I’d suggest reading the following article and the readers comments that follow it, and then come back for a brief discussion:
Quentin Bryce urges focus on gender inequality to tackle domestic violence (6 April 2015)
Firstly, a few words about Quentin Bryce. Quentin is a former Governor-General who recently chaired a state Taskforce into Family Violence the report for which was released in February 2015 (see related blog posts here and here).
Quentin deserves our thanks for performing that role without sticking out her hand for the sort of generous compensation demanded by other prominent talking heads of the Australian Domestic Violence Industry. Quentin was ill-advised, however, to issue statements during the course of the Inquiry that were pre-emptive and prejudicial, and which clearly signalled her own personal anti-male and pro-feminist agenda (example1, example2).
In the article linked above Quentin reiterates a key element of the feminist narrative as it is applied to the issue of domestic violence, that:
“Domestic and family violence is caused by unequal distribution of power and resources between men and women, it’s about the rigid gender roles and stereotypes that characterise our society, and the culture and the attitudes that support violence against women”
Domestic violence does indeed involve an unequal distribution of power, but where feminists get it wrong is that the man need not be the partner wielding the power. The feminist perspective also ignores the reality of domestic violence affecting same-sex couples.
Feminists cling to this notion however because it dovetails with a theoretical framework that they rely upon so heavily, known as the Duluth model.
According to the Duluth Model, “women and children are vulnerable to violence because of their unequal social, economic, and political status in society.” The program’s philosophy is intended to help batterers work to change their attitudes and personal behavior so they would learn to be nonviolent in any relationship. Its philosophy is illustrated by the “Power and Control Wheel,” a graphic typically displayed as a poster in participating locations. (Source)
An excellent rebuttal of proponents of the Duluth model recently penned by South African MRA Jason Dale is well worth reading, with some further criticism here. A further study illustrating the ineffectiveness of the Duluth approach is provided here.
What galls me most, however, is the mind-numbing hypocrisy of feminists asserting that the application of “rigid gender roles and stereotypes” promotes domestic violence, whilst their ongoing portrayal of men as perpetual perpetrators relies upon applying those self-same roles and stereotypes. Cognitive dissonance anyone?
And here’s yet another example, an article entitled ‘Stop gender inequality and you will stop domestic violence‘ (3 September 2015)
See also ‘Testing Predictions From the Male Control Theory of Men’s Partner Violence‘ (2 August 2015)
And in closing you might like to read the ‘Hidden side of Domestic Violence‘ and ‘Always beating up on men‘, both by Bettina Arndt.
Elsewhere in the blog you might be interested in:
Domestic violence is not a gendered issue – Why the pervasive sexist bias against men?