TheAlbacor Archive

Upvotes	Title	Category	Author	Subreddit	Date (UTC)

Upvotes	Comment on	Subreddit	Date (UTC)
1	Why is inter-partner violence treated as gender violence when the partners are heterosexual (or, in the case of many feminists, when the man specifically is the violent one)? Isn't it just a dispute between two close people who happen to be of opposite genders due to their sexual preferences? The arguments seem muddy, but they're not as ridiculous when you list them out like that. Patriarchy perpetuates a culture of dominance, which I 100% agree with. The further argument that they're making is that women who perpetuate violence are asserting dominance, which is a symptom of a system that asks us to dominate others. Of course that doesn't benefit any men that specific woman abuses... I don't think that's the argument being made.	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	24/08/22 01:54 PM
-1	Why is inter-partner violence treated as gender violence when the partners are heterosexual (or, in the case of many feminists, when the man specifically is the violent one)? Isn't it just a dispute between two close people who happen to be of opposite genders due to their sexual preferences? I don't think this book dismissed that, it just purposely decided to be focused. But, it has been a while since I read it. While looking into this, I did see another comment stating that all violence perpetuates a culture of domination, where one person exerts domination over another, and that concept is patriarchal. So I guess technically that comment does say that female violence against men would be a symptom of the patriarchal system. That concept makes sense to me. Of course, the abused man…	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	24/08/22 01:35 PM
1	Why is inter-partner violence treated as gender violence when the partners are heterosexual (or, in the case of many feminists, when the man specifically is the violent one)? Isn't it just a dispute between two close people who happen to be of opposite genders due to their sexual preferences? But it's not talking about violence against men when it talks about patriarchal violence. It's talking about violence against the children of the household that serves to prop up the father as the patriarch.	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	24/08/22 01:15 PM
0	Why is inter-partner violence treated as gender violence when the partners are heterosexual (or, in the case of many feminists, when the man specifically is the violent one)? Isn't it just a dispute between two close people who happen to be of opposite genders due to their sexual preferences? I'm don't think that female violence against male partners was included under patriarchal violence. I may have missed that, but I didn't see it discussed in the parts that have been shared.	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	24/08/22 01:03 PM
0	Why is inter-partner violence treated as gender violence when the partners are heterosexual (or, in the case of many feminists, when the man specifically is the violent one)? Isn't it just a dispute between two close people who happen to be of opposite genders due to their sexual preferences? I don't agree with a lot of the 2nd one because the questions and problems posed have been and are answered by modern feminists. Once again, I will absolutely acknowledge that many feminists are still stuck on the old school of feminism that is much more misandrist. I would pose that any parts of hooks that are actually misandrist come from a very valid point that post made: you can't have a full perspective on the male condition unless you are male. However, that doesn't mean that hooks was a m…	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	24/08/22 02:28 AM
3	Why is inter-partner violence treated as gender violence when the partners are heterosexual (or, in the case of many feminists, when the man specifically is the violent one)? Isn't it just a dispute between two close people who happen to be of opposite genders due to their sexual preferences? I mean, there's a tendency for many people who call themselves feminists to be stuck on the geriatric versions of feminism and exhibit misandrist tendencies because of it. I personally haven't gotten that feeling from reading bell hooks. I suppose it's possible I'm wrong as well.	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	23/08/22 09:12 PM
1	Why is inter-partner violence treated as gender violence when the partners are heterosexual (or, in the case of many feminists, when the man specifically is the violent one)? Isn't it just a dispute between two close people who happen to be of opposite genders due to their sexual preferences? I'm saying an individual appears to be.	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	23/08/22 07:14 PM
3	Why is inter-partner violence treated as gender violence when the partners are heterosexual (or, in the case of many feminists, when the man specifically is the violent one)? Isn't it just a dispute between two close people who happen to be of opposite genders due to their sexual preferences? And yet, hooks did state in that paragraph that she advocated ending all forms of violence. The rest was an argument about which violence is patriarchal.	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	23/08/22 06:04 PM
1	Why is inter-partner violence treated as gender violence when the partners are heterosexual (or, in the case of many feminists, when the man specifically is the violent one)? Isn't it just a dispute between two close people who happen to be of opposite genders due to their sexual preferences? That isn't what bell hooks meant. That person specifically misconstrued the text. "The term 'patriarchal violence' is useful because unlike the more accepted phrase 'domestic violence' it continually reminds the listener that violence in the home is connected to sexism and sexist thinking, to male domination. By far one of the most widespread positive interventions of contemporary feminist movement remains the effort to create and sustain greater cultural awareness of domestic violence as well a…	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	23/08/22 05:27 PM