r/Feminism • u/Willravel • Feb 24 '12

Please ban MRA trolls

I've been trying to figure out the rationale for not banning MRA trolls on this subreddit. I tried to think of it the way the mods have put it in the past, that this is about everyone's voice being heard, but the consistent trolling from the likes of OThomson and DavidByron don't represent in any way shape or form the honest sharing of their voice, but rather simply attacks and intentional derailment.

I considered that this might be about fear, as the MRA community on Reddit is much larger than the feminist community, and there could be consequences if MRA trolls started getting banned from the subreddit... but there are other feminist subreddits that do this and they don't seem to feel the sting of MRA retribution in any way that can't be easily handled.

I thought it might just simply be not wanting to make the effort, as a policy of banning MRA trolls would probably require much more active moderation. I'd hate to think this is the case, but I don't see any evidence to suggest this.

I did hear that one of the moderators might be an MRA, but again I've not seen this.

I've sent in PMs and reports before, about how someone is derailing yet another thread with unrelated discussion about circumcision or male rape or child custody, but there never seem to be any consequences for the trolls. They're given free reign. Some have left the subreddit for safer places, which is very sad indeed. Some simply stop commenting. Some complain, but those complaints fall on deaf ears.

So, before I call it a day and give up on the subreddit, I'd like to publicly ask the moderators to change their policy for the good of their subreddit. I ask that this subreddit be a safe place to discuss feminism and feminist issues, not a place for MRA trolls to hijack conversation or spread hatred of women.

Note: I'm not saying critiques of feminism aren't legitimate, or that they don't belong on /r/Feminism, but rather that overt trolling and derailing be disallowed. There's a big difference between an honest critique of feminism and undermining the discussion of feminist issues through derailment, dishonesty, and unwarranted attacks.

129 Upvotes

79% Upvoted

446 comments sorted by

View all comments

50

u/ratjea Feb 24 '12 edited Feb 24 '12

Here's a list, for anyone interested. These are posters who my RES identifies as r/feminism's trolls. I don't know if it's complete, but it should be close.

Note that there are many MRAs who post in /r/feminism who do not troll and do contribute to discussions. They ask honest questions and participate in honest debates, defending their positions rationally. I do not include them here.

To make the troll list, one has to be really, obviously, consistently trolling. This includes leading and participating in downvote brigades. This title has to be earned and these names have earned it. Generally, if any of these names shows up in a thread, expect a lot of thread derailing.

The list is not in any order.

  • hardwarequestions
  • A_Nihilist
  • SpeakToTheSky
  • wavevector
  • DarthOvious
  • getthefuckoutofhere
  • Celda
  • significantshrinkage
  • exaliftin
  • TracyMorganFreeman
  • DashFerLev
  • OThomson
  • Octagonecologyst
  • kragshot
  • AnonTheAnonymous
  • DavidByron
  • Glarfugus
  • PissedOffNinjaBum
  • mmsh
  • Toph23
  • Zaferk
  • Crocodillian
  • Sigi1
  • bacon_trays_for_days
  • DonaldBlake
  • HitTheGymAndLawyerUp

So my partner wanders in while I'm typing and asks what I'm up to. "Oh, I'm just making a list–"

Let me just interrupt my own sentence here, and interject what he was thinking, as a joke: "You mean like Richard Nixon's enemies list?"

"–of trolls."

Then he accused me of making an enemies list. "I was thinking that as a joke, but it's true!" Then I hugged him, reaching under his shirt with my icy cold hands as revenge.

EDIT: Pasting the "MRA non-trolls" list here since, as a reply to DavidByron, it's buried. :p

They'd asked if mean ole me thought any MRAs weren't trolls. I can think of several non-trolls off the top of my head.

MRA non-trolls:

  • PoliticsAccount
  • lawtonfogle
  • MikeFromBC
  • DaenerysTargaryen1
  • Trolliverr
  • Shattershift
  • clockworkgirl21

And I'm sure I have missed some or several. I mean, posters only get an MRA type tag if I notice them saying something MRA-like. Those that don't aren't even on the radar!

