any thoughts on how to deal with disruptors in women's forums?

If you are posting on another forum, not necessarily DU, which has an area for women to talk, how do you deal with the disruptors that are clearly there for the purpose of inserting themselves into conversations and engaging in bullying and dismissive behavior?

(This relates to an issue I'm having outside of here at the moment, though strategies could apply to other forums as well. Had an issue lately where the men were all over the idea that the women's group was a place to "market victimization" - until one of the black men who is well respected in the organization suddenly asked if they had the same thoughts about his proposed group. Response: *crickets* )

On the one hand, genuine trolls should probably be handled using the tombstone approach-- they likely have zero interest in actually participating in discussion.

On the other hand, opposing ideas CHALLENGE a discussion and should be encouraged when the objective is real discourse. The best way to "deal with them" is to present persuasive arguments countering their position. Everyone benefits if their participation in such a discussion is genuine. If folks cannot respond to reasoned discussion, then they should be challenged on that account.

I suppose there should come a time when individuals who cannot arrive at consensus with the broader community should be asked to withdraw from it, or at least limit their participation, but the community should be very careful about exercising that option.

or by a parade of new posters, who each bring up the same old talking points, again and again, as if this great new perspective has just occured to them and maybe it's some earth shattering thing that we haven't considered (the last 500 times we heard it). The energy sink, as one of my friends puts it, of having to go back and re-explain the whole 9 yards from square one in every discussion is just overwhelming. That's sort of the point of a women's group, in my mind - to be able to have a conversation WITHOUT having to do that.

...where membership is limited by consensus, or by longevity within the community, or something similar. That gives long-time members a means of having discussions that are not interrupted continuously to rehash the same ground, over and over. Perhaps the best way to implement such a thing might be to allow individuals starting a thread to designate conditions for participation-- leaving the discussion visible to all but open only to those who have achieved some milestone within the community.

I realize this is dangerously close to the flawed thread blocking rule DU tried in which individuals could be selectively excluded from threads by the thread "owner," but IMO the flaw in that attempt was that it could be capriciously applied to censor individuals based on subjective criteria, rather than to recognize classes of posters based on standards of participation.

Another thing I'd like to see are FAQs attached permanently to forums so that some of the foundational ideas that have emerged by consensus can be displayed continuously. One could simply refer new members to the FAQ if they raise issues that have been resolved previously.

hierarchical sounds better than dungeon - like it's a special privilege to post someplace, with standards and stuff.

I also like that last bit about foundational ideas for forums. On DU, one would hope that the environmental forum, for example, wouldn't be subject to trolls posting that global warming was a myth - on every thread.

foundational ideas when it comes to women's issues?

'Another thing I'd like to see are FAQs attached permanently to forums so that some of the foundational ideas that have emerged by consensus can be displayed continuously. One could simply refer new members to the FAQ if they raise issues that have been resolved previously.'

This seems to be one of the defining differences between our issues and many of the others. Here on DU we don't necessarily agree on what the best approach is or who the best leaders are. But, generally speaking, we are like minded in our ideals and are in agreement with what it is we hope to gain.

The progressive nature of this board doesn't necessarily extend to women's issues (and a few others.) While our discussions should be about improving and promoting women's rights and choices we still tolerate anti-choice, anti-women discussion here, even in our designated back rooms, especially in our back rooms.

The truth is, in order to progress, we need to be heard. But, until we define choice and women's rights as progressive ideals, our discussions will remain limited, debated and mostly unheard.

well, for starters:

that sexism does exist
that talking about the oppression of women as its own issue does not mean you are sexist against men

really, it's appalling that we have to rehash that kind of junk over and over and over

it's creepy/tiresome how the same few disrupt dialogue in here.

not put them on ignore, necessarily. just don't take their stupid bait and argue with them.

(i know, follow my own advice first! ;) )

i do have a couple people on ignore, and i used to have about 25ish, but i emptied my ignore list a couple months ago, and have only added the two since then.

and if the site has an alert feature, I use that. If somebody is being abusive to me, he's gone, one way or the other.

universal word or phrase, a red flag of sorts, to alert the rest of us to the presence of the disruptor and with the understanding that no one should respond or give credence to that poster once the alert has been made.

