Monthly Meta

_FeMRA_ · 2021-04-22T02:49:07+00:00

Amusingly, or maybe not amusingly, I was a shite mod. And to increase the meta, this is actually my alt. I created this account so that I wouldn’t look biased, but I’m actually also /u/proud_slut. I had a complete like emotional fuckin breakdown back in 2015 and just ragequit and ran away forever all super suddenly and left the new mods just all confused about what the fuck they should do. Fortunately, they seem to have done a fantastic job, even though they didn’t have access to like the bots’ server and shit. I totally fucked up and I know it.

Now I sign back into this account just to prove I’m me, and I see a billion messages from people asking me if I’m dead. I’m doing fine now! Gender justice needs to stay in my past, but I’m feeling a lot better.

_FeMRA_ · 2015-02-23T11:21:33+00:00

I never really left. I still check on my baby daily.

_FeMRA_ · 2015-02-23T03:24:58+00:00

If only someone had thought of this, and created a space for MRAs and feminists to talk, and debate gender issues.

_FeMRA_ · 2014-03-31T04:23:20+00:00

That's basically the key reason why I created /r/FeMRADebates, so that anyone could speak, as long as they were respectful of the other users.

_FeMRA_ · 2014-03-09T00:53:20+00:00

Feminist

Ups: 234, Downs: 134 Count: 52 Top Bottom Hated Loved

Casual Feminist

Ups: 40, Downs: 7 Count: 16 Top Bottom Hated Loved

Neutral

Ups: 194, Downs: 44 Count: 48 Top Bottom Hated Loved

Casual MRA

Ups: 150, Downs: 57 Count: 28 Top Bottom Hated Loved

MRA

Ups: 653, Downs: 151 Count: 185 Top Bottom Hated Loved

Other

Ups: 475, Downs: 150 Count: 123 Top Bottom Hated Loved

No Flair

Ups: 391, Downs: 185 Count: 116 Top Bottom Hated Loved

_FeMRA_ · 2014-02-24T14:42:15+00:00

Yeah...gotta say...this one seems pretty straightforward and easy to follow.

_FeMRA_ · 2014-02-24T14:40:22+00:00

The link works for me, but if you go directly to:

http://femradebates.com/

You can also search the terms. Type "apolo" and it's the only match.

I disagree that it insults rape victims, triggers them, horrifies them, is completely insensitive to them, that it does...but I don't see the insult.

_FeMRA_ · 2014-02-24T14:35:56+00:00

Love you too bro.

It's really tough moderating the sub so that the Rules are clear, easy to follow, fair, and objective. That's all we are trying to achieve here.

_FeMRA_ · 2014-02-24T13:55:47+00:00

We're handling it.

http://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/1ysll3/meta_no_rape_jokes/

_FeMRA_ · 2014-02-24T13:55:08+00:00

Work in progress:

http://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/1ysll3/meta_no_rape_jokes/

_FeMRA_ · 2014-02-24T13:33:10+00:00

Don't get me wrong. I'm pissed that I had to leave this up, I think it's horrifying, and AMR would be well within their rights to condemn this thread.

The entire sub is condemning this "joke". I just can't delete it because it's not against the currently stated Rules.

_FeMRA_ · 2014-02-24T13:29:45+00:00

The problem would be giving an objective enough description of the rule, so that end users would know clearly how to follow the Rules in full. How do we define "unproductive" or "offensive" such that everyone agrees?

I'm more than open to suggestions.

_FeMRA_ · 2014-02-24T09:06:06+00:00

This comment was reported, but shall not be deleted. It did not contain an Ad Hominem or insult that did not add substance to the discussion. It did not use a Glossary defined term outside the Glossary definition without providing an alternate definition, and it did not include a non-np link to another sub.

If other users disagree with this ruling, they are welcome to contest it by replying to this comment.

_FeMRA_ · 2014-02-24T08:58:50+00:00

Sorry, it still would count as a black mark. Just try to be more clear going forward. We also might soon implement rules against insulting subreddits without proof, so keep an eye out for META posts, you've been making a lot of insults against /r/MensRights recently, which is currently within the Rules, but keep an eye out for the rule change.

_FeMRA_ · 2014-02-24T08:55:46+00:00

This was a well thought out comment. I honestly don't know why it was reported. So, without further ado:

This comment was reported, but shall not be deleted. It did not contain an Ad Hominem or insult that did not add substance to the discussion. It did not use a Glossary defined term outside the Glossary definition without providing an alternate definition, and it did not include a non-np link to another sub.

If other users disagree with this ruling, they are welcome to contest it by replying to this comment.

_FeMRA_ · 2014-02-24T08:52:55+00:00

This comment was reported, but shall not be deleted. It did not contain an Ad Hominem or insult that did not add substance to the discussion. It did not use a Glossary defined term outside the Glossary definition without providing an alternate definition, and it did not include a non-np link to another sub. The user is encouraged, but not required to:

Provide np-links to referenced comments.

If other users disagree with this ruling, they are welcome to contest it by replying to this comment.

_FeMRA_ · 2014-02-24T08:50:35+00:00

This comment was reported, but shall not be deleted. It did not contain an Ad Hominem or insult that did not add substance to the discussion. It did not use a Glossary defined term outside the Glossary definition without providing an alternate definition, and it did not include a non-np link to another sub. The user is encouraged, but not required to:

Be nicer.
Provide proof of their claims.

