Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

[Uncayimmy]

Alone with a woman. Meaning the only two people there.

Alone is a relative term, which is part of the problem with the article. Are we alone if we both sit a bus stop? The only two left on a subway car?

Do you suggest that I wear a sign that says "Don't speak to me?"

I don't suggest anything to you. I don't know you.

It's okay to speak to somebody who's occupied if you need to ask a question, but why speak to somebody who's made it clear that they don't want to speak to you? If you start a conversation and they quickly and politely back out of it, it's wrong for someone to pursue it.

Did somebody argue otherwise? This straw man is getting a beating. Poor guy.

I do this too. I didn't take the article as making a quick nod when both people are uncomfortable. When she talks about "approaching" a woman and initiating conversations, that's clearly a different level. She's talking about seeing a girl that you may want to get to know, not talking about asking somebody if you can get the door for them when you see them overloaded with bags.

Unless she's alone, right?

It doesn't give me pause at all, except to wonder why you think your analogy works at all. What are the differences between the races? The amount of melanin in somebody's skin? What does this have to do with actual differences between men and women, especially when we're talking about the potential for physical confrontations or sexual assaults? Are men and women evenly matched physically? Do men and women face the same risks when it comes to sexual assaults by either sex? We're not facing the same risks, and it's not "racist" or "sexist" to point out that I'm the only one who may get pregnant against my will. It's not sexist to point out that the average-size man could pummel the crap out of me if he chose to. Why do you ignore this?

That was a good effort, but it fails. The simple fact of the matter is that you are extending to all men a likelihood of behavior based on nothing more than the fact that they are capable of it. The only thing your argument explains is that more men than women commit these sexual assaults. It proves absolutely nothing about the likelihood of the individual in front of you actually doing it.

How about this:

You (not you personally but the general You like the author refers to) are Schrodinger's Gold Digging Slut. Every time a strange woman approaches me I have to wonder if she's going to flaunt herself sexually to get something from me. We men are vulnerable to women that way. A larger percentage of men encounter women who flirt with them and even have sex with them all the while expecting gifts of drinks, meals, flowers and jewelry. Some even go for cars, boob jobs and houses.

Now, I know you are not like that, but when you approach me, I have to put my guard up. When you talk to me at a bar, don't sit there fiddling with your empty beer glass waiting for me to buy you a beer. If I wanted to buy you a beer, I would have done it when I saw your glass was getting empty.

You might be interested to note that men have a significantly higher risk of suffering physical assault than women. Men are also 1/3 as likely to be assaulted by an intimate partner, which means our risk of physical assault by strangers is much higher than a woman's risk of physical or sexual assault by strangers. And for all of us, the rate of physical assault is much, much higher than the rate of sexual assault.

So, let's not pretend that men don't deal with risk assessment.

Maybe you can explain how men and women are exactly the same when it comes to physical and sexual assaults. If you acknowledge that men and women face different risks, then you'll see that I'm not being sexist.

Prejudice is the act of applying group characteristics to the individual. I have no problems if somebody says that black people like basketball, soul food, rap music and Kool cigarettes. What I have a problem with is people thinking that if they meet a black person, they must like basketball, soul food, rap music and Kool cigarettes. All this crap about Schrodinger's Rapist is nothing more than saying that because someone has a penis, they are in some way dangerous.

I'm not a misandrist. I adore men. I grew up with my father and five brothers. I just don't like strangers. And I also don't immediately trust every and all men in my vicinity.

I don't know you well enough to call you a misandrist. As a man I feel like you, like a lot of women, treat us as stereotypes rather than as individuals. Women criticize men for assuming a woman is some sort of slut, but it seems we can't criticize women for treating men like they are Schrodinger's Rapist. I don't think women are all sluts and whores, but I bet I could get in my car and find one a lot faster than you could find a rapist.

Were you then fearful that you were outmatched if it came to a physical confrontation? If a guy weighs 100 pounds more than me, you're saying that it's somehow sexist of me to fear what he may do next.

Men deal with the threat of violence every day. We suffer more physical violence than women do. It hurts me just as much as it hurts you get to punched by a man my size. The difference is that I can hurt him back. That won't stop him, though. As a woman you're much more likely to be physically assaulted by your intimate partner. As a man I'm much more likely to be assaulted by that guy on the bus. That's the cold hard reality.

