In the 1970s feminists elaborated a lie in which men and women are two human classes, parallel to aristocracy and proletarians, such that the male class oppresses the female class through intimidation by violence to keep it down. In this lie, all men are coordinated and every male-violence toward a female is done on behalf of "the male class" to keep "the female class" subjugated. This description is distorted. In reality, if a man cheats and his wife slaps him on the face it's obvious that it's not because she is part of a coordinated class of the females of the world and now disciplines the man on behalf of her class. Feminists are capable of regarding this woman as a human and assigning personal feelings to her - they understand she is simply angry. But if a man discovers his wife cheated and slaps her, feminists suddenly become incapable of assigning him the same humanity and personal emotions and are convinced that this was part of the coordinated physical oppression of the male "class" against the female "class" (men, do not slap a woman if she cheated - turn your back and walk without a word and without allowing conversation).

Since there is certainly very little violence between the sexes, simply because there's sexuality between them - that is, each was excluded by evolution from the internal aggressive competition of the other sex (as evident in the fact that most male violence is directed at males and most female violence is directed at females causing most violence experienced by a male to be from males and most violence experienced by a female to be from females) - feminism had a great problem demonstrating its absurd belief that the sexes are classes in a class war.

As a result, for 50 years now, feminists have been trying to inflate in every possible means the impression of permanent and prevalent male's violence against women to support their distorted perspective on the sexes. They have been trying to re-define normal communication between the sexes done by both, as violence by men and as showing hate. They thus told women to regard what is in fact the language of sexuality (looking, smiling, complementing, flirting) as violence and to learn to believe that when a man does this what he feels internally is hate and that these behaviors (looking, smiling, complementing, flirting) are manifestations of hatred. They redefined almost every gesture in the relations between the sexes as violence. They inflated numbers by widening definitions so wildly that for several years now all human behavior done by both sexes is defined as "violence" when done by men (see for example "microaggressions" and "gaslighting"). And they had to exempt any violence done by women to men (physical, social or sexual) as this would be merely the rebellion of an oppressed "class".

The consequences of the feminist discussion of violence are: the criminalization of the entire male sex, leading to demonizing it; legitimizing female violence by ignoring it and thereby increasing it (toward both sexes, and men specifically); presenting all women as victims; and stopping almost entirely the direct sexual communication between the sexes as feminism had to translate it to women into "violence" and "hate" (aka "the feminist lipreading", where feminists whisper on the ear of every woman in society that the normal gestures of the men she sees actually express hate - while women do all those things themselves and know from introspection that smiles, glances and flirting come form endearment and attraction and not from hate - yet the feminist lipreading causes women to completely ignore what they know about human expressions from using them themselves and read men as feminists whispered them to read them).

The thing to say about violence between the sexes is: it is the rarest type of all violence types because most human violence is directed to members of the same sex in both sexes, it is rare but as prevalent in both directions, it has no political element whatsoever and stating otherwise is incitement and hate speech; and among the types of violence, both directions of violence between the sexes are of the most severe types of violence and similiar in severity only to violence against children, because both sexes are completely exposed when violence from the other sex is directed at them since males and females have two separate types of violence (direct and physical in males, indirect and social-relational in females) and thus none knows the signs and how to evade or defend.

The feminist discussion on violence between the sexes, which presents it as political and coordinated violence, is in and of itself violence: by stereotyping and assigning violence to almost all men to prove the "classes theory" it becomes a severe form of incitement and hate speech and for the same theory it ignores the female violence, hence legitimizing and consequently increasing it in all forms toward both sexes - these are the two reasons that the feminist discussion, as opposed to a humanist discussion of violence between the sexes, is violence. The rare violence between sexes must be addressed, but not through political hate speech but from a humanist perspective, that acknowledges its true properties - being rare, bidirectional, having similar proportions in all forms, and perpetrated mostly as male-type violence by males and mostly as female-type violence by females. Otherwise this is not treating violence, but generating it.