The owner has locked it to only allow them to post. That’s fine, but all posts they’ve made so far they’ve also locked at zero comments to disallow the community to interact with those posts.

This goes against the purpose of lemmy(grad) in my opinion which is interaction and discussion. If the person behind this wants to post static things without feedback they’d be better served by hosting a website and hoping people stumble on it.

It’s one thing for admins to lock posts at their discretion because of an nonconstructive turn to discussion or because it’s an announcement and they don’t want fighting over their rules that they’ve decided on. Likewise for mods to not allow comments on a rules post or shut down discussion when it becomes unproductive.

The content is also somewhat sketchy feeling. I admit it’s true that there can be issues with female on male relationship violence not being taken seriously but such statistics are often pushed to silence and tamp down on the overwhelming societal issue which is in fact male on female violence within and outside of relationships. To shout down feminists with “men can be raped too” is like shouting down black lives matter with “all lies matter” or “white people experience police violence too”.

Honestly it rings alarm bells. There’s nothing wrong about talking about gendered violence towards men and boys, but this site seems to frame it in terms of persecution, in terms of there being some sort of feminist agenda to silence and shut down discussion on these matters.

Take for example this link from the blog this community models itself on: https://thetinmen.blog/we-are-not-violent/

In it they feature researchers who claim they received bomb threats, had their dogs shot, were shouted down by feminists. All of this rings alarm bells in my head that these people are likely reactionaries using progressive language as a cover. It uses the classic reactionary tact of claiming repression. They claim to have studies showing female on male violence in families being equal to male on female violence. Which is on its face a dishonest framing. Sure women may shout (verbal abuse) and with dishonest twisting of terminology you can over-count aggressive but not actually violent or dangerous behavior and use it to try and equal out men who give women black eyes. But you can’t hide the homicide rates and those show us that women and girls are far more frequently murdered by men and boys than the inverse.

Once more, it’s not that gendered violence towards men and boys doesn’t exist, it’s that gendered violence towards women and girls is much more severe, prevalent, has within our lifetime been the subject of tv-tropes and jokes (slapping a “hysterical woman” to calm her down as just one example) and has more severe consequences such as girls and women being attacked, seriously injured, and even killed.

Rape against men and boys is unacceptable, coercion for sex is unacceptable. But the fact is men and boys are the overwhelming committers in volume of sexual violence on women and girls that is actually physically violent, forceful, etc. Men for the most part merely feel a social pressure on their status to agree to sex with women, that they’ll be less of a man if they don’t agree. Every request from men and boys towards women and girls carries an implicit fall-back of violence, even lethal levels of it for rejecting a male, for denying them sex, intimacy, a relationship, etc and women and girls live with that every day, every encounter in the back of their minds. While such violence towards men and boys does not define their lived experiences, they do not naturally due to a felt prevalence assume that denying a girl intimacy, a relationship, or sex will likely result in her escalating to violence and the potential of bodily harm and danger.

Not taking that reality, that material and historical reality into account when discussing gendered violence makes one dishonest.

The site is evasive in what it talks about, it frames itself as for progressive rights of men and boys and what woman can oppose that? Not I. I’m all for men having conversations about healthy masculinity, reform, male solidarity that isn’t to the exclusion of women but looks like support for men by men. But it feels off and the fact the owner has locked any ability to discuss it also adds to the ringing alarm bells. Truthfully if they hadn’t done that I wouldn’t have spent 10 minutes looking over a few things there and realizing it felt sketchy.

It seems like a lot of this sketchy stuff is papered over and hidden between bland, no analysis, uninteresting, unenlightening, surface level feminist-friendly stuff like roe-v-wade being overturned being bad but then just throwing some statistics out and not really getting into any analysis or insight.

Here’s an example of more problematic stuff: https://thetinmen.blog/just-be-you/

“I want to define myself by who I am. Not as a feminist, an MRA or egalitarian, as left, or right, liberal or conservative.”

It’s alarming that MRA is mentioned as a possibility as if egalitarian which is used by the manosphere to disguise their hatred of women.

And one last one: https://thetinmen.blog/soft-power-and-the-henpecked-husband/

Which seems to downplay the power and reality of patriarchy.

