors considered chivalrous were not just demonstrated to women, but also to those of higher military rank, family position, and noblility. Perhaps in modern times it is often encountered as a supplicating and attention starved behavior...as if to say "look at me, doing these things...like me!", but that is not it's base, nor its intent. It is, in it's purest form, simple respect for the person to which it is offered, and by no means control of any sort.

  19. #19

    kza,
    I've gotten into several "standoffs" with guys who would NOT go through doors while I was holding them open. Or guys holding a bunch of stuff who still insist on holding the door for me. This, is stupid.

    But holding the door for people behind you or people with their hands full is nice.

  20. #20

    Katie

    What the death of chivalry means is that men won't let women hit them without retaliating.

  21. #21

    "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".

    This is quite a leap. The manager was following the club rules and was murdered by a psychopath for doing so.

    By the same logic, a police officer investigating a rape thinks he has compleate authority over the victims body.

  22. #22

    Eo,
    You're missing a major issue in your last statement consent. A victim of sexual assault consents to have a rape kit taken, whereas that dancer did not consent to have her photo taken.

  23. #23

    "Infantilising and othering me is not a sign of politeness; you are trying to control me. Men who get offended ‘on behalf’ of the woman insulted in their presence are erasing the woman as a person in her own right, as though she is merely a device for communication between real humans, aka men. Why can’t the chivalrous men see this?"

    Exactly so. Men who believe they've an obligation to protect "womankind" from "those other guys" are behaving like paternalists, and they tend to get very sanctimonious and wounded when women try to calmly explain that, as they are adults, they are not in need of guidance, shelter, advice, or a bodyguard. Men like Eo like to sneer about how feminism has encouraged men to treat strange women as they would strange men (that is, as adults to whom they have no obligations beyond common courtesy and normal, human compassion) as though this were a terrible thing; that's likely because he strongly believes in the inherent superiority of men and believes women, if they want to "achieve" "equality" (equal to whom, one may ask), desperately need a leg up in order to compensate for being intellectually and physically inferior. This is hardly different from racialist arguments voiced by white people who erroneously believe that they themselves are the yardstick of all human achievement, and who classify people of color based on how well they measure up to themselves.

    Men and white people: not the summit of human capabilities, not the default person from whom all other people measure their worth.

  24. #24

    Eo, it would be lovely if one if these days, you cited something that came from actual violence statistics and not from self-reporting by university students.

  25. #25

    Shinobi

    It is not her photo or her camera, and the image on the photo is not her and neither does it belong to her, consent is not necessary in public.

    I can walk around with a video camera where ever I please thank you.

  26. #26

    @S: I think you're missing the point, the point being the part where somebody LIT SOMEBODY ON FIRE over this. We're going to get into photo consent issues? Really? Get a life, dude.

  27. #27

    Katie

    The photo consent "issue" was brought up by Shinobi as a rebuttal to Eo's arguments, why don't you tell her that she is missing the point?

  28. #28

    Completely unrelated story: A man I know once held the door open for a woman I know. She saw that as chivalry, and, being a hard-core feminist, refused to talk to him for a month. (By then, he had held open enough doors for all kinds of people, being a generally friendly person.)

  29. #29

    Shinobi can't be faulted, in my opinion, for anything other than trying to make sense of Eo's 2137628743th nonsensical-as-fuck analogy: that a club manager's relationship to a dancer in his employ is the same as that between a police officer...and a rape victim. (Sidenote: seriously people, Eo cannot be made sense of, btw...best not to feed the trolls, unless you like scratching your head/gagging/saying "wtf" a lot, and then I guess you have a far more admirable tolerance than I)

  30. #30

    Amanda 6

    By “actual statistics” you mean self reporting to the police, funny how you bigots will support 1 in 4, a self reporting gender rigged study done on students when it suits and then will attempt to discredit non gender rigged seld reporting studies on students when they contradict your prejudice.

    The first study is by straus..

    DOMINANCE AND SYMMETRY IN PARTNER VIOLENCE
    BY MALE AND FEMALE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
    IN 32 NATIONS1
    Murray A. Straus
    Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire
    Durham, NH 03824 603-862-2594 murray.straus@unh.edu
    Website: h ttp://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2
    Abstract
    The study investigated the widely held belief that violence against partners in marital, cohabiting, and dating relationships is almost entirely perpetrated by men, and that when women assault their partners, it has a different etiology than assaults by men. The empirical data on these issues were provided by 13,601 university students who participated in the International Dating Violence Study in 32 nations. The results in the first part of this paper show that almost a third of the female as well as male students physically assaulted a dating partner in the 12 month study period, and that the most frequent pattern was mutuality in violence, i.e. both were violent, followed by “female-only” violence. Violence by only the male partner was the least frequent pattern according to both male and female participants. The second part of the paper focuses on whether there is gender symmetry in a crucial aspect of the etiology of partner violence — dominance by one partner, The results show that dominance by either the male or the female partner is associated with an increased probability of violence. These results, in combination with results from many other studies, call into question the assumption that partner violence is primarily a male crime and that, when women are violent, it is self-defense. Because these assumption are crucial elements in almost all partner violence prevention and treatment programs, a fundamental revision is needed to bring these programs into alignment with the empirical data. Prevention and treatment of partner violence could become more effective if the programs recognize that most partner violence is mutual and act on the high rate of perpetration by women and the similar etiology of partner violence by men and women.
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

  31. #31

    Katie

    Regardless that doesn't invalidate my own points.

