The scientifically debunked Duluth model

This is an article “A counsellor writes to the Family Court inquiry”, by Rob Tiller, in The Spectator (Australia)

“My name is Rob Tiller and I worked as a domestic violence counsellor at Anglicare WA for three years and a couples counsellor at Relationships Australia WA for eight. Both are taxpayer-funded, nation-wide counselling agencies. Over my employment, I’ve seen thousands of clients, many of whom have been through the family courts. What I’ve learned as a male counsellor working in a service sector influenced on every level by ideological feminists is that fathers and kids are often the biggest losers. I’d like to share my story and insights to help with your family court inquiry and illustrate why I agree that the family separation ‘industry’ needs an overhaul.

In 2018 I had to part ways with Relationships Australia due to what the self-proclaimed feminist CEO deemed a “breach” of the agency’s domestic violence policy. I was their only male counsellor at the time. I’d always loved my job and my co-workers were like family. I also had a spotless service record and two recent pay rises so I felt utterly blindsided when called to an executive meeting and told I wasn’t allowed to return to work. My crime: circulating Bettina Arndt’s article Always Beating Up on Men on social media and amongst my professional peers. Arndt’s article assembled current international data from research studies and government statistics, demonstrating most domestic violence between couples is two-way – a fact I’d never heard in hundreds of hours of mandatory domestic violence training, but a reality I had observed counselling my couple clients from the beginning. This is why I was keen to share Bettina’s report with my colleagues. I thought, “finally, someone is telling the truth about domestic violence.”

Relationships Australia’s Domestic Violence policy, like many other Australian counselling agencies, is a “feminist-framed” and “gendered” (male is to blame) treatment approach based on the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence developed in the early eighties by academic feminist activist Ellen Pence. Her ideology-based theory of DV was formulated from her observations of severe, one-way domestic violence victims at a battered women’s shelter in Duluth, Minnesota. The now scientifically debunked Duluth Model has unfortunately become adopted policy by a wide range of Australian service providers, many who work in conjunction with the Police and Family Courts. The model offers a black and white definition of DV where men are classified as perpetrators and women as victims. In treatment practice, this means when a man or couple seeks help from a national counselling agency, like Relationships Australia, the prescribed aim is to ‘fix’ him and ‘save’ her.

Gendered models of domestic violence fail to address the degrees of mutual antagonism that characterize what is now referred to as Common Couple Violence, where both sexes co-escalate conflict to the point of aggressive acting out. Yet in the context of ‘fix him’ style interventions, mutual accountability is undermined and couples counselling usually ends up accelerating family breakdown. Cue the Family Courts. Of course, there are different types of domestic violence. Eminent couples researcher Professor John Gottman explains that decades of academic studies show “situational” common couple violence accounts for 80 per cent of all domestic violence. Gottman states, “situational domestic violence arises from arguments spinning out of control. Both partners tend to be mildly violent, using slaps or shoves to stress their points. Both feel guilty and want to change”.

The other 20 per cent of cases he refers to as “characterological” domestic violence where real perpetrators (mostly males) engage in ongoing, one-way relationship violence. In their letter to the editor of the New York Times, Drs John and Julie Gottman take aim at the Duluth Model of DV and point to its decades of failure to produce any measurable treatment outcomes, “No one has found a treatment that stops characterological DV. To escape potentially dire consequences, the victim needs to separate from the perpetrator and seek safety elsewhere”.

However, political feminists and the mainstream media continually lead us to believe the worst 20 per cent of characterological cases represent all domestic violence. Thanks to organizations like Our Watch and White Ribbon, it’s become the national domestic violence narrative, which equates the average guy who gets into a mild tit-for-tat scrap with a hardcore violent perpetrator. These are two very different types of bloke.

This highly distorted portrayal of domestic violence still annually secures nearly half-a-billion in taxpayer funding for a domestic violence industry that remains statistically ineffective on outcomes. It’s a top-down bureaucracy built on feminist ideology pushing gender-biased policies backed by neither evidence nor results. This means one-sided ‘fix him’ interventions will continue to fail and salvageable families will continue breaking down. And many more decent dads will exit the Family Courts broke and on the road to potential parental alienation from their kids. When children are separated from their father the mental health of both suffers. Its common sense backed by science.

Unfortunately, the definitions of what constitutes domestic violence keep expanding to include murkier areas outside the realm of physical aggression. Over my counselling career, I’ve observed first-hand how alleged false accusations of DV, sexual assault and child abuse are weaponised against men and fathers and can dramatically tilt the scales of justice. The good news is there are research-based counselling interventions that promote mutual accountability while helping both sexes learn relationship skills to cool conflict before things boil over. This year the Australian government acknowledged this fact by setting aside $10 million in domestic violence funding for couples counselling for situational common couple violence—again, the most common form of domestic violence.

The bad news would be the political feminist gatekeepers commandeering the taxpayer dollars to continue pushing their baseless ideological policies. These tried-failed-retried strategies are partly to blame for the deaths thousands of alienated Aussie dads, who without access to male-friendly support services, took their own lives. Hopefully, with your help, these destructive anti-male programs will go the way of White Ribbon.”

Advertisements

“Bone up on your righteous man-hating this summer by rereading feminist classic, SCUM Manifesto”, Julie Bindel

Here is a nice example of RadFem misandrist bigotry.

