Why are some MRA's using "marriage counseling" as a way to criticize the Duluth Model?

Question

*Opponents of a feminist analysis of domestic violence continue to argue their theory that women are as violent as men and that the level of mutual violence calls out for changing arrest and prosecution policies as well as advocating for marriage counseling to stop the violence. This may be an attractive theory to some in the mental health field and “men’s rights” activists. The problem is that practitioners who endorse couples’ counseling while one person is still intimidating or using violence against another ignore the very real risk of violent assaults following counseling sessions. Most psychologists and therapists who have knowledge of domestic violence dynamics would concede that marriage counseling is ineffective if one party is a batterer and has power over the other.


How can a victim be honest about what is happening in the relationship or talk about the violence when she fears physical retribution?

* http://www.bwjp.org/files/bwjp/files/Countering_Confusion_Duluth_Model.pdf

Is it possible that Men's Rights Activists and anti-feminists are just confused about the Duluth Model?

http://www.theduluthmodel.org/about/


Thanks! :)

Answer 1

I have never heard an MRA talk about marriage counselling.



They talk about shelters and support for male victims, which is woefully lacking.



And they talk about the disparity between violence management courses and counselling for men and women - i.e they are mostly geared towards violent men and there is not much there for violent women.



I mean, ultimately MRAs simply point out domestic violence isnt just men beating up women - and it shouldnt be treated or portrayed as such.



I have no idea why feminists find this so offensive.

Answer 2

If humans are equally violent then the premise of the Duluth model is faulty because it only addresses male on female domestic violence. Any model that only believes in and addresses one side of domestic violence is inherently flawed.



However, with a tagline "Social Change to End Violence Against Women" it's not hiding a gender bias.



Even women who are abused can be abusers. Many men who do abuse were abused. The complex tragedy of domestic violence is that this year's villains were last year's victims.



If we look at domestic violence as a couples 3 legged marathon; you cannot keep the one partner hydrated and pumped full of electrolytes and completely ignore the other partner and expect that particular team to win.



You cannot pour the majority of time, energy and resources on one side of this twin-sided gender-based issue and expect to resolve or diminish the catastrophic effects of domestic violence.



To recant somewhat:



Truthfully, domestic violence is social pattern or socially transmitted disease that affects people regardless of gender since domestic violence occurs in same-sexed couples as well. Even reducing domestic violence to a purely gender-based discussion limits it's scope. Domestic violence is people hurting people.

Answer 3

People criticize the Duluth Model because it is a feminist created model that is agenda based and inaccurate. It assumes males are the instigators of all violence regardless of the actual facts.



There is nothing productive of fair in making false assumptions. Whether it's law enforcement or marriage counseling, action should be taken based on the reality of what has happened, not based on some feminist agenda.



~

Answer 4

The only thing confusing about The Duluth Model and arresting/prosecuting a man, without due cause and often without much evidence, simply because he has the penis is "how is this even allowed to happen in a free society?"