When they start a thread the first person to smell the bait responds with the alert phrase after which there is no further discussion. I know we can't scream "troll", or any number of the obvious but we could have a polite way of defusing these guys pretty quickly. There is nothing that bothers them like being ignored.

and it worked well. It helped me, because I do have a tendency to respond, stupidly thinking if they just understood the issues, they wouldn't be such an ass. :) That peer pressure from others to not engage helps me, where my own willpower fails.

Plus, it gave them (and the rest of the world) notice that we weren't wasting our time writing a reply to the sort of thing that's listed on the bingo card. http://viv.id.au/blog/?p=431

We could shout "BINGO" whenever we smell a disrupter. Not only would that alert others, but we could sit back and get a good laugh white the disrupter responds to the comment thinking he's hit the mark. (at least, until he catches on) How much fun would that be?

Maybe RAID! would be better. Righteous Alert, Insult Detected.

reprimanded for insinuating the need to exterminate someone?

...that these "men"/disruptors/abusers are NOT interested in "understanding the issues". They only want to abuse and harass women and a forum like this one (the entire internet actually) is just full of viable targets for their anonymous mysogeny and chest-beating.

Ignoring them is the best thing. They get bored and move on. Responding only makes you a good target. They want to get a reaction out of you - "push your buttons" - it's what mysogenists/abusers do best. DON'T give them what they're looking for. DON'T be a target. (yap I need to follow my own advice too!)

A word like BINGO is excellent! (I'm downloading that card - LOVE it!)

our first "Bingo" winner over in Feminists Group!!
Congratulations may be in order!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=341&topic_id=9273&mesg_id=9767

Putting a header at the top of a discussion board explaining what range of views are and aren't welcome saves a lot of aggravation, as it means that everyone has the same ideas on what is and isn't disruption.

is to post a: :rofl: as the response.

Three dots in the subject line

and the :rofl:

Nothing more.

It really throws them off.

Before the DU Groups, the astrologers and those interested in it would post in that old Miscellaneous area we had (I can't recall the name anymore). We had a real problem discussing political astrology because the same few DUers would constantly demand we prove it works, say it's a lot of bunk, make derogatory remarks about us (which is against DU rules, btw) etc. They were very disruptive and would bait us just because they could. We would complain to Skinner and the mods that they were violating DU rules, but nothing was done. Using "ignore" and alerting them didn't work because they would keep posting, the Mod would keep deleting their posts until the Mod would get fed up and lock the thread, which was the disruptor's intentions in the first place. Finally when the DU groups were born, we asked to start an Astrology thread that would be a debunking-free zone. Skinner agreed and allowed the skeptics to start their own debunking thread, which was fine with us.

So, it can be done on DU -- you just have to get the Admins to agree about guidelines.

I don't believe in astrology, at all. But I would never presume to think that I was entitled to barge into a pro-astrology thread and "educate" you into my way of thinking, while expecting my every utterance to be given respectful consideration and every point I made to be addressed. The people who did on the miscellaneous threads were being assholes and forming your own group was probably the best way to handle it. That's what led to the creation of the Feminists Group too, and now there's a Pro Choice group for similar reasons.

At least your trolls had the gumption to start their own group. I'm still waiting for the anti-choice, anti-equality faction on DU to show some initiative as well and stop whining because we won't accomodate them.

Firstly, I have seen virtually nothing on DU that could be described as an "anti-choice", certainly not enough to be termed a "faction"; "anti-equality" is a nebulous term but if you're using it to mean "anti gender or racial equality" then the same is true.

There are certainly people, arguably to the extent of being "factions" (although it's always easy to overestimate te extent to which people who disagree with one agree with one another, I'm sure most posters are not members of "factions") who are pro-choice and pro-equality in different ways, and lots of posters who are opposed to specific things that are presented by their supporters as inseparable elements of being pro-choice or pro-equality (e.g. third term abortion on demand, "positive" discrimination etc), but that's not the same thing at all.