Bone up on your righteous man-hating this summer by rereading feminist classic, SCUM Manifesto

Written by UK militant feminist, transphobic bigot, Julie Bindel, in Feminist Current, a militant feminist website founded by transphobic zealot Megan Murphy.

I won’t reproduce all of Bindel’s vicious sexist filth. But here’s a paragraph from the start, with Bindel attempting to excuse female violence:

The book was made famous when, a year after publication, Solanas shot Andy Warhol, having become paranoid about him stealing her creative ideas. She was imprisoned for three years, and spent time in a psychiatric locked ward. Solanas died in 1988 of pneumonia.

Valerie Solanas did not merely “shoot” her victim. She tried to murder a man.

What I love about this book is how it promotes straightforward man-hating. Blaming men for the ills of the world is underrated.

and it continues:

… In today’s climate of Trumpism and the #MeToo movement, man-hating should be seen as a proud, feminist response.

Ok. Let’s have a little look at a picture of some people harassed to death by false accusations & #metoo, for feminist thugs like Bindel to celebrate:

Screenshot 2019-10-16 at 14.37.16.png

The rest of the article continues in a similar vein.

 

Militant Feminist Identity Politics in Quillette

FemCons represent a curious alliance between traditional conservatives and militant feminists, who consider men to be their biological inferiors, and who are abusive towards other women who dispute their paranoid conspiracy theories.

1. Megan Murphy (militant feminist)
Twitter’s Trans-Activist Decree
Why I’m sung Twitter
Canada’s Twitter Mobs and Left-Wing Hypocrisy
2. Julie Bindel (militant feminist)
It’s Time for Progressives to Protect Women Instead of Pronouns
Silencing Women in the Name of Trans Activism
3. Phyllis Chesler (militant feminist)
Gilead Resembles an Islamic Theocracy, not Trump’s America
The End of an Era—A Feminist Firebrand Looks Back
4. Helen Joyce (militant feminist)
Understanding the Propaganda Campaign Against So-called ‘TERFs’
The New Patriarchy: How Trans Radicalism Hurts Women, Children—and Trans People Themselves
5. April Halley (militant feminist)
Male-Bodied Rapists Are Being Imprisoned With Women. Why Do so Few People Care?
6. Holly Lawford-Smith (militant feminist)
How the Trans-Rights Movement Is Turning Philosophers Into Activists
7. Kathleen Stock (militant feminist)
Stonewall’s LGBT Guidance is Limiting the Free Speech of Gender Critical Academics
Ignoring Differences Between Men and Women Is the Wrong Way to Address Gender Dysphoria

Erin Pizzey on Female Violence

Erin Pizzey, who founded the world’s first battered women’s shelter in London in 1971, comments here (at a post The Illustrated Empathy Gap from December 2017):

I opened my refuge in 1971 and was not surprised to find that of the first hundred women to come in with their children, sixty two were as violent or more violent than the men they left.

Screenshot 2019-10-12 at 16.09.28

Some Female Violence

The violent Hull mums jailed this year: This is what they have done and what happened to them.

“It has been a busy year so far in the courts in Hull. And if you missed what has been happening recently, we have put together this round-up of some of the women jailed in Hull so far this year for violent crimes. It includes a woman who stabbed her husband of 40 years in the back in an argument over their 35-year-old son. Also among those locked up was a woman who launched her vicious assault in the early hours of the morning in Shannon Road, east Hull, after downing ten pints of beer. Below we have brought together the details of what happened and why.”

Excusing Female Sexual & Domestic Violence

One finds, roughly, five kinds of excuse-making for female sexual and domestic violence.

  1. Ideological
  2. Biological
  3. Statistical
  4. Self-Defence
  5. Asymmetric Harm

I describe these in a bit more detail.

(1) Ideological excuse

This is probably the most bizarre. It operates as a conspiracy theory. It claims, implausibly, that female violence is a myth promoted by “misogynists” (nowadays, “incels”), as part of a powerful ideological campaign by the gigantic “Patriarchy” to undermine women’s rights and put them back in the kitchen.

(2) Biological excuse

This claims, with much greater plausibility than (1), that women are, on average, biologically not capable of violence, or at least, serious sexual and domestic violence, The reason for this claim is that men and women have biological different builds and psychologically different dispositions with related to sex.

(3) Statistical excuse

This claims, again more plausibly than (1) and about as plausibly as (2), that women are, on average, statistically far less likely to engage in interpersonal violence, whether sexual  abuse/violence or more generic domestic violence.

(4) Self-defence excuse

This claims, again more plausibly than (1), but probably less plausibly than (2) and (3), that while there exist many incidents of female interpersonal violence (whether sexual  abuse/violence or more generic domestic violence), this is nonetheless, typically, done in self-defence. That is, a woman faces a male partner who is systemically violent and abusive, and she is the victim. The violence is unidirectional. At some point, she defends herself; and, in extreme cases, this self-defence may lead to a homicide of the (alleged) male perpetrator.

(5) Asymmetric harm excuse

This claims (more plausibly than (1), (2), (3) and (4)), that while female sexual and domestic violence exist, the harm inflicted on a male victim by a female abuser is typically much lower than it is or would be the other-way around. This asymmetry may (it is claimed) be for biological reasons, or psychological reasons, or for social reasons.

Female sexual violence: some studies

[To be finished: some of this information is obtained from this blogpost by Ally Fogg, including the short comments]