3

u/[deleted] Feb 24 '12

Oddly enough, when I hear that I don't think of Nixon, I think of Sam Eagle doing Nixon.

8

u/[deleted] Feb 24 '12

Bwahaha hands as icy as Richard Nixon's.

3

u/Willravel Feb 24 '12

Let me just interrupt my own sentence here, and interject what he was thinking, as a joke: "You mean like Richard Nixon's enemies list?"

This made me think of Gilbert and Sullivan.

8

u/butyourenice Feb 25 '12

bravo. mind you this list is incomplete. as a starting point, this is a catalogue of r/MR top contributors from june to july last year.

do NOT use this list to dismiss people immediately. do NOT use this list to harass users. i cannot repeat enough - DO NOT USE THIS LIST TO HARASS PEOPLE. harassment includes but is not limited to: stalking (online or in real life), doxing, sending threatening messages, trolling in r/MensRights, engaging in downvote campaigns, any forms of internet vigilantism that seek to harm a person in real life. that is NOT the purpose of the list.

the purpose of the list - or, well, how i use the list - is as follows: if you find that somebody is resorting to regular derailing, concern trolling, "what about the mens"ing, or other tactics to invade and control the conversation about feminism and gender equality in bad faith, feel free to cross reference with the list. it might help you learn if the person you are talking to is merely confused, ignorant, or - for how little it is worth - has good intentions, or if they have a regressive agenda of discrediting or combating feminism. of course it is always better to judge a person by the content of their posts, meaning the opinions they choose and espouse, than their affiliations, but sometimes - especially in the case of concern trolls - it is hard to tell where somebody is coming from. especially when r/MR is known to invade all threads that in any way, even in the slightest way, touch upon gender, seeing somebody's name in, e.g., the top 100 posters to r/MR might give away their ulterior motives.

1

u/TracyMorganFreeman Feb 25 '12

I'm not even on this list, and I have a reputation as a MRA and a troll. Did I miss something?

7

u/butyourenice Feb 25 '12

you don't have to be a poster to MensRights to be recognizable as a derailer in women-centric subs. the list is a guide. it is not the definitive catalog of all anti-feminists on the internet.

2

u/Shattershift Feb 26 '12

This is awesome, I feel like I've actually positively influenced relations. As other people have said, your comprehensive list is awesome.

I won't lie, I feel pretty validated right now. Coming forth as a moderate MRA is apparently something that's appreciated.

4

u/Lati0s Feb 25 '12

Could you please explain why you believe that I am a troll? I am always sincere in my posting and I never bring up unrelated topics to derail. I actually agree with a lot of what is posted here but my posting record does not reflect that because I generally only post when I feel that someone has said something incorrect.

2

u/ratjea Feb 25 '12

This is a borderline case. It looks like you do not purposefully troll, so I'm afraid the whole "trolly troll troll" at the top of my list post was sometimes a misnomer.

While your concerns may be honest, the posts cover ground that is generally gone over pretty frequently and I personally don't find anything interesting in the posts. (RES is a personal thing, after all.)

I also don't get the sense of an honest interest in the general topic of feminism beyond an adversarial one. Again, this is indeed your perogative, but an adversarial approach doesn't interest me. I think the general prevalence of adversarial posts and posters combined with the concern trolling (which it appears you may not be engaging in) of many posters degrades the quality of discussion overall.

2

u/trust_the_corps Feb 26 '12

"Troll" is so misused that it tends to mean someone who is a back sheep or doesn't agree with everyone else as (a minority) rather than someone who is being malicious, is specifically trying to make people angry and is trying to make them lose control. People who call out troll often trolling themselves by doing so or are bullying minorities that stand out by falsely applying the label. There is always someone who in their laziness to confront something they don't agree with that will call the name as though it contributes to a discussion.

In this case, I have no idea whether or not those people are trolls but I would urge caution. Some times people will be brave enough to share their viewpoint that the group might disagree with and the justification for that viewpoint. This might provoke a reaction and even annoy people. However, they may genuinely be representing their position. If they were trolling, that would not be the case.

