Asking for it

[FuckOffGroundhog]

Men are more likely to be attacked in general than women. Alcohol will frequently have been in use.

Shall we just start a campaign called "don't ask for it" that blames male victims of muggings and attacks. The posters can say if you were walking around drunk while holding money you were pretty much asking to be robbed, also your attacker was drunk too. So maybe you forced them to take your money!

I'm pretty sure once we blame male victims it would take about 5 seconds to click in to place for men that drunk women don't ask for rape.

Had to Google, never heard of it even though I love Winnie old stylee.
He'd be on our side. A bear of little brain, but a little is better than nothing.

Of course he would, and so would Piglet!

I don't think he quite gets the difference between empirical claims and logical axiom systems, you know. Kinda 1st year undergrad stuff - in fact, fairly comprehensively covered on the A level philosophy syllabus these days. FuckOff started with a simple empirical observation, fairly comprehensively documented in crime stats, and our latest little MRA starts jumping up and down demanding logical proof. Wonder if he also wants logical proof about, I dunno, the field equations of general relativity. I mean, we use them because they explain things that Newton's equations don't explain, like the precession of Mercury, but they can't be "logically proved", in the way that, say, de Morgan's laws in 0th order logic can be proved. Or perhaps he wonders whether there's a logical proof of the fact that the heart drives blood circulation round the body. I mean, all this stuff you find out about by looking at the way the world actually is, and he's banging on and on about logical proof. He really is a bit thick, isn't he?

But you're right, Winnie the Pooh is much more fun to discuss. Or even paint drying at a pinch. (The average pot of paint is brigher too - even pots of beige paint).

Poor do they is trying to google all those big words you've used lurcio

(I know I am )

I think he's probably just feeling even more confused than usual. I mean, he's so used to using the phrase "but think about this logically" as a means of asserting his male authority and as a silencing tactic, I doubt he's used to women coming back to him and saying, "yeah, okay, logic... so, let's really think about this logically, as in, pick to bits the complete shit you, do they, are spouting and expose the inadequacies of your argument."

I think I'm offended by the implication that discussing the feminist potential of Winnie the pooh could be compared to watching paint dry.

I have no citations of logic or reason to back this up so regarding my utterly subjective opinion; ymmv.

Tiddley pom

Shall we have a book club on that Tao of Pooh book?

Sorry Bif - clumsy wording on my part. MRAs are like beige paint drying, not Winnie the Pooh.

I vote going for the classic source, rather than a spin off myself. But perhaps we should go for the House at Pooh Corner, seeing as we're feminists and it actually has a female character. (In fact there's a gap in the market here. The "Pooh Perplex" spoofs just about every type of lit crit imagineable - Leavis, Marxist lit crit, literature as religious allegory - but it is missing a chapter on the feminist analysis of Pooh. We need to fill this glaring gap).

I know the thread is a bit tongue in cheek but I think many men might think they got attacked because they weren't 'ard enough (victim blaming). Which I guess is where the sugesting women to get self defence classes comes from.

Not sure how we'd do that though Lurcio... what with the only female character being the world's most harassed mother, who took a while to work out that her child wasn't actually stripy and bouncy..... (I know she does, but it does take a little while)

To follow on from BreakingDad's point, I took our son to a boxing club when he was younger, because I know that one day he might be in a position where he needs those skills. Maybe I'd be better off putting him through some kind of negotiating skills course in parallel, but I really don't know if these even exist. I'd be better off still if I could somehow reach out to those who might attack him and somehow convince them that violence is a bad way to resolve any dispute.

Are actions like taking him to boxing in any way victim blaming?

Actually, I think perhaps Yops and BreakingDad have hit upon another way the patriarchy harms men - but possibly not in the way they think they have. Yes, men are at risk of violence from other men - that's where we started from. But self defence classes are not the answer because (a) they don't work - there's always someone bigger, harder and nastier, possibly tooled up with a knife and (b) by making your sense of your own self-worth dependent on a concept of masculinity which involves "being able to handle yourself in a tight situation" you end up in the very vulnerable situation where you can be psychologically hard hit when you come across the bigger, harder bloke. This happened to a male relative of mine - ex forces, but into his 50s, so not as strong and fit as he once was (but his mental image was still built round his 30-year-old self). He was beaten up in an attack by a couple of blokes he'd argued with over, IIRC, whether some car repairs had been done properly. It completely shattered his self esteem.

Now, it's difficult to frame this correctly - I hope no-one reads this as saying "well you're saying it was his fault for being so invested in the idea that 'he could handle himself'." It's more that men are being sold this myth that if they can handle themselves it won't happen - and it's a bit like the "you won't get raped if you never drink, only wear sensible tweed skirts, always get a taxi and are safely home by 6.30" myth that women are sold - a form of magical thinking which then has the effect of placing responsibility on the victim while simultaneously distracting attention from the real problem - the subset of men who are deliberately violent.

Yops, you might want to take him to athletics - sprinting away faster than the other guy could come in more handy. But of course, no blame if that didn't work.

Nothing victim blaming about boxing, no. Why would there be?

Good post, Lurcio.

I agree Lurcio - any form of self-defence can be sold as a get out of jail free card. My thinking was more of a last-resort option if there is no alternative.

Knickerful, because I am trying to teach him skills that he can use if attacked. And he doesn't deserve to be attacked for simply going about his own business.

Yops, that is self defense. If he senses an attack coming or can break free for a moment from an attack, sprinting could be helpful.

Again, no fault lies with him if he doesn't get away/beat an attacker/freezes in the moment.

Byesie bye, trolldelatroll. Oh and read this if you have any ambitions not to be an ignorant weasel all your life.

www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/sexual-assault-survivors-answer-the-question-what-were-you-w?s=mobile

Great post Lurcio, I read some article in Mens health many years ago about male rapes and how on top of the violation how guilty the men were left feeling by society i.e why couldn't I defend myself.

I'm pretty sure once we blame male victims it would take about 5 seconds to click in to place for men that drunk women don't ask for rape.

I understand your point OP but I fear plenty of people who purposefully wouldn't and would use that point against instead.

I've seen so many people disappointing me, laughing about the idea of 'yes means yes' and consent laws, making rape jokes and minimising on fb. I've defriended about 8 in the last two or so weeks. After seeing that, I would expect a large number of people missing the point about victim blaming if such an idea as you post was carried out.