Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

[seewhatflows]

You probably actually didn't do that; I just assumed you did because I have a chip on my shoulder about this stuff. I apologize for responding with hostility; you are clearly very aware of the issues surrounding this discussion that make me so emotional.
I should take a deep breath and go read some other threads.

Intent isn't everything and I don't blame you for making that assumption. Mainstream feminism has a long way to go on these issues.

 

[Dunstan]

Quick question: Why is it that any discussion of rape will eventually lead to a discussion of Lorena Bobbitt? If we take the 1 in 6 statistic to be true (and personally I think it's a bit low), rape happens frequently but dicks getting lopped off seems to be a one-time deal. Are guys really so insecure about this microscopic possibility that it trumps empathy? That doesn't seem likely. So what is it?

I think it's the way that some women (and some men, I suppose) treat the Bobbitt thing as utterly hilarious and/or a totally justified if not praiseworthy ("you go, girl!") act. Although it may be incredibly rare, it's still horrific. If there was a news story about a man who sewed his wife's mouth shut, and men kept making jokes about "that's one way to stop her from nagging, amirite?," the fact that it's a rare act doesn't change the fact that it can still be offensive to make light of a horrific act.

Plus, in any discussion about gender issues, people will always ask counterfactuals that flip the genders. (Just as in a discussion about racism, people will ask "what if the races were reversed in this scenario?") But the "woman rapes a man" hypo always seems to lead to tiresome debates about whether that's physically possible, or jokes or dismissive attitudes that it's not the same because hey, men always want sex. So some people are going to reach for a notorious example of a violent sexual assault by a woman on a man as a way of making whatever point it is they have in mind.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Quick question: Why is it that any discussion of rape will eventually lead to a discussion of Lorena Bobbitt?

Because the absolutely terrifying reality of men being sexually abused by women is laughed off as unimportant by so many people. Hence the culture eliminates the ability of a direct comparison.

 

[seewhatflows]

But the "woman rapes a man" hypo always seems to lead to tiresome debates about whether that's physically possible...

Anyone with a bodily orifice can be raped. Penises are not the only things that are capable of penetration. Tiresome debate put to rest.

That is not to say that anal and oral penetration are the only ways one might rape a man, but they're certainly the easiest examples.

 

[TraneWreck]

And despite the constant abuse meted out by members of both sexes on their partners, due to personal evil and dysfunctional relationships, it frustrates me that people still have the blinders on that this is primarily a unidirectional gender problem.

It is not even close. This is not a case of symmetry. The leading cause of death among pregnant women in the United States is murder. Murder is number 2 for young women as a whole:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_pregnant_women

Here's another study that puts murder at #2:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/20316.php

The total numbers of assaults are very misleading. The type of violence is very different, for example:

In recent years, an intimate partner killed approximately 33% of female murder victims and 4% of male murder victims.

Of females killed with a firearm, almost two-thirds were killed by their intimate partners. The number of females shot and killed by their husband or intimate partner was more than three times higher than the total number murdered by male strangers using all weapons combined in single victim/single offender incidents in 2002.

84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female.
Males were 83% of spouse murderers and 75% of dating partner murderers

http://new.abanet.org/domesticviolence/Pages/Statistics.aspx

It's pure silliness to pretend like there's no difference.

The facilitated, codified malice, the power plays, the general terror felt on a daily basis, occurs all over the country in men against women and other men, and in women against men and other women. The most common form of abuse in the U.S. is women against their children. But at least when a man abuses his wife, most people see it as deplorable, while men being abused by their wives are so often thought of as funny. Constant verbal and emotional attacks are acceptable, even expected. Women just can't be rapists or abusers.
This is not a gender relations problem, and couching it as one is sexist and offensive.

The difference is quantitative and it's enormous.

 

[Delvo]

She prefaces the story by saying women live in constant fear and that's why it's perfectly legitimate to treat every man as a potential rapist.

Not every man; it's even weirder than that: only men who show obvious signs of being a rapist such as having tattoos or an odor or an interest in a conversational topic she doesn't share.

 

[Furcifer]

The methods to avoid being raped by a stranger are the same as those used to avoid any kind of attack by a stranger. As it has been noted several times before this, it is much more likely for a woman to be raped by her spouse/significant other, co-worker/boss, teacher, family member, friend or date than by a stranger.

