Intro/ Background

"The first part of this paper summarizes results from more than 200 studies that have found gender symmetry in perpetration and in risk factors and motives for physical violence in martial and dating relationships. It also summarizes research that has found that most partner violence is mutual and that self-defense explains only a small percentage of partner violence by either men or women. The second part of the paper documents seven methods that have been used to deny, conceal, and distort the evidence on gender symmetry. The third part of the paper suggests explanations for the denial of an overwhelming body of evidence by reputable scholars. The concluding section argues that ignoring the overwhelming evidence of gender symmetry has crippled prevention and treatment programs. It suggests ways in which prevention and treatment efforts might be improved by changing ideologically based programs to programs based on the evidence from the past 30 years of research."

Table of contents:

  1. Critisicms of the Duluth Mode (which even by the different names is still the model that is used in domestic violence today) - includes the CREATOR's own critisicm of the system years later as she realises how flawed it is.
  2. Female perspectice of the current system - what it did to her and her child
  3. Why do feminists support this model, if it doesnt actually work and it harms women?

1) CRITISCISM OF THE DULUTH MODEL WHICH ALSO APPLIES TO THE CURRENT MODEL OF HOW DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS DEALT WITH AS IT IS VERY SIMILAR:

Criticism of the Duluth Model has centered on the program's insistence that men are perpetrators who are violent because they have been socialized in a patriarchy that condones male violence, and that women are victims who are violent only in self-defense.[15] Some critics argue that "programs based on the Duluth Model may ignore research linking domestic violence to substance abuse and psychological problems, such as attachment disorders, traced to childhood abuse or neglect, or the absence of a history of adequate socialization and training."[9][16] Others criticize the Duluth model as being overly confrontational rather than therapeutic, focusing solely on changing the abuser's actions and attitudes rather than dealing with underlying emotional and psychological issues.[16] Donald Dutton, a psychology professor at the University of British Columbia who has studied abusive personalities, states: "The Duluth Model was developed by people who didn't understand anything about therapy,"[9] and also points out that "lesbian battering is more frequent than heterosexual battering."[17] Philip W. Cook points out that in the case of homosexual domestic violence, the patriarchy is absent: there is no male dominance of women in same-sex relationships, and in fact, female on female abuse is reported more than twice as frequently as male on male abuse.[18] Furthermore, some critics point out that the model ignores the reality that women can be the perpetrators of domestic violence in heterosexual relationships, as well.

The creator herself has said:

"By determining that the need or desire for power was the motivating force behind battering, we created a conceptual framework that, in fact, did not fit the lived experience of many of the men and women we were working with. The DAIP staff [...] remained undaunted by the difference in our theory and the actual experiences of those we were working with [...] It was the cases themselves that created the chink in each of our theoretical suits of armor. Speaking for myself, I found that many of the men I interviewed did not seem to articulate a desire for power over their partner. Although I relentlessly took every opportunity to point out to men in the groups that they were so motivated and merely in denial, the fact that few men ever articulated such a desire went unnoticed by me and many of my coworkers. Eventually, we realized that we were finding what we had already predetermined to find."[20]

The Duluth Model is featured in the documentary Power and Control: Domestic Violence in America with commentary from its authors as well as its main critics, such as Dutton.[21]

Erin Pizzey the founder of Chiswick Women's Aid, the first ever refuge in the world for victims of domestic violence notes in an interview in The Red Pill that men and women are equally capable of domestic violence, though over time domestic abuse shelters have shifted to be almost exclusively for battered women. [22]

Their [feminists] ideology also asserts that men were impervious to any therapeutic intervention, courtesy of their deeply ingrained patriarchal privilege.According to this new model they precluded anything but criminal treatment for men’s alleged violence toward women and children. Laws were passed that specifically forbade any couples intervention for men accused.[23]

2) Female DV victim's perspectice from Chani Joene Randazzo:

Feminism negatively affects mothers in need of the services of a domestic violence refuge.

Domestic violence refuges are all run on on the feminist Duluth model of domestic violence. This teaches that gender is the problem, not violence. This endangers women and children in several ways.

If they have a 12yr old son, they will be refused shelter. All post-pubescent males are banned from even knowing the street that the refuge is in. This includes police officers, taxi drivers and family members - even if they are a woman’s only support person. All men are believed to collude to oppress women, therefore all DV refuges have strict rules banning post-pubescent males. This leaves many women and children stuck in violent homes with no escape.

Because feminism believes gender and not violence is the problem, DV refuges end up sheltering violent women with their children. This means that women who are fleeing violence from others are met with more violence inside the refuge. Furthermore, those violent women are encouraged to see themselves as victims of male power so they receive none of the help that they (and their children) desperately need.

