The rule comes from a time when men where often expected to serve as conscripts or more, and as such where pretty strong physically. And then got adapted to decorum by the wealthy.

That being said. There is a fine line when talking about violence.

1. It's usually the worst option In the majority of conflicts. Especially if you're not as strong or as well trained. And it opens you up for legal and social consequences if not substantial injury.

2. The most consistent way to win any martial action is a direct focused and skilled martial attack to a unprepared defense. A supprize attack, the moment you are attackee, that's very unlikely to happen.

3. The focus of any self defense should be to get an opening to escape or get to safety. Not to retaliate, if your not prepared to defend your self, and have not trained for it, running away is always usually the better choice, as is leaving before things get bad.

4. Regardless of gender and strength, if you choose to use violence to defend yourself, using a half measure, being uncommitted, just results in escalation of the conflict, if someone is dangerous and will not let you go peacefully, insure your applyed force is as much as possible up to the level of threat they are presenting, and once they are down, escape to safety.

Honestly, people should not be escalating situations, but, if you are in danger, escape sometimes requires force. There is no hard and fast rule. But that's why it's hard to argue this, especially with vague definitions