It's not just the penis, although it's often used as a weapon when it comes to men raping women. It's also size. Oh, and also the fact that most rapes are committed by men against women. Is it sexist of me to acknowledge that?

Nope. It's not racist of me to acknowledge that black men are more likely to be drug dealers - it's a fact. I just don't assume every black man I meet is Schrodinger's Drug Dealer because then it becomes racism. It's not sexist of me to acknowledge that women are far more likely to be hookers, perform in adult films, and flash their bodies at night clubs and on the beach. It's sexism when I treat every woman like she's Schrodinger's Slut.

So tell me what I should do, to be polite to all men even if they're going to get creepy, and to avoid an innocuous conversation suddenly turning vulgar.

The point is that you shouldn't do anything to all men because it's just as sexist to call them Schrodinger's Gentleman. Treat them as individuals. Treat them neutrally. Observe and react in ways that could be defended critically.

Is that too much to ask?

Maybe while you're at it, you can tell me the proper way to walk by construction sites so that the men don't call out crude things.

There isn't. My ex used to swing her hips when men did that. They would elbow each other and laugh. Some would shout, "You're all right, you know that?" That worked for her because her attitude was that they were being crude but playful. You don't have to agree or like it. You can react any way you want to it. I'm not telling you how to react. I'm telling you that the chances of one of those guys storming you and raping you approach nil.

Except I'm not treating people like they're scum. I've never been assaulted by somebody because I've treated them as scum. I've been assaulted by men that I've made the mistake of engaging in pleasant conversation. I've been assaulted by men because I made the mistake of dancing in their vicinity on the dancefloor.

I don't know you well enough to comment one way or another if you've treated men like scum. I'm just trying to get you to understand that you might have come across that way. I will say this, though. If you've been sitting on the subway and saw a man approaching the empty seat next to you, and you in response moved your bag on the seat and started staring out the window because he was Schrodinger's Rapist, you treated him like scum.

Maybe you should tell me. From what I can see from my own experiences and similar experiences that my friends have had, the only common factor is that some men out there get a kick out of being absolute vugar pr*cks with random women they encounter.

I cannot comment on situations I have not seen. I have seen women approached by a decent but, quite honestly, not particularly attractive man trying to strike up a conversation treat that guy in a pretty ****** way. Yeh, technically the woman was cordial, but all this body language stuff we're supposed to watch? Well, it tells us when you (generic you) think a man is worthless. I've seen your girlfriend roll her eyes or nudge you. I've seen the man walk away feeling like ****.

Because I'm sitting at the table with you, the man is not going to call you a bitch or ask you for a blow job. But when he's gone, I've called the woman on it. The women insist they did nothing wrong. They believed they were polite and treated him fairly because they seemed to say the right words, but it was clear to me and other men at the table that it was disrespectful. We felt it was painful to watch.

I'm not saying anything about you personally. I'm just saying that it's a two-way street and not nearly as simple as people make it out to be.

The way I've tried to avoid those situations is by sending out clear signals that I don't want strangers to speak to me. Yet, I'm told that's also not critical thinking and overly responsive to the actual level of threat.

That's because it's not thinking critically. You have the right to choose not to talk to anyone for whatever reason you want. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Can you think of a workable solution where I can be friendly to people in a way that ensures any given man won't suddenly decide to ask for sexual favors?

Nope, because it has never happened to me. What I'm saying is that a critical thinker should look for common factors she can rely upon as predictors. If you can't find any, that doesn't make the presence of a penis reliable.

Does it really matter what reason a stranger has for not wanting to talk to you? You'll never know. Some people are like me and really don't like talking to people they don't know.

Yeh, it does. It makes me wonder if I've done something to offend that person. It makes me wonder if I continue to see this same person if I should continue to avoid her. And as a fellow human being I'm entitled to express my opinion that you're missing out on a wonderful world. As a fellow human being I can say that I would prefer to live in a world that's not so antagonistic. I can say that if you change your behavior towards every man because of the bastards, the bastards win.

So.....me not talking to strange men hurts their little feelings..

