The debate concerning the Duluth model of domestic violence policy has centered on its assumptions concerning gender and its limitations as conceptual basis for practice. Here we both broaden and deepen that analysis by exploring the institutional context and political use of language that maintain the hegemony of that model. Particular attention is devoted to how the Duluth policy and practice framework produces a cynical and fatalistic view of both perpetrators and victims. Causal attribution to the vague construct patriarchy both ignores empirically supported risk factors as well as strips clients of their uniqueness and autonomy. This is juxtaposed with the common factors theory of therapeutic interventions, which calls attention to how acknowledging client strengths and instilling hope can produce superior outcomes.