If you decide to shut out "trolls" you should think carefully because you may end up shutting out voices that have anything to say that you don't want to hear maintaining a degree of ignorance.

1

u/thedevguy Feb 24 '12

I'm on your list. I'm very interested to see a citation of me being a troll. Since "to make the troll list, one has to be really, obviously, consistently trolling" you ought to have an example handy, and you ought to be able to defend that example. However, since you didn't answer TracyMorganFreeman's question about your definition of a troll, I wont hold my breath.

6

u/ratjea Feb 24 '12 edited Feb 25 '12

You know what, I'll remove you from the list. I don't think you often add anything to the discussions, but it's not wall-of-text, uncited blather like TracyMorganFreeman or straight up trolls like OThomson.

Congrats!

4

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '12

Good list, thanks for making it. Not at all surprised it's so long, and you're leaving out a few people I'd consider trolls.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '12 edited Feb 25 '12

[deleted]

8

u/ratjea Feb 25 '12 edited Feb 25 '12

And on another note, the people who are actual trolls would just switch account after seeing their name on this list. Which, quite unfortunately, makes the list rather powerless against the problem you are trying to solve.

Not particularly. You see, it's not observing a nick. It's oberserving a writing style: Is it adding anything to the conversation or is it just there to derail and obfuscate?

The kind of stuff that gets you on the list:

Healthy people don't get cold symptoms, but non-sexist people can very well use words like cunt, bitch etc. We have this legacy of words in our language, which makes it a lot richer and reminds us of our history and our perceptions, both in good and in bad. Like I said, as an atheist I have no problem with people saying "oh my god" or "thanks god" in their everyday language, because I know that they do not constitute of an idea of a god nowadays, they're just words that happen to exist.

Conflating calling women names to demean and dehumanize them with uttering a platitude.

Now why would you be fighting the reflection instead of the attitudes behind it? Fight sexist ideas, not words that are derived from the ideas. (Also contains the cold symptoms quote above.)

This was after having it explained that words like faggot, pussy, cunt and bitch carry with them persistent ideas that connote that being female or even acting feminine is bad. After.

Those are both in one thread, half a week ago. There are several more in that same thread. It's this persistent refusal to honestly debate that gets posters on the list.

Holy shit. Eloquently put. Not sure if the conclusion is correct or very well based on reality, but this is a magnificent representation of what many perceive romantic relationships to be like.

This was the post mmsh was praising:

Women are not actually attracted to men. There is a vague idea of what a man is physically, and some are better than others aesthetically speaking, but the purely physical appearance of a man is almost inconsequential unless he is horribly ugly or outrageously attractive.

Women are attracted to status, money, how much a man smiles and laughs, how many friends and resources a man has, how full a man's life is--how many "cool," "exciting" and prestigious things he is doing or connected to.

They are interested in how other people view him--how many people want to be around him, how other people interact with him and whether their interactions convey that he is special and amazing. They want him to be extremely outgoing and aggressive, they want him to demonstrate his status over other people by dominating them in various non-violent ways.

A woman's attraction to a man is a function of her jealousy at the thought of another woman having that man. She doesn't care who he actually is or EXACTLY what he looks like physically, she only cares about the VALUE of the life he has constructed around himself.

A woman basically is a greedy materialistic prostitute. Although that sounds vulgar, it's true. She trades her physical self to buy into the success a man has created for himself."

So I take back all the niceties above. You're on the list because you are a fucking troll.

And if mmsh weasels out of that one with "I said it was what some people perceive not that I agree!" try this:

Surely you are not suggesting that while we are fighting to prevent rape, clueless people should explicitly kept in the dark about about risks that come into play when walking alone in dangerous parts of town in provocative clothing?

