I know you guys aren't fond of me, but I figured you would like this comment by a feminist friend of mine. I posted this thread and she said this:
"I hate that song. I think the idea of one's partner as property, justifying the destruction of property or the physical assault of one's partner in return for dishonesty, is repugnant. If my partner lied to me about finances I wouldn't ke...y his car, and I consider the difference between lying about one large thing and another to be minimal. His body isn't my property, but we have an understanding that we will not share that part of our lives with others, and dishonesty on either of our parts would be unacceptable, but in the same way as it would be unacceptable for me to go and buy a new car without telling him: it would hide something that affects both of us and put both of us at risk for (in one case, physical, and in another, financial) harm.
Neither justifies assault. I don't know that one can say that partner-as-property is a specifically patriarchal idea, but I would argue that patriarchy certainly doesn't discourage this idea. I would also agree that an instance of a man destroying a woman's property in media would be (rightfully) decried, and that it's unacceptable that there is a double standard. I was similarly disturbed when Elin Nordegren went after Tiger Woods with a golf club: he screwed up, sure, but violence is violence."