Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

[seewhatflows]

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."

I'm sorry, but this is not okay. Women rape other women all the time, not in the droves that men rape people, but enough so that comparing it to the sun staying up for seven days is total victim erasure.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

So basically assuming that the author is a white woman, we have a multiplier of 16/12 for black males vs 50/60 for white males, or 1.33 for black males vs 0.83 for white males. Basically taking a baseline probability of someone being a rapist, you can give it a 33% extra chance for a black guy, vs subtract a 17% chance for a white guy. I'm sorry, but that's basically still in the range where you'd be well advised to be cautious of both.

And it's hardly the 80-20 split that SatanicSheep was implying.

And, either way, it's still not exactly an analogy for male vs females perpetrators when raping a woman.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I'm sorry, but this is not okay. Women rape other women all the time, not in the droves that men rape people, but enough so that comparing it to the sun staying up for seven days is total victim erasure.

Ok, then you give me the number for how many women were raped by other women outside of jail, and then we can scratch our heads and compare numbers and see if a woman should exercise great caution around other women too. I mean, it would be a shame if the author were missing a real threat, right?

 

[seewhatflows]

Ok, then you give me the number for how many women were raped by other women outside of jail, and then we can scratch our heads and compare numbers and see if a woman should exercise great caution around other women too. I mean, it would be a shame if the author were missing a real threat, right?

That's not what I'm saying. I called you out for being insensitive, not statistically inaccurate. You have to remember that we're talking about sexual abuse here, which, at least where I come from, is kind of a delicate topic.

 

[TraneWreck]

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)?

First, obviously the results are due to the population disparity. Notice the gentleperson I replied to claimed 80% of all rapists are black. I provided evidence to reject that absurd claim.

Second, we continue to slide farther away from the premise of the article in the OP. The author didn't say she was afraid of all men because 1 in 60 was a rapist. She said that in situations where she feels vulnerable, she will often not engage in conversation with strange men because of a continuum of annoyance that could potentially lead to sexual assault.

I would recommend that people re-read the article. Starting with attempting to strike up conversation despite the woman's clear indication that she's not interested, through following her off a bus, to creepy, e-mails, she is talking about how men move from strangers towards people that she is more and more afraid of.

This strawman, that somehow she's walking around in terror of all men, is really a poor interpretation of her point. She's saying that when she's in vulnerable settings, strange men begin with a 1 in 60 chance of being a sexual assailant. This leads her to behave cautiously. As men disresepect her decision to not engage socially, they move up the scale, first towards more annoying, then towards more terrifying.

I still cannot understand why people object to this. All she's asking is to not be harrassed.

 

[Sun Countess]

Yeah

Okay, does it make you feel better now that I am just as concerned about being raped by an unknown woman as by an unknown man? Do you sleep better at night now, knowing that I'm not being prejudicial in my thought processes that have no actual impact on my interactions with over 99% of the people that I meet?

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

She probably won't also give me an STI. And given that I'm an average-sized woman, she's probably a lot closer to my size than most men are, so I have a better chance of fighting her off.

But yeah, I'll just continue to have an irrational fear that bigger, stronger men are more likely than women to rape me, and to think that the consequences of pregnancy and STIs are equally matched when it comes to men, women, and the elderly. (I don't fear elderly people on the bus either....is that being prejudiced? Or is that just being aware of where I have a physical edge?)

 

[seewhatflows]

First, obviously the results are due to the population disparity. Notice the gentleperson I replied to claimed 80% of all rapists are black. I provided evidence to reject that absurd claim.

Second, we continue to slide farther away from the premise of the article in the OP. The author didn't say she was afraid of all men because 1 in 60 was a rapist. She said that in situations where she feels vulnerable, she will often not engage in conversation with strange men because of a continuum of annoyance that could potentially lead to sexual assault.

I would recommend that people re-read the article. Starting with attempting to strike up conversation despite the woman's clear indication that she's not interested, through following her off a bus, to creepy, e-mails, she is talking about how men move from strangers towards people that she is more and more afraid of.

This strawman, that somehow she's walking around in terror of all men, is really a poor interpretation of her point. She's saying that when she's in vulnerable settings, strange men begin with a 1 in 60 chance of being a sexual assailant. This leads her to behave cautiously. As men disresepect her decision to not engage socially, they move up the scale, first towards more annoying, then towards more terrifying.

I still cannot understand why people object to this. All she's asking is to not be harrassed.

well said.