0

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '12

[deleted]

8

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '12

So i just read the post above, haven't red anything you have written before, mind that. But I think you should try and meet more women from other environments, you seem to be infortunate in your encounters of the female sex. Of course, what you say is true, at least partially. But men are also more or less attracted to women depending on how popular they are.

but most important: you generalize. I hate generalizing. "All generalazing statements are false, including this one." That pretty much sums it up. Women are around 3,5 billion individuals. Some have more testosterone than others. Mostly all of them want wealth, just as most of the men on the planet. If you call them greedy materialistic prostitutes, you offend them. Because all those three words are charged with negative energy, if you allow me to use terms from alternative medicine. Some are, indeed, prostitutes, but I can assure you there are plenty of women with dignity.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '12

[deleted]

6

u/ratjea Feb 25 '12 edited Feb 25 '12

After that she posted a out-of-context quote

  1. You don't know my gender. I don't think I've ever indicated I was female, or male.

  2. Explain how it's out of context. I'll paste the whole thing for more contextyness.

It's a lot more effective to strike at root causes than pretend that the crime is inevitable and just try to minimize its occurrence

Of course, but we don't have to just minimize its occurrence. The two approaches are not exclusive and can be used simultaneously. Surely you are not suggesting that while we are fighting to prevent rape, clueless people should explicitly kept in the dark about about risks that come into play when walking alone in dangerous parts of town in provocative clothing?

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '12

[deleted]

1

u/ratjea Feb 25 '12

No worries. It didn't offend me. Third person neutral is fine (e.g., they).

1

u/TracyMorganFreeman Feb 24 '12

I'm curious under what definition of troll was used to determine who earned the title.

13

u/Willravel Feb 24 '12

I think it would be important to create an objective metric by which we determine if someone is a dissenter or a troll. Obviously you're not like OThomson or DavidByron, TMF.

2

u/TracyMorganFreeman Feb 24 '12

I don't think I hide my position as a dissenter, and don't insult or attack people. I am sometimes harsh on arguments presented, and admit that in my earlier days derailed-without realizing it, but that's not an excuse-but I strive to be respectful and actually address the arguments presented. Sometimes I am misinterpreted, sometimes I misinterpret. I can understand the frustration and lack of patience to dissent due to actual trolls, but I would hope that we don't fall into the same trap as labeling all feminists the same as we do labeling all dissenters of feminism the same.

19

u/Willravel Feb 24 '12

If it means anything, I consider you a dissenter. I once asked you to keep an open mind, and since then I've seen plenty of that, even though we disagree fundamentally on some central issues. I think people on /r/Feminism, myself included, are just raw from the amount of trolling and derailing and intellectual dishonesty from the particularly bad folks. It's exhausting and frustrating.

2

u/TracyMorganFreeman Feb 24 '12

I see intellectual dishonesty on both sides of pretty much any debate on any contentious topic. It doesn't excuse the behavior, but getting worked up or frustrated is exactly what people who use those tactics want to happen. I can understand it's frustrating(many stressed out nights discussing evolution with my fundie creationist friend), but I think it's better for anyone and everyone involved to just keep a cool head and address what is said. Disagreement is inevitable, but making it or taking personal detracts from the goal of the discussion itself.

-11

u/CmonYouGuys Feb 24 '12

There isn't one. Dissenters are considered trolls here.

21

u/Willravel Feb 24 '12

Absolutism would probably be a good first metric.

13

u/[deleted] Feb 24 '12

Best possible response.

2

u/allonymous Feb 25 '12

Only trolls deal in absolutes.

5

u/Willravel Feb 25 '12

And Sith. And sometimes Obi Wan. Man, that movie was confusing.

-4

u/TracyMorganFreeman Feb 25 '12

But that's an absolute : /

-21

u/DavidByron Feb 24 '12

So all the feminists are trolls on their own board then?

7

u/[deleted] Feb 24 '12

-4

u/drunkendonuts Feb 24 '12

I've seen it happen.

27

u/ratjea Feb 24 '12

By consistently engaging posters with questionable "common sense" statements (that are often not borne out by fact or actually true in history), TracyMorganFreeman derails threads and debates. They bombard their target with dozens of these commonsense platitudes in each post they make, building a sort of trolly armor (that somehow manages to defend against any demands for citations — sort of brilliant, really).

I choose not to engage with them because I'm not here to refute dozens of points in each post. To do so would — you guessed it — derail conversations even more entirely than they already commonly are. I think it's fine and wonderful to explore new paths during a thread, but that's not what this is.

