The Duluth Model and Domestic Violence

[Chestaan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model

For those of you are unaware, the Duluth Model is a program that aims to reduce the occurrence of domestic violence against women. According to wikipedia it is the most common batterer intervention programme used in the US, which is the main reason why I have a problem with it as explained below.

The thing about the Duluth Model is that it assumes, without any evidence, that there is only a sole cause of domestic violence, which is the existence of a patriarchial culture that encourages men to control women through the use of violence of necessary. This ignores other factors such as alcohol or substance abuse, sexual abuse as a child and even psychological disorders that may lead to violence against a partner. So, assuming that the only factor causing domestic violence is the one above, it is not surprising at all that the Duluth Model has been shown to be ineffective:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/195079.pdf

Now, there have been some studies used to support the Duluth Model that show that those who complete the Duluth Model programmes are less likely to re-offend than those who haven't. The problem with this? Any man who is willing to undergo any programme is obviously less likely to re-offend than those who have no interest in doing so! In other words, those studies take no account of selection bias. Those that do account for selection bias by using a control group, such as the one above, find that completing the Duluth Model programmes has NO effect whatsoever on the likelihood of re-offending.

But apart from the fact that the Duluth Model is ineffective at best, it also serves to absolve female domestic abuse by claiming that women who engage in domestic violence largely do so because they are defending themselves!

http://www.theduluthmodel.org/about/faqs.html#criticism

Women’s use of violence does not have the same kind of societal support. Many women who do use violence against their male partners are being battered. Their violence is used primarily to respond to and resist the violence used against them.

No evidence is giving to back up this startling claim... As you think about this approach, it gets more and more disgusting as it is basically victim blaming men that have fallen victim to violence by their partner.

In case my opinion is not obvious, I think that the Duluth Model is a horrible way of dealing with domestic violence as it is both ineffective and is adamant that men, and men alone, are responsible for domestic violence. It reinforces the flawed gender stereotype that women are gentle and non-violent, whereas men are brutes who can snap at any time and lash out. The fact that such a flawed system is still the primary one used to deal with domestic violence in this day and age is shocking and is particularly a failure as it does nothing to deal with domestic violence against men and even goes as far as victim blaming male victims of domestic violence.

Domestic violence against men is currently an issue that does not get treated seriously enough. According to a Guardian article 40% or more of domestic violence victims are male yet there are only 60 shelters available for men in Wales and England compared with 7,500 for women. This, just like the Duluth Model, is a sign of the large-scale ignorance of domestic violence faced by men, which sadly will only cause less and less men to come forward to report such abuse.

What say you NSG? Is the Duluth model flawed? Should a different approach which takes account of other factors influencing domestic violence replace it?
(I've been trying to link some more sources, particularly by Dutton et.al but I've been only able to find abstracts on Google scholar.)

[Jamzmania]

The Duluth model sounds like a whole lot of feminist bullshit that is only harming society.

[Sam Hyde]

You want to talk about issues facing men that are often not talked about? Shut up you sexist pig, feminism is about equality of the genders, so you're really a feminist from the start besides men can't experience sexism.



In all seriousness, more awareness would be nice.

[Chestaan]

You want to talk about issues facing men that are often not talked about? Shut up you sexist pig, feminism is about equality of the genders, so you're really a feminist from the start besides men can't experience sexism.



In all seriousness, more awareness would be nice.

I know you're joking, but I really don't want this to turn into a flamefest against feminism or men's rights. I'm assuming most people will be in agreement that the Duluth Model is a steaming pile of dog crap and that it needs to be replaced, but if a lot aren't then I hope that a good discussion will happen. Then again, that's a long-shot

[Neutraligon]

Seems to me any system that focuses on only one cause for something as complex as abuse of any kind is flawed. The fact that male victims of domestic violence are basically ignored when it comes to services is disgusting. (And yes I claim to be a feminist)

Actually I just thought of something. It seems to me one of the reasons why male victims of domestic violence are ignored is the same reason why some feel women should not be in the military.

