Aurélien’s review of See What You Made Me Do: The Dangers of Domestic Abuse That We Ignore, Explain Away, or Refuse to See > Likes and Comments
1 like · Like
One star?
Goatllama wrote: "One star?"
Because it's a rehash of the feminist model of abuse, and it's a model which is not only false (the view that abuse is "gendered" -it's not- and motivated by misogyny -it's not either) but dangerous too (all the policies implemented following this model keep failing victims, when not ignoring them outright if they don't suit the narrative -women victims included...).
I won't expand because it would be wayyyyyy too long to debunk hers point by point. But if you want to understand DV (or why and how most of the campaigning sector has come to embrace the feminist model of abuse despite it being false, for that matter...) then please, don't read this pop work of a churnalist parroting the dogma of ideologically motivated lobbying groups. Instead, read Erin Pizzey (the founder of the women's shelters movement, yet that Jess Hill never mention -there's an ideological reason for that...) or proper research, such as that of (recently) Elizabeth A. Bates & Julie C. Taylor; Donald G. Dutton; Linda G. Mills etc.
For the sake of examples, thought, I'll pick two issues:
-She claims that parental alienation is a made up concept invented by abusive men to further oppress women. This is utter nonsense. Parental alienation is a real form of abuse that countless children are experiencing, and it has a terrible impact on targeted fathers as much as on targeted mothers (men and women -let alone children- that Jess Hill, nevertheless, never mention too, and there's an ideological reason for that too...).
-She defends the Duluth model when it comes to addressing the behaviours of abusive men, whereas the Duluth model has been exposed for being not only grossly inefficient (put bluntly: abusive men put through such "intervention programs" -as they are called- do *not* change their behaviours) but dangerous too (many come out of such "intervention programs" as being in fact even *more* abusive -you've read that right...). Ellen Pence herself (who co-founded this model) has actually debunked it long ago for being just that (ideologically motivated hence inefficient) yet is never mentioned by Jess Hill either (for obvious ideological reasons too...).
So there goes: ideologically motivated cherry-picking, unscientific, and dangerously prejudicial. That's not "research". That's churnalism at its worse.
Wow! Thank you so much for going into such detail. I really appreciate it.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Goatllama
(new)
May 14, 2026 02:13PM
One star?
reply
|
flag
Goatllama wrote: "One star?"Because it's a rehash of the feminist model of abuse, and it's a model which is not only false (the view that abuse is "gendered" -it's not- and motivated by misogyny -it's not either) but dangerous too (all the policies implemented following this model keep failing victims, when not ignoring them outright if they don't suit the narrative -women victims included...).
I won't expand because it would be wayyyyyy too long to debunk hers point by point. But if you want to understand DV (or why and how most of the campaigning sector has come to embrace the feminist model of abuse despite it being false, for that matter...) then please, don't read this pop work of a churnalist parroting the dogma of ideologically motivated lobbying groups. Instead, read Erin Pizzey (the founder of the women's shelters movement, yet that Jess Hill never mention -there's an ideological reason for that...) or proper research, such as that of (recently) Elizabeth A. Bates & Julie C. Taylor; Donald G. Dutton; Linda G. Mills etc.
For the sake of examples, thought, I'll pick two issues:
-She claims that parental alienation is a made up concept invented by abusive men to further oppress women. This is utter nonsense. Parental alienation is a real form of abuse that countless children are experiencing, and it has a terrible impact on targeted fathers as much as on targeted mothers (men and women -let alone children- that Jess Hill, nevertheless, never mention too, and there's an ideological reason for that too...).
-She defends the Duluth model when it comes to addressing the behaviours of abusive men, whereas the Duluth model has been exposed for being not only grossly inefficient (put bluntly: abusive men put through such "intervention programs" -as they are called- do *not* change their behaviours) but dangerous too (many come out of such "intervention programs" as being in fact even *more* abusive -you've read that right...). Ellen Pence herself (who co-founded this model) has actually debunked it long ago for being just that (ideologically motivated hence inefficient) yet is never mentioned by Jess Hill either (for obvious ideological reasons too...).
So there goes: ideologically motivated cherry-picking, unscientific, and dangerously prejudicial. That's not "research". That's churnalism at its worse.
Wow! Thank you so much for going into such detail. I really appreciate it.
