Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

[TraneWreck]

Fewer serial rapists. You don't seem to know the difference between a rapist that commits a single rape and a predator that commits multiple rapes and how that affects the statistics. You're not kidding anyone, you suck at math. Just saying.

Really? You still cannot grasp the concept of averages?

How many rapes does the average rapist in Group A commit?

Group A:

Person 1-1 rape
Person 2-1 rape
Person 3-1 rape
Person 4-1 rape
Person 5-1 rape
Person 6-55 rapes

How many of them would be called serial rapists?

Why are you having so much trouble with this concept?

 

[Cavemonster]

It's entirely possible, although a number of the women I do know are open about that kind of thing (although I know one woman who has) but I've never seen it happen to anyone I've seen in the street either. I mean, I understand that it's less likely to happen in a crowded area and so on, but I've literally never seen it. I've not seen it in daylight or, when I felt scared myself, wandering around London late at night. It's something that I know does happen, but not to the scale whereby every woman will have it happen, and on such a regular basis. I swear, it must be that I'm blind or something. I've heard some cat-calling, but I've never seen or heard of men exposing themselves (deliberately) or groping on public transport, and it's the kind of thing that WOULD get reported around here in the very prim and proper shires.

Think about it this way. Let's just say that every woman was groped on a subway train at some point in their life, that's probably a bit high, but let's say it's every one who rides the subway regularly.

That's a t least two, probably averaging at least three trips a day, every day, that's more than a thousand trips a year. Multiply that by the ages of 14-40, about a half hour a trip and you get an enormous amount of time.

Now, I want you to massage your chest for ten seconds, ten seconds only, counting deliberately. Imagine how long that would be if it were a stranger you didn't want doing that.

Now find that ten seconds in the huge haystack of all those women's time. With the understanding that the people doing it are arranging it so that it's hard to see. Something can be incredibly common, yet very hard to notice.

 

[TraneWreck]

Having joined these forums recently, I am not sure who among the posters are female. However, what I have got out of the discussion till now is that most posters are not critiquing the article. They are only looking the thought behind the article, and since that is an admirable one, they are ignoring the obvious generalizations and poor logic.

Who has denied that there are serious problems with the reasoning in the article?

What if the woman is merely looking out of the window in a subway? What if the woman is in an elevator? In both these cases, if you say hi to a woman, according to the article, you are 'overriding the woman's personal choice'.

This is a common misinterpretation of the article. She quite explicitly says that if a woman shows interest when you initially contact her, there's no problem in continuing the conversation.

If, however, she makes it clear that she doesn't want to be bothered and a man continues to press the issue, then we're into the population of men the article is directed at.

She also makes statements about what personal characteristics are likely to turn off a woman before introductions are made.

The conflation of these points seems to be a source of angst for more than a few posters.

I would suggest that this is because, again, the main focus does not seem to be on the article as a whole, but the intent behind the article. I highly doubt that if any of the women on this forum was in an elevator at her workplace, and a man in a business suit came in, smiled at her and said 'Good morning' she would think 'This man is overriding my personal choice'.

One of the main themes of the article is that the context of meeting a woman is important. You're just reiterating that fact here. Yes, meeting a well-dressed man on an elevator during business hours will lead to less concern than encountering the same well-dressed man in the parking garage late at night.

And once more, the introduction itself isn't overriding a woman's wishes unless she's made it clear that she doesn't want to talk--ie, reading a book with ear-plugs and not making eye contact.

 

[Dipayan]

Look, I appreciate you aren't offended, but clearly there are people in this thread who are. They've said so quite explicitly.

[/QUOTE]

Disagreed with her usage of the term and considered it a misnomer, sure, but I am pretty sure that nobody is offended. But then, I have been known to be wrong in the past.

"Third, you really need to brush up on your fallacies. She uses "Schrodinger" in front of rapist and now you magically believe because she's calling men a "Schrodinger's rapist" she's not calling you a rapist or treating you like one. It isn't a strawman. She's advocating treating every stranger you meet as a rapist of varying degrees."

I think I was not able to phrase my question properly. Do you think it is possible -

1) to know that Ms. Starling is not calling all men rapists,
2) to appreciate women and be respectful towards them,
3) to understand people's boundaries

and still be critical of this article?

I would say 'Yes'.

 

[Furcifer]

Really? You still cannot grasp the concept of averages?

How many rapes does the average rapist in Group A commit?

