• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

Eric D said:
I don't have to just "shut up and listen" especially if she's being irrational.

Hypothetical situation, if a woman wants to lock herself away in her house for the rest of her life because a traumatic experience is making her afraid to function normally, that means I should just shut up and listen to whatever she has to say because I didn't experience the same thing?
Click to expand...

And this happens to what degree? Oh that's right, hardly ever. So where is the actual, non-hypothetical irrationality?
 
As an aside: The number of men in this thread who have been supportive and empathetic outnumber those who respond dismissively or defensively. This has been noticed and appreciated.
 
bookitty said:
If you want to pretend that you are serious, you might want to back up that silliness with something factual. If you're going to go way out on the "more college-age women get raped" limb, you've still got some explaining to do. There's a whole lot of room between college-age and 35.
Click to expand...

Why don't you try reading the thread first? The statistics were already given.

That's why the article and the authors reasoning are being questioned. The examples she gives aren't anywhere near 1 in 6. Even if she wasn't 35.

There is almost no chance of her being approached on the bus by a stranger and being raped, yet she cites a 1 in 60 chance. The actual chance is closer to 1 in a million, possibly even more given her age.

Now the chance of her being approached by a douche bag? Much higher.

Forgive me if I feel twisting a statistic to legitimize implying men are all potential rapists is a bit over the top.
 
pitbone said:
There's a big difference between being primarily altruistic, yet cautious and seeing every stranger as a threat. Hopefully, as we grow up, we gain more psychological tools to distinguish between good and bad strangers. The author seems to be advocating a very child-like way of social interaction.
Click to expand...

I don't see it that way at all. The author mentions all sorts of criteria she uses to assess the danger level: where are we, is it light or dark, who else is around, how is this man dressed, what is his demeanor. And she adjusts her level of caution accordingly. Much of the article is pointing out to men how these variables affect women's attitudes, fears, and receptiveness to being approached.

When judging the validity of an argument, it doesn't need to have consequences, it just needs to be valid.
Click to expand...

If you were only assessing the validity of the argument, that would be true. But you were also making consequence-based arguments, claiming that her attitude is bad because it is antisocial. "Antisocial" is not a logical flaw in an argument, it's an assessment of consequence. So I think you're moving the goalposts here, unless you'd like to state that you're not claiming any negative consequences.

The same mind frame applied to an ethnic group would be called racial profiling. Judging the likelihood of an individual's actions based on the actions of a minority, some of whom belong to the same group as the individual. I'm not aware of any phrase which describes it for this situation.
Click to expand...

I've dealt with the racial analogies repeatedly in this thread. I don't find it a persuasive argument, mainly because it seems to rely on just citing the magic words "racism" and "discrimination" without giving thought to why we consider racial discrimination a bad thing, and whether or not those same considerations apply here.

Should sex-separated bathrooms be banned? If your answer is "no," then does it follow that you support racially segregated bathrooms? I assume not.

It's not just implicit, she actually says it:


​
This is another fallacious remark. She is explicitly claiming that her prevalent fear of violent assault is shared by all women. I don't know what it's called, but she's doing the opposite of a subjectivist fallacy - claiming her subjective truth is an objective reality.
Click to expand...

Fine, it's explicit. I wouldn't call it a fallacy; at most it's a claim. And if you want to insist that the author is claiming that every woman on the planet thinks the way that she does, then I will agree with you that it would be an inaccurate claim. But I think interpreting remarks that literally is taking things a little too far. When you write about rape or dating advice or any other gender-related topic, you either end up making some generalizations along the way, or making your article unreadable because you're constantly inserting disclaimers like "most" and "many" and "of course, this may not apply to you."

This is why I went on the statistics rant at the beginning. Clearly, she feels that the male concern of rape is below the threshold of worry. The statistics show that most women don't get raped by people they don't know. So on a day to day basis, it seems a bit unreasonable to constantly worry about it. When there's a potentially dangerous situation, increased concern is advisable. Is it still advisable to have an increased concern on a normal day to day basis?
Click to expand...

