The link you've provided, as someone else pointed out, specifies that while women might be slightly more likely to perpetrate physical violence in an intimate relationship, it is significantly less likely than when men perpetrate to be severe (as in beatings, bruising, broken bones, and hospitalization), and more likely to be restricted to slapping, pushing, etc. Still shitty either way and shouldn't happen regardless of who is perpetrating and who is victimized, but it directly disproves the an…
Ok sure it can become a "statistic" in the purest sense of the word, but that doesn't mean that it's a statistic in any way representative of the world at large or even a small part of it. Like me saying "I spent an average of 7 minutes in the shower over the last 3 weeks" is a statistic, but it means absolutely nothing.
Nobody is arguing women aren't or can't be violent. But given what you've just said, it should be very easy to provide a legitimate source on those statistics, which I look forward to seeing.
Because the title and your comment essentially amount to "It's ridiculous that women are cautious around men, even though the vast majority of women (and men!) are killed by men. Don't that know they women kill people too sometimes?! WOMEN STUPID! WOMEN BAD!"
Just because a couple piece of shit women did something heinous doesn't negate the women (or men) who have been victims of violence. It's not a competition.
Nobody can tell you otherwise about your personal experience but anybody can tell you that your individual experience is in zero way whatsoever representative of the world at large.
"To all the medical and research professionals who love recycling the ridiculous idea that tobacco use increases the likelihood of developing cancer, here is a single example of one single person who smoked 3 packs a day and lived to 90 HURR DURR."
You also literally said you'd understand if someone beat your sister or daughter to within an inch of their life because they cheated on someone. Sounds like justification to me.
