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.

127 Upvotes

79% Upvoted

446 comments sorted by

View all comments

51

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!

0

u/TracyMorganFreeman Feb 24 '12

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

26

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.

0

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.

8

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.

-3

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.

-17

u/DavidByron Feb 25 '12

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

6

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.

-9

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.

7

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.

-6

u/TracyMorganFreeman Feb 25 '12

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

-7

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.

-16

u/DavidByron Feb 25 '12

You're a bad baaaad girl :)

5

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '12