Physical violence, particularly the unarmed physical murder of a spouse is damn near universally committed by males.

Your characterisation of physical violence here seems to me to be overly specific, and deliberately so, in order to defend your initial position that is flawed. Of course "unarmed physical murder" is more commonly performed by men. Women, as a general rule, simply aren't strong enough to physically murder someone without being armed. They can and do, of course, use weapons to murder men, and physically harm men in other ways (throwing things is a classic one), and often when the man is unable to defend themselves (e.g. unconscious). Plenty of studies show that rates of domestic physical violence perpetrated by women is as high as that of men. Feminists, however, have deliberately hidden this evidence from view as it is doesn't agree with this narrative.

I'd say it's you is going too far by going up with specific scenarios to try to salvage a definition of certain behaviours that in reality isn't a very useful definition. It's actually a tactic used by feminists a lot. When anyone points out to a feminist that domestic violence is perpetrated at equal rates by men and women, they pivot to physical violence leading to "severe harm" instead; which still does tend to be inflicted more commonly on women by men, but mainly because men are physically stronger than women, not because women don't display physically violent behaviour.

Physical violence, particularly the unarmed physical murder of a spouse is damn near universally committed by males.

Your characterisation of physical violence here seems to me to be overly specific, and deliberately so, in order to defend your initial position that is flawed. Of course "unarmed physical murder" is more commonly performed by men. Women, as a general rule, simply aren't strong enough to physically murder someone without being armed. They can and do, of course, use weapons to murder men, and physically harm men in other ways (throwing things is a classic one), and often when the man is unable to defend themselves (e.g. unconscious). Plenty of studies show that rates of domestic physical violence perpetrated by women is as high as that of men. Feminists, however, have deliberately hidden this evidence from view as it is doesn't agree with this narrative.

I'd say it's you is going too far by going up with specific scenarios to try to salvage a definition of certain behaviours that in reality isn't a very useful definition. It's actually a tactic used by feminists a lot. When anyone points out to a feminist that domestic violence is perpetrated at equal rates by men and women, they pivot to physical violence leading to "severe harm" instead; which still does tend to be inflicted more commonly on women by men, but mainly because men are physically stronger than women, not because women aren't physically violent.

Physical violence, particularly the unarmed physical murder of a spouse is damn near universally committed by males.

Your characterisation of physical violence here seems to me to be overly specific, and deliberately so, in order to defend your initial position that is flawed. Of course "unarmed physical murder" is more commonly performed by men. Women, as a general rule, simply aren't strong enough to physically murder someone without being armed. They can and do, of course, use weapons to murder men, and physically harm men in other ways (throwing things is a classic one), and often when the man is unable to defend themselves (e.g. unconscious). Plenty of studies show that rates of domestic physical violence perpetrated by women is as high as that of men. Feminists, however, have deliberately hidden this evidence from view as it is doesn't agree with this narrative.

I'd say it's you is going too far by going up with specific scenarios to try to salving a definition of certain behaviours that in reality isn't a very useful definition. It's actually a tactic used by feminists a lot. When anyone points out to a feminist that domestic violence is perpetrated at equal rates by men and women, they pivot to physical violence leading to "severe harm" instead; which still does tend to be inflicted more commonly on women by men, but mainly because men are physically stronger than women, not because women aren't physically violent.

Physical violence, particularly the unarmed physical murder of a spouse is damn near universally committed by males.

Your characterisation of physical violence here seems to me to be overly specific, and deliberately so, in order to defend your initial position that is flawed. Of course "unarmed physical murder" is more commonly performed by men. Women, as a general rule, simply aren't strong enough to physically murder someone without being armed. They can and do, of course, use weapons to murder men, and physically harm men in other ways (throwing things is a classic one), and often when the man is unable to defend themselves (e.g. unconscious). Plenty of studies show that rates of domestic physical violence perpetrated by women is as high as that of men. Feminists, however, have deliberately hidden this evidence from view as it is doesn't agree with this narrative.

I'd say it's you is going too far by going up with specific scenarios to try to salving a definition of certain behaviours that in reality isn't a very useful definition. It's actually a tactic used by feminists a lot. When anyone points out to a feminist that domestic violence is perpetrated at equal rates by men and women, they pivot to physical violence leading to "severe harm" instead; which still does tend to be inflicted more commonly on women by men, but mainly because men are physically stronger than women, not because women aren't commonly physically violent.

Physical violence, particularly the unarmed physical murder of a spouse is damn near universally committed by males.

Your characterisation of physical violence here seems to me to be overly specific, and deliberately so, in order to defend your initial position that is flawed. Of course "unarmed physical murder" is more commonly performed by men. Women, as a general rule, simply aren't strong enough to physically murder someone without being armed. They can and do, of course, use weapons to murder men, and physically harm men in other ways (throwing things is a classic one), and often when the man is unable to defend themselves (e.g. unconscious). Plenty of studies show that rates of domestic physical violence perpetrated by women is as high as that of men. Feminists, however, have deliberately hidden this evidence from view as it is doesn't agree with this narrative.

I'd say it's you is going too far by going up with specific scenarios to try to salving a definition of certain behaviours that in reality isn't a very useful definition. It's actually a tactic used by feminists a lot. When anyone points out to a feminist that domestic violence is perpetrated at equal rates by men and women, they pivot to physical violence leading to "severe harm" instead; which still does tend to be inflicted more commonly on women by men, but mainly because men are physically stronger than women, not because women are never physically violent.

Physical violence, particularly the unarmed physical murder of a spouse is damn near universally committed by males.

Your characterisation of physical violence here seems to me to be overly specific, and deliberately so, in order to defend your initial position that is flawed. Of course "unarmed physical murder" is more commonly performed by men. Women, as a general rule, simply aren't strong enough to physically murder someone without being armed. They can and do, of course, use weapons to murder men, and physically harm men in other ways (throwing things is a classic one), and often when the man is unable to defend themselves (e.g. unconscious). Plenty of studies show that rates of domestic physical violence perpetrated by women is as high as that of men. Feminists, however, have deliberately hidden this evidence from view as it is doesn't agree with this narrative.

I'd say it's you is going too far by going up with specific scenarios to try to salving a definition of certain behaviours that in reality isn't a very useful definition. It's actually a tactic used by feminists a lot. When anyone points out to a feminist that domestic violence is perpetrated at equal rates by men and women, they pivot to physical violence leading to "severe harm" instead; which still does tend to be inflicted more commonly on women by men, by mainly because men are physically stronger than women.

Physical violence, particularly the unarmed physical murder of a spouse is damn near universally committed by males.

Your characterisation of physical violence here seems to me to be overly specific, and deliberately so, in order to defend your initial position that is flawed. Of course "unarmed physical murder" is more commonly performed by men. Women, as a general rule, simply aren't strong enough to physically murder someone without being armed. They can and do, of course, use weapons to murder men, and physically harm men in other ways (throwing things is a classic one), and often when the man is unable to defend themselves (e.g. unconscious). Plenty of studies show that rates of domestic physical violence perpetrated by women is as high as that of men. Feminists, however, have deliberately hidden this evidence from view as it is doesn't agree with this narrative.

I'd say it's you is going too far by going up with specific scenarios to try to salving a definition of certain behaviours that in reality isn't a very useful definition.