Disclaimer

By accessing this blog, you agree to the following terms:

Nothing you see here is intended or offered as legal advice. The author is not an attorney. These posts have been written for educational and information purposes only. They are not legal advice or professional legal counsel. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship between this blog, the author, or the publisher, and you or any other user. Subscribers and readers should not act, or fail to act, upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

This is not a safe space. I reserve the right to write things you may agree or disagree with, like or dislike, over which you may feel uncomfortable or angry, or which you may find offensive. I also don't speak for anyone but myself. These are my observations and opinions. Don't attribute them to any group or person whose name isn't listed as an author of a post on this blog.

Reading past this point is an acknowledgement and acceptance of the above terms.

Showing posts with label /r/mensrights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label /r/mensrights. Show all posts

Reddit Feminists admit everything, page 2

Return to page 1

Several times during the last few years, men's issues discussion has included analysis and criticism of events in which there was feminist involvement;

In each instance, instead of dealing with the reality of overt behavior on behalf of their movement, internet feminists have used the deflection, dodging, and denial approach I've previously described. Among the arguments used in that approach:

  • Active, world-effecting feminists don't represent what feminism means to the world (a staple in their repertoire).
  • That feminists pushed for something doesn't mean feminists are responsible for it happening.
  • That a response or claim is based on widely-articulated and cited feminist ideology or claims doesn't link the response or claim to feminism.
  • That feminists spoke out in support of an individual's actions doesn't link those actions to feminism. 

In each case, internet feminists have essentially argued that no matter what other indicators exist making a connection between a behavior or event, and feminism or any specific feminist group, unless there is an undeniable, in-your-face smoking gun, it's unreasonable to discuss those connections and draw any conclusions which would consider those connections valid.

Imagine my surprise... okay, so I wasn't surprised, just delighted at the ability to cite yet another display of feminist hypocrisy... when reddit feminists used exactly the same processes they have previously criticized when they wanted to support the claim "Men's Rights Activists flooded Occidental university with false rape reports!"

Now, for the record, here's where I have to admit to trolling a reddit feminist or two (and I'd apologize to them, but you know, they really asked for it) in order to get better evidence of that hypocrisy.

It didn't start out that way. I came in to that situation after the fact, not knowing whether or not there had even been any MRAs who filled out forms. Reading the accusation, the feminist response to it appeared to me to be completely hysterical. After all, they have spent the last few years arguing that false accusations are no big deal, even when they have real, life-wrecking consequences. They've specifically argued that wrongful use of the form in question would cause no damage at all, despite the stigma of being labeled a sex offender without the recourse of any kind of hearing for the accused. The equivalent would be in arguing the right to tattoo the word "rapist" on someone any time you like, because after all, that isn't same as imprisonment.
Therefore, it's not an abuse of the individual's rights.

If those really are their beliefs, it should not have bothered them if there had been over 9000 prank accusations filed... unless, of course, what is not damaging when women supported by feminists do it becomes a holy freakin' super-destructive force when those Magic Patriarchy Powers™ come into play.

As I looked into the existing discussions, I realized that once again, these feminists were using the molehill + feminist objection = mountain formula for justifying their own articulated outrage. Though the loophole-demonstration approach isn't something I'd have come up with, I don't actually see a problem with it, especially not one which justifies the mouth-frothing feminist response to this incident. Those involved, an unknown, untraceable mix of 4chan users and /r/mensrights subscribers, are not subjecting anyone to anything feminists don't support subjecting men to at random. They're simply demonstrating a serious flaw in the system set up by Occidental; that the anonymity factor and internet-wide availability of their sexual misconduct report form makes it easy to abuse, and abuse of it hard to quell or counter. The smartest approach Occidental could make to this display is to address that flaw, and take steps to improve their reporting system so that actual victims can report misconduct, but their students won't be vulnerable to the same attacks which were perpetrated against the poor Kool-Aid man and various incarnations of Mr. Jimmy Russel this week.

Within my set of comments, I asked for proof of the following:

  • That the behavior (Prank use of Occidental's anonymous reporting form) was widespread among MRAs,
  • That following their brigading of the sub, reddit feminists didn't manipulate voting
  • That anything about the incident (either the demonstrable involvement in the behavior, or the vote pattern on comments and on the original post) demonstrated a unified sub-wide attitude about the behavior.
These weren't complicated questions, and though as I said, I have no doubt that there was involvement by MRAs, these questions weren't outside the standard of reason set by past reddit feminist responses to other discussion of feminist behavior and attitudes. They were based on the reality that an accusation can't be reasonably considered proved if there is not physical evidence, if there's reasonable suspicion of contributing factors not taken into account, and/or if there's not a direct, traceable and unbroken link between presented evidence and the conclusion offered.

The commenters replying to me failed to deliver on all 3 counts.

