u/ExcitementChance4025

Every time you bring up a mens issue theres always a feminist rebuttal .
Wage gap= It's complicated methodology. Boys falling behind in school= Patriarchy hurts men too, give it time. Male suicide rates= Toxic masculinity, which men need to unlearn themselves.

The Duluth model is different because none of those deflections or dodging works here .

For anyone unfamiliar, the Duluth model is a domestic violence intervention framework used across North America. It was Feminist academics that created it and feminist organizations funded it. It assumes the man is the default aggressor and that Domestic violence is fundamentally about patriarchal control over women.

heres what the data actually shows..

The CDC's data shows "men and women experience intimate partner violence at rates way closer than the DULUTH model assumes. Meta analyses of IPV research consistently find bidirectional violence is the most common pattern. Ellen Pence, one of the co-creators, literally admitted the framework was built on ideology first and evidence second. Men who call DV hotlines regularly report being redirected to batterer programs, laughed at, or told they're probably the real abuser."

despite this, feminist organizations fight to keep it in place. the "violence against women act" funding is structured around it. Shelter systems are built on it. Every attempt at gender neutral reform gets pushed back on.

This is the one issue where you can't say "the system did it" or "patriarchy is to blame." Feminists designed, funded and implemented it. I tried asking this in askfeminist subreddit and the mods wont even approve the post. And the direct result is that male domestic violence victims get treated as criminals by the system thats suppose to protect them (smh)

If the movement was really about equality the Duluth model would be the first thing on the reform list. but interestingly, its the last thing they're willing to even talk about. The fact that a sub literally called "ask feminists" won't even approve a question about it kind of proves the point.

Change my view.

The Duluth model is a domestic violence framework that's been introduced and still defended by feminist to this day across North America since the 1980s. The whole thing is built on one idea that domestic violence is about men using patriarchal control over women. So when police show up or when someone calls a hotline, the man is treated as the aggressor by default.

The research doesnt even support that. The CDC's own data shows men and women experience intimate partner violence at way closer rates than this model assumes. Multiple studies have found that the most common pattern in Domestic Violence is actually "bidirectional" , not just men hitting women. Even Ellen Pence, one of the people who literally created the Duluth model, said before she died that they built the framework around ideology first and fit the evidence to match later.

So you have a policy framework that its own creator admitted was ideologically driven, that the data contradicts, and that results in male victims getting treated like perpetrators when they call for help. Normally when a policy is this far off from the evidence it gets reformed or replaced. This one hasn't.

Feminist organizations funded it, built it, got it embedded into law enforcement training and court programs, and now actively lobby against replacing it with gender neutral alternatives.

So what I want to understand is why this model specifically seems immune to reform. What is it about the politics around Domestic Violence policy that makes it so hard to update? And what does it say about how we handle gendered issues when the people being harmed by a bad framework are also the group with the least political leverage to push back on it?

The Duluth model is the foundation of most domestic violence intervention in North America. It was created by feminist academics and it assumes the man is the primary aggressor by default. Most DV training for police and social workers is built on this.

But the research consistently shows domestic violence is not one directional. Multiple studies show women initiate physical violence at comparable rates to men. Men who are victims and call the police often get treated as the perpetrator. Men who call DV hotlines have reported being laughed at or redirected to batterer programs.

Feminist organizations built this model. Feminist organizations actively defend it and lobby against reform. This isnt "patriarchy hurts men too." This is something the movement specifically created and maintains despite the evidence.

So how do you square advocating for equality while defending a framework that treats half the population as guilty by default? And if the answer is "we dont all support the Duluth model" then where is the organized feminist push to replace it? Because I dont see one.

Not here to fight. Genuinely want to understand how this gets justified.

I use this method to be more social.

example seeing your neighbor and usually saying hi =x , the +1 is asking how there day was going.

it allows you to not feel like your pushy if your the type that has trouble with any kind of social initiation.

i use to feel like i was bothering people but containing it to this formula helps me kind of feel out people with out feeling like I'm over stepping any boundaries.

so if the socially acceptable thing is to be polite and greet the cashier, the +1 would ask them for their recommendations .

if you normally just wave or nod your head at someone the +1 would be to actually say something to them.

What i noticed is that eventually what is considered X will grow as you get more comfortable and the +1 becomes more socially bolder.