Group A:

Person 1-1 rape
Person 2-1 rape
Person 3-1 rape
Person 4-1 rape
Person 5-1 rape
Person 6-55 rapes

How many of them would be called serial rapists?

Why are you having so much trouble with this concept?

Now everyone's a rapist? That's the last time I visit Chicago.

 

[Dipayan]

Who has denied that there are serious problems with the reasoning in the article?

Follows...

This is a common misinterpretation of the article. She quite explicitly says that if a woman shows interest when you initially contact her, there's no problem in continuing the conversation.

You are ignoring a serious problem with the reasoning in the article.

"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."

She is clearly saying that a man should not speak to a woman who is looking out of the window (to take one as example) because in doing so, he is elevating his 'rapist status' in the woman's mind.

She quite explicitly says that if a woman shows interest when you initially contact her, there's no problem in continuing the conversation.

But to speak to a woman, she has to be looking at you and smiling/making eye contact. I am not sure why women would be in subways making eye contact and smiling at strangers. Which is why her logic is all over the place in this excerpt.

If, however, she makes it clear that she doesn't want to be bothered and a man continues to press the issue, then we're into the population of men the article is directed at.

I would disagree. The article is clearly targeted at all men who want to meet women and is advising them from approach to interaction. She clearly states -

"You like women. In fact, you would really like to have a mutually respectful and loving sexual relationship with a woman. Unfortunately, you don’t yet know that woman—she isn’t working with you, nor have you been introduced through mutual friends or drawn to the same activities. So you must look further afield to encounter her.

So here again, you do away with a serious problem in the reasoning in this article. The article does not cater to the target audience that it claims to cater to.

She also makes statements about what personal characteristics are likely to turn off a woman before introductions are made.

Agreed.

Yes, meeting a well-dressed man on an elevator during business hours will lead to less concern than encountering the same well-dressed man in the parking garage late at night.

We are not talking about concern here though. We are talking about violating people's privacy. I doubt any woman would consider a man saying 'Good Morning' to her on an elevator as 'overriding her personal choice'. According to the article, however, if this same man said 'Good Morning' to the same woman in a busy subway when she was looking out of the window, he is implying that his desire for interaction is greater than the woman's desire for privacy.

And once more, the introduction itself isn't overriding a woman's wishes unless she's made it clear that she doesn't want to talk--ie, reading a book with ear-plugs and not making eye contact.

But it is apparently overriding the woman's wishes if she is sitting with crossed arms, or with her body away from you (as opposed to?), or if she is looking out of the window. All of which are in the article and all of which are questionable at the least.

 

[TraneWreck]

I think I was not able to phrase my question properly. Do you think it is possible -

1) to know that Ms. Starling is not calling all men rapists,
2) to appreciate women and be respectful towards them,
3) to understand people's boundaries

and still be critical of this article?

I would say 'Yes'.

Once again, if you're not in the class of people I was talking about, don't worry about it. My criticism was directed at specific posters in this thread. If you have a masochistic streak you can dig through and find them.

If you're not offended, don't think she's calling you a rapist, and understand women's desire to be left alone, then nothing I said applied to you.

 

[TraneWreck]

You are ignoring a serious problem with the reasoning in the article.

"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."

She is clearly saying that a man should not speak to a woman who is looking out of the window (to take one as example) because in doing so, he is elevating his 'rapist status' in the woman's mind.

I like how she gave you a list of indicators that would lead you to believe a woman wasn't interested in communicating and you took out a single one to try and make the statement look ridiculous.

But to speak to a woman, she has to be looking at you and smiling/making eye contact. I am not sure why women would be in subways making eye contact and smiling at strangers. Which is why her logic is all over the place in this excerpt.

You're sniping out little bits of the article instead of understanding the context. It's poorly written, and a sentence by sentence break down makes it look like it's internally contradictory. Read this whole passage and distill the main point:

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. Don’t assume that whatever you have to say will win her over with charm or flattery. Believe what she’s signaling, and back off.

If you speak, and she responds in a monosyllabic way without looking at you, she’s saying, “I don’t want to be rude, but please leave me alone.” You don’t know why. It could be “Please leave me alone because I am trying to memorize Beowulf.” It could be “Please leave me alone because you are a scary, scary man with breath like a water buffalo.” It could be “Please leave me alone because I am planning my assassination of a major geopolitical figure and I will have to kill you if you are able to recognize me and blow my cover.”

On the other hand, if she is turned towards you, making eye contact, and she responds in a friendly and talkative manner when you speak to her, you are getting a green light. You can continue the conversation until you start getting signals to back off.