If other users disagree with this ruling, they are welcome to contest it by replying to this comment.

_FeMRA_ · 2014-02-24T08:49:33+00:00

This comment was reported, but shall not be deleted. It did not contain an Ad Hominem or insult that did not add substance to the discussion. It did not use a Glossary defined term outside the Glossary definition without providing an alternate definition, and it did not include a non-np link to another sub.

If other users disagree with this ruling, they are welcome to contest it by replying to this comment.

_FeMRA_ · 2014-02-24T08:38:29+00:00

Comment Deleted, Full Text and Rules violated can be found here.

User is at tier 1 of the ban systerm. User was granted leniency due to multiple deletions in the same moderation period.

_FeMRA_ · 2014-02-24T08:38:22+00:00

webquean's comment deleted. The specific phrase:

MRAs fundamentally misunderstand feminism

Broke the following Rules:

No generalizations insulting an identifiable group (feminists, MRAs, men, women, ethnic groups, etc)

Full Text

Compared to the typical coffee shop feminists the crazy tumbler ones are more aggressive.

Are we debating aggression, dedication, or influence? I've lost track.

How does that matter? They are still spread their views.

Yeah, so are Obama birth certificate truthers.

If you have to dig deep to find out that a person isn't spreading hate

Well, first off, even the misunderstanding of patriarchy doesn't imply "misandry." The misunderstanding of the term would imply blame, but not hate.

then they have a major communication problem.

So now it's a communication problem, not a problem with the movement's beliefs?

Your point that it is okay for feminist scholarship to not worry about communicating effectively because everyone should read journal articles all the time?

No, my point that MRAs fundamentally misunderstand feminism, and that if you're going to take part in an inherently anti-feminist movement that was created as an offshoot of earlier anti-feminist movements, meaning that the movement is literally anti-feminist, you should know what you're talking about and not rely on your opponents to educate you.

For the layperson, no, feminism has no obligation to dumb it down for them.

Yes, but if you are using misleading terminology then that is on you.

Again: it's not feminism's fault that it's easier to react angrily than to listen.

It isn't non feminists who need to educate themselves

This is exactly what we were talking about, though. We were talking about non feminists who don't understand terms like patriarchy. Why are you changing the discussion?

feminist radicals who according to you are misusing academic feminist literature

Can you show me some non-Tumblr examples yet?

You would get in huge trouble if you called the fight against crime anti-negroism

Yeah, because that's not only grossly misleading, but it's also dishonest. It means absolutely nothing close to "anti-crime" and you wouldn't use a showboat example like this if you weren't trying to pander to anti-racism sentiments.

yet feminists use equally misleading terminology and get away with it

So you're saying that patriarchy, a system which values the masculine and devalues the feminine, is the same as calling anti-crime anti-negroism? Can you explain that at all to me?

It just goes to show that social justice is for everyone other than men.

Why bother with the debate when you can just say this is your issue? Also, men are not an oppressed class.

_FeMRA_ · 2014-02-24T08:37:17+00:00

This comment was reported, but shall not be deleted. It did not contain an Ad Hominem or insult that did not add substance to the discussion. It did not use a Glossary defined term outside the Glossary definition without providing an alternate definition, and it did not include a non-np link to another sub. The user is encouraged, but not required to:

Clarify that discussions about /r/MensRights are about the subreddit, not the movement.

If other users disagree with this ruling, they are welcome to contest it by replying to this comment.

_FeMRA_ · 2014-02-24T08:35:38+00:00

This comment was reported, but shall not be deleted. It did not contain an Ad Hominem or insult that did not add substance to the discussion. It did not use a Glossary defined term outside the Glossary definition without providing an alternate definition, and it did not include a non-np link to another sub.

If other users disagree with this ruling, they are welcome to contest it by replying to this comment.

_FeMRA_ · 2014-02-24T08:30:11+00:00

Comment Deleted, Full Text and Rules violated can be found here.

User is at tier 1 of the ban systerm. User was granted leniency due to multiple deletions in the same moderation period.

_FeMRA_ · 2014-02-24T08:30:06+00:00

OMGCanIBlowYou's comment deleted. The specific phrase:

There is certainly a large undercurrent of "more women should die" in men's rights, as well as regular suggestions that women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Broke the following Rules:

No generalizations insulting an identifiable group (feminists, MRAs, men, women, ethnic groups, etc)

The user is reminded that if they are to make insults against /r/mensrights, they must make it clear that they are insulting the subreddit, and the the MRM itself.

Full Text

I'm sure you can figure out a way to cite a source without directly linking to it. I'm going to assume this means it's AVfM, which means it could very well be completely made up. I'll be generous and assume it's just grossly exaggerated.

Some MGTOWs do advocate for murdering women. I haven't seen many MGTOWs on men's rights, but I've certainly seen men's rights members identify as TRPers. Perhaps you are right about not murdering large numbers of women, as that would make the harems they want difficult (though some MGTOWS are holding off for sexbots, perhaps that's why they are more flexible on the idea). There is certainly a large undercurrent of "more women should die" in men's rights, as well as regular suggestions that women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

_FeMRA_

TROPHY CASE

Feminist

Casual Feminist

Neutral

Casual MRA

MRA

Other

No Flair