You just contradicted yourself. Your entire article was about how male abusers get a societal pass while female abusers are excoriated to the bitter end. Now you're saying female abusers get away with abuse.

Unless you're talking about legalities? Being charged, tried, and sentenced?

In that case, you're at least partially wrong, especially on two fronts. Since your articles focused on two famous American couples, I'll focus on what happens in America.

When a DV call is made, the person who made the call is the one the police focus on. If there's a mark on them, you immediately go to jail. If both parties are still going at it, then whoever threw a punch goes to jail. Lots of times nobody is taken in, especially if there is no physical evidence unless one or both parties is drunk. But then you're not charged with battery or DV, but with drunk and disorderly, disturbing the peace, etc; someone has to press charges. It's usually a third party. A neighbor, a kid, etc.

Procedurally, and allowing for some variance between state laws and different police districts, that's what's supposed to happen. What happens in reality is often subject to police biases, of which, there are many.

It's debatable as to whether or not it's harder to get a conviction against a female abuser. It usually comes down to established patterns of behavior, if anyone has witnessed the abuse, and physical evidence.

I don't think it's arguable, however, that women get lesser sentences when they are convicted. Women tend to get harsher sentences and serve more complete sentences for any crime with violence attached to it and less for ones that don't. A DV charge even has violence in the name.