"Increased" from what? From what you think is appropriate? Well, yes, for you that would be inadvisable. I'm not quite getting what your point is here. We all decide what precautions we feel are reasonable for ourselves, and there are subjective factors that affect that. This woman seems quite familiar with the relevant data, so it's not an issue of her being uninformed or ignorant.

But wouldn't the girl on the subway still have to be using the same faulty reasoning to justify her perception that he's a threat?
Click to expand...

I think we're back to semantics, because you seem to be interpreting "is a threat" with "is a rapist." A "threat" is something that has potential to harm you. From her point of view, every man has that potential. Every dog I see on the street is a threat to bite me. The vast majority are probably well-trained, well-behaved dogs, but while there may be clues, I can't tell for certain which. I personally might choose to stop and pet some of them (with their owner's permission), but someone else -- either because he doesn't like dogs as much as me, or considers a dog bite a more serious harm than I do -- might choose to give every dog a wide berth because they're all threats to bite, and I can't say that's faulty reasoning.

I don't actually think she meant to say that, but with all the restrictions put forward, I find myself having a hard time finding an alternative.

I don't disagree with most of the points you've quoted there - they are indicative of a person processing common sense. "Learn to understand and respect women's communication to you" is tenuous. Does this count implicit physical gesturing? The "she was asking for it" defense men give for rape is often based on implicit physical gesturing. Obviously we don't accept that as valid, so how can we assign value to implicit physical gesturing such as arms crossed = bad or facing you = good?
Click to expand...

I don't get your point here. Some guys (claim to) misinterpret body language, and try to claim it as justification for rape, so therefore trying to interpret body language to decide whether and how to start a conversation with a woman is bad? That seems to be throwing an entire nursery of babies out with the bathwater. I'm sure you don't mean that, so I'll wait for you to clarify.

She implies that men are supposed to evaluate themselves from the subjective perception of the woman and act appropriately.
Click to expand...

And what's wrong with that? That's what considerate people in a society do. Those who don't are regarded as inconsiderate.

The whole point of the article is giving advice to men on how women [many, most, those who think like the author, choose your own qualifier] perceive the approaches of strange men. Someone who doesn't care about the subjective impressions of women, or thinks he doesn't need any advice on that point, shouldn't have bothered reading the article in the first place. Someone who thinks that this woman speaks only for a paranoid fringe of unreasonable women is free to disregard the advice on the sensible grounds that you don't have a duty to avoid hurting the feelings of unreasonably paranoid people.

I think I got carried away with my own rhetoric here. It seems to me like she's implying that all women have some universal acceptable-mate-identification heuristic which determines who should approach them and when it's appropriate and that men need to also learn this heuristic so we don't frighten them.
Click to expand...

If you replace "all" and "universal" with "many" and "general tendencies regarding" then I think that's probably accurate. She's making some claims about how women generally perceive and react in particular situations, and asking that men avoid putting women in fear.

Perhaps the generalizations bother you a lot more than they do me. Again, I defy you to write any article on this or a related subject that doesn't employ either the occasional express or implied generalization, or bogs down in disclaimers, turning a simple piece of advice like:

"men, if you've just come from the gym, please take a shower before going on a date"

into "men, if you've just come from the gym, you should probably take a shower before going on a date, because many women do not appreciate the smell of stale sweat. Of course, some women do, in which case you should make sure to cultivate your stench. And perhaps you are one of the rare men who doesn't smell after a workout, in which case this advice is inapplicable to you. Oh, and if you're gay, substitute 'man' for each instance of 'woman' in the preceding sentences."

(I'm not saying that's what you're demanding, merely illustrating a point.)
 
Last edited:
dirtywick said:
Which is why the whole thing is kind of useless. If this article were rewritten minimally and instead of potential rapist was potential douchebag and put in Maxim magazine I'd wager it'd be skimmed through and forgotten. Of course it's not because being made aware that women you approach may think you've got some rape about you is somewhat unsettling.
Click to expand...

Except that's not what it says. She doesn't say that every guy actually has "got some rape about him."