[Gauthier]

You want to talk about issues facing men that are often not talked about? Shut up you sexist pig, feminism is about equality of the genders, so you're really a feminist from the start besides men can't experience sexism.



In all seriousness, more awareness would be nice.

I know you're joking, but I really don't want this to turn into a flamefest against feminism or men's rights. I'm assuming most people will be in agreement that the Duluth Model is a steaming pile of dog crap and that it needs to be replaced, but if a lot aren't then I hope that a good discussion will happen. Then again, that's a long-shot

You're talking to the wrong guy for that.

Shouldn't be long before the thread heads towards "And things were better back when they stayed in the kitchen".

You deny that they were?

[Chestaan]

Seems to me any system that focuses on only one cause for something as complex as abuse of any kind is flawed. The fact that male victims of domestic violence are basically ignored when it comes to services is disgusting. (And yes I claim to be a feminist)

I guess I should put it out there that I have no problem with feminists despite what people may think from me making this thread. If feminists do as they say, as lots do, and push for equality of both genders then I would consider them an ally. In creating this thread I'm simply trying to highlight an issue that exists and hopefully push some people to help find a solution that recognises that domestic violence is far from a simple phenomenom and can be caused by several factors.

[Neutraligon]

Seems to me any system that focuses on only one cause for something as complex as abuse of any kind is flawed. The fact that male victims of domestic violence are basically ignored when it comes to services is disgusting. (And yes I claim to be a feminist)

I guess I should put it out there that I have no problem with feminists despite what people may think from me making this thread. If feminists do as they say, as lots do, and push for equality of both genders then I would consider them an ally. In creating this thread I'm simply trying to highlight an issue that exists and hopefully push some people to help find a solution that recognises that domestic violence is far from a simple phenomenom and can be caused by several factors.

I did not think you had a problem with feminists in general, just a particular brand who claim to be feminist (I debate that they fulfill the definition and I also have issues with their opinions).I agree abuse and domestic violence have a variety of problems. What do you think about by edit about women in the military and domestic violence?

[Chestaan]

I guess I should put it out there that I have no problem with feminists despite what people may think from me making this thread. If feminists do as they say, as lots do, and push for equality of both genders then I would consider them an ally. In creating this thread I'm simply trying to highlight an issue that exists and hopefully push some people to help find a solution that recognises that domestic violence is far from a simple phenomenom and can be caused by several factors.

I did not think you had a problem with feminists in general, just a particular brand who claim to be feminist (I debate that they fulfill the definition and I also have issues with their opinions).I agree abuse and domestic violence have a variety of problems. What do you think about by edit about women in the military and domestic violence?

Ah yes, sorry I wasn't referring to you in particular, just putting it out there for all. There are some, possibly not here but on other parts of the internet who would assume I was bashing feminism as a whole.

As to your edit, I agree completely. It's totally a gender stereotype issue. Men are seen to be the ones who are violent, strong, etc. and women are seen to be weak and not capable of violence. It's a real issue and gender stereotypes cause problems in all sorts of places for both men and women. The fact that the proponents of the Duluth Model claim to be using feminist theory and simultaneously reinforcing gender stereotypes would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.

[Snail-land]

While I like the idea of a therapy program designed to help batterers get better, I have some concerns about the idea that women cannot be violent, since it seems to be rooted in sexist gender stereotypes. There is this underlying assumption that women are always sweet, weak, harmless creatures without any anger or aggression, and that men cannot be vulnerable.

I have mixed feelings. It is probably true that, statistically, men are more violent toward women than women are to men, and that women's violence is often defensive, because dominance is one of the qualities our society celebrates as masculine, and aggressive forms of expression are considered more socially acceptable for men than other ways of communicating their emotions. However, assuming that this is always the case for all individuals is dangerous and could make situations much worse when women are the batterers.

If each case were considered objectively without all of the gendered assumptions, I would support the program. It seems to be effective when the participants are willing. I don't know if this is the official feminist position, but it is mine until I have more information.

