My blogging superior is fond of pointing out the foolishness of this notion that most modern women are at risk of most modern men; especially when compared to the brutality of previous eras. My own view is that, as a rule, most men have never been very brutal to most women under them; that they were not much different back then than men now. Men are deferential to women’s preferences now.I largely agree with this assessment. There have been brutal men, to be sure (like, say, Muslims living in modern England). But male brutality towards women is more the exception than the norm, esepcially when discussing male brutality towards women under their care (e.g. male brutality towards women is more likely directed towards foreign women in a war zone than one's own wife or daughter).
Thus, it becomes quite interesting to contemplate from whence the charges of male brutality come. It's a fantasy, but is it of the wish-fulfillment variety or the martyr-complex variety?