Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

[Eric D]

A mainsplainer is a man who tells a woman what her experience is without listening to or caring what she has to say. If I meant all men, I would have just said men.

My bad. But who are these mansplainers?

 

[bookitty]

Is your hand going to start blinking like in Logan's Run?

Hand?

 

[bookitty]

My bad. But who are these mansplainers?

Have you got a mirror?

 

[Eric D]

Have you got a mirror?

Show me where I told a woman what her experience was without caring or listening to what she had to say.

 

[bookitty]

Show me where I told a woman what her experience was without caring or listening to what she had to say.

Claiming that a youtube video of a single false accusation is in any way comparable to the threat of rape that women face is a bit callous.

 

[SOdhner]

But wait, what if I'm 40 but I look 35? Do I need to false grey my hair? Do I need to keep my ID on a chain around my neck just in case? "Sorry, casual acquaintance who happens to be attacking me, my rape-age has expired. Please see state issued card."

It's not my job to answer those questions. It is your responsibility to reduce the odds of getting raped. MY job is to get offended at your attempt to reduce those odds and call you irrational. Get with the program.

 

[pitbone]

I still think it's an evasion, because "antisocial" is really just another way of saying "wrong."

That just makes a bad answer though, which is why I clarified in the last post.

Society also functions better when people exercise caution. If everyone is trusting, then it's very easy (and therefore rewarding) to exploit others, so exploiters prosper.

There's a big difference between being primarily altruistic, yet cautious and seeing every stranger as a threat. Hopefully, as we grow up, we gain more psychological tools to distinguish between good and bad strangers. The author seems to be advocating a very child-like way of social interaction.

But what's missing from your explanation is an identification of how this woman's personal assessment of risk and benefit affects anyone else. When I'm walking down the street, I don't know if the woman in front of me thinks like the author does, or like you do. I have no way of knowing. Either way, to paraphrase Jefferson, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. I don't believe in "bad vibes" or "negative energy" from another person's mere thoughts, and I trust you don't either.

When judging the validity of an argument, it doesn't need to have consequences, it just needs to be valid.

What I'm waiting for you or anyone else to provide is a link between the thoughts and attitudes to which you object, and behavior that you claim has negative consequences. All this stuff about "societal benefit" is hopelessly vague. If your argument is "women should be pleasant and friendly when a stranger starts talking to them on a train. Continuing to read your book or asking to be left alone is rude," well, I would disagree with that, but at least I'd know where you were coming from. But as it is I have no idea what negative or antisocial behavior you think this incorrect attitude is causing.

The same mind frame applied to an ethnic group would be called racial profiling. Judging the likelihood of an individual's actions based on the actions of a minority, some of whom belong to the same group as the individual. I'm not aware of any phrase which describes it for this situation.

Her point was that, if you want to get a positive reaction from a woman, you should bear these considerations in mind. Of course, implicit in that advice is the claim that many women think as she does.

It's not just implicit, she actually says it:

Well, no. But do you think about it all the time? Is preventing violent assault or murder part of your daily routine, rather than merely something you do when you venture into war zones? Because, for women, it is.

This is another fallacious remark. She is explicitly claiming that her prevalent fear of violent assault is shared by all women. I don't know what it's called, but she's doing the opposite of a subjectivist fallacy - claiming her subjective truth is an objective reality.

So, to answer your question, if most -- or even a significant number of -- men are concerned enough about rape to be uncomfortable with being approached in a particular situation or manner, then yes, the polite and prudent thing to do would be to avoid making such approaches. As I don't believe that to be the case -- and I don't think you would claim otherwise -- the advice is less applicable. (Much of it is still somewhat applicable: if you want a positive social interaction, you should be aware of the cues people are giving off and respect what it means. If I'm sitting beside you on an airplane, and I've got headphones on and am watching a movie or working on my laptop, it's really not a good time to try making small talk with me.)

This is why I went on the statistics rant at the beginning. Clearly, she feels that the male concern of rape is below the threshold of worry. The statistics show that most women don't get raped by people they don't know. So on a day to day basis, it seems a bit unreasonable to constantly worry about it. When there's a potentially dangerous situation, increased concern is advisable. Is it still advisable to have an increased concern on a normal day to day basis?