The show of hypocrisy by reddit's /r/againstmensrights feminists in response to my questions about this incident was priceless. On pushing the feminist trolls on /r/mensrights for more evidence, and then looking through the screenshots and links I was given, I learned the following:

  • A small few /r/mensrights accounts (less than 0.00002% of the sub's overall population) had posted comments claiming to have filled out the forms.
  • A very slightly larger number of /r/mensrights accounts had posted comments discussing the idea, with some encouraging it. Some of these were long-term, prominent members. 
  • There was controversy among regulars in the sub over whether or not the idea was a good idea.
  • Evidence for the claim that MRAs "flooded" Occidental with reports included an official from Occidental stating that reports "contained language similar to that used by members of 4chan and reddit's /r/mensrights." No concrete evidence was presented showing that more reports than were claimed by MRAs came from MRAs, nor was any concrete evidence presented that the official in question had any familiarity with either 4chan or /r/mensrights. 
  • Based on the combined populations from which the reports are said to have come, there was no flood, but a mere 400 reports... a fraction of either individual population, and a pittance when considering their overall numbers. 
  • There was no smoking gun here, but /r/againstmensrights thinks that a minority of comments and claims based on circumstantial evidence constitutes one when it's their accusation they're trying to prove. 
Now, let me repeat that I do believe there were men's rights activists involved in the effort to highlight this huge flaw in Occidental's approach to handling sexual misconduct. From the moment I saw the first list (to which I replied with my initial 0.00002% comment) I knew there were prominent, respected (including by me) MRAs involved, and I have no problem whatsoever with their actions. This article is not a denial of that; it's about the hysterical feminist response to the incident. 

Feminists - the same group which uses the deflect, dodge, and deny approach to discussion about feminist and feminist-led behavior, which responds to evidence of damage done by their movement with NAFALT, and actions taken in their name with "nothing but a smoking gun is evidence" - responded to my trollish barrage of requests for more and more evidence by offering me two things: More circumstantial evidence, and a healthy dose of vitriol. How dare I demand proof when I knew there was none? That they were so sure of their findings should be enough to convince me! Was I nuts? How could I be so unreasonable as to put forth the same requirements and stipulations they've made in the past in response to discussion of feminist behaviors? Don't I realize that when the suspects are MRAs, appearance = guilt?

The realization that those responding to me were so shocked when I presented in mock seriousness the same responses I've seen feminists present in actual seriousness made it a little hard to keep up the charade. I think I blew it in the end by pushing too hard, because they gave up and quit responding...

...but not before they cemented their display of hypocrisy by falling back on oft-used NAFALT-based projection, once again demanding that I ignore the difference between things feminists just don't like, and things that have a demonstrably discriminatory or oppressive impact on men both individually and as a group.

Reddit Feminists admit everything


The main response of feminists on the internet to any criticism of the movement is deflection, dodging, and denial. To understand this, you only have to look back at internet feminists' responses to information presented to them about their movement, and about internet feminists' actions during the last few years.

One example of the deflection response is to dismiss men's issues by combining blame for them on a conspiratorial concept they've labeled "Patriarchy" with the treatment of all men everywhere as a single unit instead of individuals with individual experiences and effects on the world. The gist of this argument is "men's problems are caused by men having power and control in society. One man's power is all men's power. Therefore, your issues are your fault, while women's issues are also your fault. That makes women's issues more important, and means that men aren't qualified to seek and apply solutions to men's issues. You should back off and let feminists have control. Our efforts to empower women will solve all of the issues related to discrimination in the world, and if they don't, you probably deserve to be discriminated against, anyway."


However, an accurate look at the history of the issues and the feminist response to them often reveals that feminist activism and feminist ideological assertions have been either causative or exacerbating factors leading or contributing to discriminatory conditions faced by men.

One example which stands out is the unequal legal handling of child custody and division of property following divorce. It was feminist activism which led to the widespread adoption of the belief that mothers should be primarily awarded child custody. Prior to their involvement, it was standard procedure that custody of children in divorce would remain with fathers, who did not receive any financial support from their ex-wives. Following the change, women given custody of their children were awarded support on the basis of their lower earning capacity. However, as women's earning capacity has increased, the expectation that an ex-husband will continue to fund his ex-wife's custody of their children following their divorce has not decreased in proportion to it.

When estranged fathers denied contact with their children and kept in poverty by exorbitant and often arbitrarily imposed support obligations (and therefore unable to fight the willful alienation imposed by their exes) began lobbying for equal custodial rights, feminist organizations opposed that effort by demonizing all fathers as abusers and deadbeats, and denying the behavior of mothers whose denial of parental contact and abuse of the system led to the effort. Further, feminist groups have not only supported the continuation of the use of outdated reasoning for the imposition of support obligation on divorcing husbands and fathers, they've fought to impose stricter legal handling of that obligation. This, knowing that the group primarily assigned custody is women, and the group primarily assigned child support obligation is men.

