Sounds like they're a victim of male/female gender roles. Sounds perfectly compatible with feminism to me. EDIT: What would the Duluth Model have to do with the reactions of individual police officers as looked at in this study? Muted for calling that out? But I can still edit! Muahahahahahahahahahahahaha I thought muting was for people who wanted a "hugbox" and "safe spaces?" And why so hostile? Hmm?This is due to the disbelief that a woman could not have been the perpetrator of this type of crime and the male must be intimidating the woman to the point that the woman is attacking in self-defense
Those male/female gender roles are inadequate, atleast as laid out by the Duluth Model, that men are conditioned to have power over women and children in relationships and they express that power through violence. Here is a 2009 study of the Duluth Model by the Montana Law Review discussing its inadequacies.
I'm not quite sure if this will even show up, being a new member, but anyways, I thought I'd make a less hostile reply, as you've asked a question. The Duluth model has shaped public policy and lawmaking for a few decades now, painting the picture of domestic violence where men are the aggressors, and women the victims. Campaigns against domestic violence almost always portray a battered woman, and some shelters or support structures for victims outright refuse to help men, or redirect them to batterer's resources. Does it not seem credible that this pervasive social policy would influence the behaviour ans reactions of individual police officers, even when they aren't obligated by policy to arrest the male?
Maybe it's compatible with your little personal brand of feminism. It's not compatible with feminism in the real world. You know, the kind that's responsible for the Duluth model, which is the actual reason male victims of domestic assault get arrested, not "gender roles". Holy shit, why are you feminists so fucking ignorant?