I think you're misreading the quoted excerpt. I think it's pretty obvious from the context that the author is telling the reader that, from the perspective of the girl on the subway, he is a threat.

But wouldn't the girl on the subway still have to be using the same faulty reasoning to justify her perception that he's a threat?

Come on, surely you don't think that's what the author is suggesting. Geez, she even bolded the key points for you: "accept that I set my own risk tolerance," "be aware of what signals you are sending by your appearance and the environment," "Learn to understand and respect women’s communication to you," and -- most applicable to your question -- "If you fail to respect what women say, you label yourself a problem."

I don't actually think she meant to say that, but with all the restrictions put forward, I find myself having a hard time finding an alternative.

I don't disagree with most of the points you've quoted there - they are indicative of a person processing common sense. "Learn to understand and respect women's communication to you" is tenuous. Does this count implicit physical gesturing? The "she was asking for it" defense men give for rape is often based on implicit physical gesturing. Obviously we don't accept that as valid, so how can we assign value to implicit physical gesturing such as arms crossed = bad or facing you = good?

So sure, you can chat up whoever you want, whenever you want.

That's not what she says though.

This means that some men should never approach strange women in public.

She implies that men are supposed to evaluate themselves from the subjective perception of the woman and act appropriately.

But just as you note above, there are social conventions. Saying "piss off, you maggot" is considered rude (unless there's considerable provocation, I suppose). "Don't disturb people who are making it clear that they don't want to be disturbed" is another social convention -- or, if it isn't, the author is arguing that it should be. If you missed those signals, well, mistakes happen, and some people are more perceptive than others (and some people's signals are less clear than others). And, like most social conventions, the only punishment or enforcement is that people will change how they think of you and how they act. You're free to dispute that this is or should be a social convention, but again, that has consequences if you're wrong.

Agreed. It seems the whole paranoid diatribe in between what you quoted could have been replaced with: Men, use common sense and don't be creepy.

I don't see that what she said in between the bullet points was any more useful than that. (Plus the logical fallacies.)

I'm lost -- are you asking how we logically determine when someone is willing to be approached by a stranger? I'm not sure it's a matter of "logic," just of empathy and receptiveness to social cues.

I think I got carried away with my own rhetoric here. It seems to me like she's implying that all women have some universal acceptable-mate-identification heuristic which determines who should approach them and when it's appropriate and that men need to also learn this heuristic so we don't frighten them.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

She prefaces the story by saying women live in constant fear

Except for the fact that she never actually even uses the word "fear". Hit CTRL-F in your browser and see if it even appears once in the whole darned article. But I'll get back to this in a bit.

But either way, I dunno, man, if I had a 1 in 6 chance of being assaulted in my life, I'd very much have the risk in head all the time.

Not to mention the fact that, again, according to statistics 1 in 60 guys around her _is_ a rapist. There's probably one of them on a full bus, and several on a train station platform. At that point I'd think it's well beyond what you can paint as irrational fear, and is reason enough to actually devote some thinking on how to protect oneself.

Even picking on individual chances as too tiny to bother, is silly. They're only tiny because she doesn't give them enough of a chance in the first place. In reality, the guy insisting on cornering her on the bus or approaching her in a dark alley has not a tiny chance to be a rapist, but a 1 in 60 chance. That's well within the realm where I'd guard my rear too.

and that's why it's perfectly legitimate to treat every man as a potential rapist.

And again, I dunno what definition of "potential" you use, but "potential rapist" doesn't mean you're actually guilty of anything.

I mean, we've already been over such constructs in, dunno, every single thread about abortion. There are modifiers which make the whole construct mean a whole different thing. An "unborn baby" isn't an actual baby yet, and may never be. An "unbaked bread" isn't an actual bread and you'd be well advised to not eat it; it might just be a bag of flour. An "unfinished painting" isn't yet and may never be more than a piece of canvas, etc. Likewise "potential rapist" doesn't mean you actually raped anyone, nor that you ever will, nor that you intend to.

Yes, you _are_ a potential rapist, and a potential mugger, and a potential murderer and simultaneously a potential nice guy. And I am too. Because that's all that "potential" really means. It means you might or might not be.

Proposing that she excludes men from "potential rapist" -- which seems the gist of what half the guys here ask -- is in end effect asking her to assume that no men ever could possibly commit a rape. You're asking her to choose a priori "he's definitely not". You're asking no less than that she stops considering it even possible that a guy could ever rape her. Which is more unreasonable than anything she wrote.

