[Versus]

Concerning your question, is that a colorful way of saying something else?

If you mean that most men don't consider it 'feminine' when women are prone to violence, I would be inclined to agree that that is often the case. Our society has clearly defined violence as something outside the female gender role, so it's not surprising that most people, women included, would fine it odd.

If you mean that most men don't consider it 'feminine' when women are not submissive to the threat of violence, I would be inclined to agree that that is also often the case, though for different reasons.

To me, the latter is more irritating then anything. In the instance I described above, I was trying to deescalate the situation by remaining calm and appealing to her with logic, so I did not threaten her with violence. However, I think it's implied that once you punch someone in face, it's kind of an open invitation to fight. It was irritating to me because my immediate thought was "Bitch, I could fucking wreck you." I didn't, but holy shit, I really wanted to. Looking back on it, I can't help but wonder if it was something I didn't do because my uppercuts are discriminate, or because violence isn't the answer.

My question to you: Is it me, or do most women think that, because they are women, they have impunity to physical retaliation whenever they get 'uppity?'