Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

[SatanicSheep]

A female friend sent me this and I'm a little unsure of how I feel about it.

http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/g...pproaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/

I think this is bigotry, prejudicial and uncritical, but I'm not sure I have a problem with it...

Is this a good example of weighing social incentives? If a guy is so socially awkward/unaware is it acceptable to treat him as a potential rapist?

Or is this borderline CTer delusion and dishonest use of a statistic? Populating the world with shadow agent boogeyman where every man is a possible rapist, every Arab is a terrorist and every homosexual is a disease vector?

 

[Ryokan]

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. When I go on a date, I always leave the man’s full name and contact information written next to my computer monitor. This is so the cops can find my body if I go missing. My best friend will call or e-mail me the next morning, and I must answer that call or e-mail before noon-ish, or she begins to worry. If she doesn’t hear from me by three or so, she’ll call the police. My activities after dark are curtailed. Unless I am in a densely-occupied, well-lit space, I won’t go out alone. Even then, I prefer to have a friend or two, or my dogs, with me.

Paranoia? None of the women I know have never even hinted that this is how they feel.

 

[ravdin]

If a guy is so socially awkward/unaware is it acceptable to treat him as a potential rapist?

Yes. If you don't want to creep women out, then don't act creepy.

I was prepared for a man-bashing manifesto when I clicked the link. But the author's precautions seem very sensible to me. Unfortunately, there really are a lot of bad people in the world. Not all of them are men by the way- so if you're a man meeting strange women you ought to be careful as well.

 

[SatanicSheep]

Well yeah, but it's not simply acting creepy as some people will be creeped out by anything. Having a penis is creepy enough for some (as is wearing a turban etc. etc.)

I didn't think the article was bad either. It just makes me wonder when and where we should draw lines between reliable demograpics and worthless ecological fallacy.

 

[Dunstan]

I'm not seeing the "bigotry" or uncritical thinking you allude to in your OP. (I'm not sure about that "1 in 6" statistic, though.)

I suspect the author is a little more (for lack of a better term) cautious than the average woman, but not off the deep end or anything.

I'm a guy, but I have a similar though process when I'm approached by a stranger. Fortunately I don't really have to worry about sexual assault, but I do ask myself whether this person is going to be something less serious like an annoying sales person, an aggressive beggar, a bully spoiling for a fight, or something innocuous like a tourist asking for directions or someone I've met and forgotten.

 

[kerikiwi]

The 1 in 6 women being sexually assaulted is very suspect.
Paranoia.
I wonder how she copes with motor transport and ham sandwiches.

 

[GreNME]

I think this is bigotry, prejudicial and uncritical, but I'm not sure I have a problem with it...

Is this a good example of weighing social incentives? If a guy is so socially awkward/unaware is it acceptable to treat him as a potential rapist?

Or is this borderline CTer delusion and dishonest use of a statistic? Populating the world with shadow agent boogeyman where every man is a possible rapist, every Arab is a terrorist and every homosexual is a disease vector?

Welcome to the world of Male Privilege. I see nothing bigoted or prejudicial about it. Here are some facts about date rape:

• 1 in 4 college women have either been raped or suffered attempted rape.
• 84% of the women who are raped knew their assailants.
• 57% of the rapes occurred on a date.
• Women ages 16-24 have 4 times higher risk of being raped than any other population group.
• 1 in 12 male students surveyed had committed acts that met the legal definition of rape.
• 16% of male students who had committed rape took part in episodes with more than one attacker's gang rape.
• 75% of male students and 55% of female students involved in date rape had been drunk or using drugs.
• 33% of males surveyed said that they would commit rape if they could escape detection.
• 25% of men surveyed believed that rape was acceptable if: the woman asks the man out; or the man pays for the date; or the woman goes back to the man's room after the date.

Citations are in the link.

So, do you really think that women are being paranoid? I don't, and instead am astonished at how much men are still able to get away with regarding sexual aggressiveness.

 

[Loss Leader]

I don't think her essay shows a lack of critical thinking skills. She seems to be very deliberate in her thinking - weighing danger against opportunity.

If she makes a mistake, it's that the algorhithm she's using is incorrect. She wildly overestimates the danger of being raped by a stranger. It's actually pretty low compared to "date" or "acquaintance" rape. The guy who tries to talk to her on the subway is far, far less of a threat than Jerry from accounting at the Christmas party.

She also suffers from living in New York. The forced physical closeness in that city makes everyone paranoid.

In need of a calming weekend at an upstate spa? Yes. Illogical? No.

 

[John Jones]

1 in 4 college women have either been raped or suffered attempted rape.

Suspicious.

 

[GreNME]

Suspicious.

Well, I'm convinced.

Here are broader statistics. The likelihood for college women is higher, and considering the greater amount of risky behavior college students engage in. So, what's the basis for your incredulity?

 

[SatanicSheep]

I only wonder if it's bigoted or uncritical becuase of the possibility of ecologically fallacious stereotyping. Saying that because X percentage of a group does something that 100% of that group is suspect and should be treated as such.

I'm sure statistics could be dug up to paint a picture that black people are more prone to criminality than whites (which I don't believe, but an easy distortion could be made.) and therefore deserve to be treated with greater apprehension. Is there anyone who would not consider that prejudice?

 

[Loss Leader]

Well, I'm convinced.