Another is the unequal treatment of victims of intimate partner and sexual violence depending on the sex of the victim and the sex of the perpetrator. This is another area in which feminists blame "patriarchy," but a look at their own activism shows that with respect to modern treatment of victims, their hands are as dirty as they can get, in both the area of sexual violence, and intimate partner violence. And they're still doing it. Feminist rape apologia is so blatant that they're willing to admit they have no basis for defining the same forced or coerced sex act differently depending on who is the victim and who is the perpetrator. 

The internet feminist answer to being confronted with feminist involvement in causing or exacerbating discriminatory conditions faced by men is to actually claim that despite their own actions, it's still "patriarchy," not feminism, which is the primary and current cause of these issues because   
   
1) NAFALT (explained below), and
2) Lawmakers are mostly men, and they don't have to listen to feminist advocates.
In other words, no matter the lobbying/information on which their decisions are based, all discrimination is male lawmakers' fault (female lawmakers who support feminist efforts don't count) and no responsibility can be placed on feminist groups exercising influence on the process. Or to put it another way, the all-powerful male lawmakers should have known that feminist groups were talking out of their asses, ignored all of the information presented to them, and decided purely based on the innate knowledge that comes from male omnipotence.

NAFALT is a combination of deflection, dodging, and denial that takes expert mental gymnastics to pull off. Address a concept upon which the feminist pro-discrimination lobby is based, using it exactly as feminists have described it, and your approach will be dismissed with "that's not what that concept is." Give references for your usage of the concept, and they'll be dismissed with some version of the "Not All Feminists Are Like That" argument, which boils down to the claim that no matter what the mainstream, heavily funded, established and world-effecting segment of feminism has laid down as feminist ideology on which to base their organized activism, if there's anyone anywhere who calls themselves "feminist" and believes or says differently, that feminist constitutes the new "mainstream," and all other feminism with which she disagrees (at the moment) due to her discomfort at hearing organized feminist pro-discrimination activism criticized is "radical." This argument is used in attempts to deflect responsibility for the effects of organized, established feminist activism to the subjective concept "radicalism." It's used to dodge one's responsibility to counter or accept the assertion that discriminatory conditions men currently face cannot be dismissed, or men's activism co-opted by attributing that discrimination to the ill-defined feminist concept "Patriarchy." It's used to deny the movement's role in the political process by proclaiming anything damaging which organized feminism has done "not feminism."

The NAFALT argument is the lazy feminist's answer to any criticism of any damaging thing ever done by feminist activists. It doesn't actually counter any of those criticisms, but it makes the feminist offering it more comfortable with them. 

Recently, feminists have begun responding to rejection of the NAFALT argument with lame attempts at projection. This method entails equating "prominence within a group" with "political/government establishment" and demanding that men's rights activists "take responsibility" for  men's issues discussion to which feminists take personal or ideological offense, by censoring said "offensive" speech. "If feminism is responsible for feminist-advocated and feminist-lobbied anti-male discriminatory conditions, then you're oppressing me by not condemning other MRAs for saying things I don't like!"

To employ this method, feminists treat speech they dislike as if their dislike defines it as malevolent, and  elevates its impact and that imposed malevolence to the same level as the active feminist lobby for discrimination against men in law, policy, and social response. In other words, the argument is "If you don't accept the claim that feminism is not responsible for the real, demonstrable damage feminist activism has done, then we expect you to let us tell you what you can and can't say on the basis that you're responsible for our emotional response to it. Having in existence statements we don't want to hear is as damaging to us as being falsely imprisoned, having one's victimization by intimate partner or sexual violence condoned by society and the law, being artificially pushed into poverty by the law, and being denied contact with one's children. We just can't tell the difference between an affront to our own fragile and twisted sensibilities, and real, demonstrable oppression."

Pointing out the double standard in that approach varies in effect depending on which feminists are involved in the discussion. Those purporting to be reasonable will often simply abandon the discussion at this point. Vehement opponents of the men's human rights movement, such as the trolls from reddit.com's /r/againsmensrights (certainly not a name that contains bias, right?) subreddit, on the other hand, have actually tried to justify their molehill=mountain and mountain=molehill mentality in two ways. 

The first is by assuming for themselves the right to not be offended and treating that presumed "human right" as if it is as valid and vital as the very real human rights which are violated when one is wrongfully imprisoned, stripped of personal property, separated from one's loved ones, or subjected to tolerance of violent crimes against oneself specifically on the basis of one's sex. In this way, internet feminists exercise a complete abandonment of all sense of proportion and authenticity in order to feel justified in attempting to use criticism of feminism as leveraging support for their effort to cut off nonfeminist or antifeminist speech about men's issues. 