Given that last paragraph, obviously the point of the passage is not that men should never talk to women on public transit. It's just a plea to recognize signals.

It helps to understand the kinds of men she's talking about. I would recommend going to Italy and watching men harass the **** out of every woman that walks by. The last time I was in Rome, the first two nights I was there my friends and I ended up in clubs that were about 95% filled with men. I started talking to some Italian women at a cafe the next day, and they told me there were certain places all the Italian women avoided because they knew they would get fondled, harassed, and basically assaulted every time they went.

We've actively beat back that impulse in this country, but there are a great many men who think women should respond to their advances. I've had to step in multiple times on public transit to stop men from bothering a woman who was literally saying, "please leave me alone." I don't know if that would have resulted in assault or rape, but why should it go that far?

Again, if you're not the sort of man that would do those things, it's hard to imagine that others would. But they do. A lot. NY City had to pass laws to keep people from harassing women on the street. They thought it was a cultural right.

I would disagree. The article is clearly targeted at all men who want to meet women and is advising them from approach to interaction. She clearly states -

"You like women. In fact, you would really like to have a mutually respectful and loving sexual relationship with a woman. Unfortunately, you don’t yet know that woman—she isn’t working with you, nor have you been introduced through mutual friends or drawn to the same activities. So you must look further afield to encounter her.

So here again, you do away with a serious problem in the reasoning in this article. The article does not cater to the target audience that it claims to cater to.

I don't follow your criticism here. The article is giving multiple levels of advise. Some are broadly construed to the male population as a whole, some are tailored for specific subsets, mostly the subsets that tend to ignore boundaries.

You're randomly taking advice meant for a subset and applying it to the whole population to gin up outrage that isn't justified. Remember, she flat out tells you that if the woman smiles at you and engages, go for it.

We are not talking about concern here though. We are talking about violating people's privacy. I doubt any woman would consider a man saying 'Good Morning' to her on an elevator as 'overriding her personal choice'. According to the article, however, if this same man said 'Good Morning' to the same woman in a busy subway when she was looking out of the window, he is implying that his desire for interaction is greater than the woman's desire for privacy.

I don't even know what to tell you at this point. The article just does not say that men should never talk to women in public. It's about how they talk to them, when and where they talk to them, and whether they keep harassing a woman against her wish to be left alone.

But it is apparently overriding the woman's wishes if she is sitting with crossed arms, or with her body away from you (as opposed to?), or if she is looking out of the window. All of which are in the article and all of which are questionable at the least.

I hope you can actually tell when people don't want to be disturbed. Do you ride a subway or bus on a regular basis? I did for a number of years, and there are just times when a person is tired, not in a good mood after work, stressed out, or just sick of talking to people. You just want to sit in your seat, listen to music, and be left alone.

Many a time someone who you'd rather not talk to strikes up a conversation putting you in the position of either being rude or engaging in some inane babble when you just want to relax. When this happens to me it's annoying. When it happens to women it's annoying, but also carries an added element of danger that's not present in my obnoxious conversation.

Even if it doesn't result in rape or sexual assault, it can still be very scary for the woman. Consider the commenter who told the story of the man who followed her home from the bus stop on a regular basis. She was never assaulted, but the whole thing scared her enough that she had to change her schedule. That's never happened to me or any other straight man I know.

I don't enter conversations thinking, "is this some creep that's going to keep harassing me after I get off the bus?" Many, many women do. Many, many women have had experiences like the one I just mentioned.

The article is not directed at respectful men who want to meet women. It's directed at people who keep after women after they've made clear that they're not enjoying the situation.

 

[TraneWreck]

Now everyone's a rapist? That's the last time I visit Chicago.

What on Earth are you talking about now?

Is that a joke about the 1 in 6 stat, obviously irrelevant for the purpose of my post, or are you legitimately that confused? It's impossible to tell with you.

 

[Dipayan]

Once again, if you're not in the class of people I was talking about, don't worry about it. My criticism was directed at specific posters in this thread. If you have a masochistic streak you can dig through and find them.

That masochistic pleasure has already been derived

 

[Sun Countess]

You are ignoring a serious problem with the reasoning in the article.

"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."

She is clearly saying that a man should not speak to a woman who is looking out of the window (to take one as example) because in doing so, he is elevating his 'rapist status' in the woman's mind.

If I'm looking out the window on the bus, it means I don't want a stranger speaking to me. I'm not going to instantly start thinking that I need to escape you because you're probably a rapist, but I will be thinking you're a creepy guy who doesn't know how to read an obvious signal that I wish to be left alone. I'm on the bus to get to work, not to talk to strangers or entertain somebody who's bored.

