I'm certainly not Muslim and no subject matter expert on this topic. I think like any religious group, Muslims would have the same ability to interpret their holy book as they wanted to - liberally or more conservatively and people of different character and understanding will act differently based upon the teachings and directive given to them.
I think it's challening for a lot of people outside the auspices of this particular faith, it is for me, as a woman, to digest the concept of being subservient to a husband who would have the religious authority to beat me if I fell out of line. But, I have to acknowledge my own unfairness when making such assumptions about other cultures. The veiled woman isn't necessarily abused or unhappy within her marriage, even if indoctrinated into such circumstances.
However, I think I might get the point that Godobeyer was making and maybe he can correct me if I'm wrong.
And I think the point that was being made is that the subservience means to the greatest extent that the man is head of household - the provider, the protecter, the authority. But, when acting as such in a loving, compassionate manner - and loving his spouse - an abusive relationship wouldn't exist, because he would see his spouse as something precious and she would be subservient out of love and respect, because they would both abide by the teachings of their holy book, consentually. He wouldn't have to beat her as he wouldn't be inclined to do so. They would work out their problems as married couples do.
I felt this was the point that Godobeyer was making and again, if I'm wrong, I hope he speaks up.