That's really what I don't get about the reaction to it.

She goes out of the way to go at length about how the guy is probably a good guy. She's aware that only 1 in 60 will actually ever commit rape. Etc.

But even being aware that it's even possible that any man, under any circumstances, ever, could commit a rape, is enought to rile some people majorly. Avalon calls it nothing less than misandry, i.e., the fancy word for being a man-hater. The OP calls it "uncritical thinking". In fact nothing short of "bigotry, prejudicial and uncritical." Etc.

WTH? Seriously.

I don't think anyone here would flat-out make a claim that 100% of the guys that ever lived, all the billions of them, never ever committed a rape. But if that woman comes and even suggests that there's any non-zero probability or risk at all that a random stranger might (or might not) be one, everyone is up in arms. Seriously, wth? Asking her to not think there's such a non-zero probability and risk is essentially asking her to assume a zero risk and and that basically zero guys ever did that. But anything else is some kind of man-hating, apparently.

I'm guessing some people just didn't really think it through. Because asking someone to automatically trust every stranger to be a zero risk, is frankly irresponsible. It's asking them to be a gullible, defenseless, available victim.

And I really don't see why for some people even being aware that 1 in 60 guys will commit a criminal act, becomes some kind of accusation against every man that ever lived. Last I checked we weren't some kind of Borg collective where everyone thinks and does the exact same things. I don't see how being aware that _some_ guys out there rape, becomes some kind of accusation against every single one, like we're some kind of clone troopers.

Even rape itself, when talking about an article talking explicitly about rape, I see the repeated suggestion to not call a rapist a "rapist", let's call him something as vague and ultimately non-criminal as a "douchebag". I'm sorry, but the two aren't even remotely equivalent. I see no need to legitimize a rapist by calling him an euphemism which basically just says he might be more or less not nice, to some non-specified degree.

Comitting a rape is not just being a douchebag. Avoiding being raped isn't anywhere near some kind of just avoiding douchebags. It's avoiding a criminal assault.

Avoiding douchebags sounds like you're just, you know, avoiding some people who aren't much fun to talk to. Maybe too self-centered, maybe a bit too inconsiderate, maybe a bit too manipulative, or, dunno, maybe something else. Avoiding rape is about avoiding an assault on one's person.

The two simply aren't interchangeable.
 
3bodyproblem said:
And that addresses the question how exactly? :confused:

I'm going to explain this very simply, if 90% of rapes happen to women under the age of 35, 65 year old women don't have the same chance of becoming victims. (even if they look 16) You can't change the facts.

Obviously you can try. Have fun :p
Click to expand...

I asked you a while back if "simply" the right precautions meant that I could let my guard down. You told me that I was safe as long as I was over 35 years of age. According to that link, I will not be completely safe even in a nursing home.

So when can I let my guard down?
 
3bodyproblem said:
And that addresses the question how exactly? :confused:

I'm going to explain this very simply, if 90% of rapes happen to women under the age of 35, 65 year old women don't have the same chance of becoming victims. (even if they look 16) You can't change the facts.

Obviously you can try. Have fun :p
Click to expand...

"Women ages 16-24 have 4 times higher risk of being raped than any other population group." does not equal 90%
 
HansMustermann said:
Except that's not what it says. She doesn't say that every guy actually has "got some rape about him."
Click to expand...

I guess you could get that interpretation from my post if you skip over the word "may". I think you just misunderstood my post as a whole. I certainly wasn't trying to interchange douchebag and rapist.

Of course I pretty much agree with what you wrote. Some men find it unsettling that some women will view them as a potential rape-risk. That's not a nice feeling, could almost be offensive to some who simply would never rape a woman, so reading a piece that explains that probably will evoke an emotionally negative reaction. That's not to say women aren't justified in being cautious and things that have been iterated and reiterated in this thread, because they should be and probably have to be. The reaction is understandable on both sides.

Of course this particlar article really just boils down to pick-up advice from a narrow point of view, it's nothing you haven't read in Maxim or whatever, just with a different label for how women will think of you if you break the author's rules on talking to women. You've really never seen these tips before in like every dating article ever?
 
