I'm not sure, but I'm guessing that it might have something to do with the last few decades of activism against ‘domestic violence.’ There can be some very real problems with men who do actual injury to women, of course. But it seems to me that many feminist advocates who have condemned all forms of ‘violence against women’ are deliberately trying to blur the lines between acts that are merely intense and forceful, and those that do serious physical harm. In their view, a man who merely pushes his wife up against a wall without hurting her, or who just restrains her while she's having a tantrum, is committing ‘violence’ against her, merely by using physical force. And by that measure, ‘violence against women’ becomes a problem of epic proportions, requiring police departments to intervene in the most petty domestic disputes, and government agencies to hold training sessions to deprogram men out of their violent impulses.
If these were courses in anger management that teach men to punch a pillow instead of their wife, that would be a very good thing; such courses have proven their effectiveness. But in many cases, these programs follow a radical feminist agenda of teaching that any form of male domination is wrong; and that the husband must not only refrain from injuring his wife, but must also refrain from trying to assume any sort of leadership role in the relationship. (I kid you not; I've looked at a number of sites that explain this strategy. From their view, all evils are a result of male dominance.)