, ,

The Duluth model cultivates violence against women

JTO just posted a very interesting article on AVFM.  There are parts I agree with and parts I don’t.

I fully agree with the first half of his post.  The Duluth model is misandry wrapped in wet tissue paper.  It blames all violence on men, and excuses all violence by women.  I can’t think of a more blatant example of misandry.

There are two points that I disagree with.  First is what is clearly stated in the title, that it cultivates violence against women.  It doesn’t.  The actions taken around the Duluth model are actually the most affective reduction in DV of any thing we have yet tried.  There is very real cause and affect that can be studied with the Duluth model to move forward with preventing and stopping abuse.

This cause and affect relationship within the actions taken around the Duluth model has had a very real affect of reducing DV.  This give the model some value.  We can study it.  This is the 2nd major point I disagree with.  The Duluth model does have some value.  It has value as a step in the direction of progress, not as an ends.

Because of the Duluth model we can clearly see that separating the combatants in a DV situation really does reduce the damage.  This really obvious step was one not taken before the Duluth model.  This was in truth a very good step forward in ending DV.  It was a first step, not a last step.  Separating people that are fighting has worked with drunks for a very long time.  It took the Duluth model to apply that thinking to DV.

Thanks to the Duluth model, we now know this works.  We don’t need to insult and degrade the Duluth model and go back to the way things where.  We should recognize the benefits and flaws of the Duluth Model and move forward.  We need a new model based on separating the combatants that is not also founded on Man hate and male bashing.

A note to John.  Don’t engage in feminist double speak.  There was a post on AVFM many months ago about the “increase” in work place deaths of women.  The post attacked the double speak of the feminist writing it.  There was no increase in the workplace deaths of women.  With the major decline in male employment, male work place deaths dropped dramatically.  This meant a higher percent of work place deaths where women.  What changed was the work place deaths for men, not women, and that affected the ratio.  You can easily recognize this double speak when feminist do it.  The same thing is happening with DV under the Duluth model.  The rate of victimization of women is falling fast, and victimization of men is holding steady.  This does mean that the ratio is changing.  The ratio change doesn’t mean more men are being brutalized by women.