That's really off topic and an odd non sequitur. What's your point? I don't think I've ever read anybody on FR saying that.
For decades on this site every time a female commits an assault and some guy knocks here on her ass we have gotten a chorus of idiots castigating the guy. Some insist that an escalation of the violence against the guy is in order.
That is and always has been total bullshit.
When I was growing up kids where I lived were taught not to hit ladies. But that was a social contract. Women would behave in a certain way to be considered ladies, and in return men would reciprocate by behaving as gentlemen.
When a contract is broken, all bets are off regarding the other side.
Other people seem to have internalized some effete notion that a man must never strike a woman under any circumstances...which will create a Society where this is widespread every time. And what we are seeing here isn't near as bad as feral women in parts of South America or as my recollections of the Philippines during the Marco's years.
Too many whiny buffoons on this site have insisted for years that men should not physically step up and intervene in these situations. They need to admit that their foolish notion is entirely unworkable if women are not behaving as ladies.
Now, if you want to pursue such an idiot cause as to insist that these women would be pulling this crap even if men started running out and defending their victims (which would of necessity require snacking them hard or putting them in joint locks) we can certainly debate that.
But your stupid “non sequitur” remark?
All equivocation like that is ever going to get you is ridicule.
Perhaps some people don't like getting an open “I told you so” when positions taken result in highly predictable and historically repeated states of civil behavior.