Wonderful response there from everybody.  

Now, let me first say this:  I do not like gratuitous violence, whether the perpetrator be male or female.  It's part of the reason why I love the Sylph stories so much (yes, stmercy, I am a bit of a crawler, aren't I?)   HOWEVER, I am a dreadful hypocrite, so here's the bit where I go back and modify that statement.  I loathe bullies and those who use physical size, strength or the threat of abuse to make themselves feel powerful.  This emotion is at its strongest when it comes to males sexually assaulting females.  This utter hatred of the scumbags that prey on women was one of the motivations for me to start this thread in the first place.  Given that, if for example, a buff woman (FBB, strongwoman competitor, whatever) came-across a woman being raped in an alleyway by some low-life piece of dog s***, I would hope, nay expect, that she would, after stopping the assault, give the scumbag the biggest beating he will ever have had.  My disability is one of fragile bones.  I therefore normally hate the thought of human bones breaking - I've experienced it enough times first-hand.  However, in this hypothetical case, I would hope that our strong woman would break as many bones in the bastard's body as she could, save his neck or back.    

Similarly, I don't support the "might is right" argument - it's part of the reason why I've quarrelled with Lingster over the US Republican administration.  I do not appreciate people throwing their weight around, and, if our hypothetical strong woman were to pick fights and do damage to people, then I'd hate her too.  It's just that, to me, rape and associated crimes are so dreadful, so horrific and evil that I can, in my own mind, justify extreme force as a response.  If it's just a general assault, or a burglary, then I support the right to defend oneself, family and property, but no more (no chasing the burglar out into the street and shooting them in the back).

That's all I have to say. <cries>

Thanks Jimmy, that post was worth waiting for!
I agree 100% about the idea that the caring, kind, nurturing ideal that we all like about the classical female personality got misinterpreted as meaning that she should not show aggression or violence, even in self-defence, because it's not feminine.    I appreciate the kind, gentle nature of many women as much as any guy, and I certainly wouldn't want an overly aggressive, nasty woman as a girlfriend any more than I'd want to be mates/buddies/whatever with a guy like that, either.  Where (for me) that stops, however, is in terms of mental toughness (one can be sweet and kind but have a "survivior" streak of mental strength, IMO) and when it comes to defending oneself or those that we love.  Look at nature:  a lioness carries her cubs in her mouth without barely ruffling their fur, but, if a potential predator of those cubs comes along, she defends them as only a big cat can.

Might that be Colette Dowling in "The Frailty Myth", a book I keep meaning to order from the oh-so-appropriately-named amazon.co.uk, but have, as yet not got around to doing?  I know in the reviews I've read, it says that her central argument is that the whole concept of female frailty is an Industrial Revolution construction; before that, in farming and, as stmercy says, hunter-gatherer groups, women were expected to do physical work and not laze around being dainty as they were in polite Victorian society (brilliant engineers, the Victorians - Bazalgette with London sewers, Brunel with railways, ships and bridges etc., but bloody awful at gender politics). 

BTW, I sent stmercy a link to an article from which my Amaz0ns signature is taken, and he suggested I post it in this thread.  It's very good, and it's at http://www.untaming.com/archive1.html

You don't seem to be too bad at humility when I compliment you on your Sylph stories.  So, have you got the book?  What's it like?