 

[Augustine]

So basically assuming that the author is a white woman, we have a multiplier of 16/12 for black males vs 50/60 for white males, or 1.33 for black males vs 0.83 for white males. Basically taking a baseline probability of someone being a rapist, you can give it a 33% extra chance for a black guy, vs subtract a 17% chance for a white guy. I'm sorry, but that's basically still in the range where you'd be well advised to be cautious of both.

And it's hardly the 80-20 split that SatanicSheep was implying.

And, either way, it's still not exactly an analogy for male vs females perpetrators when raping a woman.

Ok, say the odds any man is a rapist is 50%. The odds of any black male being a rapist for a white woman is 66.7%, and the odds of any individual white male being a rapist for a white woman is 41.7%. (In truth, the odds may actually be more divergent if we were to account for intimate partner violence and the number of interracial relationships, but whatever...) Now, regardless of whether, she would be "well advised to be cautious of both", would you agree if she said she was more cautious around black men? Wouldn't she be justified in doing so by the logic so far?

 

[Augustine]

First, obviously the results are due to the population disparity. Notice the gentleperson I replied to claimed 80% of all rapists are black. I provided evidence to reject that absurd claim.

Second, we continue to slide farther away from the premise of the article in the OP. The author didn't say she was afraid of all men because 1 in 60 was a rapist. She said that in situations where she feels vulnerable, she will often not engage in conversation with strange men because of a continuum of annoyance that could potentially lead to sexual assault.

I would recommend that people re-read the article. Starting with attempting to strike up conversation despite the woman's clear indication that she's not interested, through following her off a bus, to creepy, e-mails, she is talking about how men move from strangers towards people that she is more and more afraid of.

This strawman, that somehow she's walking around in terror of all men, is really a poor interpretation of her point. She's saying that when she's in vulnerable settings, strange men begin with a 1 in 60 chance of being a sexual assailant. This leads her to behave cautiously. As men disresepect her decision to not engage socially, they move up the scale, first towards more annoying, then towards more terrifying.

I still cannot understand why people object to this. All she's asking is to not be harrassed.

Why do you think I object to the original article or her behavior? I do not. I am merely asking if the odds that all strange men start with may also be broken down into odds for strange men of different ethnicities. Obviously it can be broken down into different odds based on body modification practices.

 

[TraneWreck]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for quote of modded post.

People craving an actual example of irrational fear, here it is.

I notice that those television programs have very few videos of the cave-dwellers harming people in Omaha or Seattle.

4 million women will be abused this year. THroughout the 90's about 1500 women were murdered each year by their male domestic partners. That a 9-11 every other year.

 

[Furcifer]

Ok, then you give me the number for how many women were raped by other women outside of jail, and then we can scratch our heads and compare numbers and see if a woman should exercise great caution around other women too. I mean, it would be a shame if the author were missing a real threat, right?

Still ignoring the fact that 80% of rape victims are under the age of 30, and that:

"Contrary to widespread belief, rape outdoors is rare." - 3.6%

The authors threat assessment is nonsense. Some random guy on the bus isn't going to rape her. It just doesn't happen.

Her worry about a date, and the measures she takes to prevent that, and assuming the guy she is going out with is a "potential rapist", totally warranted. There's no where near the 1 in 6 chance, or the 1 in 60 chance she claims, but it is warranted.

 

[bookitty]

Still ignoring the fact that 80% of rape victims are under the age of 30, and that:

"Contrary to widespread belief, rape outdoors is rare." - 3.6%

The authors threat assessment is nonsense. Some random guy on the bus isn't going to rape her. It just doesn't happen.

Ok, great no rape. Whew! (Although rare doesn't equal none but we'll let that slide.) But what about groping, pawing or pressing up against her? Is that a possibility?

 

[Furcifer]

4 million women will be abused this year. THroughout the 90's about 1500 women were murdered each year by their male domestic partners. That a 9-11 every other year.

And 34000 people die each year in vehicle accidents.

Why is she on the bus full of rapists?

 

[bookitty]

I still cannot understand why people object to this. All she's asking is to not be harrassed.

I find it odd that this paragraph has been ignored:
So if you speak to a woman who is otherwise occupied, you’re sending a subtle message. It is that your desire to interact trumps her right to be left alone. If you pursue a conversation when she’s tried to cut it off, you send a message. It is that your desire to speak trumps her right to be left alone. And each of those messages indicates that you believe your desires are a legitimate reason to override her rights.

It is a concrete reason for women to react negatively to a stranger's advances. Yet there has been more focus on the practicality of a woman's concern.