I don’t want to get too into the weeds of the content and it’s merits. Because even if the content were incredibly uncontroversial and in no world could be considered sketchy or one-sided, even if it were something we all agreed upon as Marxist-Leninists just by our nature, the lack of ability for discussion is in my opinion against the intended nature and function of lemmy.

If you’re going to post something here you have to deal with people replying, even disagreeing with you. You don’t have to respond, you don’t have to even look at their responses if you don’t want to, you can chuck something out there into the feed and then ignore all discussion. But others should be able to.

I ask admins to consider whether this content should be here and whether this community should exist given two separate issues:

  1. The locking of the whole community against interaction and just using it as a posting board for someone’s stuff which seems counter to lemmy’s intentions and function.

  2. The questionable content present

edit 13 hours in: Since looking more into it since I wrote this post I have changed my mind. I was too conciliatory in my language. So let me be clear. I think this rises to a case of global rules violation, hatred, misogyny and the OP and sole moderator should be appropriately sanctioned. No benefit of the doubt is deserved given the language they used on the sidebar about the stuff they were posting being useful

  • @Demoncracy
    link
    English
    -62 months ago

    Because I take issue with people branding and dismissing things like

    men being raped literally not acknowledged by law, hidden from statistics, little boys making the most of children being available for adoption with adoptive parents vastly preferring to adopt girls - the things I reposted with sources

    as misogyny. I am very aware the left has issues with misandry indistinguishable from liberal one, I merely wanted to post sources mentioning real issues, because I neither never see them in leftist spaces or they get shut down as misogyny.

    • @DamarcusArt
      link
      232 months ago

      I’m afraid that I don’t understand your reasoning. You…assumed this place would call things misogyny instead of misandry so your solution was to post articles from an often misogynistic website and not allow discussion of the topic at all?

      I think you may be misunderstanding intersectionality a little bit here. Women’s and men’s issues stem from the same place: the patriarchy. Talking about one does not diminish the other, and trying to solve one does not mean the other doesn’t exist. Discussing one doesn’t mean we can never discuss the other, if you had created a place to discuss men’s issues, that would’ve been far better received than what has happened here. The problem is that you’ve been sharing a very problematic website and have seemed to have been trying to eliminate any discussion of that (I’m not saying this was your intention, that is just how it has come across, as you haven’t given anyone an opportunity for discussion, including yourself). Again, I just don’t see how your goals align with your actions here, I don’t see how you expected the response you wanted from what you have been doing.

    • Muad'DibberA
      link
      172 months ago

      So why did you lock the posts to prevent discussion?

      • @darkcallingOP
        link
        14
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Because they’re dishonest and afraid of discussion. Because their intent was not to have a conversation, not to create better men, to better themselves, not to be progressive, not to have a conversation with Marxists about positive manhood and the issues of patriarchy but to shove MRA propaganda down the throats of vulnerable young men on this and linked instances, to hook them, radicalize them. It is dishonest, splintering, non-comradely, and predatory behavior.

        We have and have had a menslib sub for far longer than the sub they made existed (or their account). They deliberately chose not to use that, not to create a menslib sub but one centered around an MRA blog that was so problematic they decided to censor talking about it.

        I know this person has been a prolific poster and seemed nice but can we please accept they’re probably a misogynist or spreading misogyny and unwilling to deal with push-back on their takes? The evidence is all there, yet people keep fleeing from it, trying to make excuses for them and I’m sorry but I feel like if this was any other group, any other situation. If the blog was a transphobic blog and they’d done the same thing for discussing cis people issues that people would not be as forgiving given the tone, and certain tells.

        We don’t even know that their whole sob story about medical issues and housing and all that is true. And even if it was, no tailism, we have to hold ourselves higher than that, being oppressed in one way does not give one license to oppress others and hide behind the fact you’re part of some other group.

        One cannot start a conversation about the issues of white people without first acknowledging the issues of white supremacy and the greater problems of POC without attracting and ending up being white supremacist in nature.

        I’ll reiterate, if this person made a community about a weird blog no one heard about and locked it down like this and that blog was about police violence against white men for instance and it centered their suffering and downplayed the issues of POC interactions with police I do not think that person would get the same leeway this person is getting, certainly I hope not.

        One cannot have an extended conversation about straight issues without first acknowledging the oppression of the LGBTQ+ community first or you invite gay-bashers.

