The more potent, unasked question is how society at large reacts to eager, voluntary violence by females, and to the growing evidence that women can be just as aggressive as men.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Perhaps the strongest evidence that women have as broad and deep a capacity for physical aggression as men is anecdotal. And as with men, this capacity has expressed itself in acts from the brave to the brutal, the selfless to the senseless.
The denial of female aggression is a destructive myth. It robs an entire gender of a significant spectrum of power, leaving women less than equal with men and effectively keeping them 'in their place' and under control.
Women find men attractive who are aggressive... but later on, they get worried that that aggression, that alpha energy, is going to be turned back against them and their children.
We live with a distinct double standard about male and female aggression. Women's aggression isn't considered real. It isn't dangerous; it's only cute. Or it's always self-defense or otherwise inspired by a man. In the rare case where a woman is seen as genuinely responsible, she is branded a monster - an 'unnatural' woman.
The origins of violence against women by men are not biological. If that were the case, it would exist in every culture. And it doesn't exist in every culture.
By all measures men are the more violent gender.
Men are distinguished from women by their commitment to do violence rather than to be victimized by it.
Everyone has a different training style and being a female, sometimes you find you have to get really aggressive. Some people respond really well to aggression, some people don't.
As women are empowered, violence can come down, for a number of reasons. By all measures, men are the more violent gender.
Speaking as a biologist, I think women are less aggressive than men, and they play a larger role in the early education of the young and helping them overcome their genetic heirloom.