Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

[Furcifer]

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

Rational precautions.

Exactly, it's rational because there is a serious potential for injury.

Some of her examples however aren't as serious. And she acknowledges this, which is fine, but then she goes on to give this 1 in 6 figure.

There's nothing wrong with what she's doing or what she's saying, she just doesn't word it properly. Then her talking about guys with tattoos not approaching anyone, that seems a little odd???

She could have either worded it better, or used less inflammatory language. Without asking her to clarify the article a bit it's hard to say which.

The advice she's giving however is actually pretty good and I would pass it on to anyone young woman or girl I knew but with some corrections. As it is now it's a little too based in fear instead of knowledge.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

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.

Oh, I'm insensitive all right. I'm a bigger flaming a-hole than the winner of a redneck fart-lighting contest, and such an insensitive prick as you can only get otherwise with a novocaine condom

Now that that's out of the way, though, the question that was being discussed was whether it's sexism if a woman is mostly trying to avoid male rapists instead of devoting equal brain time to female rapists. And I think there the exact numbers do matter. If it's, say, 50-50 or even 80-20, then she probably should be wary of other women too. If it's 99% males, then it's ok to focus on those as the possible (if improbable) threat.

It's not just a question of excluding something completely. I don't need female-on-female rapes to be exactly zero to make that point. The real question is how many.

So, really, if you have any actual numbers, it would be very much appreciated. And obviously you know something I don't, and I'm eager to learn and adjust my assessment if appropriate.

Not the least because, speaking of delicate topics, I kinda find it amusing how the possibility (mostly theoretical for most men) that a woman too could conceivably rape a man, becomes some kind of then making more ok the much more real and common opposite scenario. And, really, how little we advanced in that respect in 5000 years. You can look back all the way to the first written stuff ever, and find the rapist goddess Inanna, said to often drag male soldiers off to screw them... in such a deliciously blatant reversal of the less mythical case when an invading army would rape the local women. But obviously it becomes a lot more ok if some mythical goddess does the opposite version of it. Suddenly the guys are just doing too what the opposite gender does too, and then it's ok, right? You'd think we'd have become less silly in 5000 years, but obviously not.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Ah, yes, the return of the same analogy which isn't actually analogous at all.

It's actually a quite appropriate analogy.
So, would telling black people not to approach me on the bus because I'm apprehensive that they might mug me, strike you as racist or not? Would you be offended, or not? "Schroedinger's Mugger: A Person of Color's Guide for Talking to White Americans in Public." Totally reasonable, or not?

 

[bookitty]

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?

[sarcasm]Yeah, it's really horrible when people call a "groping jerk" a rapist. Makes them feel like bad guys or something. We really need to be more careful with language. [/sarcasm]

As I said before, it is possible she used the word rape to cover sexual assault. While that won't satisfy some people (anything less than penetration means the woman got "lucky" this time) it makes sense in context. The context is concern and awareness of danger. Danger in this case is being assaulted by a man in a sexual manner. When you are being aware of potential harm, you don't worry about details, it all falls under a larger umbrella.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I'm a bigger flaming a-hole than the winner of a redneck fart-lighting contest,

Again with the blatant insults to a group you consider less sophisticated. Are these perjorative terms really appropriate?

 

[Furcifer]

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.

This isn't hard to understand, you dismissed the threat of a woman raping her because the probability is low, but you refuse to realize in the authors situation the probability is low. A woman is not going to get raped by a guy on a bus full of people going to work. (late at night, it's a totally different story. If you're alone on a bus with a girl at night, and you start bugging her you deserve to be kicked in the balls. That's just creepy.)

 

[Professor Yaffle]

And sexually assaulting someone is not just "being a jerk".

 

[AvalonXQ]

As I said before, it is possible she used the word rape to cover sexual assault. While that won't satisfy some people (anything less than penetration means the woman got "lucky" this time) it makes sense in context. The context is concern and awareness of danger. Danger in this case is being assaulted by a man in a sexual manner. When you are being aware of potential harm, you don't worry about details, it all falls under a larger umbrella.

Good point. In our article to "educate" people of color on how they make white people feel, we should use "Shroedinger's Killer" instead. No need to worry about details, or the lesser (but much, much more likely) harm.

 

[AvalonXQ]

And sexually assaulting someone is not just "being a jerk".

I think we all have enough experience to know that you can be a jerk in a lot of ways that don't involve sexually assaulting someone.
For example: you could tell men they're out of line wanting to talk to others in public because they're all potential rapists. That would be an example of being a jerk.

 

[bookitty]

The advice she's giving however is actually pretty good and I would pass it on to anyone young woman or girl I knew but with some corrections. As it is now it's a little too based in fear instead of knowledge.

So you would correct an article on how a woman feels, take out anything that you think is too fear based, and then pass it on to young women? When it is an article addressed to men?

Wow.

 

[bookitty]

I think we all have enough experience to know that you can be a jerk in a lot of ways that don't involve sexually assaulting someone.
For example: you could tell men they're out of line wanting to talk to others in public because they're all potential rapists. That would be an example of being a jerk.

She never says that men are out of line for wanting to talk to women. In fact she very clearly lays out ways in which men talking to women can recognize signals that indicate the woman is uncomfortable. Then she provides a basis for empathy so that a man who is rebuffed will have a chance to understand that it is not specifically him but rather the result of caution born of actual threat.

All she says is that you don't get to push the conversation if she indicates that she isn't interested. What is the problem with that?