Every single conversation about men struggling in dating eventually lands on "you need to approach more, you need to put yourself out there, you need to take initiative." Fine. But when women are equally passive in dating nobody calls it an avoidance problem. Nobody tells them they're failing to develop a critical social skill. It's just treated as the default. She's "waiting for the right one." He's "not trying hard enough."

Why does one side get to sit back, do zero initiation, filter through a pile of options they didn't work for, and still get framed as the selective ones? And the side doing all the approaching, all the risk taking, all the emotional labor of rejection after rejection is told that if they're struggling it's a them problem?

I genuinely want someone to explain this to me without falling back on evo psych just so stories. "Women are the selectors because eggs are expensive" cool that's a description of what happens, not a justification for why we should keep building social norms around it in 2026. We don't accept "that's how it's always been" as an argument for anything else in modern society.

And before someone says "women do approach when they're interested enough," that's exactly my point. The bar for her to act is "I'm extremely interested." The bar for him to act is "I exist and I'm in the same room." Those aren't comparable. One is a luxury and one is a mandate and we pretend both are normal.

I lift heavy, I compete, I run a business. I'm not sitting here saying I can't talk to women. I'm saying the framework itself is stupid. If we actually believed in equal dynamics between men and women in dating we would hold both sides to the same expectations around initiative. But we don't. Because deep down most people in these conversations think male passivity is a defect and female passivity is a preference. And those aren't the same thing being described differently, those are two different standards being applied to the same behavior.

Mark Manson just did the Jubilee Surrounded episode debating 20 manosphere guys, and it brought up a lot for me. I first heard about Models through red pill spaces, which is ironic, because Manson clearly thinks of red pill as decent observations wrapped in a toxic framework. But his book only blew up in those spaces because it was speaking to men who were already in pain.

I've read Models three times. I genuinely tried to internalize it. The vulnerability, the honesty, the "polarize don't neutralize" approach. I believe in it conceptually. But I'm 33, and the scoreboard hasn't changed.

Here's my resume since the self-improvement crowd loves receipts: A decade of serious training; I'm in the gym 5-6 days a week, I'm in good shape, I take care of myself. No drugs, no alcohol. I built a career in sales and real estate. I went to university. I have three gym memberships just to maximize the environments I'm in. I can socialize fine, I make friends easily, I network for a living, I'm not some shut-in who can't hold a conversation.

And yet.

Here's what I think Manson and a lot of the "just be confident" crowd miss. They underestimate how paralyzing the gap between knowing and doing actually is. I know I'm supposed to approach. I know women sometimes show interest. I've literally had women make repeated eye contact with me and I couldn't bring myself to say a single word. Not because I don't know what to say

because the fear of being perceived as threatening, creepy, or unwanted is so deeply wired that it overrides everything I've read in every book.

And I think this is where men genuinely feel a double bind that doesn't get acknowledged enough. We're told to make the first move AND THATS OUR ROLE. But we're also told to read the room, don't be that guy, don't make her uncomfortable. For some of us, those two instructions create a total freeze. Manson doesn't acknowledge this and thats why hes the ultimate grifter accusing others of being grifters..

That's why red pill spaces grows, because those spaces are the only ones that say "yeah, this is hard, and your frustration is valid" , even if they package it with a bunch of toxic ideology. When mainstream advice is either "just be yourself" or "work on yourself and it'll happen," and you've been working on yourself for a decade with zero results, the bitterness starts to make sense.

I don't think the red pill has the total right answers. I still think Manson's framework is closer to the truth. But I also think people like Manson need to stop acting like the gap between "understand this concept" and "actually do it when your nervous system is screaming at you" is trivial. It's not. And until the non-red-pill world takes that seriously, guys are going to keep ending up in those spaces because at least someone there acknowledges the pain.

I'm not looking for advice. I just wanted to say this out loud.

Hey everyone, looking for sizing help on the Lu Xiaojun weightlifting shoes (the Power Shoes version).

My normal shoe size is US 10, but I'm genuinely closer to a 10.5 — I just usually round down depending on the shoe. The problem is these only come in whole sizes, so I'm stuck choosing between a 10 or an 11.

I've read that they might run slightly large compared to other brands. Has anyone here worn them and can speak to the fit? I lift in a wide-ish foot and I'd rather a snug fit over anything sloppy given how much lateral stability matters in the catch position.

Appreciate any input — trying to avoid a back-and-forth return situation.