Nope, evolutionary psychology has debunked, you, men being strong and capable of defending themselves is good, because it leads to the survival of the species; the genetic role of males is to be the protector of women as women produce children and further civilization, so a weak and pathetic men is in some ways more detestable than a violent men, because a violent man is still capable of protecting a woman from other violent men, while a weak man is next to useless to women, and nothing more than helpless little son rather than a husband.
So the reality is that women who rightfully shun 'nice guys' and date bad boys are doing the virtuous thing and deserve society's approval, since they're helping further the human race by choosing males capable of protecting it and passing on healthy genetics; weak and submissive men are just worthless wastes of oxygen, and should rightfully be bulled, shamed and denied sex, as cowardice is a far eviler vice than aggression.
Strong men should dominate the weak, weak men like yourself and Elliot Rogers should be purged from society for not fulling your biological duty, and therefore being just useless wastes of oxygen of no use to society or civilization. Women who date violent men are therefore doing the virtuous thing and should be applauded for putting the interest of civilization ahead of the interest of spineless, weak, nice guys and degenerates who are useless to society for anything other than slave labor - the only right in the law of the jungle is might.
Therefore I sympathize with and support women who cheat on weak, beta provider men, with superior and more virtuous bad boys, since they're rightfully just using the weak for all they're worth, slave labor, and pursuing the better genetic interest of civilization - women who cheat on weak men with stronger men should receive a medal for it, not scorn, which is just the refuse of the weak and jealous.