The second is the "lower ground" argument, which employs the social justice concept of "privilege." The "privilege" dialogue uses treatment of perceived disadvantage as an excuse to infer guilt upon anyone not experiencing that disadvantage, and a baseline level of innocence for the disadvantaged. The term is used as a cattle prod in gender and other human issues discussion, allowing Social Justice ideologues to claim it's justified to treat existing conditions differently based on the "averaging" factor of privilege. Injustices against privileged people become justified; Injustices against the non-privileged are amplified. This allows the feminist to ignore real, life-effecting conditions in favor of an ideological interpretation of them. "Oh, you're in jail? Well, you're male, so you have Magic Patriarchy Powers™ that cancel out all adversity. Women have it worse just trying to live in public because women are oppressed."

The double standard approach to justifying feminist deflection of responsibility for their own movement's damage to society can also be seen in internet feminists' responses to the last few years' events. In this case, the double standard is in their application of standards of evidence.

Page 2

VAWA and stalking

Here's an example of one of the fundamental flaws in the current incarnation of VAWA: broad terms which encompass more than violence in their definitions. In its provisions on stalking, the bill treats upsetting someone as an act of violence... even when it occurs online, with no limit as to how and where this stipulation may apply.

Text from stalking section as listed on LLI, since Congress's THOMAS system doesn't work
(I've made pertinent segments bold for emphasis.)

Sec. 2261A. Stalking

Whoever--
(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or is present within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel or presence engages in conduct that--
(A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to--
(i) that person;
(ii) an immediate family member (as defined in section 115) of that person; or
(iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person; or
(B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A); or
(2) with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that--
(A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A); or

(B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A), shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title.'.

(c) Interstate Violation of Protection Order- Section 2262(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 'is present' after 'Indian Country or'.
Looking up the legal definition of harassment (unwanted, unwelcomed and uninvited behavior that demeans, threatens or offends the victim and results in a hostile environment for the victim) will tell you that to be meet that definition, an individual claiming to be a victim merely has to establish that 1) the accuser objected to the behavior, 2) the accused didn't stop.

U.S. Legal's definition of Intimidation states
Intimidation means to make fearful or to put into fear. Generally, proof of actual fear is not required in order to establish intimidation. It may be inferred from conduct, words, or circumstances reasonably calculated to produce fear.
Because subsection (2) of section 2261A. (stalking) includes when this behavior occurs via electronic communication - specifically any interactive computer service or electronic communication service, the complainant doesn't even have to establish that the accused sought her out. Under this definition, any discussion in any forum under any circumstances would qualify as an environment in which a person engaging in interpersonal communication could be accused of stalking. In fact, screenshots may fall under this category, as well, if the individual whose post is being recorded and posted objects, even if the original posts were publicly visible.

We have seen how lightly and easily the violence against women act has been abused in the past.

Sit back for a moment, and think about this: This text essentially makes any discussion online potential fodder for a legal accusation. Abuse of this section of the law will be easy to commit, and difficult to combat. How do you prove that you didn't intend to offend someone you were arguing with? How do you determine for the court how your opponent should feel about your replies in a debate?

How long do you think it will take for opponents of the MRM to start using this as a tool for stifling debate where gender issues are discussed? Is code orange about to grow some teeth?

For the record

Note to readers visiting from the link in the comment section of Manboobz: You may find this relevant.

I've been noticing it for a while... talking about it for a while, and replying as best I can when it happens; an influx of feminist posters, commenters, and voters in reddit's /r/mensrights. I've seen that other MRAs have started to notice it, too, so I decided to do a search in the sub using the word feminist, and highlight some of the posts which either were troll posts, or included a lot of feminist trolling.

Read: that means if your post is included in this list, that doesn't necessarily mean I think you are a troll. Before anyone gets hurt feelings, look through not just the post itself, but the comments underneath, or look through the list to see if your post (or the comment response) is part of a pattern I'm noting. I've tagged some posts to make it easier to see, but I don't have time to go through and tag everything.   
There are several, including (but not limited to)

  • "Feminism is your friend. You just don't understand." (Can't we all just get along?)
  • "Not All Feminists Are Like That" (NAFALT)
  • Tone policing, including "don't criticize feminism," "you sound whiny," "you sound misogynistic," etc.
  • "You're not good enough" (You're not doing anything. You're not helping group X. You're not talking about topic Y.)
  • Attempts to sneak feminist rhetoric into the sub
  • Divide and Conquer - attempts to create animosity or other conflict between /r/mensrights and other groups, or deny that the men's rights movement includes groups that are included in the movement (like gay men's rights, or trans rights.)
  • Fishing - posting something inflammatory or carefully worded to create an emotional response in order to facilitate quote mining.

   
That also means that if there's a lot of feminist support in the comments, that doesn't necessarily mean I don't think the post is a troll post, either - it may well be. Rather than placing a label, I'm simply tracking patterns.  
  
This post is not intended to call any specific redditor out (though if I have someone tagged as SRS or AMR, that's not getting removed from your name when I post it here.) Nor is it complete. There are posts I remember responding to in the past that I did not find using this method, so this entry will be periodically updated as I am able to go back and find those, as well. I have seen 2 to 4 a month up until the last few weeks, when there has been a dramatic increase, as far as I can tell.  
   