But to speak to a woman, she has to be looking at you and smiling/making eye contact. I am not sure why women would be in subways making eye contact and smiling at strangers. Which is why her logic is all over the place in this excerpt.

What? If you speak to me, when I've made it clear that I don't want to speak to you by looking out the window, I will definitely not be smiling or making eye contact. I'll glance in your general direction, give a monosyllabic answer, and then go back to staring out the window with my shoulder turned up even more.

I would disagree. The article is clearly targeted at all men who want to meet women and is advising them from approach to interaction. She clearly states -

"You like women. In fact, you would really like to have a mutually respectful and loving sexual relationship with a woman. Unfortunately, you don’t yet know that woman—she isn’t working with you, nor have you been introduced through mutual friends or drawn to the same activities. So you must look further afield to encounter her.

So here again, you do away with a serious problem in the reasoning in this article. The article does not cater to the target audience that it claims to cater to.

I think she makes it clear that there are different occasions for meeting women, where different standards of behavior are expected. If you're at a club, meet away. If you're at a class, or work or a party at a friend's house, meet away. If you see somebody out in public, who's going about her daily life, read her cues. You may want to meet her, but she may not want to meet you. If you think she's cute and you're alone on an elevator, you may just have to let that one go! If you're standing next to her at a crowded concert or vegetable market, you can probably make a little small talk. She's just saying, "Look around. If she wouldn't be safe with a dangerous person in this circumstance, then don't speak to her because she has no way of knowing that you're not dangerous."

We are not talking about concern here though. We are talking about violating people's privacy. I doubt any woman would consider a man saying 'Good Morning' to her on an elevator as 'overriding her personal choice'. According to the article, however, if this same man said 'Good Morning' to the same woman in a busy subway when she was looking out of the window, he is implying that his desire for interaction is greater than the woman's desire for privacy.

I agree with the author. If I've made it as clear as I can that I want to be left alone (and staring out the window is a clear signal from somebody who's not reading or listening to music), then how does your desire to speak to me override my desire to NOT speak to you? Look, I'm not a total pig, and if you have an honest question about where the next bus stop is, I'll answer it, without thinking you're a creep, espcially if you're apologetic about disturbing me.

But it is apparently overriding the woman's wishes if she is sitting with crossed arms, or with her body away from you (as opposed to?), or if she is looking out of the window. All of which are in the article and all of which are questionable at the least.

Yes, it is overriding her wishes. If I'm sitting back in an open posture, staring straight ahead, that looks completely different from somebody who's hunched in their seat with their arms crossed and shoulders effectively blocking the space in between the seats. It shouldn't be difficult to read that body language.


I do think that some of the men here are missing the spirit of this article, which states that women do go about their lives with different risk assessments in mind than men do.

My husband will go anywhere, park anywhere, never worry about who else is out there while he goes about whatever business he chooses to, no matter what the neighborhood or time of day. That's not true for me. I know I'm more vulnerable to all kinds of attacks, not just rape. I'm on the smaller and physically weaker side of the humanity scale. Like every other woman I know, I've been subjected to not only crude come-ons, but groping and flashing. I've had a knife pulled on me, but haha! he was just kidding. He didn't understand why I didn't think that was "cute."

I don't think that every man out there is a rapist or is going to assault me, but I put up barriers to protect myself from unwanted attention from strangers, and I avoid potentially risky situations every single day. (Meaning, I never go anywhere alone at night, while my husband does it regularly. I also won't stop at certain places in the evening if I can't get a parking spot near a light. Overly cautious? Oh well.)

Think about the elderly. They're extremely vulnerable to attacks, much more so than me. But I imagine if this were an article called Schrodinger's Mugger telling people how the elderly see strangers, and offering some insight into how best to approach them if you think they need assistance, there would be people here saying that it was an irrational article because old people are more likely to have their grandchildren steal from them.

 

[Furcifer]

I hope you can actually tell when people don't want to be disturbed. Do you ride a subway or bus on a regular basis? I did for a number of years, and there are just times when a person is tired, not in a good mood after work, stressed out, or just sick of talking to people. You just want to sit in your seat, listen to music, and be left alone.

Many a time someone who you'd rather not talk to strikes up a conversation putting you in the position of either being rude or engaging in some inane babble when you just want to relax. When this happens to me it's annoying. When it happens to women it's annoying, but also carries an added element of danger that's not present in my obnoxious conversation.

