As I said, I'm getting frustrated with the evasions on this point.
Like this evasion. How is she being antisocial? By not responding positively when strangers chat her up on the subway? How is she "promoting division instead of unity"? You're speaking in vague generalities.
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.
Society generally functions better when people work together and exhibit altruistic behaviour towards one another. 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.
you believe that the probability is so low that it should be disregard. To which I say: (1) easy for you to say
I didn't say disregard, I said things like 'reasonable precaution' and 'behave sensibly'.
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 not easy for me to say. I have a wife and would be mortified if she were raped. As, I imagine, any loving husband would be.I also have a mother, a sister, a niece and many close female friends. I hope none of them are ever raped, or any other women for that matter. I encourage all of them to take reasonable precautions to prevent any situation where they could be assaulted. Living through the rape of a loved one is no doubt much less traumatic than actually being raped, but there are still painful consequences. You refer to me as though I live in a bubble where I'm completely separated from the realities of the world. Despite how you may have pictured me, I don't spend my entire life in front of the computer, eating Cheetos and playing WoW.
You haven't identified any fallacy that the author or I have proposed
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'. 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.
On the other hand, if she is turned towards you, making eye contact...
If not, where's the line? How do we logically determine it? Or is she just asserting her opinion as fact?
