Almost every convicted male domestic batterer has the same story. He was the one being attacked. He was just defending himself. The truth keeps trickling in bit by bit under scrutiny. It inevitably ends up something like this:
"I may have punched her in the face this once, but she stabs me in the heart with her cruelty day in and day out"
His own offense is minimalized (a woman hospitalized for a concussion and severely injured enough to secure a conviction was "punched") and his version of what led to this uses much more violent and dramatic imagery than he earlier used.
In this way a woman's words become "literal" violence simply because violence is the emotion and course of action that they inspire in the man. Because violence is what he resorts to, violence of a similar nature must have inspired it. It simply wouldn't be logical for it to come out of nowhere.
This is how we can't even show up to protests with signs saying "adult human female" without being accused of genocide, but very violent threats, assault at protests, calls for harm, and harassment are just perfectly fine. A bit of tit for tat, a bit of literal violence in the face of literal violence.
The tactics of violent men are being employed while it feels like the entire world celebrates.