If you see posts you think belong here, PM me on reddit or leave a comment here, and I'll update. 

*note - I've recently added links to several self-posts which are all variations on asking if the MRM supports gay rights, or claiming it doesn't and asking why. If you see your post here, it doesn't mean I'm calling your post a troll post. It is simply that we're seeing the same self-posts over and over on this topic, with small variation, and that's a pattern.


Why is feminism discussed so much on this subreddit? (self.MensRights)
submitted by futfootballer  /u/AMRthroaway linked to AMR


i don't understand (self.MensRights)
submitted 21 Apr 2014 by aerxo17

So, I've been calling feminist groups in Canada about my effort to open more men's shelters, and have been pleasantly surprised. (self.MensRights)
submitted 19 Apr 2014 by William_Red
/r/againstmensrights vote manipulation used to boost feminist-friendly comments to top of thread

An example of feminism done right. (self.MensRights)
submitted by Broken_Castle 

Are men's rights in the US really being impinged upon? How? (self.MensRights)
submitted 17 Apr 2014 by MyUnpopularThoughts

submitted by Zacky007

submitted by DemonicHeartYeah, no.
Privilege as a cattle prod

(51|29) submitted by dullboy9000
(92|28) submitted 08 Apr 2014 by adevil

(8|6) submitted 08 Apr 2014* by SemperFlea
(Visits MR subreddit, totally misses the fact that many MRAs ARE women)

(51|21) submitted by OttersAreSuperCool
submitted by Kuramo

submitted 03 Apr 2014 by jcoe-in which wreckedsomething admits, in a roundabout way, to regularly violating reddit's rules on vote-manipulation.
This comment amounts to the claim that linking to a comment in a thread equals vote brigading, 


It also comes from someone who regularly links to /r/mensrights.
Now, one can reasonably argue that linking to a comment does not constitute brigading, especially when the link is an np (nonparticipation) link. However, one can't so reasonably argue that one who says that linking to a comment is done for the purpose of brigading is innocent of attempting to brigade when linking to a comment.

What does being a male rights activist mean to you? (self.MensRights)
submitted by appleeyed

(3|8) submitted by Prankster_Bob

submitted by OMoraine

submitted  by rocelot7

submitted  by nonhiphipster

submitted  by Mohaan

(43|32) submitted by Mouon

submitted by Winter_of_Discontent

(7|5) submitted by murtaza64

submitted by typhonblue 
Brigaded


(40|14) submitted 13 Feb 2014 by RelentlesslyDead
Not calling this a troll post by any means, but part of a pattern. I have noticed that periodically, there's a post like this with a lot of replies from names I don't see a lot in the sub.

(50|37) submitted 13 Feb 2014 by XisanXbeforeitsakiss
This is not a troll post, but it links to a post that goes along with a pattern I've seen with young accounts claiming to have visited /r/mensrights, read unspecified posts, and come to the conclusion that the sub and sometimes the movement is anti-some factor, usually something it's politically incorrect to oppose or criticize. When called the anti-factor claim, they offer replies that boil down to "you disagreed with something I or someone else said that I or they linked to (whatever the factor was) and therefore you're anti-(that factor.) Following an original post along the lines of "I had subjective experience X as a factor-1 person, therefore conclusion," MRAs may argue that the experience is subjective, that factor-1 doesn't make the experience applicable to everyone, or that the conclusion is based on some other flawed thinking. That is cited by anyone supporting the poster's stated conclusion as an indication that the sub is anti-factor-1, not because it's an indication of such, but because that's easier to do than make arguments supporting the conclusion. I've seen being gay or female as the factor a lot, but the trend lately seems to be using "I'm transgender" instead.

submitted  by lolbye2
(1|8) submitted  by jcoe

submitted  by throwaway41823

submitted by lolbye1

submitted  by Vladith

submitted  by smariroach

 submitted  by Dexter77
Brigaded

submitted  by [gutless snot who deleted their account almost immediately]


submitted  by guywithaccount

submitted  by transsisterradio

submitted  by gblr


submitted 29 Dec 2013 by Apemazzle

submitted 29 Dec 2013 ago by slu-g

submitted by stillissitting

A letter to the men's rights movement (dearnonacepeople.tumblr.com)
submitted ago by ezra811

submitted by summersanne
The short version: "I'm a trans-woman who entered life as a woman carrying a belief in the concept of male privilege, and have interpreted all of my experiences as confirmation of it. Since I'm trans, you now have to believe in male privilege."

Bonus: Brigaded by /r/againstmensrights.

submitted 18 Dec 13 by [deleted]
(OP didn't even stick around for a day.)

