is that they pull kind of a bait-and-switch, or a motte-and-bailey, or a double standard, or whatever.
Suppose you go there and say, “Women are bitches; they need to just be under men’s control.” They’ll say, “This is a visa advice site; take this rhetoric elsewhere.”
But if you bring up your relationship situation, in the context of how it affects immigration stuff, they’ll judge you for it, and say you’re the bad guy in the situation because you have a penis. Meanwhile, they’ll help any woman who shows up to their site wanting advice with her immigration situation. This could be American women who got romance scammed by sexy foreign men, or foreign women who married an American husband and now want to frivorce-rape him and get a green card. They will give her the benefit of the doubt, and assume she’s a poor, innocent victim of the patriarchy, while suspecting the motives of any man who comes there with a story of how he was manipulated and mistreated, at worst assuming he’s the bad guy, and at best mocking him for being a chump who let himself get taken advantage of.
So rhetoric is allowed, as long as it’s feminist rhetoric. But if a man wants to say antifeminist stuff, they consider that spam and will lock the thread.
That’s the motte and bailey. The motte is, “This is a visa advice site; other stuff (like antifeminist rhetoric) is off-topic and therefore spammy and won’t be tolerated.” The bailey is, “Here’s all this feminist doctrine and rhetoric that we let people express, that goes beyond what we’d have is this were only a visa advice site.”
It’s another case of “I don’t like him”.