        It is the same here.

        This blog was dishonest. Quite possibly it is run by the same person who ran the community (demoncracy) for all we know. It did not frame it that way and the poster (demoncracy) did not do the bare minimum when spreading content from a reactionary source of prefacing it with a disclaimer. It would take so little effort to do that and pass a cursory vibe check.

        Even if they acknowledged it as reactionary you have to admit it violated rules against shitreactionariessay type posts and further that the only point of such posts is to dunk on, debate, discuss them and that locking contents means they were creating billboards for users to passively consume, not critically consume out of this kind of content.

        There’s just so much wrong here if you stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. Too many pieces that cannot fit except that the person in question is into misogynistic thinking and trying to spread that on a Marxist-Leninist website as carefully as they can. They edited their posts the other day last night to include links to scientific publications in support of their scientific-sexism, nothing else. That’s doubling down in defense.


        You’re the head admin, you can do whatever you want. And I appreciate everything you’ve done to make lemmygrad a safe, welcoming, interesting place (as evidenced by the age of my account).

        I agree that menslib needs attention, but not from people who act this way, not from MRA blogs that take this persecuted by feminists, silenced, thing that doesn’t include and center in the womens’ struggle the acknowledgement of the fact that while patriarchy harms men, it primarily harms women and men need to understand those harms, not just boo-hoo and cry over their own little troubles as a result of it. Only once that is made clear and understood can men begin to un-harm themselves, they can’t toss off the obligations of patriarchy towards themselves while keeping them on women, while not learning how to make sure they don’t put them on women and perpetuate it, that’s just giving them more freedom without liberating women. We are Marxists, we are more than self-interested, that means understanding and including the struggles of others. Intentional omission is a deliberate tactic by bigots and unacceptable.

        I think inviting this person back after what they’ve done and they’ve offered no defense nor could they is the wrong decision.

        It sends the wrong message about the value of this one person compared to all the women comrades here and their safety, compared to the safety of underage or young impressionable men on this instance who they were attempting to victimize and draw into this reactionary website and potentially way of thinking. I wish you would reconsider. I know I myself came off kind of weakly in my initial post. I sometimes struggle still with trying to be nice, the way my parents raised me, to be deferential. This kind of thing has shaken me though and I don’t think this person belongs on this website. Because they did infiltrate it, they did engage in hard to spot reactionary behavior. They are a threat, not a good faith user.

        They got caught red-handed. They were careful enough not to be an open bigot (they had no choice, if they were less clever they’d have been zeroed much earlier) but what more proof would you need? If I’d not posted this, let them continue to post content for another month, would there have been any more evidence of the facts at hand that couldn’t be dismissed in the same way? It would just be more locked posts for a community whose very existence is a site rule violation as it focuses on a reactionary website and spreading its content uncritically. Community sidebar called the content “useful infographics”.

        I ask you respectfully to reconsider that given the overwhelming evidence that has no other reasonable explanation. I believe this person acted in bad faith, will continue to do so. I do not think they are a comrade, I do not think they make lemmygrad better. They had all the time to contribute actual good mens-lib content, discussions, etc, including in their own sub but they didn’t.

        Especially when they’ve shown no remorse, no interest in engaging in good faith discussion, just dipped out rather than face the music and scorn of the users here and initially what tipped me to this was the locking of any ability for others to interact or engage with their content critically. They’ve just acted defensive. In what way is such a person a good fit for this website when their beliefs include oppressive thinking towards half the world’s population and spreading sexist propaganda to other users here who may be vulnerable to it?

        Because I think they’ll be back. I strongly think this given people mention this wasn’t their first account. And I think they shouldn’t be allowed back and should be given the boot if they try another account. But I’m not an admin here. Just a member of that half of the world whose oppression this person was denying and continued to deny to the last.

        Thank you for taking the time to read all my rambling. I hope you might see some sense in it.