Why did sillymod remove the Occidental College post?" Let me tell you why. (self.MensRights)
submitted 17 Dec 13 by sillymod
Vote and comment brigaded by SRS, AMR, and SRD
Also, I was able to get an interesting result by engaging AMR trolls in discussion under the post.

submitted by infinette

submitted by relaxandenjoy

submitted by NickAckerman

submitted ago by buddyloveshispie


submitted  by 11thGRADEteacher

submitted by WheyDaBusAt

submitted  by Titsout4theboiz

(6|11) submitted by IjustcametosayAnyang
Divide and Conquer

submitted  by Horrorbuff2
Divide and Conquer

submitted by deathbutton1

submitted ago by zwirlo
 
submitted  by a_personification

submitted 15 Nov 2013* by Ultraoctopus

submitted 04 Nov 2013 by macnalley

submitted by perfectdesignNot a troll post, but the post itself was trolled in the comments.

submitted 22 Oct 2013 by nocbl2

submitted  by Smallpaul

submitted 10 Oct 2013 by thighproblem

submitted by NeonPiggy

submitted by ZerowithanH

(2|3) submitted by hhoburg

(109|30) submitted by onetenth

(11|9) submitted  by WheyDaBusAt

(8|10) submitted by Mishap89

submitted  by Anonaux

submitted 19 Sept 2013 by seego79

submitted 17 Sept 2013 by stageflight

submitted on by __banana
I'm not ready to say "pattern" after just 2 "let's associate MR with TRP posts, but still...
Divide and Conquer

submitted by didosrevenge

Hi. People on this site seem to talk about feminists a lot, but..
submitted on by Kate150

submitted 22 Aug 2013 by PinkiePo

A little confusion maybe you can clear up? (self.MensRights)
submitted  by punxpunx54"I've seen the term "red pill" thrown around here. Does this refer to the subreddit, or is it referring to the phrase as an alternative to "having my eyes opened"?
What are the general thoughts about the sub TRP and the manhood academy?"

submitted 06 Aug 2013 by recentlyunearthed

submitted 4 August 2013 by No_Fudge

Infographic: 40% of rapists are female (i.imgur.com)
 submitted submitted on by Frankly_No
Brigaded.


submitted by CosmicKeys
This is not a spam or troll post, but instead describes brigading that has happened in relation to discussion on the Anita Sarkeesian videos.


submitted by 6aerataob
Tone Policing, Divide and Conquer 

submitted by KGBway

 Brigaded, Tone Policing

submitted by HappyGerbil88
Tone Policing: Attempts to use term "Misogynistic" in describing men's rights blogs to poison MRAs against outspoken Men's rights bloggers. 

(103|41) submitted by Little_maroon_alien

submitted by MrScolex

submitted by indigotrip

(15|20) submitted by bubbleearth

submitted  the_shakeweight

(11|8) submitted  by MaunderingMoose

submitted by Camerinthus

(7|3) submitted by turiyag

submitted by ddxxdd
Brigaded 

submitted by mramrs

submitted by mehjbmeh

submitted by videoninja

submitted by fecal_encephalopathy
Tone Policing, NAFALT

submitted  by HalfysReddit

submitted by DaNiceguy
Heavily Brigaded.

submitted by royzin

submitted 29 Apr 2013 by lost-and-confused-

submitted  by GanbatteSisyphus

submitted by Tsaxmafia

   submitted  cypherdtraitor
NAFALT, but guys, it's a graphic so believe it! 
 

submitted 20 Apr 2013 by Typicaledgyname
Day old account, depressing message, maybe not a troll, but it sure looks like one.

(2|5) submitted by ga13be

submitted by mattblau

submitted by DerFisher
(Originally linked from /r/mensrights. Post removed by OP, who didn't like responses to it.)

(7|5) submitted  by GregoryPanic
Not a troll or brigade - just shows that there are MRAs who do not know everything feminism has done.

submitted 13 Apr 2013 by Kingle0nidas
Brigaded.

submitted by memymineown
OP is longstanding MRA, but post invaded by trolls due to subject matter.

(3|4) submitted  by NEET_Here

submitted by feminazi_ftw

submitted by vaselinepete

submitted on by nobodysothername
(wonder why a sub where gay rights does get discussed keeps getting asked if gay rights are part of the discussion?)
submitted 27 Mar 2013 by WikipediaBrown

submitted on by yourblacksister

(23|24) submitted on by nutflushdraw
This one is pretty ridiculous, apparently posted just to give SRSers a place to circlejerk in the sub. Regularly posting MRAs are downvoted into hiding, while the top voted comment is a blatantly feminist viewpoint not actually related to the sub or the movement. Not even sure what kind of an effect they thought this effort would achieve.

submitted by sherylintexas

submitted by HalfysReddit

(93|46) submitted on by smallsmerry01

submitted by NemosHero
submitted  by bravestlittletoaster

(690|143)submitted by icamefromtumblr

(656|133) submitted by SUPERSMILEYMAN
Fishing
This is not an MR regular. The wording of the post itself is rather fake - it's like a parody of "women behaving badly" posts, intended to set off comments. I think this one is trolling with intent to inspire speech which can be labeled "hate speech."