The violence inside many DV refuges is so bad that some women leave before they have a safe place to go.

Despite many women being referred to refuges due to violence from other women, women are still encouraged by refuge staff to view themselves as victims of men.

Around half of all children raised by violent and abusive women will grow up to be women themselves.

I was in two domestic violence refuges in 2004 and 2005. My 3 sons were all under the age of 7 at the time. We were sent there by children’s services due to my mother’s violence. The father of my sons was very sick at the time and being cared for by his mother on a bed in her lounge room. He was never alleged to have been violent.

We left the first refuge after 4 months due to the level of violence there. It simply was not safe. At least 4 women left due to the violence while I was there. There were several injuries, including a broken hand and stitches to a girl’s head. The level of abuse my children witnessed there was more violent than any of my mother’s drunken rages and far more distressing than their father’s illness. We left when my oldest son witnessed one of the women drop her toddler and kick him such that he became airborne. She later overheard my son saying we should tell the refuge manager what happened. The incident was witnessed by another staff member but nothing was done. So we left and stayed with my mother.

After another incident, we were sent to a second refuge. This one had only one other family in residence - a young Russian mother with a new baby and her mother. They were in the refuge due to violence from the older woman to her daughter’s husband. The husband demanded she leave. …domestic violence. The young mother herself was lovely. The only problem was that the refuge was a long way from any shops that sold fresh groceries. During a phone call with the father of my children, I told him this. He dragged himself out of bed and drove us back there with a load of fresh groceries. Except he was slow to pull up. I showed him where to stop but he ended up stopping way too close to the corner of the street the refuge was in. He got out of the car to try to help me with the kids and the groceries but his lungs couldn’t handle it. Our oldest son started to get distressed… this all attracted attention and we were seen. We were still 3 blocks and at least 300 metres away from the refuge itself, but that didn’t matter. He was a man so we had to go.

Our oldest son was so upset. He couldn’t understand why we had to leave. “Did Daddy do something bad?” he asked.I told him, no, Daddy’s done nothing wrong. They just don’t want Daddy knowing what street the refuge is in.“But why? Is Daddy a bad man?”I told him “no” again, saying Daddy’s a good man. They just don’t let any man know.Then he asked me if all men are bad. I told him no, but my heart was breaking.“But why do we have to leave? Will I be a bad man when I grow up?”Then a look of horror came across his little face and he said, “I don’t want to be a bad man.” He was 6 years old. And all I could do was hold him and cry.

We went back to live with my mother for another 4 harrowing years after that. I absolutely support equal opportunity regardless of gender but feminism is not that. Feminism ruined my life and the lives of my children for the better part of a decade. Feminism harms women and children as well as men.

3. Why do feminists support this approach if it actually HARMS women?

Because it allows around 5% of feminists to be very wealthy. It allows these feminists to create millions of book sales about issues that don't exist (see example of this feminist PROFFESSOR who has a book about how eating meat is toxic masculinity and contributes to the patriarchy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0VhtVecDKU). In these cases feminists have literally created a gendered issue from thin air and will make millions from doing this... it allows feminists gender studies professors to be established with immense power as they run entire departments of fake gender studies**. It has spawned an entire industry of journalism and allows journalists to keep a job e.g. all real articles: sleep is sexist, air conditioning is sexist, knowledge is patriarchy, manterupting etc,. Most of all it and an explanation for why the feminists are advocating feminist policies on domestic violence that actually HARM women, is because it secures billions in funding and creates artificial jobs and government departments that shouldn't even exist ... in Ireland en get 1.7% of domestic violence spending so it is vital feminist keep this victim narrative which even harms women, so feminists can get basically 100% of the money and fake jobs.

** The grievance studies hoaxers will be of relevance here. These people took Hitler's Mein Kampf, changed it to be about men and submitted it to PEER REVIEWED feminsts journals.... THEY GOT ACCEPTED and were prasied. They also completely made up "science" stating men inserting things into their anus would make them more empathetic and reduce transphobia, how dog parks had rape culture etc.... ALL ACCEPTED by leading gender studies journals. The kind of journals that underpin public policy, that make stats and are used by Times, Forbes, NYT, etc for their articles, they inform governments and shape polcieis. This hoax highlighted how they would accept "science" that "sounded right" or they agreed with or felt good to them. Any actual science journal would have laughed them out of existence. This happens all the time, this fake feminst interpretation of a study was cited 1500 times, published by FORBES, Times, NYT, etc given TED talks on, UN, and more, despite being completely bogus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HX1Ae-ZJgs