Even if it doesn't result in rape or sexual assault, it can still be very scary for the woman. Consider the commenter who told the story of the man who followed her home from the bus stop on a regular basis. She was never assaulted, but the whole thing scared her enough that she had to change her schedule. That's never happened to me or any other straight man I know.

I don't enter conversations thinking, "is this some creep that's going to keep harassing me after I get off the bus?" Many, many women do. Many, many women have had experiences like the one I just mentioned.

The article is not directed at respectful men who want to meet women. It's directed at people who keep after women after they've made clear that they're not enjoying the situation.

Notice you managed to get your point across in the above without having to refer to rape? You chose your words carefully and didn't use inflammatory language and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

The only thing is you've assumed, much like the author, this is specific to women. It isn't.

"When it happens to women it's annoying, but also carries an added element of danger that's not present in my obnoxious conversation."

Why would you presume that someone couldn't harass a man on the bus in the exact same way? I don't believe that you actually rode the bus for years if you didn't see a man get harassed. It happens all the time.

If you started telling people how you evaluate everyone who approaches you on the bus as a potential murderer your going to get some odd looks. You're really assessing the threat of violence. Everyone on the bus is when an obnoxious person gets on and starts making people uncomfortable.

" Consider the commenter who told the story of the man who followed her home from the bus stop on a regular basis. She was never assaulted, but the whole thing scared her enough that she had to change her schedule. That's never happened to me or any other straight man I know."

On a regular basis? No, me either, that's creepy. That's someone I'd consider a potential rapist. That's a predator, not a nice guy that's a little too pushy looking for a date.

But I have had weirdos follow me off the bus a few times. Vancouver is a big city with a lot of drug addicts and mentally ill people wandering the streets. I'll tell it's terrifying to have one of them follow you off the Sky Train. I try to be pleasant with them and talk to them because I really don't want them to get offended. Usually when you talk to them they calm down a bit, plus you get a better idea of what's going on upstairs.

"I don't enter conversations thinking, "is this some creep that's going to keep harassing me after I get off the bus?"

Chicago must be a weird city, because in Vancouver you would. I guess it's only potential rapists in Chicago.

The article is not directed at respectful men who want to meet women. It's directed at people who keep after women after they've made clear that they're not enjoying the situation

I'm pretty sure it is directed at respectful men. Let's take a look at what the author actually says right from the beginning.

"Let me start out by assuring you that I understand you are a good sort of person. You are kind to children and animals. You respect the elderly. You donate to charity. You tell jokes without laughing at your own punchlines. You respect women. You like women. In fact, you would really like to have a mutually respectful and loving sexual relationship with a woman."

I'm pretty sure you're wrong. This is the exact opposite of what you said

 

[TraneWreck]

Notice you managed to get your point across in the above without having to refer to rape? You chose your words carefully and didn't use inflammatory language and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

The only thing is you've assumed, much like the author, this is specific to women. It isn't.

Why would you presume that someone couldn't harass a man on the bus in the exact same way? I don't believe that you actually rode the bus for years if you didn't see a man get harassed. It happens all the time.

If you started telling people how you evaluate everyone who approaches you on the bus as a potential murderer your going to get some odd looks. You're really assessing the threat of violence. Everyone on the bus is when an obnoxious person gets on and starts making people uncomfortable.

Oy.

1) I didn't say it CAN'T happen to men, just that it's never happened to me or any other straight man I know. Interestingly, I know a couple of gay gentlemen who have had similar problems.

2) Men often are hassled, but it's not "in the same way." I've been bothered a number of times. It's never been sexual. As I said earlier, I've had to step into a number of situations where women were being harassed. They were all overtly sexual.

This is not a statistical statement, I have no idea what percentage of harassment with women vs. men as victims is sexual. I'm simply explaining my experience on the matter. Feel free to contradict it with better stats.

3) Why are you still fixated on this "call everyone a rapist/murderer" thing? No one has suggested this. It's a bizarre notion that you've completely fabricated and now you can't post without bringing it up.

It's as much of an irrelevant non sequitor as saying, "maybe this author wouldn't call you a rapist if you didn't pull down you pants on the bus. Don't pull down your pants in front of strange women if you don't want to be considered a sex offender." It makes no sense, no one has suggested it, and there's no reason to discuss it.

On a regular basis? No, me either, that's creepy. That's someone I'd consider a potential rapist. That's a predator, not a nice guy that's a little too pushy looking for a date.

