If a woman (perhaps part of a gang) hits a man repeatedly (such as on the street, I'm not talking about a boxing match), should the man have the right to hit the woman back? Or is it always wrong in every circumstance for a man to hit a woman?
What about the situation of a married couple in which the wife (the woman) is taller, much heavier, and stronger than her husband (the man) and is physically abusive to her husband? Spousal abuse of men by their female wives happens. It is a reality. Should such men have a right to hit back to defend themselves (though hitting back in that circumstance might be foolish)?
One a young woman (who was much heavier/fatter than I, and probably taller than I) co-worker kicked me (for no reason that I could determine; she was angry at me but I had no idea why) in the office at the bank in which we worked. I was a ministerial servant (and a regular pioneer) at the time. I neither fought back nor yelled at her. My supervisor (a woman) was surprised at my inaction towards the violence. I didn't fight back because I believed that a man should never hit a woman in (at the time) but should I had kicked her back? I was in a lot of pain for having been kicked in the leg.
Furthermore, if it is always wrong for a man to hit a woman, does that mean it is always wrong for men in times of war to drop bombs onto civilian populations (since the populations include women and children)? Furthermore, Israel and a number of other countries have women soldiers. Does than mean that men soldiers of the competing countries fighting against the countries of the women combatants must not fire weapons at the women soldiers?
It seems to me that many of those who say it is always wrong for a man to hit a woman are inconsistent in their beliefs.