Women's Monopoly on Violence
I thoroughly appreciate his "take the bull by the horns" approach to the issue, and I'd love to see what any feminist or male collaborationist would say, or even COULD say, in rebuttal to such an argument.
Personally, I would tend to handle this issue (of female violence against men and cultural immunity from retaliation) in a more indirect way, a more legalistic and serpentine way. I would argue somewhat along the following line:
"Female violence against men is both culturally and legally sanctioned. This voids any social contract that would obligate any man to behave non-violently toward women. Therefore, I cannot will male non-violence toward women as a purely social imperative or as an objectively grounded moral law. Given that no social contract presently exists that would constitute the objective basis for such an imperative, it follows that no such basis factually exists save it were manifested as a moral law within myself, grounded in my personal identity, agency, and autonomy."
All of which is a fancy way of saying that I am free to deal with women as the case demands, and as my personal honor and goodness dictates, and that nothing external to myself can dictate the exact form that my personal honor and goodness might assume.
But Snark tackles the question of female violence against men by a more straightforwardly ethical and axiological line of approach—an approach I find refreshing in its candor.
It has additionally occurred to me that women's monopoly on violence maps very closely to the state's monopoly on violence. The following links are relevant in this connection: