Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

[TraneWreck]

What proportion of abuse by women against men goes unreported?
Or are your statistics based on rates of reporting?

The bureau of justice puts the number of unreported abuse cases at about 1/4th:

http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2009/...of-domestic-violence-incidents-go-unreported/

Here are the things we know:

1) Domestic violence is under-reported. This is true of both men and women.
2) Of the reported abuse, the VAST majority of cases involve men attacking women. Of the cases in which a male is a victim, the VAST majority of perpetrators are men.
3) Of reported cases of abuse, the type of abuse suffered by men at the hands of women is less severe and violent.
4) Of the cases that require no reporting, namely murder, women are the victims the VAST majority of the time. And again, when males are the victim, males are the perpetrators, more often then not.

But now you want to argue that somehow in the unreported population we will see a pattern of abuse of women against men sufficient enough to support your contention that women shouldn't be afraid of sexual assault because sometimes men are assaulted. The fact that, for example, about 70-80% of rape cases involving male victims also involve male perpetrators is irrelevant, I suppose (and by the way, I would bet a substantial number of the remaining 20-30% of female raping male cases are statutory rapes, not violent attacks).

Your position is silly and completely unsupported by the facts. Rates of reporting domestic abuse have sky-rocketed over the past few decades. With the increase in these reports, as well as mandatory reporting by officers, social workers, and other health professionals, the ration of female to male victims has barely changed.

You're just making a black-box style argument that, even if it was supported, fails to make your case as the existence of women beating up men does not mean that women have nothing to fear from strange males in vulnerable situations.

 

[TraneWreck]

And by the way: if you really don't see how "every man is Schroedinger's rapist" is an indication of sexism, I'm not sure that any evidence I would put forward would convince you.

Do you understand the reference to Shroedinger? You realize that in its very construction the author is representing uncertainty?

And once more, according to the OP, what does it mean to be treated like Shroedinger's rapist? It means she doesn't want to talk to you on public transit and asks that you not follow her around.

THE INJUSTICE!!!!!!

 

[AvalonXQ]

But now you want to argue that somehow in the unreported population we will see a pattern of abuse of women against men sufficient enough to support your contention that women shouldn't be afraid of sexual assault because sometimes men are assaulted.

I never made that argument.
What I would put forward is that women choosing to treat all men as rapists is misandrist and inappropriate, just as choosing to treat all black men as muggers is racist and inappropriate. There's a distinction between being cautious of a real threat (rape and robbery both being real threats, and both being greatly skewed toward one demographic over others) and using it as an excuse to mistreat others or excuse bad behavior.
And what I was specifically speaking out against in the first place was the inappropriateness of lumping all women in with rape victims and all men in with rapists in the discussion of experience. Partially because I absolutely do not believe that sexual assault by women against men is rare. And more importantly, because either way, the problem is a violence problem rather than a gender problem, and you don't have the right to demarcate these groups in a hostile way.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

From the British Crime Survey - based on interview rather than reporting to police - detailed breakdown of the figures can be found in tables in the report (HOSB 02/09) :

Overall, three in ten (30%) women and two in ten (20%) men had experienced any
domestic abuse since the age of 16 . These figures are equivalent
to an estimated 4.8 million female victims of any domestic abuse since the age of 16 and
3.2 million male victims.

[snip]

Approximately three per cent of women and less than one per cent of men had
experienced a sexual assault (including attempts) in the last year. The majority of this is
accounted for by less serious sexual assault. Less than one per cent of women and men
reported having experienced a serious sexual assault .

http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/bcs-publications.html

If we look at just serious sexual assaults, the prevalence for women (after the age of sixteen) was 5.3% compared to 0.6% for men. So one in 20 women will have suffered a serious sexual assault whereas 6 in a thousand men will have experienced the same.

 

[AvalonXQ]

And once more, according to the OP, what does it mean to be treated like Shroedinger's rapist? It means she doesn't want to talk to you on public transit and asks that you not follow her around.

If I write an article about Schroedinger's mugger, openly asking black people not to talk to me on the train because any one of them could take my wallet, you wouldn't accuse me of racism?
It's Schroedinger's mugger, mind you. There's uncertainty there. Clearly there's no prejudice involved.

 

[AvalonXQ]

From the British Crime Survey - based on interview rather than reporting to police:


http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/bcs-publications.html

So do we believe that in Britain far more men are abused than in the States? Or do we believe that maybe there are systematic problems with our reporting process?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

And by the way: if you really don't see how "every man is Schroedinger's rapist" is an indication of sexism, I'm not sure that any evidence I would put forward would convince you.

Except what she actually says there is that there is a 1 in 60 chance that an unknown male might be a rapist. Supported by actual statistics too. And she doesn't know which of them it is until one actually tries to rape her.

That's all that "Schroedinger's Rapist" there is supposed to mean. Something that might or might not be actually a rapist. And it's quite clearly explained too.

If you have actually read and understood what she said and it's to you an indication of sexism...

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

If I write an article about Schroedinger's mugger, openly asking black people not to talk to me on the train because any one of them could take my wallet, you wouldn't accuse me of racism?
It's Schroedinger's mugger, mind you. There's uncertainty there. Clearly there's no prejudice involved.

Ah, yes, the return of the same analogy which isn't actually analogous at all. And it's been only answered to death already. In the same thread too.

But, yeah, let's pretend it's somehow analogous to racism, so you can have your self-righteous fuss.

 

[SatanicSheep]

What purpose is served by pretending both sides in the debate are being equally uncivil then complaining about their "canned" responses?

Just trying to work around the irrelevant and derailing dogpiles you seem so eager to jump on.

And then you just reiterate the silly point with which you began the thread with out bother to explain the "illogic." There is a real danger of sexual assault and the woman is (1) taking proportionate, reasoned measures to avoid that danger and (2) requesting that men stop being creepy ********.

It's funny that people are up in arms about the first one without ever dealing with her actual behavior. She doesn't want to talk to people on the bus. This is "illogical?"

I guess I could type "inference fallacy" and "stereotype" one more time but if you didn't get it the first ten times I don't know why you would now.

 

[Sun Countess]

So do you think it would be less prejudiced and more rational if the author decided that any unknown person - male or female - was a potential rapist?

And for anybody who thinks it's somehow "antisocial" for somebody to not want to talk to you or sit right next to you on an otherwise empty bus, I'm just wondering why you think any stranger is obligated to entertain you. We're not talking about people behaving in an antisocial way while they're at work or out shopping in public. The author brings up specific situations where a woman may be more alert to the dangers at hand. When she's alone, at night, in enclosed settings where she may find it harder to escape if it comes to that.

I go through similar thought processes to this woman, and it's not a constant fear, and it's also not about being cruel or unfair to men in general. It's saying that if I'm alone on a street or on a bus, I'm allowed to be wary of a strange man who approaches me and ask him to leave me alone. Where is it written that every man has the right to have a strange woman entertain him or give him directions?

I have five brothers, a husband, and a son. I adore men. I love their company. But I'm still going to be distrustful of a strange man approaching me if I'm in a vulnerable situation. I'm not going to mace him or start screaming "RAPIST!!" but I'm going to make sure that I have an out. I'm going to be wary of certain strange women too (if they're much bigger than me or appear menacing in some other way), but the worry would be over getting mugged, and not about being raped.

eta: But yeah, go ahead and call me prejudiced because I only worry about men raping me and not women. And if a woman does happen to rape me, should I also ask for the morning after pill so as not to appear prejudiced against men?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

One thing that does strike me is that the fear of unknown men could be said to be disproportionate compared to the fear of known men. For serious sexual assault and rape, the perpetrator is far more likely to be be someone you know. Less serious sexual assault (flashing, unwanted touching, sexual threat etc) is more likely to be by a stranger. And yet it is far more difficult to shake off the fear of an unknown man attacking you out of the blue than to be wary of all your friends and acquaintances. Of course the corollary is that the less serious sexual assault is also the far more likely thing to happen to you (eg about one in 5 women compared to about one in 20 women for the serious sexual assault).

 

[TraneWreck]

Just trying to work around the irrelevant and derailing dogpiles you seem so eager to jump on.

The way to do that is insult everyone involved? How high-minded of you.

