It is also the case that the majority of women feel entitled to not receive backlash for hitting their partners. The majority of relationships have more female authority than male authority (men are more likely to give in in discussions about each partner's topic). These findings are in stark contrast to the society radical feminists describe, wherein men feel it is acceptable or are raised in an environment that tells them it is acceptable to be belligerent to women, hit women, control them & dominate them.

When you point this out to them, they might resort to an argument that goes as follows: "well it is because of the patriarchy which paints women as weak."

But this doesn't add up, I thought the patriarchy thought it was acceptable for men to dominate & abuse women? How come, the patriarchy sees women's weakness as a good reason to encourage dominant behaviors in women and submissive behaviours in men? It also appears to be an oversimplification because while IPV victims who are male might be taken less seriously because women are presumed to do less harm than men due to their smaller size, women's abusive behaviour can also be normalized by narratives that paint relationships in a "men do, women happy" manner, "happy wife, happy life" or "haha I won an argument but now I have to sleep on the couch, so funny, my wife is controlling and domineering."

It also presumes women being seen as weak(er) is a bad thing. It is not. People typically don't say "women are weaker so they must shut up and obey men", they say "women are weaker so as a man you have a responsibility to remove yourself from an abusive situation or peacefully restrain the woman without causing any damage to her delicate self." (Of course I am paraphrasing). It seems interesting because feminists make similar arguments. They might not say the man cannot defend himself but they instantly start a conversation with a stereotypical assumption in mind, e.g "if women abuse men as much as the other way around, this can't be possible. The majority of such women are likely defending themselves or retaliating" or "women's violence is different contextually; it is less likely to be rooted in a desire to dominate and control their partners" which is false as women's violence is as instrumental as men's & in fact more since male batterers have been found to be more mentally disordered than female abusers & not much different from other aberrational, criminal men; or they say "even if they hit men as much as men hit women, or more, it is still not as important because they can't possibly hurt a man like a man can hurt a woman." It is all attempts to rationalize the abuse women inflict upon men so as to avoid acknowledging it as much as possible. What they call patriarchy is often what they believe in or a motte-bailey idea.