(128|21) submitted by gingerninjer2
I very strongly suspect this of being designed to get people's facebook profile information.

(3|1) submitted  by ElfmanLV

(46|19) submitted by eosri1

(327|94) submitted  by MercedezBento

(3|8) submitted by goddessworshipper


(3|0) submitted  by kwyjibo1230

submitted  by somethingofdoom

(9|13) submitted by XWindX

(13|0) submitted by They_Killed_Kenny

(12|10) submitted  by occupythekitchen

(28|17) submitted 02 Feb 2013 by viganhe005

(87|65 ago by ezra_epwell

submitted 26 Jan 2013 by T-rex_with_a_gun


submitted  ago by ExiledSenpai

submitted  by FEMANON_HERE
This thread is a response to the one listed below, contains vote brigading and a shitload of feminist apologists.


submitted  by DougDante This thread contains vote brigading and feminist apologists.

(4|2) submitted by SpaghettiLeftovers
(5|3) submitted  by morty369
      (Why can't we all just get along?)   (Again)

submitted  by kelloo
Post highlights the fraud behind Rosie the riveter poster. Issue is obvious - Rosie wasn't up to "equal work."
Immediately garnered "this is not a men's rights issue" and a brigade.

(11|8) submitted  by arrace415
Essentially, "I'm a feminist... please stop posting the Kanin study. I believe it's invalid because it used methodology similar to that used by feminists (small sample size), because Kanin was ethical, because it's based on women admitting that they lied, because polygraphs were used. The bottom line - (aside from the polygraph bit, which I can buy, but which doesn't carry the argument by itself) still the same old feminist crap about considering a rape accusation true if it isn't proved false, or guilty until proven innocent. Further, arrace415 asserts that a rape report is not an accusation, and that the accused isn't harmed by the report - a statement that assumes that every false report never gets past the paper stage, as if the accuser never says anything outside of the report itself. This completely ignores the effects caused by leveling such a serious charge. Conclusion: Troll trying to stop a useful argument from being circulated.

(1|2) submitted 02 Jan 2013 by curlymeatball38

As a feminist, thank you r/MensRights. (self.MensRights)
(106|49) submitted 01 Jan 2013 by HereToHumilateAFrand

submitted 01 Jan 2013 by thefran
 - heavily concern trolled by feminists  

Can We Try To Focus on Men's Rights, not "I Hate Feminists!" jokes? (self.MensRights)
(1649|610) submitted 30 Dec 2012 by absolutekraze

(25|11) submitted 29 Dec 2012 by Fisto27

(15|12) submitted by JaguscothSRS


7 Tactics Used by Academic Feminists To Suppress Information (self.MensRights)
(624|169) submitted by actanonverba8 
Brigaded

Why Feminism will always be the enemy (self.MensRights)(90|74) submitted by DavidByron
(comment section)Where Girlwriteswhat gets downvote brigaded by /r/againstmensrights for asserting that effective birth control is better than ineffective birth control

(17|14) submitted  by prettylittledaggers 

Something i think we all should read because i feel this means that our two groups are able able to reach a common ground.(MRAs and Feminists) Xpost to /r/Feminism (chicagonow.com)
(256|72) submitted  by Inbefore121

Men's Rights vs. Feminism vs. Egalitarianism (self.MensRights)
(17|14) submitted 24 Dec 2012 by DJ_Fleetwood_MacBook

what do you look for in a partner? (self.MensRights)
(8|4) submitted 22 Dec 2012 by hentaipolice 

(41|38) submitted 20 Dec 2012 by jawndisease


(40|28) submitted by ArchangelleFascist

(11|18) submitted by pretzelzetzel

(26|22)submitted by Jernlov

I'm both a feminist and a MRA. (self.MensRights)
(111|68) submitted by TheCameraLady

A question from an outsider. (self.MensRights)
(20|16) submitted by carpetpowder

Why do we have Men's Rights and Feminist Groups? Why not Gender Equality groups? (self.MensRights (8|11) submitted  by Skwalin 

A discussion on the word feminism. (self.MensRights)
(5|5) submitted  by ottawadeveloper 

 (7|10) submitted 04 Dec 2012 by Skwalin 

After just finding this sub a few days ago, I have some things I feel that I need to say, and would really love all your feedback. (self.MensRights)
(8|10) submitted  by duck97 


Well this is new. A feminist forum bringing awareness of men's rights issues, but still calling it feminism.(i.imgur.com)
(301|52) submitted  by idontgiveitout
Not a troll post, but feminists converged on it to try to out-shout MRAs.

I'm a little confused (self.MensRights) 
(32|10) submitted  by Tatshua 

submitted 28 Nov 2013 by 11thGRADEteacherFishing
I could be wrong, and this could just be a badly concluded paper, but the presentation of it here in this manner makes this post look to me like a quote-mining effort instead of a genuine attempt to get a paper graded, as it would provide a quote-miner with the ability to refer back to it later and twist people's comments into "MRAs support refusing to prosecute anyone accused of acquaintance rape," which will in turn be stretched to mean "MRAs support rape."