Are you still sure you've never treated a man in such a way that he didn't feel like scum?

 

[Furcifer]

The author made it clear in the comments that she didn't think the author of xkcd was intending to be sexist or promote rape culture or anything like that..snip

"Look, I really love xkcd 95% of the time. But just as surviving violence doesn’t make it somehow totally cool to rape people, not meeting cultural standards of he-man masculinity doesn’t make it just fine to perpetuate rape culture"


On the contrary, she makes it quite clear 95% of the time they're cool, but this time there "perpetuating rape culture".

That's just nonsense. How can you be 5% cool with perpetuating rape? As if just this one time, because that's what you want to believe xkcd is suddenly promoting rape culture.

That's why I did an about face. If she really believes xkcd is 95% cool, why would you even insinuate they were promoting rape culture? That's such an extreme thing to say. Why not "a really bad joke" or "in poor taste"?

The comic is a pretty clear case of comedic irony, the guy is worried the girl is going to over react to his advances, and the girl is sad because he continues to ignore her.

There isn't even a hint of rape. Unless you think the girl is really reacting to him as a "Schrodinger's Rapist" or something.

The fact that xkcd has a "95%" proven track record, and still isn't given the benefit of the doubt (not that they even need it) is a little disturbing. It certainly brings to mind the image of a rabid animal.

 

[seewhatflows]

I've read this a few times and I just don't understand it in response to the comic strip.

The assumption that all women deep down live their lives for the sole purpose of attracting cock is, in itself, totally rapey and sexist, as the blog linked above states so well.

What misandry are you referring to in the "Would it kill you to be civil" post?

Also, calling this stuff radfem misandry is like calling Barack Obama a socialist. Catherine MacKinnon is a radical misandrist rape-obsessed feminist. The Shapely Prose gang are firmly seated in the mainstream.

 

[seewhatflows]

There isn't even a hint of rape.

The whole POINT of the comic is that, with women, "no" means "yes."

Come on.

 

[Furcifer]

The whole POINT of the comic is that, with women, "no" means "yes."

Come on.

again, wow, just wow.

There isn't the slightest hint that no means yes. The guy doesn't pursue anything, she shuts it down and he doesn't do anything. In the last panel he doesn't even approach her after what appears to have been a long time. The guy is the perfect model of what a man is supposed to do in this situation and he still fails.

I can't believe anyone would read this into the comic. Just knowing someone could think that makes me sad. I mean you really have to be damaged to get that out of the comic. It's so far removed from the comics intent as to be indistinguishable from complete insanity. If you can read that from this comic you can basically read anything into anything.

 

[Uncayimmy]

In the spirit of, "If you think you can do better, do it yourself" I have decided to write my own version of what I think the author should have written. I'll even talk about rape. I'll write it from a man's perspective addressing men. Here goes:

So, guys, some woman has caught your eye. You're a decent fella, and you're hoping to meet a decent woman. Maybe she's the one. For whatever reason, there's something special about her. But how do you approach her? Well, I'll start by telling you what not to do.

First, some background. You have to understand that while women live on the same planet as us, they see the world differently. Statistically, men are more likely to be physically assaulted than women. Women are most likely to be physically assaulted by their intimate partner while we men are more likely to be assaulted by acquaintances and strangers. We take certain precautions like being careful not to bump into some guy who looks like he's got a chip on his shoulder, but for the most part we just accept it as part of our lives. It's not a big deal. We can defend ourselves if needed, right?

It's not like that for women. For the most part they are smaller and weaker. Growing up, they didn't get into fights or play physically violent sports like football or wrestling. They feel a lot more vulnerable than we do. Imagine what it must be like to live in a world where you're surrounded by men several inches taller and many pounds heavier than you. You'd be a little on edge, wouldn't you?

Now add sexual assault to the mix. About one in six women have been sexually assaulted in their lifetime. Sadly, about one in 12 were assaulted as minors while the other one in 12 were assaulted only as adults. Any woman you know probably knows a woman who was sexually assaulted. Women typically don't tell men about it because of the social stigma (a sad situation but that's another story). By contrast a lot fewer men have been sexually assaulted, and it's just not something we talk about.