        • @destroyamerica
          link
          9
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I respect your opinions a lot in general and agree with most of what you’ve typed up but I have a couple disagreements:

          1) I think an outright perma at first is going too far. I think you’re being a little too uncharitable. demoncracy doubling down like this in the thread seems more like someone freaking out and going on the defensive when called out like so many people do instead of doing self crit. maybe they are a bad faith actor, but further misbehavior will have the added context of their previous temp ban in the modlog which will help the admins in determining whether or not they are a bad faith actor. this also kinda curtails with my 2nd point about temp vs permabans

          2) on an anonymous site like this, it’s not actually possible to keep someone from using it. case in point, there was drama surrounding the user @Nameless_Partisan@lemmygrad.ml who ended up getting banned nine months ago for renaming her account as “mean arab terrorist”. she made another account the next month, @DeDollarization@lemmygrad.ml and didn’t get banned for 5 months on the new account. in looking at this i think i found another pair of banned accounts that took the 2nd account 3 months to get banned, and even then they werent banned for ban evasion (https://lemmygrad.ml/u/linkhidalgogato and https://lemmygrad.ml/u/Flamingoaks note the bio in linkhidalgogato “flaminremoved” and the new account is “flamingoaks” and they type almost the exact same way). Regardless, i think temp bans are more worthwhile to try and get people to change their behavior at first, otherwise they will just keep making alt accounts anyways, and then you’ve got to do dumb shit like stare at people’s writing styles and what not to see if they’re the same person you’ve banned 10 times already, and quite frankly i hope the admins wont ever start banning people over something that’s impossible to get right all the time like figuring out if a new alt account is a ban evading user based on their writing style unless it’s extremely obvious like someone like wisconcom.

          edit: to further boost my 2nd point, just consider that hexbear has (multiple?) a recurring ban evader, BMF, that’s been ban evading on that site for 3+ years at this point

          • @CriticalResist8A
            link
            7
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Just to recontextualize nameless partisan, they weren’t banned for changing their name, we understood it as a provocation (which they had been doing for a while), but they were banned for a different reason which was the conclusion for the culmination of 5 months of trying to provoke the mod team without ever wanting to engage in dialogue. I previously wrote about it here: https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/2650277

            I have changed my stance on the communist party of ‘israel’ since then, though I still think there’s some amount of depth to its existence, but they really dropped the ball on October 7 lol. Regardless it’s not a big point in the events around this user.

            edit: otherwise I agree completely with point number 2, I would have made it myself lol. With the tools we have at our disposal we do the best we can, I think in general the community is good at self-moderating as seen from this thread. It leads to a culture of self-responsibility. And yeah, we (I) have no interest in doing extensive research on every new account to make sure they’re not an alt. The general rule of thumb is that if we can’t tell they’re an alt then what’s the harm? If they got banned the first time they’ll get banned a second time under a different account, they’ll slip up eventually. Unless they actually changed and improved, in which case we won’t ban them. And in the meantime we run the risk of banning a completely innocent person based on conjecture.

            • @destroyamerica
              link
              42 months ago

              the link isn’t working. and yeah i was way over simplifying the drama to keep my comment as short as possible, sorry.

              • @CriticalResist8A
                link
                42 months ago

                That’s strange, maybe because OP deleted their account and so it deleted the post as well except for mods. I’ll paste my comment:

                That is not what happened at all. It’s what Nameless_Partisan claimed happened.

                Partisan had always been heated and quick to ban on the community they created. Early on they showed they were not open to discussion on their opinions. This is fine, we don’t police how people carry themselves. But it shows their personality. They were not banned for this behaviour.

                Later they went into a diatribe against another user on the Palestine community, completely unprompted, after that person asked for advice. The person in question was an Israeli communist and I know that raises a lot of eyebrows (it did to me too) but there is a lot of depth to Israeli communists, most of them being Palestinians who were naturalized after Nakba, and the communist party of Israel calling for the dissolution of this state. This attack was unprompted and I was the one who banned them for a measly 3 days and only from the Palestine community for a violation of rule 3. Not difficult to find it was me in the modlog as I’m the only mod of the Palestine community and I also told them in the comments, to which they never replied but later brought up in their farewell post, leaving it stirring without wanting to engage with us (the admins) as had always been the case.

                They could have taken the time to ask the person in question what it meant to them to be a communist in such a country, etc, but instead decided to start attacking a comrade on Lemmygrad out of nowhere.

                We built a community here and while we don’t ask users where they come from there is some basic level of comradeship that builds itself with the account vetting system in place and the fact that we’re all MLs. If you can’t even afford that basic amount of politeness to anyone then yes, that is a breach of rule 3.