[Chestaan]

While I like the idea of a therapy program designed to help batterers get better, I have some concerns about the idea that women cannot be violent, since it seems to be rooted in sexist gender stereotypes. There is this underlying assumption that women are always sweet, weak, harmless creatures without any anger or aggression, and that men cannot be vulnerable.

I have mixed feelings. It is probably true that, statistically, men are more violent toward women than women are to men, and that women's violence is often defensive, because dominance is one of the qualities our society celebrates as masculine, and aggressive forms of expression are considered more socially acceptable for men than other ways of communicating their emotions. However, assuming that this is always the case for all individuals is dangerous and could make situations much worse when women are the batterers.

If each case were considered objectively without all of the gendered assumptions, I would support the program. It seems to be effective when the participants are willing. I don't know if this is the official feminist position, but it is mine until I have more information.

Domestic violence against males is more prevalent than you might think. Several studies have predicted that domestic violence is at or near parity between the genders. Also socially acceptable for men to be violent? How many people have you ever met who thinks it's socially acceptable for a man to beat their wife?

You have said that the programme is effective when the participants are willing. But this says nothing about the programme itself, as it could, and probably is the case that those who are willing to participate in batterers programmes have already acknowledged that they have done wrong and want to change and thus are less likely to re-offend even without a programme.

[Luziyca]

While I like the idea of a therapy program designed to help batterers get better, I have some concerns about the idea that women cannot be violent, since it seems to be rooted in sexist gender stereotypes. There is this underlying assumption that women are always sweet, weak, harmless creatures without any anger or aggression, and that men cannot be vulnerable.

I have mixed feelings. It is probably true that, statistically, men are more violent toward women than women are to men, and that women's violence is often defensive, because dominance is one of the qualities our society celebrates as masculine, and aggressive forms of expression are considered more socially acceptable for men than other ways of communicating their emotions. However, assuming that this is always the case for all individuals is dangerous and could make situations much worse when women are the batterers.

If each case were considered objectively without all of the gendered assumptions, I would support the program. It seems to be effective when the participants are willing. I don't know if this is the official feminist position, but it is mine until I have more information.

This, essentiall.

[Diopolis]

The Duluth model seems like an overly simplified pile of bull.

[New Grestin]

Over-simplified nonsense. There are a myriad of reasons why domestic abuse happens and melting them all down to "muh patriarchy" isn't just insultingly stupid, it's dangerous.

[New Werpland]

Are they coming for my testicles?

[Ostroeuropa]

While I like the idea of a therapy program designed to help batterers get better, I have some concerns about the idea that women cannot be violent, since it seems to be rooted in sexist gender stereotypes. There is this underlying assumption that women are always sweet, weak, harmless creatures without any anger or aggression, and that men cannot be vulnerable.

I have mixed feelings. It is probably true that, statistically, men are more violent toward women than women are to men, and that women's violence is often defensive, because dominance is one of the qualities our society celebrates as masculine, and aggressive forms of expression are considered more socially acceptable for men than other ways of communicating their emotions. However, assuming that this is always the case for all individuals is dangerous and could make situations much worse when women are the batterers.

If each case were considered objectively without all of the gendered assumptions, I would support the program. It seems to be effective when the participants are willing. I don't know if this is the official feminist position, but it is mine until I have more information.

You're wrong.
Statistically, most domestic violence is started by women.
Most domestic violence is bi-directional.
And most people who beat a partner who doesn't fight back are women.

Source incoming:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/com ... ate_avoid/
(Multiple source thread.)
viewtopic.php?p=25710333#p25710333
(My commentary on the implications of this.)
This becomes even more true when you expand domestic violence to include children and the elderly.

While people are talking about how gender stereotypes, they are ignoring that it's the explicitly feminist rationale for the duluth model that caused it to be implemented.

Gender stereotypes merely fuel it's perpetuation, but it was begun because of feminist doctrines about women being oppressed.
Here again we see feminism being applied to reality, and immediately causing a clusterfuck.

It's mens violence that is often defensive. You're just ignoring reality because it goes against your religious doctrine.

[Pope Joan]

Violence by women against men is underreported. I had several clients who were assaulted, but the police, prosecutors and judges laughed at them. "Be a man! Protect yourself!" they were told.