What I'm driving at here is that there's a level of fear we just don't comprehend. Even though 60% of adult rapes are committed by intimate partners (husbands, boyfriends, dates) and only 20% are committed by strangers, women are still concerned about meeting male strangers. There's the worry of imminent assault, and there's the worry of, "will this guy end up being a rapist?"

We can go through the numbers and say things like, "About one in 150,000 stranger encounters directly results in a sexual assault," but that's not comforting. We all fear the unknown to some degree or another. Now, I'm not saying that every woman thinks you're Schrodinger's Rapist when you approach, but understand that most women will feel a certain amount of vulnerability.

On top of that, we've all met those jerks who make crude comments to women. We joke about saying to a woman who declined an invitation to dance, "Does that mean a blow job is out of the question?" Thing is, some men actually say that. While they may think it a joke, the women are rightly offended. So, when you approach, that's in the back of their minds as well.

So, my first don't is this: Don't approach a woman in a situation where she feels really vulnerable. How do you figure that out? It's not hard. Imagine yourself physically where she is that situation. Now imagine three rough and ready biker dudes coming your way. Nervous? Then she will be, too. Dark alleys, stairwells and empty subway cars come to mind. Remember, there is safety in numbers.

In that kind of situation, I'm telling you flat-out that your chances of striking up a conversation are practically nil, so for purely selfish reasons, don't waste your time. But since you're a gentleman, don't make her feel nervous. Stay where you are. If she looks your way, smile. If she doesn't, don't stare, no matter how compelling you find her. It's just going to make her nervous. Do you want those biker dudes staring at you?

If she smiles back, that's good. But don't assume it's a come hither look. While she might feel relieved at your lack of aggression, it doesn't mean she feels safe. Give her time and space. If you get a few more looks and smiles (unlikely but possible), maybe you can offer a friendly greeting at a distance. See how it goes. Just understand that this is one of those situations where you need to be absolutely sure she's interested before approaching.

Here's another don't: Even if she's in what seems to be a relatively safe situation, don't approach her if she's not giving you any cues that's she interested. Read her body language. If she's not looking your way and continues not to look your way, that's all you need to know. She's telling you she's not interested. People typically looking around even if they are engaged in some activity. If she's not looking around, take the hint. If she does look around but avoids looking at you, take the hint.

It may not have anything to do with fear. She just might not be interested in you because you're not her type. Maybe she's in a relationship already. Who knows? The reality is that your chances of striking up a conversation are nil.

"But," you insist, "I've struck up conversations like that before." I'm sure you have. Did it go anywhere? When you approach her despite her obvious cues of disinterest, you're telling her that you suck at common courtesy and/or reading social cues. That doesn't bode well for your future with her. She might chat with you to be polite, but chances are you've already got a couple of strikes against you.

Yeh, I know it sucks to not get the opportunity to meet such a compelling woman, but that's life. You're going to forget her by the next day anyway. Life's like that. Show some perspective.

Here's another don't: Don't approach her if you look like somebody you'd dread seeing your sister with. If you're dressed like a bum or all sweaty and smelly, forget about it. Your charm won't overcome that. Since you're a gentleman, understand that she's going to wonder what kind of guy looking like that would approach a woman. "Obviously," she thinks, "this guy knows he has no chance. He must be one of those perverts who's going to get all crude with me." You're not that guy, so do her the courtesy of not making her think you are.

But let's say that you've received a green light to approach (she's met your eyes, smiled at you a couple of times). Here are some things you can and should do. First, respect her personal space. If you're too far away, that's not a problem. She can move closer if she wants. She'll appreciate your courtesy. Remember, you're a gentleman.

Second, smile and look friendly because you are happy to meet her and you're a friendly guy. Try to feel confident so you'll act confident. If you're not confident, don't try to fake it. Be sincere because sincerity trumps bravado any day.

You wanna know the best pick-up line in the world? It's, "Hi! How ya doing?" Some of you have the gift of gab, so you already know how to strike up a conversation. You know that there really is no such thing as a pick-up line. You know that sincerity and friendliness are all that's needed, so you never use the same line twice because every situation is different. If you're not sure what to say, just ask her something about herself. Don't get too personal, though, like "do you live around here?" or "are you here by yourself?" Remember those biker dudes? Just play it by ear.