                But their comment to the user in question was not deleted. Nameless instead deleted their entire comment history later on so I couldn’t even tell you what they told that Israeli person.

                Their comment that was deleted was essentially saying it was okay to kill Israeli children. An admin decided to remove it as it could bring trouble to Lemmygrad. But we’ve never deleted comments about targetting settlers or calling for the end of Israel, etc. We make these comments ourselves too.

                They were not banned for this comment, it was merely deleted. This is also around the time they changed their bio in their profile to say “Banned for being mean to an israeli colonizer.” but again a- they did not know if that person was a colonizer (and if they don’t know that there are Arabs with second-class Israeli citizenship then they are not qualified to speak so much about Palestine) and b- they were temp banned from a single community.

                They were also not called a terrorist but their comment was deleted for advocating terrorism. This might seem pedantic, but the distinction is important. Calling someone a terrorist is an accusation. Deleting a comment for advocating terrorism is not placing the blame on them, just that the wording of the comment, while accidental, came off this way. This is when they renamed their account as “mean_arab_terrorist”.

                Later, they made their farewell post where they brought their version of events, but we debunked it there as well, and Partisan never once replied to the comments.

                Since their original farewell post was locked, someone made a different post in Comradeship to talk about that farewell post. Edit: found it again: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/617510

                When you put all of this together it starts to look like they were more interested in stirring up trouble than actually engaging with the platform, most of the time posting in their own community from which they indiscriminately banned people who disagreed with them. But again, this is not a bannable offense on Lemmygrad as there are plenty of other communities to participate on.

                Despite this, Partisan was not banned from the website and the entire admin team was in agreement that they were not easy to manage, so to speak, but that nothing was ban-worthy by itself. What was problematic to us was that at no point did NP try to contact us to explain their issues, instead preferring to indirectly talk at us by changing their display name or profile bio. I don’t think they ever once replied to any of my comments either.

                They came back 3 months after that farewell post, which they locked right after they made it (but we did not touch in any way), to say in Arabic “May God’s peace, mercy, and blessings be upon you. I am a Shiite. I no longer participate on this site because it is occupied by Satan. May God protect you.”

                Totally a normal thing to say 3 months after you made your goodbyes and you got the slightest slap on the wrist for not obeying the site rules which are prominently displayed.

                Someone reported that comment and that is when Partisan finally got banned from Lemmygrad for inciting trouble on a website that they willingly left.

                • @destroyamerica
                  link
                  32 months ago

                  ty! it’s a shame she’s like that, shes makes a lot of valuable comments and what not

        • diegeticscream[all]🔻
          link
          82 months ago

          I’m not sure this is related, but it’ll be helpful to me to connect them if there are further incidents.

          There was a poster about a month ago who:

          • Massively posted over just a few days things that were mostly fine

          • Posted some weird wrecker anti-idpol things

          • Immediately deleted accounts when there was any criticism or question

          They’re mentioned on Hexbear here:

          https://hexbear.net/comment/4562341

          • @DamarcusArt
            link
            62 months ago

            I don’t think the two are necessarily the same person, wrecker “behaviour” is a thing at all because they tend to follow predictable patterns, they try to ingratiate themselves with the community, then push against the boundaries just a little bit, to see if there is any reaction, if no reaction, they escalate, and continue to escalate, using the tolerance of their previous behaviour as justification for their current, more extreme behaviour. If they are called out too early, they just cut and run, wreckers rely on having enough of a reputation within a group to make people bend the rules for them, so if their earliest and softest attempts don’t work, they’ll just start again from scratch.

        • SovereignState
          link
          English
          42 months ago

          Just kinda shouting out here as the admin of the menslib sub.

          I have this tendency to have so much drive to complete something for a couple of days, weeks, months, etc. and then burn myself out and find it difficult to dig back in.

          Plus a lot of hilarious shit has been going on in my life that has kept me from engaging with the comm like I want to.

          Anyway, point being: I’m going to try to be more active and hopefully give the sub the booster shot it needs. Please use the menslib sub for posts surrounding men’s liberation from violence and patriarchy!!

    • JoeMarx 193
      link
      1
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Terrible take. It’s because patriarchy conditions boys to bottle it up, that’s why these issues go unreported.