Can you please advise me on avoiding potentially being raped by any of these people without having to dramatically alter my life?

This is specifically the failing of the article, she's talking about calling strangers in public settings potential rapists, not the people she already knows. It's in that sense that some of the fear is misplaced.

And a slight correction, for the most part it isn't what you can do, it's what parents should be doing. A staggering percentage of the victims of sexual assault are minors.

 

[bookitty]

Yes.

I'm sure for women, reading a pamphlet on the dangers of rape and how to prevent them is a 2 year course at a community college

It wasn't condescending, it's a common adjective used to suggest there is plenty of information that is easily made available to anyone interested. It's not the formula for new Coke. (that was condescending)

And I wasn't suggesting it's "simple" to avoid high risk situations either. But that getting the information to help you identify them is.

OK, great. Obviously, you have some deep insight that I was not yet privy to. So I'll avoid all the dark alleys, wear my skirts past my knees, not take car rides from strangers, lock my doors, etc, etc.

So now am I safe from rape? Can I let my guard down?

 

[Dunstan]

I think you're being a bit dishonest here, calling responses 'evasions' when they're clearly not. You asked a question (What is she doing wrong?); I gave an answer (She's being antisocial.) Maybe it's an unsatisfactory answer, but it's not an evasion.

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

Society generally functions better when people work together and exhibit altruistic behaviour towards one another.

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.

Walking around predicating your interactions with every second person you meet with "What could this person do to harm me?" is in opposition to societal benefit. Obviously, it's a sliding scale based on the conditions and environment.
I question whether a good society is one where everyone is continuously thinking "That person could rape me. That person could rape me." Yes, I know that the most efficient way to deal with the problem is to get rid of the rapists. Note that this is being addressed in society, but isn't going to be accomplished by pessimistic speculation on what people could do, only by dealing with what they've actually done, or are likely to do.

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.

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.

Granted, it is much less likely that I, personally, will be raped than any given women, but it's possible. Should men also not talk to me in case I think they're rapists? Is the probability that I will be raped low enough to ignore? How does one objectively determine the acceptability of probability?

It's up to each person to decide what risks they're prepared to run. As to whether men should or shouldn't talk to you, bear in mind that the author was simply giving advice, not issuing orders. 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. If that's not correct, then I suppose one can disregard the advice as not being very applicable, just as I would disregard advice that said "never wear a blue shirt on a date; most women hate blue," because I'm pretty sure the claim is false and that while this particular women hates blue, she's not representative.

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.)

Her words:

You want to say Hi to the cute girl on the subway. How will she react? Fortunately, I can tell you with some certainty, because she’s already sending messages to you. Looking out the window, reading a book, working on a computer, arms folded across chest, body away from you = do not disturb. So, y’know, don’t disturb her. Really. Even to say that you like her hair, shoes, or book. A compliment is not always a reason for women to smile and say thank you. You are a threat, remember? You are Schrödinger’s Rapist.

i) Some men are rapists.
ii) Rapists are threats.
Therefore, all men are threats.

Fallacious. Men are threats simply for wanting to say 'hi' to a girl on the subway? Certainly a man shouldn't be labeled as a 'threat' just for wanting to say 'hi'.

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.

Maybe she's not sending signals, maybe she hasn't even noticed the guy. The women is not obligated to respond in any way whatsoever. She could ignore him, or say a polite "Thanks." and go back to reading, or, if social conventions aren't important to her, say, "Piss off, you maggot." Is the author suggesting we never talk to anyone unless we already have their complete, undivided attention? It certainly sounds that way.

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."

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

If not, where's the line? How do we logically determine it? Or is she just asserting her opinion as fact?

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.

 

[bookitty]

Because the absolutely terrifying reality of men being sexually abused by women is laughed off as unimportant by so many people. Hence the culture eliminates the ability of a direct comparison.

Now that is a buncha horse pucky right there. Sexual assault is horrific. It is not made less so by the gender of the victim. However, sexual abuse of men by women is far less common. Very few men consider rape to be a common threat in their every day lives.

The discussion of attitudes regarding the sexual assault of men is an important topic but it is one with different nuances. It needs a conversation of its own. To divert the focus to male victims in a conversation about how the more common threat of rape changes the way that women interact with people is to demean the threat of rape to women.