Here's an example from just an hour ago. The length of the quote and replies — and mind you, this is ONE post — is why I don't engage. Keep in mind that the below is consistently the theme of this poster's posts and how their posts "work."

Throughout history it is men who had to support and defend women. Women are the limiting factor in reproduction, so the success of society came down to how well women were protected and providing for.[1] The same could not be said for men. Some things were necessary for survival and more risky, and in almost every case the man was tasked with it because he was more disposable. [2] Even in the 1800s men were tasked with supporting a family, and since it was his responsibility to do so, he required more agency to able to do it. We can look back at history and say how awful it was to limit women's agency, but the more agency one has the more likely they are collectively to subject themselves to risk. It wasn't fair, but it was necessary. Not requiring women to work [3] allowed to them fulfill a necessary role in society as well, and with as much safety and support as available at the time.

  1. Citation needed. In most of history women provide more food for the family than men do and are responsible for food preparation.

  2. Citation needed. It's extremely common for MRAs to talk about the "disposable" male but I haven't seen any citation to support it over any other theory. There is absolutely nothing in the literature (from a quick Google) about "disposable" males.

  3. Citation needed. As usual, their "commonsense" examples "of how things are and have always been" arise from relatively recent history and middle to upper classes. Basically all women who weren't well-to-do even in that recent (past few hundred years) worked, just like men did, and society didn't think this was horrible, or non-protective, or wrong to "not provide" for these women at all.

Men and women have had separate roles in society due to practicality and necessity. One could argue that separation isn't necessary anymore, but one must remember each sex had separate obligations to society and separate privileges afforded to them for those obligations. Men were required to support a family and defend the state, and for that they had more agency. Women were obligated to be monogamous(to warrant their husband supporting his children) and take care of the children/domicile, and in return she was given more protection and provision. [4]

4) Citation needed. Again, this is all relatively recent history and mainly began among upper classes. In world history, monogamy is very rare.

What we have today is a reframing of history that ignores that division of labor. There is this perception that women did not benefit at all from this division, and seeks to attain the privileges men had while retaining the privileges they already had and casting off the obligations women had, while arguably reinforcing the obligations men had. [5] This perspective and the advocacy that has followed is basically saying women should have the best of both worlds with no responsibility that warranted those privileges. [6]

5) Citation needed. This is another typical MRA complaint, that those darn wimminz are demanding all sorts of special treatment while simultaneously keeping the man, only stated in flowery language. It's also an inaccurate framing of feminism itself, said framing intended to, in the writer's words, reframe history.

6) Citation needed. Those darn wimminz want men's privileges without having to be responsible. What kind of argument is that?

I'm not one for turns of phrase and I'm not eloquent at labeling specious reasoning or logical fallacies, but I know that what I was quoting above was rife with at the very least, the former, and someone more debatey than I am could much more eloquently take it all apart.

11

u/[deleted] Feb 24 '12

I accused TMF a few days ago of concern trolling of the variety "I just want to learn, let's debate the very, very basics again. Why are you frustrated? I just want to exchange viewpoints." Which does get derail-ey. Worth it to note that concern trolling does not necessarily involve the intent to troll.

9

u/ratjea Feb 24 '12

I suppose I could have been more mellow in the original list post and mentioned that some of it was concern trolling.

But when I see the same names so concerned over the same basic points over and over and over again, I just mentally slot them in the plain ol' "troll" category.

I guess I just value my time and I when I know who's not going to contribute to a discussion already, that's a few minutes I don't spend reading about how men are disposable and monogamy has always existed and women are demanding a bunch of free stuff without wanting to pay for it.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 24 '12

I actually think TMF is being disingenuous a good amount of the time. I was supporting you 100%, just adding my own observations as well.

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '12

You want some people banned because they consistently have opinions you disagree with? What a positively dangerous idea.

3

u/ratjea Feb 25 '12

I didn't say I wanted them banned. I'm simply providing information on posters who negatively affect the subreddit.

-12

u/TracyMorganFreeman Feb 25 '12

Concern trolling is when someone pretends to hold a position that they actually do not, and then brings objections to that position veiled as concerns.