I once had to educate a man about how a situation might have looked from a woman's point of view. He related a tale about going to a concert, but was unsure about where the venue was. he spotted a girl wearing a T-shirt of the band that was playing, so assumed she was going there. So he decided to follow her. It was a quiet street at night with nobody else around. When she crossed the road, he crossed too. He became a little confused when she crossed the same road several times and then ran really fast into the nearest pub.

Of course me and my friend couldn't believe he hadn't realised what the woman's behaviour meant - ie that she was just a bit scared at this strange guy following her down a dark street... and soon pointed it out to him.
 
bookitty said:
As an aside: The number of men in this thread who have been supportive and empathetic outnumber those who respond dismissively or defensively. This has been noticed and appreciated.
Click to expand...

For the record, I'm opposed to rape, but I'm not necessarily supporting your position.

Don't take your bows yet. I'm still reading.
 
Last edited:
John Jones said:
For the record, I'm opposed to rape. I'm not necessarily supporting your position.

Don't take your bows yet. I'm still reading.
Click to expand...

No bows. I do not feel that I changed anyone's mind or contributed to any empathy. In a thread which starts with the idea that all men are potential rapists, it seemed only fair to recognize those guys who weren't totally creeping me out.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
I once had to educate a man about how a situation might have looked from a woman's point of view. He related a tale about going to a concert, but was unsure about where the venue was. he spotted a girl wearing a T-shirt of the band that was playing, so assumed she was going there. So he decided to follow her. It was a quiet street at night with nobody else around. When she crossed the road, he crossed too. He became a little confused when she crossed the same road several times and then ran really fast into the nearest pub.

Of course me and my friend couldn't believe he hadn't realised what the woman's behaviour meant - ie that she was just a bit scared at this strange guy following her down a dark street... and soon pointed it out to him.
Click to expand...

Ya know what? Men and women don't understand each other. Most men will admit this readily. You and your friend seem to think they know men better than they know themselves.


Anyway . . . Men and women seem to come together in their thinking when they hit their 40's and upwards.
 
bookitty said:
No bows. I do not feel that I changed anyone's mind or contributed to any empathy. In a thread which starts with the idea that all men are potential rapists, it seemed only fair to recognize those guys who weren't totally creeping me out.
Click to expand...

You have failed to sufficiently denounce sexism in all its forms.
 
bookitty said:
As an aside: The number of men in this thread who have been supportive and empathetic outnumber those who respond dismissively or defensively. This has been noticed and appreciated.
Click to expand...

Even though they have no idea what a woman's fear of rape is? And their allowed to form an opinion?

I forgot, their opinions match your own, so it's okay.
 
bookitty said:
No bows. I do not feel that I changed anyone's mind or contributed to any empathy. In a thread which starts with the idea that all men are potential rapists, it seemed only fair to recognize those guys who weren't totally creeping me out.
Click to expand...

One of the more amusing aspects to people's negative reactions to the article is that at its base, it's a woman (whose opinion is supported by a large number of other women in the comments) explaining how she feels when men approach her in certain circumstances.

Non-defensive, insecure men should read that and think, "ah, now I understand why the cute girl on the bus didn't smile at me. It might not have been my Ed Hardy tee-shirt. I will take this information and use it to make myself more appealing to women." Or, "Now I understand why she found my e-mails kind of creepy when I intended them to be funny. I will change my approach in the future."

It's funny that men became so offended by an article that basically said, "Here's what i don't like, here's the wrong way to approach and pursue me, and here's why." If you enjoy the company of women, you should probably take that to heart.

Now, of course, we will get the "Girls love me, I have no problem hooking up, ever," from the goofball crew.
 
Eric D said:
Even though they have no idea what a woman's fear of rape is? And their allowed to form an opinion?

I forgot, their opinions match your own, so it's okay.
Click to expand...

The opinion that fear of rape is rational? Maybe and maybe that's the case. Now if you could just make the case that fear of rape is irrational, we would have something to discuss. Otherwise, stop pouting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom