|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Roy on 08:51 PM April 6th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Donald Dutton is arguably the best thinker, scholar, and writer engaged in efforts to reform the Domestic Violence Industry.
You can Google up many excellent papers he has published on the web.
His main premise is that the radical feminist Duluth Model approach to DV is absurd, invalid, sexist, ideologically toxic, and --- ineffective.
Make no mistake, Dutton sees domestic violence as a serious social issue and he is no immediate ally of the men's rights movement let alone an apologist for MRA alibis for DV.
He argues that the Duluth "evil patriarchy" paradigm is too simplistic, politically driven, and misandrist to provide any reasonable approach to the complex terrain of intimate partner conflict.
Duluth says, among other absurd things --- "Nothing a woman can do to provoke a man into violence can be used as an explanation for a male batterer's behavior."
In this model, females are always innocent victims, men are always predators.
Dutton explodes all this feminist stupidness, while still holding all parties accountable for their choices.
Read him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is good advice. Some feminists in the domestic violence industry insist (judging by their rhetoric) that it is never justified to violate moral rules woith regard to women--an absurd position, since any moral rule, such as do not kill, do not disable, do not cause pain, etc, may be violated with sufficient justification. The effect is to make immoral law enforcement actions requiring the use of force with regard to women. We've all heard feminists who say that no one has the right to hit anyone else, for any reason whatsoever. For example, I've heard a feminist woman tell this to a judge during the voir dire phase of a criminal trial--the judge disagreed with the woman and disqualified her as a potential juror on the case.
Justified violations of moral rules must be impartial towards the class of moral agents: persons who know what morality prohibits, requires, encourages, discourages and allows--to use a journalistic phrase: "including women."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 12:19 AM April 7th, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
We've all heard feminists who say that no one has the right to hit anyone else, for any reason whatsoever.
I find it particularly fascinating that it's inevitably women who oppose laws to restrict a parent's right to use corporal punishment with their children. It's not that they wish to avoid all violence or that they plan not to use violence for their own reasons, it's that they simply wish to avoid having violence used against them. It is the purest form of exceptionalism, in other words, a concept most people find to be devoid of moral standing. This does nothing to assuage their own violent instincts, unfortunately; instincts which are no less base and destructive than those used by feminists to vilify men. This, of course, explains why the majority of child abuse is committed by women, and why women are as or more likely to be violent in intimate relationships. If one matures believing that they cannot be violent or do harm through violence (i.e. is indoctrinated with exceptionalist dogma), they are far more likely to use violence in their relationships, believing that they are entitled to do so and that no true "harm" will ensue. It would do society a great favor and save the lives of many men and even more children if we would stop teaching this nonsense to young women. Demonstrating the fallacious ideological underpinnings of the Duluth model and tearing it down as a construct through which all DV is interpreted should therefore be considered a noble and time-critical goal on an MRA's "critical path".
As to what might replace the Duluth model, it seems to be fundamental to female human beings that they feel the need to control others, which I presume is a counter-phobic response originating from their reduced physical stature relative to men. This would explain their obsessive attraction to professions that place them in a position of relatively unquestionable authority and control over another person, such as stay-at-home mother, nursing, teaching (which is less female-dominated as the students age increases), human resources, etc. I can only presume that it is some sort of innate human trait (so-called "genetic memory" if you will), or a new variation on a basic instinct like "fight or flight" that causes women to feel inferior and desire this state of control in all social situations. It's no different than any female mammal's desire to acquire and hoard resources to support their offspring, except that we are now encoding this and other biologically determined traits and behaviors into legislation, all to benefit a group that staunchly (and ironically) insists that biological determinism does not function on human beings!
Despite their rhetoric, feminists have never successfully demonstrated "oppression" of women at any time in the entire course of human development. Injustices have accrued to both genders over the millenia, but outright oppression simply has not occurred, at least up until this point, and it's not women that are being oppressed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could you provide a link to a critique by Dutton of the Deluth model. This would correct a cursory impression that I have of Dutton's work. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 07:22 PM April 8th, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
If you Google "Donald Dutton Duluth Model" you will get dozens of potential references.
A couple decent ones to start with are -
http://www.batteredmen.com/batdulut.htm
"What’s Wrong with the Duluth Model?"
- and -
http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-42.htm
"The Gender Paradigm In Domestic Violence: Research And Theory by Donald G. Dutton and Tonia L. Nicholls"
If you locate others you especially recommend, please report back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reference http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-42.htm is excellent; the first is somewhat less scientifically informative and quotes Dutten et al to make political points. Thank you for these references, in particular, the second, which I will add to my blog; an informed pointer to the literature can be more helpful than an automated search.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 11:56 PM April 8th, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't matter who initiates violence whether Male or Female, aren't we all supposed to be Citizens? Therefore anyone that initiates violence is the perpertrator period. It does not matter whether or not one is of one gender or the other, is not the symbol of our ?"justice"? system blind? While I adore the Female species of Humanity, I also hold them to the same rules that I have had to endure. Is that not just? EQUALITY is not just a dream Folks, it is a desire that may require sacrifice....
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