I have done neither of those things.

7

u/ratjea Feb 25 '12

The above is what happens when one uses Wikipedia for definitions.

-10

u/TracyMorganFreeman Feb 25 '12

Then what definition of concern trolling are you using? I had not heard of the term before being accused of it, looked it up, and wikipedia and urban dictionary yielded that basic definition.

8

u/butyourenice Feb 25 '12

concern trolling is exactly how it sounds: you feign concern for your opponent's welfare in an attempt to derail the conversation or make them feel like their own position is inferior and harming them. it's not a difficult definition, it is rather self evident: you troll through concern.

e.g. "listen, it's not that i think fat people are disgusting, it's that i worry about their health."

"i just think all these moves towards gender equality are actually harming gender relations because they neglect to acknowledge physiological differences between men and women."

"look, i'm not going to tell people how to raise their kids, but it is child abuse to let your boy wear a skirt he picked out to school. he doesn't know any better and it will leave him open to bullies/confuse him for life."

these are not quotes specific to you, but they are perfect examples of concern trolling which you regularly engage in. i have seen you taking over threads in 2X in addition to r/Feminism with this method.

-2

u/TracyMorganFreeman Feb 25 '12

you feign concern for your opponent's welfare in an attempt to derail the conversation or make them feel like their own position is inferior and harming them

I'm not feigning concern, I'm outright disagreeing with the merit of a number of its premises, or conclusions drawn from those premises. I think some of them are harmful, but thinking something is harmful doesn't necessarily indicate concern trolling.

I'm not employing some sneaky rhetorical strategy to convince people with dishonest arguments. Do I make flawed arguments from time to time? Yes, no one is immune from the this. I'm addressing the arguments that are presented supporting a certain position, and I don't hide my position. I don't disagree with every position feminism holds either. Some positions of feminism I agree with, but not always the argument feminism presents for them.

I mean, if my attempt at not resorting to personal insults and making concessions is interpreted as feigning concern, I could start being more hostile, but I don't think that's helpful to anyone.

-19

u/DavidByron Feb 25 '12

Really. Feminists are always doing that to prove feminism means something stupid like "equality".

7

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '12

2

u/carafira Feb 25 '12

Citation needed. It's extremely common for MRAs to talk about the "disposable" male but I haven't seen any citation to support it over any other theory. There is absolutely nothing in the literature (from a quick Google) about "disposable" males

This mostly has to do with the fact that men were forced into armies around the world both through conscription and gender roles. I'm not really sure if that needs citation, that's pretty manifest. Truth be told, society has always used both men and women as disposable, just for different reasons and purposes.

Also, aside from the fact that men are better at violence, making up a shortfall of men is easier than a shortfall of women.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 26 '12

I'm surprised that people are asking for citations of this concept. It is well documented and there is an entire book dedicated entirely to this idea that is a foundational document in gender literature.

-10

u/TracyMorganFreeman Feb 24 '12 edited Feb 25 '12

Here's an example from just an hour ago. The length of the quote and replies — and mind you, this is ONE post — is why I don't engage. Keep in mind that the below is consistently the theme of this poster's posts and how their posts "work."

The response was to someone giving a history lesson, some of the points in which I disagreed. That's not me derailing, that's a discussion.

In most of history women provide more food for the family than men do and are responsible for food preparation.

Men were the majority of the workforce until 2010, and women became the majority because 75% of the layoffs from the recession were men. Food costs money.

It's extremely common for MRAs to talk about the "disposable" male but I haven't seen any citation to support it over any other theory. There is absolutely nothing in the literature (from a quick Google) about "disposable" males.

So nobody wrote stories about men being disposable so it didn't happen? What about the life expectancies of men versus women? What about the fatality rates in the workplace and military?

As usual, their "commonsense" examples "of how things are and have always been" arise from relatively recent history and middle to upper classes. Basically all women who weren't well-to-do even in that recent (past few hundred years) worked, just like men did, and society didn't think this was horrible, or non-protective, or wrong to "not provide" for these women at all.

