She aced him out for position at the bar, then actively blocked him from taking an open spot to her left. Rude, but not illegal.
Instead of allowing her rudeness pass, he pulled on the bar and attempted to shoulder past her blocking attempts.
At this point it's all fairly normal jockeying for position. No actions by either of them have yet to rise to a level of starting a "real" physical confrontation, or they'd arrest everyone trying to worm their way through every crowd at every bar and concert ever.
The start of the physical altercation, the point where someone has crossed a line from what would be considered normal-if-rude jostling to directed violence, is when she turns, puts her elbow to his throat, and draws her fist back to punch him. This is the first threat of violence with the intent to harm we see.
He grabs her arm, which is a defense of her elbow in his throat and a means of controlling her posture to mitigate the threat of her punching him.
She attempts to punch him.
At this point both have been rude, but the only person who has threatened to attack, and then actually attacked, is her. Any man who behaved as she behaved would be hit 9/10 times. And any woman who behaved that way to a drunken stranger in a bar probably gets hit at least a couple times out of 10 as well.
She did everything she could to provoke a violent response. She did this without fear, counting on this drunken man taking her abuse. We haven't gotten to his behavior yet, but she is guilty of wrongdoing. She commits assault, and she brazenly takes advantage of a laws and societal pressure designed to protect women. I agree that her assault upon him likely posed little serious threat to him, but I think you will find it against the law for a smaller individual, even a woman, to assault a larger individual.
Still, she remains entitled to protection by law and societal pressure. His response was wildly disproportionate to her threat, everyone seems to agree on this. There is a reason men don't hit women, and that's because the strength/size differential means that a woman can swing wildly at a man and pose little threat, whereas a full-strength shot from a man is an existential threat to a woman.
The thing is, I don't see many defending his response, or the notion that he should be found guilty and punished for his poor judgment and violence. The notion that pointing out her wrongdoing is tantamount to endorsing violence against women is a strawman. It's also a distraction. This case isn't about violence against women in general, it's about this woman and this man in this situation. It is also a strawman to act as if those pointing out her wrongdoing must believe he was guilty of nothing. Arguing against such strawmen is certainly easier, but it renders any victory meaningless and doesn't advance what should be a serious and honest discussion.
Neither of the two should be adjudicated with one eye on the message that it sends to society, although I grant that this occurs in courtrooms. They should be held to the standards of the law as it stands. A society of laws does not ignore wrongdoing from one party because they are in a protected class.