How, exactly?

[Dyrrachium]

Violence by women against men is underreported. I had several clients who were assaulted, but the police, prosecutors and judges laughed at them. "Be a man! Protect yourself!" they were told.

How, exactly?

by hitting back and ending up in the same court as the defendant of course

[Ostroeuropa]

Violence by women against men is underreported. I had several clients who were assaulted, but the police, prosecutors and judges laughed at them. "Be a man! Protect yourself!" they were told.

How, exactly?

This is precisely why the VAW narrative is counter productive.
At BEST all it will accomplish is a culture where women are given social license to beat their husbands into submission with the state backing them up on that and harming the men even more if they defend themselves, so they don't defend themselves.

But more likely, it'll just mean women continue to attack men, and men fight back, then go to jail.

We need a violence against men narrative to break the cycle.

[Chestaan]

While I like the idea of a therapy program designed to help batterers get better, I have some concerns about the idea that women cannot be violent, since it seems to be rooted in sexist gender stereotypes. There is this underlying assumption that women are always sweet, weak, harmless creatures without any anger or aggression, and that men cannot be vulnerable.

I have mixed feelings. It is probably true that, statistically, men are more violent toward women than women are to men, and that women's violence is often defensive, because dominance is one of the qualities our society celebrates as masculine, and aggressive forms of expression are considered more socially acceptable for men than other ways of communicating their emotions. However, assuming that this is always the case for all individuals is dangerous and could make situations much worse when women are the batterers.

If each case were considered objectively without all of the gendered assumptions, I would support the program. It seems to be effective when the participants are willing. I don't know if this is the official feminist position, but it is mine until I have more information.

This, essentiall.

Hold on a second. You're agreeing with this poster so I assume you agree with them that a large amount of violence committed by women is in self-defence. If that's the case, have you any evidence to back it up?

Also, as to it being socially acceptable for men to be violent, I have never met anybody who thinks that it's socially acceptable for a man to assault his partner. If anything, I have seen the opposite, with the idea being pushed that women are weak and need to be protected, hence a man should never hit a woman (but it's ok for a man to hit another man).

The Duluth Model's claim that it is a patriarchial culture which promotes violence against women is a convenient one in that it can't be easily proven or disproven, afterall how does one measure the effect that such a culture has on an individual?

[Chestaan]

Violence by women against men is underreported. I had several clients who were assaulted, but the police, prosecutors and judges laughed at them. "Be a man! Protect yourself!" they were told.

How, exactly?

Not only that, but I would think that many men would not even get to the stage where they report violence because they believe they will be ridiculed/ignored or they believe that they should be able to deal with it without support. The Duluth Model and it's widespread use, especially the fact that it victim blames men, only contributes to this ridiculous state of affairs.

[Ostroeuropa]

While I like the idea of a therapy program designed to help batterers get better, I have some concerns about the idea that women cannot be violent, since it seems to be rooted in sexist gender stereotypes. There is this underlying assumption that women are always sweet, weak, harmless creatures without any anger or aggression, and that men cannot be vulnerable.

I have mixed feelings. It is probably true that, statistically, men are more violent toward women than women are to men, and that women's violence is often defensive, because dominance is one of the qualities our society celebrates as masculine, and aggressive forms of expression are considered more socially acceptable for men than other ways of communicating their emotions. However, assuming that this is always the case for all individuals is dangerous and could make situations much worse when women are the batterers.

If each case were considered objectively without all of the gendered assumptions, I would support the program. It seems to be effective when the participants are willing. I don't know if this is the official feminist position, but it is mine until I have more information.

So much for not being associated with spouse-beating. Gj endorsing the incredibly sexist duluth model.

The duluth models clusterfuck is based on your reasoning here, and it's feminist reasoning. It results in the oppression of men and the denial of their victimization.
You are a sexist. You have outed yourself as one. You've been turned into a sexist by feminist ideology, as it plainly evident in this post to everyone.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gende ... d%208-.pdf

As for it being effective when they want the treatment:

GrahamKevan
also documents the absence of evidence indicating that the patriarchal dominance
approach to prevention and treatment has been effective.