    In this case responding to something that doesn't make sense with something that doesn't make sense doesn't make any sense. So yes she can be faulted.

  32. #32

    Men who get offended ‘on behalf’ of the woman insulted in their presence are erasing the woman as a person in her own right, as though she is merely a device for communication between real humans, aka men.

    But is that not what feminists ask of men? Do Feminists not want men to call other men out for saying "sexist" things to or about women? Do they not want men to oppose things that are "offensive" to women? Do they not want men to do this particularly when women are not present? If any men did those things, they would in effect get offended on behalf of women.

    Why can’t the chivalrous men see this?

    Puppets only move when you pull the strings.

  33. #33

    Katie, I'm not sure why you're catching flack? Is today your troll-magnet day? That said, I agree with what you said. If I'm first to a door, I'll hold it for whomever is following, regardless of who it is. If I'm available to help someone lift something and I'm capable, I'll do it. I expect those same courtesies in return. Not out of an admittedly arcane construct such as chivalry but out of respect for my fellow person.

  34. #34

    HOW WAS SHE TREATED LIKE AN HOOKER? DID THEY OFFER HER $5 TO EAT HER OUT? HOW DOES BLOWING A HORN AT SOMEONE EQUAL SEX FOR MONEY? BLOWING HORNS AT WOMEN THAT LOOK BEAUTIFUL IN SOME MEN EYES SHOULD NOT BE MISCONSTRUED AS BEING TREATED LIKE A HOOKER!

    LOOK AS A BLACK MAN I RECOGNIZE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SEXES AS RELATES TO RACE AND GENDER. IM OLD SCHOOL WITH A NEW SCHOOL TWIST. I WOULD NEVER HIT A WOMAN EVEN IF SHE HITS ME. NOW UNLESS MY LIFE IS THREATENED THEN I WILL ADDRESS IT. I BELIEVE THIS HAS A LOT TO DO WITH GUYS COMING OUT THE CLOSET THAN WOMEN GETTING DISRESPECTED. IT IS A DIFFERENT DAY AND TIME. EVERYONE IS BECOMING MORE SELF-CONTAINED. WE DONT DEPEND ON EACH OTHER LIKE WE DID ONCE BEFORE.

    EVERYONE IS BECOMING MORE SEGREGATED WHEN IT COMES TO GENDER. WITH MEN ITS EITHER YOU ARE GAY OR YOU ARE NOT. WITH WOMEN ITS YOU ARE A LADY, A WOMAN OR A FEMALE. EVEN THE TRANNY'S COMES INTO PLAY. BASIC CHIVALRY IS DEAD! SPECIFIC CHIVALRY IS ON LIFE SUPPORT. YOU DONT KNOW WHO IS WHO OR WHO IS WHAT THESE DAYS.

  35. #35

    Saurs

    "If they want to “achieve” “equality” (equal to whom, one may ask), desperately need a leg up in order to compensate for being intellectually and physically inferior."

    That leg up already exists, its called AA, welfare and alimony which was imposed by feminist ideology. Not that I am implying women are collectively inferior but that inferior individuals (less qualified) are given preferential treatment solely on the basis of their sex.

  36. #36

    Correcting myself about feminism imposing alimony, however they are trying damn hard to keep it going (NOW).

  37. #37

    Ye ole knights of thy round table shan't let any fair maiden walketh through thy door unholdeth open. Chivalry owns.

  38. #38

    The main pusher of chivalry these days seems to be feminism. Ladies first through male sacrifice in all areas of society seems to be the aim.

  39. #39

    Affirmative action and welfare are not forms of chivalry nor are they result of chivalric thinking; they are reactions to institutionalized racism, poverty, and social inequality and do not discriminate against men. The discussion at hand pertains to why chivalry is falsely described as a code of behavior that helps women. It doesn't. It hinders women by removing them from the public sphere, and it unfairly forces men to become the unwilling guardians of women everywhere. Proponents of chivalry are wont to imply that feminists are simply ignorant as to how chivalric behavior benefits women by "protecting" them from violent men (while conveniently ignoring that chivalric behavior encourages violence amongst men), and that they are doing themselves and women everywhere a disservice by trying to eradicate modes of chivalry from acceptable public behavior.

    Chivalry and social welfare are not the same thing, do not emanate from the same impulses. Removing political and economic barriers, built by bigotry and discrimination, to people of color and women has nothing to do with unfairly giving inferior folk a leg up, and everything to do with eliminating bias and weakening white boys' clubs. Chivalry, on the other hand, rigidly defines men and women as separate creatures who should be afforded different social status -- a woman becomes the property of a man and of the state, and the man receives full autonomy under the law.

