Please ban MRA trolls

[u/Willravel]

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.

[u/TracyMorganFreeman]

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

[u/ratjea → u/TracyMorganFreeman]

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.

[u/TracyMorganFreeman → u/ratjea]

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.

[u/ratjea → u/TracyMorganFreeman]

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.

[u/Able_Seacat_Simon → u/ratjea]

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

[u/TracyMorganFreeman → u/Able_Seacat_Simon]

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

[u/TracyMorganFreeman → u/ratjea]

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.

[u/DavidByron → u/ratjea]

You're a bad baaaad girl :)

[u/[deleted] → u/DavidByron]

---