But I have had weirdos follow me off the bus a few times. Vancouver is a big city with a lot of drug addicts and mentally ill people wandering the streets. I'll tell it's terrifying to have one of them follow you off the Sky Train. I try to be pleasant with them and talk to them because I really don't want them to get offended. Usually when you talk to them they calm down a bit, plus you get a better idea of what's going on upstairs.

If you wrote an article where you requested that strange men stop following you around, I'm not sure anyone would object.

And yes, this type of thing happens to women fairly regularly. It's frightening.

Chicago must be a weird city, because in Vancouver you would. I guess it's only potential rapists in Chicago.

What?

I'm pretty sure it is directed at respectful men. Let's take a look at what the author actually says right from the beginning.

"Let me start out by assuring you that I understand you are a good sort of person. You are kind to children and animals. You respect the elderly. You donate to charity. You tell jokes without laughing at your own punchlines. You respect women. You like women. In fact, you would really like to have a mutually respectful and loving sexual relationship with a woman."

I'm pretty sure you're wrong. This is the exact opposite of what you said

It's getting tiresome having to explain this over and over. Certain parts of the article are addressed to a general population, some are directed at subsets of that generation. A great deal of the consternation over this article involves projecting statements made about a certain subset on to the whole population.

If you don't badger women when they want to be left alone, approach them in alleys at night when they're alone, follow them around, or otherwise ignore their wishes, then that article was not directed at you.

If you say, "hi," to a woman on the subway who doesn't want to talk, the worst you've done is annoy her. This isn't a major crime if you don't push the issue after she indicates she's not interested in talking.

The article is primarily a venting of frustration over continued harassment by a certain subset of men. It also explains how one can avoid finding themselves in that subset of men. It's not a clear, accurate guide, or particularly useful, but it's fairly obvious what the main thrust happens to be. Is there anything she says not to do that you wish to do?

 

[Furcifer]

I do think that some of the men here are missing the spirit of this article, which states that women do go about their lives with different risk assessments in mind than men do.

I don't. I think some of the people here feel that the only thing to worry about is sexual assault, and because that's usually against women, only women have to worry. If we consider the author is really talking about victimization not just rape, her premise that men don't have to worry is false. We all agree it's higher for women for obvious reasons, but we seem to disagree it's not zero for men either. Unless women only worry about rape, which I'm fairly confident is false as well.

Think about the elderly. They're extremely vulnerable to attacks, much more so than me. But I imagine if this were an article called Schrodinger's Mugger telling people how the elderly see strangers, and offering some insight into how best to approach them if you think they need assistance, there would be people here saying that it was an irrational article because old people are more likely to have their grandchildren steal from them.

But by using the term "rapist" she automatically divides the sexes, that's difference from "mugger". As I mentioned before, rapists are bad people. Mugger's aren't the cuddly fuzzy type, but there is a different reaction from the public to rapists. It's probably second to murder in order of heinousness and yet when a murder moves into the neighborhood it doesn't incite quite the same reaction. If the author is worried about rape she really needs to address the rape issue and not conflate it with the threat of being assaulted or harassed.

If she really wanted to get her point across to men she could have easily acknowledged the threat to men and women, then maybe mentioned the obvious physical differences that make women more susceptible to violence, then added the fact that men tend to be more aggressive when it comes to approaching the opposite sex, and then topped it all off the very real threat of rape. By that point every man (well almost every man) reading it would have been nodding their heads in agreement.

This is just constructive critisism from a guy. It isn't meant to diminish the threat to women.

 

[Furcifer]

3) Why are you still fixated on this "call everyone a rapist/murderer" thing? No one has suggested this. It's a bizarre notion that you've completely fabricated and now you can't post without bringing it up.

It's called "Schrodinger's Rapist". It's so obvious it's in the title. Why are you being deliberately dense on this?

It's getting tiresome having to explain this over and over. Certain parts of the article are addressed to a general population, some are directed at subsets of that generation. A great deal of the consternation over this article involves projecting statements made about a certain subset on to the whole population.

It's addressed to men: "Schrödinger’s Rapist: or a guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced"

See that's so obvious it's in the title too.

If you don't badger women when they want to be left alone, approach them in alleys at night when they're alone, follow them around, or otherwise ignore their wishes, then that article was not directed at you.

No it's directed at men : "Schrödinger’s Rapist: or a guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced"

It's so obvious it's in the title as well

The article is primarily a venting of frustration over continued harassment by a certain subset of men.