I'm sorry, but asking a perfect stranger to assume that you're absolutely incapable of being a threat -- because, again, that's what it means if you're not a _potential_ threat -- is asking for a level of trust that even I wouldn't give you. And I'm a guy. That's the kind of trust that definitely has to be earned, not expected a priori. I'd have to actually know you pretty well before you get promoted to "this guy couldn't possibly ever harm me."

Women don't have to live in constant fear if they are simply aware of the risks and take the proper measures to prevent them.

Then I have to wonder what your problem is. Because, again, she doesn't actually say she lives in fear. The word "fear" doesn't even appear even once in the article, the first instance is in the comments.

She's exactly saying that she is constantly aware of the risks and keeps taking measures to avoid them.

You've just told me that you're actually ok with what she actually wrote, but are strongly against... something which she didn't say at all. So, perhaps unintentionally, but you're doing this whole fuss over your own (perhaps unintentional) strawman. As I always say, if it bothers you so much, stop building that strawman

 

[gnome]

The way I see it, whether her opinion is misguided or not, her article is a fair assessment of how she and women who feel the same way are likely to respond to certain behavior. One need not endorse the sentiment to use it to predict the behavior of someone that does.

 

[Eric D]

Claiming that a youtube video of a single false accusation is in any way comparable to the threat of rape that women face is a bit callous.

When did I say it was comparable? I brought it up because the subject was women's fear and traumatic experience and I formed an opinion on it that I believe would match most people's opinion. What does my gender have to do with how I feel about a subject?

I'm in no way claiming that I know what it's like to be a woman in fear of being raped, but does that mean I should just shut up and listen even if her fear is irrational?

 

[bookitty]

When did I say it was comparable? I brought it up because the subject was women's fear and traumatic experience and I formed an opinion on it that I believe would match most people's opinion. What does my gender have to do with how I feel about a subject?

I'm in no way claiming that I know what it's like to be a woman in fear of being raped, but does that mean I should just shut up and listen even if her fear is irrational?

Well, perhaps you could start by explaining why her fear is irrational before dismissing it.

 

[SOdhner]

Show me where I told a woman what her experience was without caring or listening to what she had to say.

I'm in no way claiming that I know what it's like to be a woman in fear of being raped, but does that mean I should just shut up and listen even if her fear is irrational?

DING! We have a winner!

"I don't know what it's like, but I don't have to listen because she is irrational."

Full points!

 

[dirtywick]

The way I see it, whether her opinion is misguided or not, her article is a fair assessment of how she and women who feel the same way are likely to respond to certain behavior. One need not endorse the sentiment to use it to predict the behavior of someone that does.

Which is why the whole thing is kind of useless. If this article were rewritten minimally and instead of potential rapist was potential douchebag and put in Maxim magazine I'd wager it'd be skimmed through and forgotten. Of course it's not because being made aware that women you approach may think you've got some rape about you is somewhat unsettling.

 

[Eric D]

Yes, pity the poor mens.

A discussion about womens fear of rape must include false rape accusations against men,

It does. If a woman falsely accuses a man of rape, she's relying heavily on the fears of other women to get the man convicted.

Furthermore, if your fear of rape affects how you behave towards men, then it involves us and we have every right to speak up about it.

 

[jiggeryqua]

It does. If a woman falsely accuses a man of rape, she's relying heavily on the fears of other women to get the man convicted.

Furthermore, if your fear of rape affects how you behave towards men, then it involves us and we have every right to speak up about it.

Yes, pity the poor mens.

It's really silly how us boys think we're so important.

 

[Eric D]

DING! We have a winner!

"I don't know what it's like, but I don't have to listen because she is irrational."

Full points!

I don't have to just "shut up and listen" especially if she's being irrational.

Hypothetical situation, if a woman wants to lock herself away in her house for the rest of her life because a traumatic experience is making her afraid to function normally, that means I should just shut up and listen to whatever she has to say because I didn't experience the same thing?

 

[Furcifer]

But wait, what if I'm 40 but I look 35? Do I need to false grey my hair? Do I need to keep my ID on a chain around my neck just in case? "Sorry, casual acquaintance who happens to be attacking me, my rape-age has expired. Please see state issued card."