Secondly, remember the difference between subforums and groups. If there were anti-choice or anti-equality posters who were sufficiently liberal to fit the general rules of DU (I don't think there are) then they would have just as much right to post in the appropriate subforums as anyone else; posters opposed to specific things presented as "choice" or "equality" who do so on liberal grounds do have that right. Neither set would have any right to post in a group set up to exclude them.

People who believe that most 3rd trimester abortions are performed on healthy fetuses and that the recent Supreme Court decision was a good thing are free to post on GD or an open discussion forum. As are those who think women should inform their parents or husbands prior to getting one. And those who think that abortion "shouldn't be used as a form of birth control" by women who had consensual sex but are okay with abortions for rape and incest victims. All of whom, yes Donald, post regularly in DU on abortion threads despite your never having encountered them. I don't consider them pro-choice but YMMV.

People are also free to go on GD and open forums to spout right wing talking points about affirmative action and 'quotas' on threads about equality. The aforementioned can describe themselves as progressives and pro-equality, if you will, while maintaining a membership on DU without running afoul of the general rules because they are actually pretty loose when it comes to those things.


I'm actually okay with all that. What I sure find tiresome is when they whine piteously because they aren't given the respect and consideration they feel they are entitled to because they deigned to show up and offer their input, like we've never heard the bullshit they're peddling before.


As for the groups, when the Feminists Group started there were threads where guys (I assume they were guys anyway) complained that there was no Masculinists Group. When it was pointed out to them that there was nothing in DU rules prohibiting them from starting such a group, they got huffy at the suggestion and, needless to say, didn't get off their asses to form one. Quel surprise.

Would you feel entitled to post on such a thread for a reason other than to educate a pro-astrology person? In practice, how does deciding to respectfully refrain from communicating with certain people on given topic differ from writing them off as irrational on that topic?


Is a troll someone who is interested in discussing a given topic with people having a wide variety of opinions?

Not saying you are male, btw, but just that it's a common mindset.

Phrasing one: it's not trolling to discuss a given topic with people having a wide variety of opinions.

Phrasing two: it's not trolling to demand that others listen to my viewpoint whenever and wherever I want them to.

That right there is the problem in a nutshell. Most places in the world are dominated by male supremacy. It's a male supremacist mindset to be offended that there are some enclaves where women don't HAVE to let men dominate and control the conversation.

It's a male/white/hetero/class supremacy point of view any time a privileged group of any sort feels that an oppressed group should not have the right to speak about their problems from their own perspective amongst themselves without interference from the privileged group. Male White Hetero men have had centuries to define the world on their terms, with the power of guns and capital to inflict their perspective on others. It's trolling to demand that others - without even guns or capital - shouldn't have the right to have those same conversations from their own perspectives without inserting yourself into that conversation in an antagonistic way.

I'm reminded of a story (from here? from twisty's temporary forum?) of some man coming up to a woman on the subway, trying to force an unwanted conversation on her while she was reading. She didn't respond really, except when he asked what she was reading, she held the book up so he could see, without removing her eyes from the page. He ended up getting pissed at her unresponsiveness, yelling at her. Maybe calling her names, I've forgotten the details, but that sticks in my mind. She turned to her daughter and explained, loud enough for others to hear, that that was a classic example of a man feeling entitled to demand attention from women whenever and wherever they want it.

Phrasing three: it's not trolling to give people the opportunity to (not "demand that"; no-one's forcing them to read it) listen to my viewpoint wherever and whenever I want to *in an open forum*.

I would never presume to post in a forum whose mission statement excluded my opinions - I don't post on FR, for example, because I'm not a conservative, much as I'd like to try and rebut much of what I read there. Likewise, I wouldn't post in any of the DU groups whose mission statement I disagreed with. But on an open subforum like this one, any opinion covered by the DU blanket mission statement is fair game.

That's nothing whatsoever to do with "priviledge" - anyone can post here, irregardless of gender, race etc (I love the degree of broadbrushing that goesi into a statement like "It's a male/white/hetero/class supremacy point of view", by the way).



There are many, many enclaves where women can prevent men from dominating or controlling the conversation. This is one of them.

There are fewer, but still many, enclaves where women can prevent men from taking part in the conversation, or control what they say. This is not one of them.


