Eh, their overall point is certainly valid, but in the situation with the woman assaulting the man, I would not be greatly concerned for his physical safety (which, granted, is assuming he doesn't have some kind of physical disability, which isn't a great assumption). Being bigger and stronger, he has the option to extricate himself while staying purely on the defensive, whereas a woman being assaulted typically doesn't have that option without assistance from a bystander. I don't think we want to over-equalize everything to the point where we overlook that underlying all male-female interaction is that if it somehow degenerates to violence, the male will most likely ultimately control the outcome

This is why you are part of the problem.
The assumptions you must make to ignore the abuse make your position unsupportable.
And, if that man had defended himself, even if he could do so purely on the defensive, which is an unbelievable theory, he would be assumed to be the aggressor and likely attacked by strangers with similar mindsets to yours.
Not all men are fighters, not all women are non-violent. I have a sister in law that loves to go to bars and beat up men, she's never lost a fight (that she always starts) because if she starts to lose, she pretends to be the victim and her victim gets attacked by strangers. That's total bullshit, and I expect her to end up murdered some day.

The problem is that most people who are victimized reach a point where they don't feel capable of protecting themselves. Abusers rarely start with actual physical abuse, they work on a victim mentally until they break. Once they control the mind, the body simply refuses to follow typical fight or flight responses.

Think about it, if defending yourself was the only thing stopping abuse why wouldn't a person being abused equalize the playing field immediately? Grab a gun, a knife, hell a cast iron pan, and then protect yourself! But a person who has been trained to be a victim isn't going to take that step without outside influence, some sort of mitigating factor.

You will find that the overwhelming number of battered people won't defend themselves until that catalyst is added, like seeing their child being abused as well or someone they care about.

Fair enough, but these are separate issues, I agree with the premise of the video. But, while it would be a mistake to assume that men cannot be victims of abuse, it would also be a mistake to assume general equivalency. Take, Weinstein for example. Once he'd isolated his victims, they had to handle their situation with the added fear that he may physically overpower and rape them. With the gender roles reversed, the situation would in most cases not be the same. There is an extra dimension that needs to be considered resulting from the biological fact that men are bigger and stronger than women. I believe you do need to consider gender, even though it would be nice if you didn't.

Ok, but also consider the early training and constant reinforcement of the idea that, under no circumstances, ever, may a man hit or injure a woman. Surely that at least partially mitigates the average size difference.

I get what you're trying to say but you don't really have to be bigger to abuse someone. You're ignoring the fact that women are typically given the benefit of the doubt in domestic violence situations because of that sort of thinking. Abusive women can and do use that fact to their advantage; a man can feel powerless to defend himself for any number of reasons: fear of mob-justice, criminal charges, loss of job, financial ruin, etc.

It's interesting that the people they interviewed after the roles were reversed felt that the man must have done something to piss off the woman and that somehow justified her behaviour.

No, not take Weinstein for example, that is an entirely different case and it undermines your position to use such an obvious straw man.

Society promotes the concept that men are violent, women are not. Any man that uses physical violence on a women is evil and if a woman raises a hand to a man and he strikes her in defense, he would still be the one that had to explain himself. Look at the Duluth model re: domestic violence sometime to see how truly baked in the myth that men are the perps and women are the vics...

https://medium.com/iron-ladies/men-are-still-pigs-the-politicization-of-domestic-violence-2cfa7488c204 (written by a woman for noting)

Particularly salient.

[i]It’s clear to me that despite the fact the Duluth Model has proven to be worthless, programs still adhere to the same principles. Men are still the automatic perpetrators, women are always victims. What’s worse is the men under attack by violent wives have no way of protecting themselves. Their right to self-defense in domestic violence cases has been cancelled.[/i]

I'm all for acknowledging that differences between the sexes is an absolutely real thing, but the long and the short of it is that women are basically allowed to assault men almost without consequences, but in the reverse situation the man would (justifiably) have the book thrown at him. And while men do have the physical advantage (although not always), they are hamstrung by society. The mere threat of a rape accusation (or far worse, the accusation that the husband has been abusing the kids) would silence most men in a heartbeat because they understand that the police, the judge, the social workers will believe the woman first.

Violence is wrong as is giving women a free pass because they rolled vagina in the game of life.