"John beat Mary."
John is the subject. Beat is the verb. Mary is the object. Good sentence. Next he moves to the second sentence, which says the same thing in the passive voice.
"Mary was beaten by John."
Now it's all about Mary
Then he discusses how the language of beaten has been supplanted by the legal term battered.
"Mary was battered."
And the final sentence in this sequence, flowing from the others, is,
"Mary is a battered woman."
So now Mary's very identity -- Mary is a battered woman -- is what was done to her by John in the first instance. But we've demonstrated that John has long ago left the conversation.
He goes on to discuss how we can change definitions of men, boyhood, systems, and structures. By framing the issue as just a "woman's issue", we do a disservice to the change that is required in society and in culture.
The same system that produces men who abuse men, produces men who abuse other men so we have it in our best interest to change and look at male culture. He works primarily with the US military and athletes. He looks at it from the point of view as the "bystander" approach instead of the perpetrator/victim binary which of course can be man/woman or woman/man or man/man,or woman/woman. The bystander approach takes a different tack than this.
Well worth the time it takes to listen.