I base this assertion on the much higher acquittal rate for female spousal murders vs male spousal murders.
I question your assertion on the basis that that's an overly simplistic measure, relying on the assumption that there's no significant difference between the events that lead to such trials. It's entirely possible that cultural assumptions about women's weakness will influence a jury against considering her capable of murder (or assault), but it's at least equally possible that those same assumptions will influence women to avoid committing violence against men except under threats that serve as adequate cause for self-defense in the eyes of the law. And at the same time, assumptions that men should be dominant will influence more men to commit violence with no such justification, leading to a higher conviction rate.
EDIT: Above is a plausible alternative explanation, not an assertion of sincere belief about the true situation. My actual belief is that you're concluding something in agreement with your initial opinion based on insufficient data, and there isn't enough information to conclude what the source of the difference is. ENDEDIT
More broadly, though, I'm frustrated by the strategy of taking an argument about women's treatment in media and spending so much time arguing about victimization of men. I don't intend to say men are never victimized, nor do I intend to say that their problems don't matter. It's just that it seems like a subtle derail to bring up examples of how men are treated in a discussion about how women aren't. Perhaps I've missed the point, but it seemed like Anita's argument was that women have X, Y, or Z as potential roles, and can also fill in when the medium doesn't make any meaningful distinction (for instance, silent protagonists). And that that's the extent of their participation. It wasn't about the industry being unfair in favor of men, for instance.
At least, that's what I took away from it. All armchair reasoning, or it would be if this damn office chair had arms... It's also possible that I've missed part of the conversation that made this whole double standards thing relevant, or the part of the video. Fallibility is definitely a thing that could be relevant here. So, sorry if I've mischaracterized any arguments here.