Although there are many causes of the persistence of the
patriarchal dominance focus, I believe that the predominant cause has been the efforts of
feminists to conceal, deny, and distort the evidence. Moreover, these efforts include intimidation and threats, and have been carried out not only by feminist advocates and service providers, but also by feminist researchers who have let their ideological commitments overrule their scientific commitments.

Researchers who have an ideological commitment to the idea that men are almost always
the sole perpetrator often conceal evidence that contradicts this belief. Among researchers
not committed to that ideology, many (including me and some of my colleagues) have
withheld results showing gender symmetry to avoid becoming victims of vitriolic
denunciations and ostracism (see Method 7 below). Thus, many researchers have published
only the data on male perpetrators or female victims, deliberatcly omitting data on female
perpetrators and male victims. This practice startcd with one of the first general population
surveys on family violence. The survey done for the Kentucky Commission on the Status of
Women obtained data on both men and women, but only the data on male perpetration was
publishcd (Schulman 1979). Among the many other examples of respected researchers
publishing only the data on assaults by men are Kennedy and Dutton (1989); Lackey and
Williams (1995); Johnson and Leone (2005); and Kaufman Kantor and Straus (1987).

Worth reading if you care about domestic violence against men, and why the duluth model is sexist.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Violence by women against men is underreported. I had several clients who were assaulted, but the police, prosecutors and judges laughed at them. "Be a man! Protect yourself!" they were told.

How, exactly?

Not only that, but I would think that many men would not even get to the stage where they report violence because they believe they will be ridiculed/ignored or they believe that they should be able to deal with it without support. The Duluth Model and it's widespread use, especially the fact that it victim blames men, only contributes to this ridiculous state of affairs.

Yeah its kind of bullshit and needs fixed.

[Ostroeuropa]

Not only that, but I would think that many men would not even get to the stage where they report violence because they believe they will be ridiculed/ignored or they believe that they should be able to deal with it without support. The Duluth Model and it's widespread use, especially the fact that it victim blames men, only contributes to this ridiculous state of affairs.

Yeah its kind of bullshit and needs fixed.

It can't be fixed so long as the VAW narrative remains.
If we could pass a law banning any feminists from talking about domestic violence for a year, we might finally get around to fixing it, but they just wont fucking shut up and keep pushing their flawed understanding of the situation on everyone and harassing anyone who contradicts it.
They hold too much institutional power, and it means that anyone else trying to fix the problem has to get past them, which they won't allow unless you believe in the same stupid crap they do. They basically hold a monopoly on the discussion of domestic violence in the media, and consistently misuse that monopoly to make the problem worse than it already is by continually emphasizing male perpetrators and female victims. Even the ones who discuss male victimization constantly downplay it and talk about it being rarer and not as lethal and such, the same shit they do with circumcision.
I don't support banning feminists from discussing it, by the way. It's just to prompt you to consider that if it happened, we could actually fix the problem. Do you deny it's the case?

In before NAFALT.

"I'm against black people being murdered by the police, but, you know, it's not as prevelant as black people being murdered by black people, you know. But still, we need to do something about the police, even though mostly it's black people killing black people and that's a bigger problem."
-Feminist logic.

When racists pull that shit, we all notice and point out they don't actually seem to care about the police killing blacks.
Feminists consistently do it on mens issues. They constantly use mens issues as a fucking excuse to talk about how women have it worse.

It's sort of like if all the newspapers and tv channels constantly pushed creationism at anyone. You can talk all you like about teaching evolution, but, you know, you're sort of ignoring the big problem here. Feminism is one of the major causes of this issue of men not being taken seriously as DV victims in the modern day, and to deny otherwise is delusional.

[The Huskar Social Union]

No i do not think banning one group from discussing the issue will somehow fix it, in fact i think it would just lead to further issues as the entire thing will be completely one sided. Both sides are needed to actually fix something in a decent fashion and what needs done is convincing the diehards on either side to come to terms with one another.