Consensual relationships based on male dominance (including the man's ability to enforce his dominance via his greater strength) can be a wonderful thing for many men and women, but the common perceptions of ‘violence’ make it difficult for many people to see this. The word ‘violence’ is often inappropriately applied.
For example, let's say a woman plays on a soccer team and comes home all bruised and banged-up, following a hard-won victory on the field. I'll bet the radical feminists – and the public at large – would have nothing but cheers and accolades for her. But if a woman were to incur the same exact injuries – minor and temporary as they are – at the hands of her dominant husband, there would be a huge cry of outrage. Why? In both cases, the situation has the woman's total consent: she's there to have precisely this sort of experience, and she's there because she chose that. In both cases, the injuries are minor and temporary; no lasting harm will come of them. (In this example; obviously both soccer and husbands do have the potential to do real injury.) In both cases, the lifestyle she's chosen is important to her; but I think we can safely say that for most women their marriage would be much more important than any sports team. The only reason society approves of the first case and strongly disapproves of the second case is that they refuse to acknowledge that male dominance can be a good thing, and that many women will enter happily and willingly into that sort of relationship. Those assumptions need to be challenged.