 

[Furcifer]

Maybe it was this discussion on rape and maybe it was another one, but somewhere around here in the past few days I pointed out that a man in prison is more likely to be raped than any woman outside of a correctional facility.

Oh then you are wrong and watch too much TV. 4-6% of male prisons have experienced sexual abuse while in custody.

"Rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization in the previous 6 months were highest for female inmates (212 per 1,000), more than four times higher than male rates (43 per 1,000)." - Sexual Violence Inside Prisons: Rates of Victimization

ETA- I cant find the study again but the national average is 2%

 

[Furcifer]

OK, great. Obviously, you have some deep insight that I was not yet privy to. So I'll avoid all the dark alleys, wear my skirts past my knees, not take car rides from strangers, lock my doors, etc, etc.

So now am I safe from rape? Can I let my guard down?

Are you over 35 years of age? Because if you are you can let your guard down. This issue affects young women to a much much greater extent.

 

[bookitty]

Are you over 35 years of age? Because if you are you can let your guard down. This issue affects young women to a much much greater extent.

Nice dodge.

 

[Eric D]

And just a note to the mansplainers, when the conversation is about women's experience of rape and fear of rape, you are not the authority. If you want be helpful or just to gain some insight into these experiences, you just need to shut up and listen.

I didn't just shut up and listen when that girl cried on youtube and falsely accused a man of rape, and I won't just shut up and listen now. It's a subject that involves both men and women. A man has every right to form his own opinion on it, and his opinion just might be helpful and insightful.

 

[seewhatflows]

I didn't just shut up and listen when that girl cried on youtube and falsely accused a man of rape, and I won't just shut up and listen now. It's a subject that involves both men and women. A man has every right to form his own opinion on it, and his opinion just might be helpful and insightful.

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.

 

[bookitty]

I didn't just shut up and listen when that girl cried on youtube and falsely accused a man of rape, and I won't just shut up and listen now. It's a subject that involves both men and women. A man has every right to form his own opinion on it, and his opinion just might be helpful and insightful.

Yes, pity the poor mens.

A discussion about womens fear of rape must include false rape accusations against men, men getting raped by women, and men getting raped in jail. Just like discussion of female genital mutilation must include some crying over a long lost foreskin.

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

 

[TraneWreck]

Now that is a buncha horse pucky right there. Sexual assault is horrific. It is not made less so by the gender of the victim. However, sexual abuse of men by women is far less common. Very few men consider rape to be a common threat in their every day lives.

Yes it is.

Here are some more numbers from the bar association:

Women are more likely to be victims of sexual violence than men: 78% of the victims of rape and sexual assault are women and 22% are men.

Most perpetrators of sexual violence are men. Among acts of sexual violence committed against women since the age of 18, 100% of rapes, 92% of physical assaults, and 97% of stalking acts were perpetrated by men. Sexual violence against men is also mainly male violence: 70% of rapes, 86% of physical assaults, and 65% of stalking acts were perpetrated by men.

In 8 out of 10 rape cases, the victim knows the perpetrator. Of people who report sexual violence, 64% of women and 16% of men were raped, physically assaulted, or stalked by an intimate partner. This includes a current or former spouse, cohabitating partner, boyfriend/girlfriend, or date.

http://new.abanet.org/domesticviolence/Pages/Statistics.aspx

 

[SOdhner]

i) Some men are rapists.
ii) Rapists are threats.
Therefore, all men are threats.

You left out a word. "Potential". All men are potential threats. That's why she used the "Shrodinger's" thing - she was referring to an unknown, a potential state. I think that was pretty clear.

Nice dodge.

No, no - it wasn't a dodge, it was another super-helpful tip: stop being under 35. Duh.

I didn't just shut up and listen when that girl cried on youtube and falsely accused a man of rape, and I won't just shut up and listen now.

You're right. Your anecdotal evidence has shown me the light! Attention women of the world: your opinions and feelings are invalid, please stand by to be assigned a more rational and critical mindset. You're welcome.

 

[bookitty]

No, no - it wasn't a dodge, it was another super-helpful tip: stop being under 35. Duh.

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."

 

[seewhatflows]

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."

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