I fully agree that it would be trolling to try and prevent you from having conversations without interjecting a differing perspective. It is *not* trolling to refrain from letting you do so on an open discussion forum, although I suspect that if you included in an OP "please do not reply to this thread unless you believe XYZ" then most people who didn't, including me, would refrain from doing so.



Your subway analogy would apply perfectly to a situation in which people you disagree with started emailing you with opinions you didn't want to bother with. It has nothing to do with a situation in which they express such opinions in an open discussion forum.

I would like to request, as the author of the OP, that men who believe they are contributing something useful by interjecting their "different" perspective on how women should discuss women's rights refrain from further posts in this thread. Likewise, I am requesting that anyone under the impression that women have plenty of enclaves to talk about women's issues, without men dominating and attempting to control the conversation and demanding attention from those women, refrain from posting in this thread.

Thank you.

On the old astrology threads the disruptors were not interested in respectfully discussing astrology. They would post and tell us right out that they thought we were deluded and were guilty of "magical thinking." Or that we were stupid and gullible to believe "such nonsense." We had no problem with people having different opinions -- there were many discussions with people to explain why we apprecited astrology and we didn't expect anyone to think the same. Where we had a problem was with those who were just interested in disrupting our threads with their put-downs and attempts to goad us into a reaction so the mods would lock the thread. All we wanted was respect and to be allowed to have our discussions without the constant harassment.

I don't believe in astrology myself, but when I kept seeing the same names taunting you guys over and over again, I could only think, "WHAT is their PROBLEM? How are the astrology advocates hurting anyone?"

The same type of thing occurs in religion threads. Most of the atheists are courteous, but there are a few with chips on their shoulders who seem to focus in on any thread that mentions any aspect of relgion in any forum and can't stop themselves from making nasty and irrelevant remarks about how wonderful they themselves are for not believing in "fairy tales." (I'm not feeling "persecuted," by the way, just annoyed at seeing the usual suspects again and again.)

To your first point: It differs because people who want discuss something like astrology with other people who subscribe to the belief realize that there are other people who don't. Honestly, they do. And really, anyone who thinks that by not posting on a board I frequent that he's showing me how "irrational" I am needs to stop flattering himself. If you don't post in my discussion group, I'll have no idea what you think.

Second point: It would be one thing if a forum were set up specifically to debate the topic, but most discussion groups are not. So barging in to condescendingly tell the group that they are wrong, while expecting everyone to stop what they are doing to pay attention to you and address your pointless arguments (pointless because it's unlikely that you're going to be swayed by they have to say), while of course showing you the utmost 'respect' (:eyes:) is trolling.

FAQ - What about the men?

Q: Men experience , too! What about them?

A: This blog is written for women. Its purpose is to advance radical feminism, not to empathize with male experience, or to coddle with delicate reassurances the male visitor who is threatened by a woman-centric zeitgeist.

Male experiences are not commensurate with women’s experiences because women are an oppressed class.

However, for everyone’s continued blaming enjoyment, I now present the Dear God What About The Men?! page. Currently a work in progress. Required reading for first-time dude commenters.

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/patriarchy-blaming-the-twisty-way/men-1/

Read the linked thread if you get the chance, lots of good stuff in there.

I read the post and now I'm reading the replies.

I'm laughing and crying at the same time. My DOG! A male-type person actually "gets" it! I've been reading DU for so long I forgot there were men out there like that.

Thank you, thecatburgler, for posting that link.

:hi:

who trolls the boards looking for posts regarding women who vent about marriage issues which are bugging them--no matter what the topic: it could be the mess left by their husband in the bathroom to her going out for a night out with her single girl friends---he always turns it around to her looking to cheat and her poor husband doesn't know what kind of sleazy "c-u-next-tuesday" he's married to. Never mind the fact that he will never, in life, know the person posting, he just knows that they are cheaters looking for validation to cheat. A real unhinged person with serious issues. He's never been married, but he claims that "I've never owned slaves, but I am against slavery...." That it his snappy comeback. He resorts to insulting and judgmental posts which totally derail the conversation. In the end, he's got nothing to add to the discussion, but they don't have ignore buttons on MSM and they allow disruptors to take over the boards there.

I wish I had a better riposte to shut him the eff up.