No it isn't, it's "a guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced"

It's so freaking obvious she put it in the title as well. Just so you couldn't miss it. And yet you did.

 

[TraneWreck]

It's called "Schrodinger's Rapist". It's so obvious it's in the title. Why are you being deliberately dense on this?



It's addressed to men: "Schrödinger’s Rapist: or a guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced"

See that's so obvious it's in the title too.



No it's directed at men : "Schrödinger’s Rapist: or a guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced"

It's so obvious it's in the title as well



No it isn't, it's "a guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced"

It's so freaking obvious she put it in the title as well. Just so you couldn't miss it. And yet you did.

Crazy type don't change the basic point. What stops you from getting maced? Being a decent guy. The articles venom is saved for men who don't respect women's choices. If you respect them, you're out of the line of fire.

If I wrote a guide titled, "How to Avoid Looking Like a Spazz on the JREF Boards," and one of the recommendations was, "Don't use font size and color schemes that make you look like an ADD preschooler with magic markers," that would be advice to a general audience, yet the barb would be directed at people using crazy fonts. If you didn't use the type, it wouldn't be directed at you. Would it make sense to say, "You're calling everyone on the forum an immature goofball?"

Really not that complex.

And no matter how many times you reiterate your fundamental misunderstanding of the point, she is not calling everyone a rapist. And even if she did in the article, she's not suggesting calling people on the bus rapists, as you've mentioned about 20 times now.

 

[Meed]

If I'm looking out the window on the bus, it means I don't want a stranger speaking to me. I'm not going to instantly start thinking that I need to escape you because you're probably a rapist, but I will be thinking you're a creepy guy who doesn't know how to read an obvious signal that I wish to be left alone.

I look out the window on buses, trains and planes all the time and it certainly doesn't mean I don't want anyone to talk to me. To consider someone a creep, because they failed to read your "obvious" signal sounds unnecessarily hostile to me. Have you considered that what you consider obvious is not actually the case?

I'm on the bus to get to work, not to talk to strangers or entertain somebody who's bored.
What? If you speak to me, when I've made it clear that I don't want to speak to you by looking out the window, I will definitely not be smiling or making eye contact. I'll glance in your general direction, give a monosyllabic answer, and then go back to staring out the window with my shoulder turned up even more.

Is there any particular reason you hate conversing with strangers so much? If you've experienced a lot of harassment in those situations then that's understandable -- I'm just wondering. I have a very introverted personality and tend to find talking to strangers a bit draining and uncomfortable, but I still try to be friendly to everyone unless they give me a good reason not to be (our ideas about what constitutes a "good reason" are probably quite different given your comments about looking out the window).

I do think that some of the men here are missing the spirit of this article, which states that women do go about their lives with different risk assessments in mind than men do.

That's fine, but she does a poor job of it in my opinion. It irks me when someone claims to speak for their entire gender, race, nationality or whatever. Men do this a lot, usually claiming something like "we men" are shallow and think with our dicks.

That's not to say that men wouldn't benefit from being more cognizant of what it's like to be a woman and that there are definitely general differences and struggles/concerns for women that we may not be mindful of.

Personally, I'm hypersensitive to the possibility of women thinking I'm a creep or hitting on them as it is. That fear has made things difficult for me in some respects. I think telling males that you'll think their a creep for saying something to them when you're giving off signals as "obvious" as reading, or looking out a window is a poor message. It may even foster the attitude in some that "she'll think I'm a creep no matter what I do, so I'll just grab her butt and run away". I'm not saying this is justified or something I'd ever do, but a more reasonable set of standards about what should be considered lewd/rude/creepy would be a lot more helpful if the intention is really to tell guys what is and isn't appropriate behavior.

My husband will go anywhere, park anywhere, never worry about who else is out there while he goes about whatever business he chooses to, no matter what the neighborhood or time of day. That's not true for me. I know I'm more vulnerable to all kinds of attacks, not just rape. I'm on the smaller and physically weaker side of the humanity scale. Like every other woman I know, I've been subjected to not only crude come-ons, but groping and flashing. I've had a knife pulled on me, but haha! he was just kidding. He didn't understand why I didn't think that was "cute."

These are fair things to bring up. I will say that I've been physically assaulted numerous times, sexually harassed (physically) and have felt in danger of being raped with good reason (long story). But I realize if I was female I'd be subject to a lot more unwanted attention and I sympathize with that.