 

[TraneWreck]

Why do you think I object to the original article or her behavior? I do not. I am merely asking if the odds that all strange men start with may also be broken down into odds for strange men of different ethnicities. Obviously it can be broken down into different odds based on body modification practices.

Yeah, sorry, didn't mean to direct that at just you.

You could certainly break down the odds, but my point was simply that there was more to her argument than just a cold calculation of statistics. There's a line of argumentation popping up that the rational/irrational nature of the OP article can be reduced, and I would say that leaves out quite a bit of what she actually wrote.

 

[TraneWreck]

And 34000 people die each year in vehicle accidents.

Why is she on the bus full of rapists?

And thus it's a good idea to not drink and drive and wear seatbelts.

Rational precautions.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Yes, more "minor" sexual assault is much more common and more likely to be perpetrated by a stranger. Plus there is not much you can do to avoid rape by a boyfriend etc unless you are never alone with them, which is a very drastic step to take.

 

[bookitty]

Yes, more "minor" sexual assault is much more common and more likely to be perpetrated by a stranger. Plus there is not much you can do to avoid rape by a boyfriend etc unless you are never alone with them, which is a very drastic step to take.

Admittedly, this could have been specifically addressed in the article. I can only surmise that the feeling of violation counts as rape, although people tend to take it less seriously. Perhaps the author was trying to keep it succinct and avoided degrees of sexual assault lumping it all under "rape."

 

[Furcifer]

Ok, great no rape. Whew! (Although rare doesn't equal none but we'll let that slide.) But what about groping, pawing or pressing up against her? Is that a possibility?

It certainly is.

But she said she's avoiding "rapists" not "groping jerks". That's where there seems to be some issue.

Like I said, if the article was "Schrodinger's Jerk" everyone, including almost every single man would have applauded her. There would be no issue, just some heading nodding in agreement.

Instead it's about calling everyone a potential rapist. It's deliberately inflammatory. Some people are going to take exception to it.

I honestly don't think the author is as irrational as she appears. Most of her reasoning is sound. Some of it however is simply wrong.

Is she allowed to think that? Of course, you can't make someone think something, especially because it most likely does help prevent rape. But it doesn't prevent her from being rape by a guy on the bus. If anything it might make her the target of some sicko she pissed off. I doubt she would be as blunt with someone as to say "I don't want to talk to you because you're possibly a rapist", but who knows what someone else might do?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Still ignoring the fact that 80% of rape victims are under the age of 30, and that:

Given that that wasn't a factor at all in what I was talking about in the part you quoted... another strawman? Or just a red herring?

Yes, I also didn't factor in the precession of Mercury's orbit, the height of the Great Pyramid, the Mayan date, or the NASDAQ stock index for this year Because they aren't even vaguely relevant there.

"Contrary to widespread belief, rape outdoors is rare." - 3.6%

1. Still irrelevant to what you actually answer to.

2. Non-zero, so it still doesn't support a claim that she should ignore the threat. I mean, basically now from a 1 in 6 lifetime chance to be sexually assaulted, whop-de-do, it's only 1 in 180 lifetime chance to be sexually assaulted outdoors. I hope I can be excused if I still have some understanding for someone who chooses to exercise caution.

3. Again you're committing the fallacy of dismissing a defense as unnecessary, based on a number that includes the effects of that defense. Rape outdoors is less prevalent precisely _because_ women choose to minimize the time in vulnerable situations. If you had more women perfectly ok with striking conversations in dark alleys, you'd also have more women raped or mugged in dark alleys.

Basically it's like saying that no US tank was destroyed in the Gulf War, so the USA should stop spending so much on armour. I mean, what do they even need armour for anyway? It's not like there's something threatening them, if none were destroyed, right?

The authors threat assessment is nonsense. Some random guy on the bus isn't going to rape her. It just doesn't happen.

Actually even your numbers say that it does. Maybe not as often, but it does happen.

Plus, really exactly what is the problem anyway? If she doesn't want to talk to you on a bus, she's perfectly entitled to, regardless of why. _I_ wouldn't want to talk to you on a bus most of the time, even though I probably wouldn't particularly fear rape. (Using "you" in the sense of a random complete stranger who insists on disrupting my reading a book, playing with the PSP or listening to music.)

Her worry about a date, and the measures she takes to prevent that, and assuming the guy she is going out with is a "potential rapist", totally warranted. There's no where near the 1 in 6 chance, or the 1 in 60 chance she claims, but it is warranted.

Well, at least that's a good start.