top of page

Feminist Fight Back


Not One Step Back 

Social media has seen the rise of many women using their platform to advance the feminist cause. These range from the veterans of previous incarnations of the feminist movement to young up and coming feminists seeking to advance their views through the lens of their own generational experiences. The rise of the smartphone has allowed a whole new generation of feminists to advance their platforms in ways which were once reserved for women who had a lifestyle that allowed them to pursue their activism. 

This has lead to an increasing number of intelligent, articulate and often attractive young women making themselves heard. This of course leads to the attention of the feminist's arch nemesis, the misogynistic troll. A problem that has become increasingly apparent is the loss of feminist accounts for violating SM rules while the Trolls seem to roll on with impunity. 

I often see feminists being advised to "just block the trolls" which is received quite naturally as being completely unhelpful. Feminists are not there to be pushed around yet it seems that women are punished for fighting back. I seek to address that issue here. First there is the matter of the vulnerabilities of the feminist account. 

The feminist account is a high profile and attractive target for the troll adversary fueled as he is by his misogynistic tendencies. The feminist being targeted has spent countless hours building a large following and SM presence to advance her platform. The Troll on the other hand has invested all of 10 minutes getting a Sock account ready. The Sock is created for the sole purpose of taking out the feminist account and the Troll has no interest in its longevity bar a matter of convenience. 

Then there are the accounts that are skilled at getting at their target without triggering a response from SM police. These accounts are very dangerous and combined with the Sock attacks a targeted account holder is under significant duress. It is under such duress that the target makes subtle but highly damaging mistakes. Here is an example. 

A feminist makes a statement about sexual assault inflicted on women. The Troll responds with "women should keep their legs shut." There are two responses to this and to follow one path leads the feminist straight into a trap prepared by the Troll. The Troll has said something which is in fact highly offensive to the feminist and the snare is ready. 

Troll: "Women should keep their legs shut"

Target: "You disgusting piece of shit go fuck yourself"

Troll: "Well women should watch what they wear right?"

Target: "You are a rapist and a pig and you will get what is coming to you." 

Troll: "You feminists are just man haters..." and so on it goes. 

As the exchange continues the Troll will get less "offensive" in his comments giving the target the perception they are dominating the exchange and often the target's followers will be getting in there as well. The highly offended group reports the Troll and nothing seems to happen. This is the first hook. The Troll's comments are not targeting the target as an individual. The Troll has not said "you should keep your legs shut". 

The Troll has in fact offered an highly offensive yet also highly general statement that is designed to offend. The same with the second comment. Each time the target has focused her comment on the Troll and not what the Troll has said and done. The Troll has then become less offensive but is still being hit by his target. The Troll can now present a credible perception that he is being harassed in an attempt to silence his views.

He can also claim he felt physically threatened thanks to comment two. This is an important point. The Troll only has to be able to claim he can reasonably feel threatened by what the target has said and can do so by claiming the threat is implied. It only has to be seen to be a threat for the report against the target to succeed. If the target has already copped a few bans then the tolerance of the SM police will be sorely tested. 

The other method is the one that allows the target to fight back in a way that will go a long way to avoiding SM sanctions. 

Troll: "Women should keep their legs shut."

Target: "That is the kind of thing that rapist pigs like to say. 

Troll: "Well women should watch what they wear right?"

Target: "Are you reading directly from the sex offenders manual 101 there or do you think your harassment of women on SM is somehow witty and original?" 

Target then blocks the Troll / Sock point made and no longer vulnerable to the Troll's attempt to lead her into the firing line. The Sock is no longer useful to the Troll and the target has one less Troll to deal with. The targets followers will likely engage the Troll and the target will see those responses on her TL. The target can then agree with or add to comments to the posts that are not in breach of the SM rules thus ensuring her views are there for her followers and the Troll cannot get at her because of the block in place. There are other tactics to use which I list here. 

As we know, aim comments at what the Troll has said or done, not at the Troll itself. 

Wasting your time and or losing your precious account due to an exchange with a Sock is pointless. Comment then block the Sock. 

When posting to Blue Ticks keep in mind the threshold for harassment is much lower due to Blue Ticks being targeted a lot. A controversial Blue Tick account may attract hundreds of "abusive" comments so the SM police will punish infractions far more readily. 

Avoid repeated responses. I noted one feminist who copped a ban because she kept responding with the comment "coward" to every post the Troll posted. That gave the impression the feminist was trying to shut the Troll down by hammering the Troll into submission which of course is seen as an "an attempt to silence a users voice on the platform". 

Avoid anything which the Troll can claim is a threat of violence and or a death threat. The point here is the test is not whether the poster reasonably considers what they said amounts to a death threat it is if the recipient can reasonably argue they perceive the post as a death threat. A well known feminist lost her account permanently because she told a Troll to "die mad." Now we all know what she meant when she posted that but the Troll was able to claim he felt threatened by the comment. 

Now there are those who will say "die mad" is a common term and the meaning is well established. That may be true in US culture but other cultures may see the comments in a different context. SM police will be factoring in that fact when deciding whether to hit the ban button or not. Avoid the use of the word die when posting and any other language that can be used against you. Death threats real or imagined are the fastest way to lose an account. 

Post content that is not combative regularly. An account that is 90% snark and confrontation is highly vulnerable as the SM police will look at the accounts general approach and posts when deciding on complaints. If every second comment is telling some guy to go and perform the reproductive act on himself then the account looks like it has a primary purpose of fighting with other SM users. 


Choose your battles. Males will make comments that offend the feminist ideology in the absence of intent to offend. If every male who "offends" is given a roasting it makes it much harder for a target to argue she is the victim when she is dealing with the Trolls who have every intention of offending. Never lose sight of the "overall" impression your account presents. 


Consider using the language of diplomats and politicians when dealing with the foe. Politicians in Westminster governments are expressly banned from using unparliamentary language.  



  1. (especially of language) contrary to the rules or procedures of parliament.

    "an unparliamentary expression"

For example a politician cannot call another politician an obstinate wanker. So what do they do when dealing with someone who is in fact being a wanker? The politician uses "acceptable" language which when translated actually means the same thing. 

Obstinate Wanker: "The member is being unhelpful" 

Liar: "I have doubts as to the member's veracity regarding this matter." "I believe the member's statements are not bona fide." "I have concerns regarding the accuracy of the member's statements." 

Dumb Ass: "I have concerns as to the member's competency and or understanding of the issue."

So as we can see what is needed to be said is in fact being said but the choice of language is the key. There is a story about a soldier who was standing on parade and the Drill Sergeant pointed his baton at him and declared "At the end of this baton is a prime wanker!" The soldier replied: "Sir, not at this end Sir!" 

So we see our cunning soldier has in effect called his superior a wanker which would normally result in a charge and punishment. The soldier has in effect deflected the comment back onto his officer but it cannot be said he is calling his superior a wanker. He is essentially created a situation where he is saying his superior must be calling himself a wanker by simply denying the wanker is him. That denial is much harder to punish than a statement from the soldier saying "No Sir, you are the wanker not me." 

Essentially there are a range of options when it comes to fighting back against those who are seeking to Troll an account. As long as the target follows the rules of engagement as described then it is very unlikely she will banned. I was once heavily involved with Rose Army and have been involved in many a confrontation but I only ever copped one 12 hour ban over a year ago. 

I copped that ban because I made the mistake of targeting the Troll directly. My appeal was denied. Some months later the Troll account was permanently banned for hateful conduct. I am still here. Justice got there in the end. 

bottom of page