This is what I ask in the thread title. Maybe not bad but is it really being critical?
[/quote]
Sorry, you'll have to be more specific than that. What is "being critical," and how is the author not doing that?
There's nothing in this article that indicates to me that the author is misinterpreting evidence or using faulty logic. Nobody here denies that women do get raped. The question is one of risk management for women (and of male appreciation of this concern, but we'll get to that in a moment).
Risk management is about assessing not just the likelihood of the potential danger, but the costs and benefits (in terms of reduced risk) of taking preventative action.
What exactly is it that this author does that you object to? You keep throwing around vague phrases like she "treats all men as potential rapists" without explaining what that means. Is she hurting men's feelings by having these "negative" thoughts?
The only actions I can discern that she takes based on her concerns are (1) she's careful about going out at night; (2) she leaves information behind when she goes out on a date; and (3) (this one is implied) she isn't receptive to guys who approach her in a way that shows lack of respect for her privacy and security.
You or I might make different choices, even if we were women. Perhaps I really like the experience of a midnight stroll and am willing to run greater risks than this author. I don't have a problem with someone criticizing someone else's choices as excessively risk-averse. But this is a matter of opinion, not one of fact or critical thinking.
For the author of the article it doesn't matter. Even when she admits the probality of being raped is much lower (being in church and knowing the guy's mother) she operates as if it hasn't changed. Is it unwise? Maybe not, but again; is it really thinking critically? Is it fair?
Not true. Here's what she says about that: "On the other hand, if you are both at church accompanied by your mothers, who are lifelong best friends, the woman is as close as it comes to safe. That is to say, still not 100% safe. But the odds are pretty good."
What exactly is your beef with that statement? That it's "still not 100% safe"? Do you dispute that?
She's aware that the situation affects the risk; indeed, much of her advice to men is "Pay attention to the environment" and recognize when a woman is likely feeling less secure.
Should women acknowledge that men are concerned with being wrongfully accused of rape, and thus be careful of how they approach men?
Women should acknowledge that many men fear false rape accusations. I'm not sure how it should affect their approach to men, because I'm not sure how a woman could reassure a man on that point -- it's more an after-the-fact thing. The only thing I can think of is that a woman should be aware that if she's constantly talking about what jerks her ex-boyfriends were, how they all emotionally abused her and pressured her into things she didn't want to do, etc., that's going to send up red flags for a man, not just for false rape accusations but for a general predilection for drama. And really, that's sound advice for both genders -- people who complain about their exes or start pulling that "all men/women in this town are jerks" routine are not appealing.
Should I treat every woman I meet as a potential threat? After all, she could ruin my life.
Sure, go ahead and "treat" every woman that way. It's your right to manage your risk level. What that means in terms of behavior is up to you. That might mean not having sex with a woman who is drunk or arguably drunk, or getting to know her better and reassessing her personality before you take any such risks, etc.
Not every woman has an STD, but it's sensible to take precautions.
Claiming that women have to 'worry about these' things is a trumped up charge.
Statements like that make it really hard not to question your attitudes towards rape. In what way is it a "trumped up charge"? Women do get raped. It is a very traumatic experience, not to mention physically dangerous. Why
wouldn't they worry about it?
Yes, in some situations women need to be cautious, but she seems to be advocating a heightened level of caution as a norm and then letting it down when the conditions are especially safe.
Adjusting your precautions to the riskiness of the situation seems rather sensible to me.
But you don't always assume that everyone else on the road is drunk until they've demonstrated that they're not.
I assume every other driver is potentially a dangerous idiot -- drunk, distracted by cell phones, or just plain incompetent.
She establishes in the first paragraph that she assumes her male audience is respectable and well-mannered, then proceeds to give advice on how they should be more respectable and well-mannered because there are guys out there who are depraved megalomaniac perverts. So, essentially, "I know you're nice and all, but I'm still thinking of you as a sexual predator." It strikes me as a horrible way to approach interacting with the opposite sex.
Well, first of all, that intro is a little bit of buttering up the reader and attempting to soothe the indignant "but I'm not a rapist! I'm a nice guy!" reaction. I doubt she really assumes that everyone reading it is in fact a nice guy. The whole point of the article is that, while there are clues (guys with rape jokes on their T-shirts), a woman
can't tell with certainty who is a rapist and who isn't, so (1) women have to take that into account; and (2) men -- even nice guys who would never rape -- ought to consider this perspective and think of how they come across.
Because this is an issue that is so one sided, (ie. Rapists are always wrong, no matter what the situation.) I think criticisms of women speaking on the issue are often very timid. When it comes down to it, the author is promoting discrimination against 99% of men for the actions of the other 1%. If you inserted another demographic in to the argument, it would instantly be recognized as fallacious and unacceptable.
'Discrimination" isn't a magic word that wins you the argument. I'll ask it again:
WHAT, EXACTLY, IS THIS WOMAN DOING THAT IS HARMFUL TO ANYONE?
Is it that she isn't interested in dating strange men who totally miss or ignore her "leave me alone, please" cues? Is that the grave harm to society that we're talking about here?
Of course, the author is entitled to think and live however she likes, but her justification should be open to criticism no matter what the issue. In this case it's severely lacking.
I'm not saying women shouldn't take precautions to protect themselves. I think there's a better way to do it then to encourage women to stereotype all men as potential rapists.
Who said it's not "open to criticism"? Knock yourself out. But your criticism is open to criticism, too. And when your criticism appears to treat rape as "well, sure, it's a problem, but c'mon," while treating "stereotyping men as potential rapists" as some terrible harm even though you've never articulated the negative consequences of it, you're going to receive some criticism.
TBH, I really don't get exactly what rubs people the wrong way about the article. She never said she'll actually accuse you of being a rapist until you actually try, did she? She never said she'll mace you on sight, did she?
Yeah, I've been trying to find this out, too, but nobody seems to have an answer. Apparently just the possibility that she's having negative thoughts about you is a bad thing, but ironically, she's the one being accused of lacking critical thinking.
But, really, risk management doesn't mean someone is personally accusing you of anything. It just means being aware what _could_ go wrong, and mitigating for it. It's preparing for the worst case scenario.
E.g., when I'm validating inputs on a web page, it doesn't mean I'm accusing _you_ personally of being an evil hacker. But I am nevertheless making my code able to withstand the case if you were. It's just basic precaution, not something personal. Hope for the best but prepare for the worst, and all that.
Ditto for the cases here. Being wary of being approached by a stranger in a dark alley doesn't mean you're actually accusing him of being an actual rapist or mugger or whatever. But you'd be wise to consider the possibility anyway, and try to minimize the risk.
Really, nobody is accusing you of being an actual rapist. Relax already.
Exactly.
), so being more worried about men isn't sexism, it's just realism.