Do keep the conversation light. Avoid politics and religion. Avoid talking about things that piss you off. Be friendly, remember? Don't talk about sex. You're a gentleman, right? Ask questions. Listen to her answers.

Do keep reading her body language. If she's looking away from you and closing off her body (arms folded, turning away), it's time to back off. For whatever reason she's no longer interested. It doesn't matter why. Maybe she's just not into you. You're not into every woman, are you? Well, maybe you are, but she's not. It doesn't mean you did anything wrong. Just disengage. Same thing goes if her answers became short, and/or she stops asking you questions. It's done. Be a gentleman and politely disengage. Say something like, "It was nice talking to you. Take care." Then, if possible, move somewhere else. You're a gentleman, right?

Now let's say the conversation is going well. The green lights keep coming. You keep respecting her personal space. She's just as compelling as she was when you first saw her. How do nurture this encounter into a possible relationship?

You can start by saying something like, "This has been really nice. I'd like to see you again sometime." Don't gush. Stalkers gush. You're a gentleman, remember? If she agrees, say something like, "Let me give you my number." This shows her that you respect her privacy. When you write down your number, write down your first and last name. Would you want your sister to go on a date with "Just Bob?" She'll probably Google your name to check up on you, so feel free to give her your Facebook address. If you have a business card, give that to her as well. This will put her a little more at ease.

Of course, you can also ask her for her number. Say something like, "If you prefer, you can give me your number, and I'll call you." Don't ask for her last name. She doesn't want you to Google her and find her address. She'll tell you when she's ready.

If she gives you her number, call her the next day. Don't call that same day. Give her some space. If you don't get an answer and have to leave a message, be friendly. Say your full name, give her your number again, and tell her again it was nice meeting her. If you don't get a return call within a few days, you can try one more time. If you get her voicemail, leave the same friendly message. If she doesn't call back, it's a done deal. Move on. Sometimes people get busy and feel awkward about not calling back quickly, so it's okay to let her know you're still interested. If she doesn't call back after the second message, be glad you had a pleasant conversation with a compelling woman and move on. Remember the biker dudes? You're a gentleman, so don't make her feel uncomfortable.

If you do go on a date, suggest someplace public, preferably in the afternoon or early evening. Remember the biker dudes. The same rules about reading body language and respecting personal space apply. If she's sending a message that she's not interested, move on. The same rules about phone calls continue to apply.

If you get a second date, well, you're on your own. Congratulations. I hope it works out for you. Just remember that trust takes time.

 

[Uncayimmy]

The whole POINT of the comic is that, with women, "no" means "yes."

Come on.

The only way I can possibly see your interpretation is if the physical layout of the strip confused you. The first four panels did not actually occur. The last panel is the only panel that actually happened. The first four panels are part of the man's thought bubble of what might happen.

Stated another way, it's really one giant, single panel comic. We have a man and a woman sitting next to each other on the train. The man is thinking to himself (giant thought bubble), "If I try to talk to her and say something as innocuous as 'nice notebook' she's going to think that I'm some sort of creep, so I'm just going to sit here quietly." While he's seemingly respected her wishes by not talking to her, she's lamenting on her blog that the cute guy sitting next to her is ignoring her.

This is a great example of irony in a world where irony is often mislabeled.

How you could possibly construe this as labeling women sluts is absolutely beyond me.

 

[Dunstan]

"Look, I really love xkcd 95% of the time. But just as surviving violence doesn’t make it somehow totally cool to rape people, not meeting cultural standards of he-man masculinity doesn’t make it just fine to perpetuate rape culture"


On the contrary, she makes it quite clear 95% of the time they're cool, but this time there "perpetuating rape culture".

That's just nonsense. How can you be 5% cool with perpetuating rape? As if just this one time, because that's what you want to believe xkcd is suddenly promoting rape culture.

That's why I did an about face. If she really believes xkcd is 95% cool, why would you even insinuate they were promoting rape culture? That's such an extreme thing to say. Why not "a really bad joke" or "in poor taste"?

The comic is a pretty clear case of comedic irony, the guy is worried the girl is going to over react to his advances, and the girl is sad because he continues to ignore her.