 

[AvalonXQ]

You know, I'm wondering how some of the different views over these things may not be driven in part by geographic differences in culture.
My culture is based more on small-town conceptions of social relations, where striking up conversations with strangers is considered common courtesy, and ignoring people is considered rude.
In contrast, my understanding of the bigger cities is that approaching strangers is often violating a bit of the social contract by which people keep the illusion of privacy and personal space in otherwise very crowded situations.
Under these circumstances, the act of approaching a strange woman is already taking a presumption, and could be seen ascance. And suspecting someone who's essentially exhibiting discouraged behavior (rather than encouraged as it is where I live) would make a lot more sense.
Maybe I'm reading more into this than I should, but it certainly makes the article less... insulting from my point of view if this is accurate.

 

[Furcifer]

[sarcasm]Yeah, it's really horrible when people call a "groping jerk" a rapist. Makes them feel like bad guys or something. We really need to be more careful with language. [/sarcasm]

Actually yes it is. You've once again managed to marginalize rape victims just like the author. I don't understand why anyone would do this.

 

[AvalonXQ]

She never says that men are out of line for wanting to talk to women. In fact she very clearly lays out ways in which men talking to women can recognize signals that indicate the woman is uncomfortable. Then she provides a basis for empathy so that a man who is rebuffed will have a chance to understand that it is not specifically him but rather the result of caution born of actual threat.

All she says is that you don't get to push the conversation if she indicates that she isn't interested. What is the problem with that?

When you put it that way, it makes sense.
...For goodness sake, why do you always have to be so reasonable anyway?

 

[bookitty]

Actually yes it is. You've once again managed to marginalize rape victims just like the author. I don't understand why anyone would do this.

This gambit is so overplayed.

I am not marginalizing rape victims. Please read the entire post instead of cherry picking.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Actually yes it is. You've once again managed to marginalize rape victims just like the author. I don't understand why anyone would do this.

Because "rape" is a powerful word. Applying the brush as broadly as possible is a potent weapon against one's detractors -- and why care about what it does to cheapen victims?

 

[seewhatflows]

Oh, I'm insensitive all right. I'm a bigger flaming a-hole than the winner of a redneck fart-lighting contest, and such an insensitive prick as you can only get otherwise with a novocaine condom

All winky-face jokes aside, if you're so self aware about how insensitive you are, maybe you should make more of a concerted effort to not be a dick when talking about rape since there's a pretty definite chance that some of the participants and readers of this thread have been victims of sexual abuse. That's really all I was saying. I hope I don't need to impress upon you how awful being a victim of sexual abuse is and the lasting effects it can have on a person. That's all. The only argument I was making is that the hyperbolic way you dismissed the possibility of rape by a woman is potentially extremely hurtful.

Now that that's out of the way, though, the question that was being discussed was whether it's sexism if a woman is mostly trying to avoid male rapists instead of devoting equal brain time to female rapists. And I think there the exact numbers do matter. If it's, say, 50-50 or even 80-20, then she probably should be wary of other women too. If it's 99% males, then it's ok to focus on those as the possible (if improbable) threat.

It's not just a question of excluding something completely. I don't need female-on-female rapes to be exactly zero to make that point. The real question is how many.

So, really, if you have any actual numbers, it would be very much appreciated.

I don't have the numbers on hand. Feel free to look them up. I'd assume that they reflect the fact that men are overwhelmingly more likely to commit a violent crime (especially against a stranger) than women are. Sexism doesn't enter into it until you start trying to explain the numbers with gender-based assumptions.

And obviously you know something I don't, and I'm eager to learn and adjust my assessment if appropriate.

I think all you need to adjust is your attitude. Your risk assessment seems accurate enough.

 

[TraneWreck]

You know, I'm wondering how some of the different views over these things may not be driven in part by geographic differences in culture.
My culture is based more on small-town conceptions of social relations, where striking up conversations with strangers is considered common courtesy, and ignoring people is considered rude.
In contrast, my understanding of the bigger cities is that approaching strangers is often violating a bit of the social contract by which people keep the illusion of privacy and personal space in otherwise very crowded situations.
Under these circumstances, the act of approaching a strange woman is already taking a presumption, and could be seen ascance. And suspecting someone who's essentially exhibiting discouraged behavior (rather than encouraged as it is where I live) would make a lot more sense.
Maybe I'm reading more into this than I should, but it certainly makes the article less... insulting from my point of view if this is accurate.

It's worth talking to women, especially women in cities, about this. If you're not the sort of person that would grope a woman on the subway or follow her from a bus stop to her apartment, it's difficult to imagine someone behaving that way.

I can say that EVERY woman I know has many stories that, at best, make you cringe, and at worst turn your stomach.

For every sexual assault there are countless instances when a woman is left wondering if something terrible is going to happen.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

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?

Actually, let's use the real numbers in a risk assessment.

The baseline of a guy being a rapist is 1/60.

Applying the above modifiers, for a black guy it becomes 1/60 x 16/12 = 1/45. For a white guy it becomes 1/60 x 50/60 = 1/72.

Both are frankly in a range where exercising caution is wise. Both are in a range where you shouldn't automatically trust either as far as you could throw them.

So, no, racism still wouldn't be justified with those numbers. Because automatically giving the other guy more trust is still the wrong assumption.

 

[Furcifer]

So you would correct an article on how a woman feels, take out anything that you think is too fear based, and then pass it on to young women? When it is an article addressed to men?

Wow.

I suppose I could tell my nephew to leave the full name and phone number of the girl he's taking out on a date just in case she rapes and kills him, but it seems useless.

YMMV