Here are broader statistics. The likelihood for college women is higher, and considering the greater amount of risky behavior college students engage in. So, what's the basis for your incredulity?

The basis of *my* incredulity is the definition of attempted sexual assault. There's a great deal of difference between: 1) having a guy press his penis against you and only escaping because you dig your thumb into his eye; and 2) having a guy you're not into lean in for a kiss and you turning your head and him leaving.

I'm worried that the instruments used to develop some of these statistics are not measuring the correct thing. The question, 'Have you ever been subject to an unwanted sexual advance?" does not seem well-designed.

I'd like for all of the stats about sexual assault to start with a consistent definition of terms at the very least.

This is not to say that sexual assaults against women are not a real and persistent problem or that they are undeserving of public attention. All women have the right to feel and be physically safe at all times.*


*I would still lean in on Natalie Portman. She can turn her head and I'll leave, but dammit I'm gonna try.

 

[GreNME]

The basis of *my* incredulity is the definition of attempted sexual assault. There's a great deal of difference between: 1) having a guy press his penis against you and only escaping because you dig your thumb into his eye; and 2) having a guy you're not into lean in for a kiss and you turning your head and him leaving.

I think the majority of what would be considered "attempted" rape falls closer to the former than the latter in breakdowns I've seen describing the classification. I still don't see the reason for the incredulity, as if the default assumption is "does not happen" when over and over it's demonstrably happening quite often.

 

[Furcifer]

A female friend sent me this and I'm a little unsure of how I feel about it.

http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/g...pproaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/

I think this is bigotry, prejudicial and uncritical, but I'm not sure I have a problem with it...

Is this a good example of weighing social incentives? If a guy is so socially awkward/unaware is it acceptable to treat him as a potential rapist?

Or is this borderline CTer delusion and dishonest use of a statistic? Populating the world with shadow agent boogeyman where every man is a possible rapist, every Arab is a terrorist and every homosexual is a disease vector?

It seems a little inconsistent with what I've experienced in dating and then leans a little heavily on interpreting behaviour as "creepy". Some women enjoy the pursuit and some women like tattoos (although none seem to be impressed with Buffalo Breath)

I don't think most women feel the same way and certainly don't default to "he's a potential rapist if he deviates from my idea of how things should proceed".

If it works for her then it works for her. My guess is that it has a much higher probability of leading to missed opportunities in relationships than preventing a possible rape.

It seemed like a rational argument, but I had the feeling it bordered on paranoia as well. She seemed to be speaking about her own particular experience that wasn't necessarily par for the course. In that case prevention could easily be mistaken for paranoia.

It's a sad commentary on society when that type of thinking could be considered prevention though. It's not fair.

 

[Dunstan]

I only wonder if it's bigoted or uncritical becuase of the possibility of ecologically fallacious stereotyping. Saying that because X percentage of a group does something that 100% of that group is suspect and should be treated as such.

Premise 1: Some men are rapists.
Premise 2: It is impossible to tell from looking at a man with certainty whether or not he is a rapist.
Premise 3: X is a man.
Conclusion: X could be a rapist.

Where's the fallacy?

It seems to me that you're committing the fallacy, by insisting that women should ignore the possibility that a particular man is a rapist because you find it offensive.

I'm sure statistics could be dug up to paint a picture that black people are more prone to criminality than whites (which I don't believe, but an easy distortion could be made.) and therefore deserve to be treated with greater apprehension. Is there anyone who would not consider that prejudice?

If people were accurately assessing the hypothetical differences in crime rates, after adjusting for the locality, the age, dress, mannerisms, and other available evidence other than skin color, and this hypothetical difference was truly significant enough to justify acting differently, and wasn't being used to violate civil rights laws, then I'd have no problem with it. I consider that highly unlikely.

 

[Madalch]

I'll add my voice to those saying the article seems reasonable.

Although I, too, think the phrase "unwanted sexual advance" leaves a lot of grey area.

 

[Loss Leader]

So, everybody's agreed then? Me trying to kiss Natalie Portman after, say, a very friendly lunch and a lingering handshake at the car, is perfectly acceptable?

 

[GreNME]

So, everybody's agreed then? Me trying to kiss Natalie Portman after, say, a very friendly lunch and a lingering handshake at the car, is perfectly acceptable?

Unless she jams a thumb in your eye and runs away, I say go for it.

 

[SatanicSheep]

Premise 1: Some men are rapists.
Premise 2: It is impossible to tell from looking at a man with certainty whether or not he is a rapist.
Premise 3: X is a man.
Conclusion: X could be a rapist.

Where's the fallacy?

It seems to me that you're committing the fallacy, by insisting that women should ignore the possibility that a particular man is a rapist because you find it offensive.

I'm not really insistant or offended by anything here. I wanted opinions on if this was an inference fallacy, because her conclusion and actions are a little more strongly worded than "X could be a rapist" and if this was logical. You seem to be of the opinion that there's a reasonable way to profile people and that this is an example of that.

I was curious if people considered this a logical or illogical inference. There's really no reason to "welcome me" to the world of male privelege or assume that I think this woman is paranoid/over reacting for prejudging individuals.

 

[johnny karate]

So, everybody's agreed then? Me trying to kiss Natalie Portman after, say, a very friendly lunch and a lingering handshake at the car, is perfectly acceptable?

Not to me it isn't.

I saw her first.