There isn't even a hint of rape. Unless you think the girl is really reacting to him as a "Schrodinger's Rapist" or something.

The fact that xkcd has a "95%" proven track record, and still isn't given the benefit of the doubt (not that they even need it) is a little disturbing. It certainly brings to mind the image of a rabid animal.

Well, first of all, you need to understand what is meant by the term "rape culture." It's not a phrase I'm wild about, frankly, but it has a specific meaning in feminist literature, and that meaning is not "saying rape is awesome!" Something can promote rape culture without ever approaching that.

A piece of art can have bad implications even if the author didn't intend them. (TV Tropes discusses a lot of them here

The writer of xkcd (Randall Munroe, I think?) probably just meant to write a funny little strip about two nerds who like each other but just can't connect, just like you describe. In fact, the first time I saw that strip, I didn't notice anything off-putting about it. But the way he drew the comic, he's showing a woman who physically appears to be trying to ignore the man, but we know (from the thought bubbles) that she really, secretly wants him to approach her. It's not wrong to point that out and discuss what it means.

Secondly, there's a big difference between occasionally saying something that is racist, sexist, promotes rape culture, etc. and actually being a racist, sexist, pro-rape culture, etc. Just like there's a difference between telling a lie once in a while and being "a liar," and between being rude on occasion and being "a rude person." We pretty much all recognize that it's silly to drag out the "but some of my best friends are black!" defense.

I realize that it's not fun to be accused of saying something racist or sexist. These kind of prejudices have become such Really Bad Things that we have Godwin's Law because Nazism (and the attached racism) is considered such a clear evil. And we're all a little on our guard about being fired or reprimanded or sued for having that label attached to us.

But we all need to chill out about this a little. The way you avoid being a rude person is not to never, ever, ever do anything rude -- because that's pretty much impossible -- but to try not to, acknowledge when you've failed, not freak out when someone points it out to you, and try to do better in the future.

And so it is with sexism and rape culture. Randall Munroe is not an awful, awful person because he drew one comic out of hundreds that has some unintentional baggage. It just makes him a human being living in a flawed society.

And yes, that's a two-way street. A woman can make the occasional misandrist statement without being a misandrist. You can argue that the writer of the Schrodinger post (or the Civil post) is making some anti-male statements without having to accuse her of being a man-hater.

 

[Dunstan]

In the spirit of, "If you think you can do better, do it yourself" I have decided to write my own version of what I think the author should have written. I'll even talk about rape. I'll write it from a man's perspective addressing men. Here goes:

I don't really have an issue with your alternate post, but some of the posters in this thread would. A lot of the criticisms made of the actual post would apply equally to yours.

But really, the main issue is that you wrote it from, as you say, a man's perspective. That doesn't make it wrong, it just means it's different. I think that both perspectives are useful.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I've read that several times and can't parse it. Don't assume I know what you mean by it or that or the other. Be explicit.

That's why I quote the bits from your message I'm answering to. But I guess I expect too much from some people.

I explained my numbers already. Several times, in fact. Looking at the women who were raped as adults, 68% reported that the perpetrator did not "threaten to harm or kill." In that same group of adult rape victims, 57% reported that they did not "think she/he/someone close would be seriously harmed or killed."

1. Yes, "seriously harmed or killed". It doesn't parse to otherwise being no threat at all, which was your actual claim I was answering to, from message #749. It's not as binary as either threat of serious harm or death, or no threat at all.

2. And so did 78.7% of raped men in that same US DOJ survey. They did not "think she/he/someone close would be seriously harmed or killed." Men were a lot less likely to feel in serious danger, but were raped anyway.

All I'm asking is for some consistency, you know? If you don't question whether that condition would make it less rape for men, I'm only asking for really the same standard applied to women too. Because holding the genders to different standards _is_ sexism.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

The only way I can possibly see your interpretation is if the physical layout of the strip confused you. The first four panels did not actually occur. The last panel is the only panel that actually happened. The first four panels are part of the man's thought bubble of what might happen.

