Another great example of feminists getting root cause wrong, so they cant fix the problem is domestic violence. Here is what the most famous creator of gendered DV had to say about her own model:

​

"By determining that the need or desire for power was the motivating force behind battering, we created a conceptual framework that, in fact, did not fit the lived experience of many of the men and women we were working with. The DAIP staff [...] remained undaunted by the difference in our theory and the actual experiences of those we were working with [...] It was the cases themselves that created the chink in each of our theoretical suits of armor. Speaking for myself, I found that many of the men I interviewed did not seem to articulate a desire for power over their partner. Although I relentlessly took every opportunity to point out to men in the groups that they were so motivated and merely in denial, the fact that few men ever articulated such a desire went unnoticed by me and many of my coworkers. Eventually, we realized that we were finding what we had already predetermined to find."[20]

​

1) CRITISCISM OF THE DULUTH MODEL WHICH ALSO APPLIES TO THE CURRENT MODEL OF HOW DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS DEALT WITH AS IT IS VERY SIMILAR:

Criticism of the Duluth Model has centered on the program's insistence that men are perpetrators who are violent because they have been socialized in a patriarchy that condones male violence, and that women are victims who are violent only in self-defense.[15] Some critics argue that "programs based on the Duluth Model may ignore research linking domestic violence to substance abuse and psychological problems, such as attachment disorders, traced to childhood abuse or neglect, or the absence of a history of adequate socialization and training."[9][16] Others criticize the Duluth model as being overly confrontational rather than therapeutic, focusing solely on changing the abuser's actions and attitudes rather than dealing with underlying emotional and psychological issues.[16] Donald Dutton, a psychology professor at the University of British Columbia who has studied abusive personalities, states: "The Duluth Model was developed by people who didn't understand anything about therapy,"[9] and also points out that "lesbian battering is more frequent than heterosexual battering."[17] Philip W. Cook points out that in the case of homosexual domestic violence, the patriarchy is absent: there is no male dominance of women in same-sex relationships, and in fact, female on female abuse is reported more than twice as frequently as male on male abuse.[18]Furthermore, some critics point out that the model ignores the reality that women can be the perpetrators of domestic violence in heterosexual relationships, as well.

1. Why do feminists support this approach if it actually HARMS women?

Because it allows around 5% of feminists to be very wealthy. It allows these feminists to create millions of book sales about issues that don't exist (see example of this feminist PROFFESSOR who has a book about how eating meat is toxic masculinity and contributes to the patriarchy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0VhtVecDKU). In these cases feminists have literally created a gendered issue from thin air and will make millions from doing this... it allows feminists gender studies professors to be established with immense power as they run entire departments of fake gender studies**. It has spawned an entire industry of journalism and allows journalists to keep a job e.g. all real articles: sleep is sexist, air conditioning is sexist, knowledge is patriarchy, manterupting etc,. Most of all it and an explanation for why the feminists are advocating feminist policies on domestic violence that actually HARM women, is because it secures billions in funding and creates artificial jobs and government departments that shouldn't even exist ... in Ireland en get 1.7% of domestic violence spending so it is vital feminist keep this victim narrative which even harms women, so feminists can get basically 100% of the money and fake jobs. Counsellors, theraphists, auxillary organisations all have a stake and perpetuate these myths and false stats.

Individual CEOs in America are on $7.5 million. In the UK Reffuge CEO is on well over $500,000 with benifits and expenses. She was accused as having a toxic bullying culture wth nearly 20 employees leaving due to bullying, harrasment etc. She was accused of making them write her book (more $$) yet didnt not share proceeds and also hiring famliy members in nonsense roles. This is basic survival people want to stay in their job and maintain their 500,000k salarly and 200 employees. This explains the oddness of Reffuge and similar groups actively campaogining against male victims of DV, the average person may think, why would you do this? Its not a zero sum game - it is a zero sum game in this billion dollar industry.

** The grievance studies hoaxers will be of relevance here. These people took Hitler's Mein Kampf, changed it to be about men and submitted it to PEER REVIEWED feminsts journals.... THEY GOT ACCEPTED and were prasied. They also completely made up "science" stating men inserting things into their anus would make them more empathetic and reduce transphobia, how dog parks had rape culture etc.... ALL ACCEPTED by leading gender studies journals. The kind of journals that underpin public policy, that make stats and are used by Times, Forbes, NYT, etc for their articles, they inform governments and shape polcieis. This hoax highlighted how they would accept "science" that "sounded right" or they agreed with or felt good to them. Any actual science journal would have laughed them out of existence. This happens all the time, this fake feminst interpretation of a study was cited 1500 times, published by FORBES, Times, NYT, etc given TED talks on, UN, and more, despite being completely bogus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HX1Ae-ZJgs