Its because we have different view.
It's not about views, and it certainly is not about women, or men, per se, but about the normative and conditional structures and the responsibilities of both men and women regarding them.
I'm just going to take your two examples: in the case of the husband beating, let me ask you: who choose, and therefor validated and enabled him? Was she kidnapped? Married by force? Sequestred? No she choose him and guess what, most women do precisely so because the guy shows attitude, character and signs that are in fact related to being abusive, agressive and toxic. But as an adult, did she quit him? Did she sue him? Or heck for that matter did she defend herself? No, because we constantly infantilise, deresponsibilise and therefor continue letting women fantasize, injunct, enable and validate without consequences (or rather responsibilities) the toxicity, aggressiveness and dominance lot of them seek out, to only position or even conceive themselves as the immaculate victim of terrible random events they had no choice or influence (responsibilities in). Of course, when she does at least contact police, then police should do their job, that's also a problem, and of course the guy is the problem as well, except everyone does consider them so...
In your case? She was violent with you, and then she lied and falsely accused you, which could have grave consequences: did she ever get confronted with responsibilities for that? NO, not an ounce and for exactly the same reasons as previously mentioned: because of the constant infantilisation and deresponsibilisation of women. Well guess what: this serves neither men, nor women.
So it's so much about all those men and women who are just symptoms of a larger problem of culture, principle, discourse and laws. And that's what lot of people are criticizing behind the non-said...