  40. #40

    "has nothing to do with unfairly giving inferior folk a leg up"

    But it does do this, motive is irrelevant.

    You talk about women not needing a leg up, but you got the government to give it to you.

  41. #41

    Not to argue with the troll, but I just thought I'd post my source: "Each year, women experience about 4.8 million
    intimate partner related physical assaults and rapes.
    Men are the victims of about 2.9 million intimate
    partner related physical assaults." (from cdc.gov)

    The link posted by the troll is interesting and definitely worth reading, but the study seems to be restricted to small segment of the population (university students in committed relationships, though it does include many countries) and also says nothing about lesbian relationships at all.

  42. #42

    No one is getting a leg up. White men are not being discriminated against. Please stop with the pearl clutching, S.

  43. #43

    I don't know about the lesbian relationship violence thing, but the statistic regarding female violence against males is well known with some qualifiers:

    Women tend to hit men with more frequency than men hit women, BUT male against female violence (when it occurs) is more likely to more violent (doing more bodily harm), pathological, and systematic. Female violence against males isn't usually as aggressive and doesn't do as much damage.

  44. #44

    @Beth

    Going off what I added. Women will report violence to authorities at higher rates than men (which is what your statistics record). So, this doesn't necessarily contradict the study posted earlier.

  45. #45

    Beth, you dishonest bigot..

    REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS:
    AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

    Martin S. Fiebert
    Department of Psychology
    California State University, Long Beach

    Last updated: November 2009

    SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 271 scholarly investigations: 211 empirical studies and 60 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 365,000.

    h ttp://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

    And on lesbian battering whice is far more common than haterosexual battering..

    “..... abuse among lesbians occurs with far greater frequency than among heterosexuals (given as 24% by the study above), and far more frequently than male-on-female abuse. Estimates of abuse have ranged between 47% and 73% (Coleman, 1990; Bologna, Waterman, Dawson, 1987; Lie. et al. 1991) among lesbian subjects who responded to questionnaires assessing prevalence of some form of physical, sexual, or emotional-psychological abuse in at least one relationship. Estimates of verbal abuse in lesbian relationships have been as high as 95% (Kelly & Warshafsky, 1987). About half of lesbian subjects who participated in research surveys indicated they had experienced 10 or more abusive incidents during their relationships, and about three-quarters had experienced 6 or more (Renzetti 1992)”.

    h ttp://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1546465

  46. #46

    @Eo

    Still doesn't change the fact that male against female violence is far more aggressive, does more damage, and tends to be pathological. To pretend the two are on equal footing is just foolish.

  47. #47

    Jesus Son

    Thats your opinion or sexist myths that you have picked up along the way, I'm not posting opinion, Im posting studies.

  48. #48

    Really interesting article. Lots to think about. Thanks!

  49. #49

    Why does anyone bother engaging with Eo? Seriously.

  50. #50

    Agree with this post. Another thing to consider when people express nostalgia for the good old days of "chivalry" is that in reality, it wasn't just a system of behavior for "men" and "women," i.e. it didn't just encourage men to expend a lot of energy giving women the high-quality treatment they supposedly deserved. Instead it encouraged men to treat upper-class, respectable white women with the utmost respect, and let them get away with treating all other women like shit -- or even encouraged that kind of treatment. Throughout most of history, would a courteous man be expected to extend chivalry to prostitutes, women whose behavior was "promiscuous," or lower-class women who were presumed to be sexually available? No, of course not. Or just think of a culture like the old South, which probably seems like a high water mark of gentlemanly standards to a lot of people. Chivalry didn't apply to servants, & certainly not to slave women.

    So even if the "chivalrous" behavior of Ye Olden Tymes often included a lot of genuine courtesy and consideration, men of today are still held to a much higher standard. Being nice doesn't mean all that much when you only have to be nice to a tiny sliver of the population.

  51. Suzanne Sugerbaker
    #51

    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.

  52. #52

    Maybe they were hooting at her fiancee.

  53. #53

    @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).

  54. #54

    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.

  55. #55

    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.

  56. #56

    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.

  57. #57

    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.

  58. #58

    @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.

  59. #59

    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

  60. #60

    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

  61. #61

    Eo GREAT POINT IN COMMENT #56.

  62. #62

    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.

  63. #63

    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.

  64. #64

    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.

  65. #65

    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.

  66. #66

    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.

  67. #67

    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.

  68. #68

    @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...

  69. A Father and a Man
    #69

    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.....

  70. #70

    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.

  71. #71

    @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.

  72. #72

    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.

  73. #73

    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.

  74. #74

    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.

  75. #75

    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.

  76. A Father and a Man
    #76

    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

  77. #77

    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?

  78. #78

    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.

  79. #79

    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.

  80. #80

    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

  81. #81

    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.

  82. #82

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

  83. #83

    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.

  84. #84

    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.

  85. #85

    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.

  86. #86

    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.

  87. #87

    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.

  88. #88

    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.

  89. #89

    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.

  90. #90

    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.

Comments Shown. Turn Comments Off.
...