I feel there is an equally present victim mindset amongst men in this thread.

If you wade through the discussions on dashcams, inflammatory comments of teenage trolls, and accusations of redpill/sjw remarks then you will find heartbreaking accounts of real people having been personally victimized or witnessed loved ones in suffer through domestic violence. So yes, discussions about victims, many of which include male victims as per the new's topic.

There is no recognition of the fact that domestic violence cases without clear evidence almost never see a courtroom.

Your statement would depend on what you mean by the courtroom. There is no evidence required in many states to issue restraining orders. The evidence required to issue a restraining order, an individual need only report before a judge they feel threatened.

Everything else involving a domestic violence arrest requires documentable evidence such as of destruction property, physical injuries, or an individual to report that a spouse denied access to contacting emergency services.

What matters is how the evidence is interpreted. The Duluth Model is the most common batterer intervention program used in the United States which operates under the belief that the predominant aggressor who may offer the most significant harm is the one who is the strongest. Evidence is destruction of propriety? The strongest, biggest person is potentially the one going to be placed under arrest as a result. Evidence of injuries between each involved parties? The bulkiest individual is potentially placed under arrest, even if someone caused self-inflicted injury through violent behavior such as punching.

It really sucks to be wrongly accused, but just because a woman lies to the police about DV, doesn't mean that she is going to find support based solely upon her gender.

This simply isn't true. The Duluth Model operates under the philosophy that men are perpetrators who are violent because they have been socialized in a patriarchy that condones male violence.

I'm actually not sure what everyone wants here? For a woman to be automatically dismissed or treated as if she were lying if she reports DV? Because that's kind of how it used to work and DV was a very serious social issue.

Do you know how this societal issue is dealt with today?

In initially seeking to address domestic violence through a batterer's intervention program, it was accepted that women are the most predominate victim of domestic violence. Therefore, to effect the greatest amount of societal change, law enforcement entities throughout the United States accepted the belief that men are the primary aggressor. Arresting men in light of evidence of domestic violence should facilitate the greatest possible change in assisting what is believed to be the greatest demographic of victims of DV.

Shitty people of all sorts take advantage of their circumstances and identities to create advantages for themselves. It happens and all we can do is our best to distinguish real issues from invented ones.

We can choose to operate under scientifically founded systems and not ideological ones. We can accept that perhaps patriarchy is not the sole cause of domestic violence and alternative explanations include drug addiction, severe psychiatric disorder such as Borderline Personality Disorder, and various situational or individual factors such as upbringing.

Instead I see an associate break his hand in frustration at the end of his shift by punching a wall. He was forced to arrest someone despite the evidence suggesting more than domestic violence had occurred but who was the aggressor, which was required to be dismissed in favor of the duluth's predominant aggressor mandated policy and procedure. Police departments receive funding based on merits of statistical performance in issuing arrests in lieu duluth's model.

We are doing far, far worse than trying to simply distinguish one case at a time.