I guess I could type "inference fallacy" and "stereotype" one more time but if you didn't get it the first ten times I don't know why you would now.

It's not the typing that would make your case, it's an actual argument. Neither an inference fallacy nor a stereotype are present, here.

Saying, "This person could sexually assault me, therefore I will take very mild precautions and request that strangers don't harrass me," is hardly fallacious or a destructive generalization.

Does anyone have any problem with her actual requests? That he personal space be respected in public and that men don't keep bothering her after she's shown no interest? Or are we just pissy about the "Schroedinger's Rapist" phrase?

 

[SatanicSheep]

Ah, yes, the return of the same analogy which isn't actually analogous at all. And it's been only answered to death already. In the same thread too.

But, yeah, let's pretend it's somehow analogous to racism, so you can have your self-righteous fuss.

Except that it's not just an analogy it happens to be central. Some 80% of convicted rapists are black, but it's wrong to inject race into a risk management scenario, but gender is ok?

 

[SatanicSheep]

So do you think it would be less prejudiced and more rational if the author decided that any unknown person - male or female - was a potential rapist? :

Yeah

eta: But yeah, go ahead and call me prejudiced because I only worry about men raping me and not women. And if a woman does happen to rape me, should I also ask for the morning after pill so as not to appear prejudiced against men?

A woman could rape you. She couldn't get you pregnant...

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

One thing that does strike me is that the fear of unknown men is in fact disproportionate compared to the fear of known men. For serious sexual assault and rape, the perpetrator is far more likely to be be someone you know. Less serious sexual assault (flashing, unwanted touching, sexual threat etc) is more likely to be by a stranger.

IMHO it's hard to reach a conclusion there, actually. We'll never see an actual apples to apples comparison. It could be that the lower rate of rape by strangers is precisely _because_ women are more cautious around strangers. If the standards were reversed, it's hard to say what would happen. It could be that the outcomes would also be reversed.

 

[TraneWreck]

Except that it's not just an analogy it happens to be central. Some 80% of convicted rapists are black, but it's wrong to inject race into a risk management scenario, but gender is ok?

Yeah, not even close. I can understand why these issues would be so confusing to you when you have such a slanted understanding of the world:

There were 194,270 white and 17,920 black victims of rape or sexual assault reported in 2006. Out of the 194,270 cases involving white victims, 50.6% had white offenders and 16.7% had black offenders, while the 36,620 black victims had a figure of 43% black offenders, the remaining being of other or unreported race, with a negligible number of white offenders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States

So, many more white people are rapists.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Except that it's not just an analogy it happens to be central. Some 80% of convicted rapists are black, but it's wrong to inject race into a risk management scenario, but gender is ok?

Because gender is a much greater actual factor there. If 20% of women were raped by other women, I'd see an analogy, and yes then I'd say they should be careful around both. But outside prison, woman on woman rape is virtually non-existent.

Basically you'd have an analogy with racial profiling if you could point out a crime where actually 99% of the perpetrators are black. And in that case you'd even be justified to be more cautious around blacks.

A woman could rape you. She couldn't get you pregnant...

And the sun could rise in the north-west tomorrow and stay up for 7 days and 4 nights. So what? You're not seriously preparing for that hypothetical possibility, are you?

You can't use a hypothetical "what could theoretically be" to override the real "what actually is."

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I guess I could type "inference fallacy" and "stereotype" one more time but if you didn't get it the first ten times I don't know why you would now.

But actually explaining what the actual inference is and where is the fallacy, could go a longer way than just repeating an unsubstantiated vague accusation.

 

[Augustine]

So many more white people are rapists.

Based on the racial demographics, it would be expected for the sheer number to be greater. However, if you look at the numbers in comparison to the racial composition of the US, a black male is more likely to be a rapist than a white male. Black male rapes are, at a minimum, 16% of rapes of white women and 43% of black women, when comparable racial demographics at the time are around 12%. White males rape white women at a minimum of 50% and black women at a negligible rate, at a time when racial demographics have whites above 60%. So, should a black female have no fear of being raped by a white male, and a white female have more caution around a black male who is statistically (based on demographics) more likely to rape her than the average white male (although she is more likely to be raped by a white male overall)?

 

[bynmdsue]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12.