What do you people actually believe? (self.MensRights)
(20|21) submitted 19 Nov 2012 by jonahofscott 

Why is Men's Rights so anti-women/anti-feminist? (self.MensRights)
(9|18) submitted  by DerpinaTheThird 
    See also this post


(124|40) submitted  by femquestionthr 

(69|31) submitted  by Thermodynamo 

(269|55) submitted 03 Oct 2012 by deerp 
(8|10) submitted  by MRdaBakkle

(14|15) submitted  by ADevilNamedBen

Do you think Feminists can ever get along with MRA's? (self.MensRights)(16|9) submitted  by Species_0002

(41|33) submitted 22 Aug 2012 by toptrool

MR, what's your biggest "feminist" belief, or opinion that wouldn't mesh well with other MRA's? (self.MensRights)
(31|15) submitted 16 Aug 2012 by 12431 

I'm an aspiring equity feminist and I have some questions for you. (self.MensRights)(28|27) submitted  by PurpleVNeck

Female with a question about alliance-building around gender equality (self.MensRights)
submitted 01 Aug 2012 by tmesispieces 

(39|11) submitted 8 Jul 2012 by MrShenanigans

Feminists converged on this post to play victim Olympics over circumcision:  
 (661|186) submitted 14 Jun 2012 by shmittywerber 

(12|14) submitted 08 Jun 2012 by trombodachi 

(50|22) submitted 29 May 2012 by glass_hedgehog  

Not a troll post, but this one has been concern tolled by feminists

Isn't this subreddit getting kind of biased? (self.MensRights)
(13|23) submitted 23 May 2012 by FF15 

A quick word on feminists (self.MensRights)
(35|9) submitted 01 May 2012 by nlakes
 Appeal for more diplomatic feminist labels in discussion.
  
Why are we talking about (radical) feminists? (self.MensRights)(58|21) submitted 14 Apr 2012 by Police_Murdering_Us

(35|37) submitted 11 Apr 2012* by muckette

Do you hate Feminists? (self.MensRights)
 (24|29) submitted 31 Mar 2012* by Fluffy_Fsh 

(38|17) submitted 31 Mar 2012* by radiojojo

I'm new to Men's Rights and I am a feminist. Now that we have that out of the way, I want to let you know that I (and I believe most feminists my age) agree with the basic tenets of MRAs, if not the language and attitude of it.

(34|19) submitted 30 Mar 2012 ago by kratistos 


This subreddit needs to shake off its anti-women reputation for the sake of these issues being taken seriously. (self.MensRights)
(574|233) submitted 04 Mar 2012 by steam-pug 

(34|19) submitted 10 Feb 2012* by newsgentry 

I support complete gender equality, but the attitude towards feminism here is a bit disappointing... (self.MensRights)
(25|27) submitted 05 Jan 2012* by hippiechan

A suggestion for MensRights to maybe help the dialogue. (self.MensRights)
(13|14) submitted  by dangerousbirde 

Feminists for men's rights (self.MensRights)
(13|18) submitted * by feminazibitchyoumad 

So are gay men's rights somehow less important than straight men's rights? (self.MensRights)
(22|23) submitted  by rabbaroo

(332|113) submitted  by iamunstrung

(44|38) submitted  * by conn1e

I'm sorry, but I just had to say something. I'm sick of all these threads complaining about 'stupid feminist' and 'feminazis' and whatever other derogatory crap you want to throw at women who believe in equality for them.
I love this forum, it's great, men get kicked around some times too. This should be fought for too. But don't sink to the same low as these women who think they're feminists, but arn't, and slander men.
A true feminist just wants a fair go, she wants to work as hard as you (at WHATEVER, except maybe something like sport that is just genuinely unfair due to anatomy). This includes working when she's got her period, or pregnant. She's not a princess bitching about how men don't kiss her feet.
Don't slander feminists, they're supporting you. We can't be equal if men aren't.
Edit: Um wow. This is exactly what I needed to understand. I was angry because I lacked insight, into men's AND women's rights. I don't have the sheer power to reply to you all but once again, thankyou. I feel a bit emotional. I think I need to do a bit of reflection.
TL;DR, I am equalitarian. :)

Preparing for massive downvotes, but would like to share my opinion (self.MensRights)
(702|412) submitted  * by joannchilada
 (NAFALT)
I know many MR readers *really* don't like feminists, but I thought this was an interesting study (self.MensRights)(5|9) submitted * by a_curious_koala

A question from an employee of a "feminist" non-profit (self.MensRights)
(10|3) submitted by GoingTo

With one click... help hungry and homeless veterans. The Veterans Site.




















google-site-verification: googlefdd91f1288e37cb4.html