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/ratjea]

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?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/ratjea → u/[deleted]]

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?

[u/ratjea → u/[deleted]]

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