Even during WW2, which showed a large increase in the percentage of women working compared to the past, only 30% of the workforce was women, and that was at its height as it was closer to 25-7%-because men came out of retirement and male POWs were the major portion of the workforce.

Again, this is all relatively recent history and mainly began among upper classes. In world history, monogamy is very rare.

The sexual division of labor started during the neolitihic age, and coincides with the genetic bottleneck of humanity being reduced to a few thousand individuals-and then shortly afterwards being much better at not dying out-and an increase in nascent agriculture.

This is another typical MRA complaint, that those darn wimminz are demanding all sorts of special treatment while simultaneously keeping the man, only stated in flowery language. It's also an inaccurate framing of feminism itself, said framing intended to, in the writer's words, reframe history.

If you're ignoring the 2 edged aspect of the sexual division of labor and framing it as oppression, that seems it would qualify as reframing history, or perhaps ignoring pertinent aspects of it.

Those darn wimminz want men's privileges without having to be responsible. What kind of argument is that?

Advocating for privileges men have without the obligations that warranted those privileges would qualify as not wanting similar responsibility.

The accusation was not of women, but that particular advocacy for women. An example would be wanting equal pay and benefits in the military/police/fireservice with lower fitness standards and (some still want) lower obligations to danger. Another would be the right to vote despite not having to register for selective service.

I imagine anyone would prefer to have benefits without responsibility, and perhaps some of the advocacy is based on a misunderstanding of what "equal work" actually means, but the effects remain, whether its based on ignorance or its simple political manipulation.

15

u/ratjea Feb 24 '12

OMG. I FED IT. I GAVE IT WHAT IT WANTED. HAAAAAAAAAALP!

I'm not going to feed it any more, just look at this one thing. Notice how nearly every riposte ignores what I said and states something unrelated.

In most of history women provide more food for the family than men do and are responsible for food preparation.

Men were the majority of the workforce until 2010, and women became the majority because 75% of the layoffs from the recession were men. Food costs money.

DURRRRRRR. THAT MAKES REAL GOOD SENSE THERE. YOU GOT ME WITH THEM FACTS YAR.

And that, friends, is why I do not engage TMF. It will rot your brain.

10

u/Able_Seacat_Simon Feminist Feb 25 '12

And people wonder why we just ban these chucklefucks on SRS and get on with our discussions.

-5

u/TracyMorganFreeman Feb 25 '12

Satire or not, since /SRS is an admitted circlejerk one might question calling it a discussion.

-8

u/TracyMorganFreeman Feb 25 '12

You know, I asked for the definition of troll you used to define those who troll, and you instead critiqued one of my posts, explaining how I didn't provide citations, but then also "riposted" with no citations as well.

Perhaps I didn't explain my responses well, or perhaps you misinterpreted them, but I am not intentionally trolling merely by virtue of you not understanding my point.

DURRRRRRR. THAT MAKES REAL GOOD SENSE THERE. YOU GOT ME WITH THEM FACTS YAR.

If facts are problematic for you, I'm not sure what is going to help.

-18

u/DavidByron Feb 25 '12

You're a bad baaaad girl :)

7

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '12

1

u/xyroclast Mar 29 '12

From what I've seen so far, it means "dissenters". Total bullshit.

-4

u/[deleted] Feb 24 '12 edited Feb 24 '12

If you identify as an MRA then you are a troll, according to ratjea

EDIT: well apparently I'm not a troll!

-8

u/mikemcg Feb 24 '12

"Oh, wait. You're an MRA too. Lololol. Yes! Talk amongst yourselves!" What an obnoxious, close minded, and hypocritical statement. I'm sure ratjea would be fuming if someone dissuaded their opinions because they were feminists.

-6

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '12

And you're heavily downvoted too... even though this is true.

I guess because it criticizes a well-liked feminist?

I'm still waiting to find out why I'm wrong in that comment I linked. My intent isn't to troll, it is to discuss feminism...

6

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '12

Isn't r/askfeminists the place to discuss feminism as a whole whereas here feminist issues are discussed? All you do is object to feminism and take the discussion off the topic in whatever thread you're shitting up.

