I find it interesting that you implied the problem is with the cops, and not the gendered Model itself. AFAIK, the Duluth Model was never really a sociological model.
>This is what the Duluth model proposes. It sounds pretty good on paper.
Only if you accept the premise that women are unilaterally less privileged, and all male abusers of women are doing so out of privilege. In reality, the strongest potential cause of being an abuser or victim is growing up in an abusive household, even if youâre not the actual victim. And a lot of abuse is mutual.
>Hereâs what goes wrong: it ignores the parts of patriarchy that punishes men for being unable to control women.
âThe Patriarchyâ says men should not hit women, even in self-defense. If men were the privileged group, female abusers would be punished worse than men, not the reverse. Society doesnât punish men for failing to control women, it says âitâs not REAL abuse when women do itâ.
Moreover, mainstream feminist discussions of âPatriarchyâ almost always ignore the topic of female on male abusers, or female privilege in general. It calls abuse âviolence against womenâ, explicitly or implicitly by men. Even when mainstream feminism does discuss âtoxic masculinityâ, it almost never uses the term âsexismâ, because it reserves that for the victimization of women.
This sexism is not isolated to the Duluth Model.
>Namely, patriarchy enforces the idea that men who allow themselves to be hit or mocked by women arenât real men, and that women are inherently weaker and therefore harmless; therefore, men that are physically assaulted or psychologically abused (stalked, harassed at work, etc.,) by their wives are either disbelieved, dismissed as âno big deal,â or outright laughed at.
Men are âsupposedâ to take physical injury in general.
As for women, how many movies and shows show a woman slapping a man with âjustificationâ? Men are expected to take physical and emotional abuse from women, and the men who complain about this sort of stuff often end up stigmatized and demonized. If anything, the growing media trend where men fight back is revolutionary.
>The police are not known for their ability to understand the subtleties of sociology. When they get taught the Duluth model, they hear, âBecause society is unfair, itâs a safe bet that in any situation where we get a domestic disturbance call, the man is abusing the woman.â (It also completely ignores the sad state of domestic violence in lesbian relationships, leaving lesbian domestic violence victims even less supported, but thatâs another kettle of fish.)
Iâve been to the Duluth Model website. They say F>M victims donât matter, and itâs different when women do it. Thereâs no nuance being missed, itâs working exactly as intended.
> As a result, some abusive wives call the police on their husbands after deciding that the husband did something wrong, as abusers do, and then the police come and arrest the man because he is the man and their limited understanding of Patriarchy tells them that this means heâs the bad guy.
There are many âpredominant/primary aggressorâ policies that all but explicitly say to arrest the dude. For example;
http://www.stopvaw.org/determining_the_predominant_aggressor
>Who has control of money and finances or uses them as a way to control the other?
Men tend to be primary earners.
>Is there a physical size difference between the parties?
In most heterosexual relationships, the man will be bigger.
>Does either party have a protection order against them or a history of protection orders against them?
This assumes the prior protection orders were not themselves the result of bias.
>Who appears to be more capable of assaulting the other?
Stereotypically, thatâs men again. And it has nothing to do with who actually assaults who.
>Which party has access to firearms or other weapons?
And the overwhelming majority of feminist discussions of âPatriarchyâ portray men as the bad guys and women as the victim. Starting with the name.
> If youâre having trouble seeing how this is a problem, imagine how this might affect the lives of black or islamic men, in particular. I highly doubt that the police are going to handle that situation by taking them to a nice seminar on how to be a better person.
If someone only cares about the issue because black/islamic men might get in trouble, they arenât going to care about the harm it does to men in general. Theyâre going to blame it on racism, not sexism, and certainly not both. I have seen it.Â
These folks cannot really see men as victims because they are men. Including Baerhani/Menalez, personally.
>The fact is, stereotypes hurt people because they lead to snap judgments in situations where power is wielded - and by spreading ideas, you wield power.
Stereotypes hurt people because theyâre wrong. By definition, not because they fit into some Marxist framework. They donât just hurt the stereotyped, they hurt the stereotyper. Of course, sometimes stereotypes can be a benefit, like if youâre a woman abusing her husband.
I appreciate the effort, but youâre too wedded to the feminist framework, where women have to be victims somehow.
Itâs also interesting how Baerhani - now menalez - just quietly moved from âjustifying womenâs fearsâ (which is intellectual) to âbeing wary for their own sakeâ (actual IRL action). Heck, I already linked Schrodingerâs Rapist, whose title implies any man who doesnât follow the rules might get pepper sprayed, and itâs his fault.
Which means Menalez never actually checked the links, or ignored them. Neither would surprise me.
romaincrisis
stormborns
baratheonpilled
snowghoul
2087
jbbartram-illu
titsay
annaxmalina