Stated another way, it's really one giant, single panel comic. We have a man and a woman sitting next to each other on the train. The man is thinking to himself (giant thought bubble), "If I try to talk to her and say something as innocuous as 'nice notebook' she's going to think that I'm some sort of creep, so I'm just going to sit here quietly." While he's seemingly respected her wishes by not talking to her, she's lamenting on her blog that the cute guy sitting next to her is ignoring her.

This is a great example of irony in a world where irony is often mislabeled.

How you could possibly construe this as labeling women sluts is absolutely beyond me.

Nobody said that it's labelling women sluts. But, yes, it's putting in images the idea that while you may think her having her back turned at you and seeming focused on the laptop implies lack of interest, she's actually secretly wishing you'd pick her up.

Which seems to sum up how a lot of guys think: it can't possibly be that she's not interested in talking to that guy, and if she gives any "leave me alone" signs then she's playing hard to get or is probably just mistakenly giving them. Really, go ahead and interrupt her, you know she actually wishes you would already.

(Or, judging by some of the guy responses, if she's actually meaning them, then she must be some kind of man-hater. Though the comic itself doesn't get into that part too.)

The girl in the comic isn't even just using a notebook, she's actually turned her back to him completely. But apparently she's so oblivious to the signals she gives, that she's even doing that when she actually wants the guy to hit on her. You know, not just being in the market, so to speak, but actually complaining on her blog that the guy is still ignoring her.

 

[jiggeryqua]

The assumption that all women deep down live their lives for the sole purpose of attracting cock is, in itself, totally rapey and sexist, as the blog linked above states so well.

I think you're confusing one woman with all women (not to mention one cock with any or all cock). In the strip, that one woman wants that one man to pay attention to her. It's not stated explicitly, I'll grant you, but there's no reason to suppose she's not interested in all of him, including his cock.

TV Tropes also has something to say about that, on the same page Dunstan linked:

"It should be said that some of these tropes only carry Unfortunate Implications when it is assumed that an instance of one "type" is seen as a statement about all instances of this type [...]. This kind of thought process is called Guilt By Association. Whether or not people actually think this way in real life, however, is [debatable]."

Thank you for clearing up that debate.

 

[Uncayimmy]

That's why I quote the bits from your message I'm answering to. But I guess I expect too much from some people.

There's no need to be rude. When there are multiple possibilities for "it" once should take the extra time to substitute the appropriate phrase instead and use "it" on second reference.

1. Yes, "seriously harmed or killed". It doesn't parse to otherwise being no threat at all, which was your actual claim I was answering to, from message #749. It's not as binary as either threat of serious harm or death, or no threat at all.

I just re-read post #749 (note: if you were just looking at it, take the time post a link to it like this - I timed it and it took me less than 10 seconds). In that post I pointed out that the survey was inconsistent in their questioning:

* by using force or threatening to harm you or someone close to you?
* by using force or threat of force?
* by using force or threat of harm?
* against your will or by using force or threats?
* attempted to make you...?


My exact words were, "what happened in the 60% or so rapes that didn't involve either a threat of harm or a perceived threat of harm?" That question still stands. It could have been a threat of force, but as I keep saying, force was not defined. This is because the 70% number they gave was for, "Perpetrator threatened to harm or kill." Not threat of force. Not threat of serious harm. I used the 60% number because I'm cool with somebody feeling a threat without actually getting a verbal one still counts as a threat. Only in the study they call that group "Victim thought she/he/someone close would be seriously harmed or killed."

I see nothing wrong with my statement.

2. And so did 78.7% of raped men in that same US DOJ survey. They did not "think she/he/someone close would be seriously harmed or killed." Men were a lot less likely to feel in serious danger, but were raped anyway.

Right, so what type of events are we talking about? That's my whole point.

All I'm asking is for some consistency, you know? If you don't question whether that condition would make it less rape for men, I'm only asking for really the same standard applied to women too. Because holding the genders to different standards _is_ sexism.

The NVAWS is the one who invoked a double-standard, not me. The questions excluded corresponding events for men, yet they present the numbers as a comparison.

If you want to continue with this, do it in the other thread. Here's the post where I responded to you, and you declined to answer:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6325810#post6325810

 

[Uncayimmy]

Nobody said that it's labelling women sluts.