 

[Meed]

Unfair though this may be, don't you think perhaps it's due to the relative rarity of the occurrence, and the fact that physiological considerations would make it, while perhaps not impossible, difficult to force a man to do any such thing? I guess you could force-feed someone Viagra, but under any other circumstances, such an act seems to me to verge on the improbable.

I don't think you understand how male physiology works or how power factors into rape. First off, we can't simply decide not to get an erection. That doesn't mean a boy wanted it or liked it. It's something that can be triggered by physical stimulation or even unwanted visual/situational stimulation. Second, a male in a situation where a female has power over him (e.g. authority figure, or an older woman vs a teenager) can have a difficult time resisting from a social standpoint. As for someone who is actively resisting, that's also a possibility if they're very intoxicated, bound up or facing a strong woman who's using violence.

It is much rarer than male perpetrated rape, but just as potentially emotionally damaging.

 

[bookitty]

Jesus Christ people where the hell do you live?

I knew I was a little sheltered living where I am but this is the kind of talk that would make me never want to leave my village! What the hell is wrong with the places you guys are from?

Casual sexual harassment does seem to be more prevalent in cities because there is more anonymity. If everyone is known in a village, the chance that a woman would recognize the man are much higher.

 

[Sun Countess]

I look out the window on buses, trains and planes all the time and it certainly doesn't mean I don't want anyone to talk to me. To consider someone a creep, because they failed to read your "obvious" signal sounds unnecessarily hostile to me. Have you considered that what you consider obvious is not actually the case?

I'f I'm turned in my seat so that my shoulder is turned out toward you, that should be obvious. I'm very successful at keeping strangers from talking to me. It's just the few who see my posture as a challenge who irritate me.

Is there any particular reason you hate conversing with strangers so much? If you've experienced a lot of harassment in those situations then that's understandable -- I'm just wondering. I have a very introverted personality and tend to find talking to strangers a bit draining and uncomfortable, but I still try to be friendly to everyone unless they give me a good reason not to be (our ideas about what constitutes a "good reason" are probably quite different given your comments about looking out the window).

I honestly don't understand why people want to talk to strangers when they're just going about their daily business. I'm also an introvert, and would much rather spend my alone time with my own thoughts, instead of hearing small talk from somebody I'll probably never see again. Heck, there are times at home that I'll wander off to keep my own family from disturbing my thoughts. I'm friendly to shop clerks and people at the mall, but I don't find any need to say "hello" to every random person I come across.

That's fine, but she does a poor job of it in my opinion. It irks me when someone claims to speak for their entire gender, race, nationality or whatever. Men do this a lot, usually claiming something like "we men" are shallow and think with our dicks.

That's fine, you can consider that her advice doesn't speak for every single woman out there, but it definitely speaks for more than one woman out there. I'm sure the author has spoken to her female friends about their own experiences, and certainly what she says speaks very well for my own.

That's not to say that men wouldn't benefit from being more cognizant of what it's like to be a woman and that there are definitely general differences and struggles/concerns for women that we may not be mindful of.

That's all I think the article is really asking. Be mindful that women have a different perspective on the world, due to their relative vulnerability to physical assaults, sexual assaults, and rapes which can lead to unwanted pregnancies and STIs.

Personally, I'm hypersensitive to the possibility of women thinking I'm a creep or hitting on them as it is. That fear has made things difficult for me in some respects. I think telling males that you'll think their a creep for saying something to them when you're giving off signals as "obvious" as reading, or looking out a window is a poor message. It may even foster the attitude in some that "she'll think I'm a creep no matter what I do, so I'll just grab her butt and run away". I'm not saying this is justified or something I'd ever do, but a more reasonable set of standards about what should be considered lewd/rude/creepy would be a lot more helpful if the intention is really to tell guys what is and isn't appropriate behavior.

There are plenty of women out there who are giving off signals that they welcome male attention. If you're at a club and a woman is turned toward the door, smiling at every male who comes in, chances are excellent that she won't consider you a creep for approaching her. If she's sitting on the subway with her body turned toward the empty seat next to her, and gives you a big smile to beckon you into that seat, chances are excellent that she won't consider you a creep. Don't think that the women who put up barriers are trying to be coy and issue a challenge to strangers.

If I'm turned toward the window and you try to talk to me, I won't instantly label you a creep, but if I give you a monosyllabic answer and turn more aggressively toward the window and away from you, and you continue to pursue conversation, I will definitely consider you a creep. But yeah, it shouldn't be so hard to not talk to strangers who are doing everything they can to avoid eye contact with you.