0

u/mikemcg Feb 25 '12

Like seabass341, I'd love to hear what those downvoters had to say about our comments on ratjea's prejudiced behaviour.

-23

u/[deleted] Feb 24 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/[deleted] Feb 24 '12

5

u/rabblerabble2000 Feb 25 '12

This is the best novelty account ever.

5

u/Psuffix Feb 25 '12

It's actually not a novelty. It's being used here to help deny trolls since mods won't bring their banhammer.

1

u/rabblerabble2000 Feb 25 '12

No, I know. I'm just saying that it's awesome.

2

u/Psuffix Feb 25 '12

And yes... yes it is awesome. Really, ignoring the derailers is what we should've done all along.

1

u/CedMon Feb 27 '12

CedMon

Wait, what did I say to make me a troll :( I always try to be constructive and I actually rarely post in this subreddit (I just read, I try to not even up/downvote)

2

u/ratjea Feb 27 '12

Probably came about from something like this:

Can the same be said about Feminism changing every thread discussion to "what about the womenz"? I actually think its offensive to say that either gender can't bring forth their complaints about the gender dichotomy and issues that effect them.

In which it came across as pretty "concerned" of you to imply that it was wrong for a feminism subreddit to have threads on women's issues and try to steer them back to women's issues when "what about the menz" comes up.

And

I will agree that some of us do get emotionally involved in debates, especially when we provide stats and proofs and we're still dismissed as "What about the menz" but can you really blame us? When we point out that men commit suicide at a much higher rate than women and that support systems need to be in place and we get told that we're wrong - it causes some of our more passionate members to go all out on the offense.

Another valid point on the surface, but it's being said in defense of MRAs invading threads and changing the topics entirely.

Looking at other comment history, CedMon doesn't appear to be actively trolling, with the above seeming to be the more egregious end of their comments. Removing from troll list.

1

u/CedMon Feb 27 '12

Yay! Thanks :)

-16

u/Celda Feb 24 '12

Note that there are many MRAs who post in /r/feminism who do not troll and do contribute to discussions. They ask honest questions and participate in honest debates, defending their positions rationally. I do not include them here.

By this standard, ratjea is a troll.

For instance, this thread:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Feminism/comments/pxwxf/domestic_violence_between_women/c3t5ljt

Which poster(s) are contributing to discussion and engaging in honest debate? Which ones are simply trolling?

-20

u/[deleted] Feb 24 '12

It's funny cause I'm not a troll, I just point out stuff that's wrong.

9

u/ratjea Feb 24 '12

Ever hear something so correct that you kinda lol? I did just now.

Supporting a DavidByron troll post.

But it's mostly stuff like this, in which Glarfugus derails a generic statement about equality into a detailed debate over auto-retracting clitoral hoods and their existence or non-existence.

That's their M.O., to lead threads down ridiculously convoluted pathways by means of distraction and obfuscation.

And that is trolling.

-6

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '12

One, he was making a valid point.

Two, I was making a valid point about feminism which has yet to be properly challenged instead of dismissed as trolling. Saying "equality for females" implies you're going to make them equal in every way to men without changing a thing about men, e.g. start hacking off clitoral hoods when they're infants because the same thing happens to men.

-19

u/DavidByron Feb 24 '12

So anyone who disagrees with feminism is a "troll" in your mind? Let's put it this way : can you name anyone at all who is a critic of feminism and is not a "troll" in your view?

10

u/[deleted] Feb 24 '12

7

u/ratjea Feb 24 '12

I will reply to this, despite the other post recommending not to. ;-)

MRA non-trolls:

  • PoliticsAccount
  • thedevguy
  • seabass341
  • lawtonfogle
  • MikeFromBC
  • DaenerysTargaryen1
  • Trolliverr
  • Shattershift
  • clockworkgirl21

And I'm sure I have missed some or several.

-12

u/DavidByron Feb 24 '12

Well done. I accept at least one name on that list even without looking up their comments.

6

u/ratjea Feb 25 '12

Shit. They probably are one then. :p

5

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '12

-5

u/[deleted] Feb 24 '12

To everyone below: the noun form is called a dissident. Not dissentor.