I'm sorry you feel marginalized by the facts, but 35 year old women that think they look 22 still don't have as much to worry about as a 22 year old.

If you want to argue, you might want to suggest this is because 35 year old women are wiser and know better how to avoid situations.

Instead you want to make it about "looks". Go figure.

(and they say it's men that objectify women)

 

[TraneWreck]

I'm sorry you feel marginalized by the facts, but 35 year old women that think they look 22 still don't have as much to worry about as a 22 year old.

If you want to argue, you might want to suggest this is because 35 year old women are wiser and know better how to avoid situations.

Instead you want to make it about "looks". Go figure.

(and they say it's men that objectify women)

I thought you only trolled global warming threads.

 

[bookitty]

I'm sorry you feel marginalized by the facts, but 35 year old women that think they look 22 still don't have as much to worry about as a 22 year old.

If you want to argue, you might want to suggest this is because 35 year old women are wiser and know better how to avoid situations.

Instead you want to make it about "looks". Go figure.

(and they say it's men that objectify women)

It was a completely unsubstantiated statement, I can interpret it however I like. I went for flippant.

If you want to pretend that you are serious, you might want to back up that silliness with something factual. If you're going to go way out on the "more college-age women get raped" limb, you've still got some explaining to do. There's a whole lot of room between college-age and 35.

And, as I may have mentioned before, it was a very nice dodge.

 

[Furcifer]

Except for the fact that she never actually even uses the word "fear". Hit CTRL-F in your browser and see if it even appears once in the whole darned article. But I'll get back to this in a bit.

Semantics.

But either way, I dunno, man, if I had a 1 in 6 chance of being assaulted in my life, I'd very much have the risk in head all the time.

Not to mention the fact that, again, according to statistics 1 in 60 guys around her _is_ a rapist. There's probably one of them on a full bus, and several on a train station platform. At that point I'd think it's well beyond what you can paint as irrational fear, and is reason enough to actually devote some thinking on how to protect oneself.

The statistics say otherwise. That's what the issue is about. Do you think your grandmother in a nursing home has a 1 in 6 chance of being raped? Is 1 in 60 men at the home a rapist.

Even picking on individual chances as too tiny to bother, is silly. They're only tiny because she doesn't give them enough of a chance in the first place. In reality, the guy insisting on cornering her on the bus or approaching her in a dark alley has not a tiny chance to be a rapist, but a 1 in 60 chance. That's well within the realm where I'd guard my rear too.

Except that's not what the statistics are saying. I'm not sure if you really understand statistics, perhaps it's a way they are worded that's confusing you? A 21 year old girl drunk at a frat party needs to worry more than a 45 year old at a wine tasting despite the fact that 1 in 6 women are sexually abused.

And again, I dunno what definition of "potential" you use, but "potential rapist" doesn't mean you're actually guilty of anything.

Do you think anyone that buys a lottery ticket is a potential winner? I'm sorry but the lottery, despite the fact you may be a potential winner is still a sucker bet.

Proposing that she excludes men from "potential rapist" -- which seems the gist of what half the guys here ask -- is in end effect asking her to assume that no men ever could possibly commit a rape. You're asking her to choose a priori "he's definitely not". You're asking no less than that she stops considering it even possible that a guy could ever rape her. Which is more unreasonable than anything she wrote.

This is a strawman. I never said this, please limit your argument to what I've actually said. I said quite clearly she can label people potential rapists and it may be very effective at preventing rape.

I'm sorry, but asking a perfect stranger to assume that you're absolutely incapable of being a threat -- because, again, that's what it means if you're not a _potential_ threat -- is asking for a level of trust that even I wouldn't give you. And I'm a guy.

I never did. I think you're referring to someone else.

Then I have to wonder what your problem is. Because, again, she doesn't actually say she lives in fear. The word "fear" doesn't even appear even once in the article, the first instance is in the comments.

First i said she was implying it, second it's an issue of semantics. You may want to read the first three paragraphs again.

You've just told me that you're actually ok with what she actually wrote, but are strongly against... something which she didn't say at all. So, perhaps unintentionally, but you're doing this whole fuss over your own (perhaps unintentional) strawman. As I always say, if it bothers you so much, stop building that strawman

What am I strongly against? Just your strawman