The post to which I was responding read, "The assumption that all women deep down live their lives for the sole purpose of attracting cock is, in itself, totally rapey and sexist, as the blog linked above states so well." I stand by my statement.

But, yes, it's putting in images the idea that while you may think her having her back turned at you and seeming focused on the laptop implies lack of interest, she's actually secretly wishing you'd pick her up.

One of the wonderful things about art is what our interpretations and inferences tell us about ourselves.

Which seems to sum up how a lot of guys think: it can't possibly be that she's not interested in talking to that guy, and if she gives any "leave me alone" signs then she's playing hard to get or is probably just mistakenly giving them. Really, go ahead and interrupt her, you know she actually wishes you would already.

What an odd way for the author to send such a message. I'm curious. How do you interpret this scene? Follow it all the way to the end and see how Kelso interprets Laurie's comments.

The girl in the comic isn't even just using a notebook, she's actually turned her back to him completely. But apparently she's so oblivious to the signals she gives, that she's even doing that when she actually wants the guy to hit on her. You know, not just being in the market, so to speak, but actually complaining on her blog that the guy is still ignoring her.

I am literally laughing out loud reading your comments. It's either that or cry. It truly saddens me that someone's perspective on life is so twisted that they would get that from what is nothing more than an updated cliche about men and women miscommunicating.

So, tell me, does this comic also mean that all men are fearful of having their photos spread around the Internet and labeled as some creep?

<shakes head and walks away to make some nachos>

 

[Uncayimmy]

I don't really have an issue with your alternate post, but some of the posters in this thread would. A lot of the criticisms made of the actual post would apply equally to yours.

Criticisms such as what?

But really, the main issue is that you wrote it from, as you say, a man's perspective. That doesn't make it wrong, it just means it's different. I think that both perspectives are useful.

I don't think both perspectives are useful. I find her article to be antagonistic and divisive. I consider mine to be friendly and bringing about mutual understanding. I think mine will do a much better job of bringing about the behavior she prefers while at the same time encouraging women to apply critical thinking to their risk assessment.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I think you're confusing one woman with all women (not to mention one cock with any or all cock). In the strip, that one woman wants that one man to pay attention to her. It's not stated explicitly, I'll grant you, but there's no reason to suppose she's not interested in all of him, including his cock.

TV Tropes also has something to say about that, on the same page Dunstan linked:

"It should be said that some of these tropes only carry Unfortunate Implications when it is assumed that an instance of one "type" is seen as a statement about all instances of this type [...]. This kind of thought process is called Guilt By Association. Whether or not people actually think this way in real life, however, is [debatable]."

Thank you for clearing up that debate.

In the same comic, that woman's idea of attracting the guy however means turning her back at him and pretending to be focused on the laptop. Which is illustrating the same kind of mentality that appeared over and over in the comments, and at least once in the thread. That maybe someone going through all the trouble of giving certain signals doesn't _really_ mean it, and it's therefore ok to go ahead and ignore them.

Again, the girl in the comic is basically showing the guy the back of her head. Look at the position of the notebook. To look at the screen at all, someone needs to be looking in the exact opposite direction than the guy is, and to do any typing the shoulders would need to be at _least_ 45% turned.

I can't even imagine even an Aspie thinking that that's the proper signal for "I hope he starts talking to me."

Also, I'm not sure what your point is about guilt by association. It's pretty hard for any comic to make an "all" claim, so most of what they do generally are illustrating an example or by example. The issue is what they choose to illustrate.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

One of the wonderful things about art is what our interpretations and inferences tell us about ourselves.

Indeed. Such as an assumption that placing the laptop in a position that needs showing the guy the back of your head to see the screen at all, and to lean in the opposite direction than he is, and in a position that would need the shoulders turned by at least 45 degrees to even reach the keyboard with both hands... well, totally can't be reasonably construed as conducive to any inference.

 

[Furcifer]

Well, first of all, you need to understand what is meant by the term "rape culture." It's not a phrase I'm wild about, frankly, but it has a specific meaning in feminist literature, and that meaning is not "saying rape is awesome!" Something can promote rape culture without ever approaching that.

A piece of art can have bad implications even if the author didn't intend them. (TV Tropes discusses a lot of them here

The writer of xkcd (Randall Munroe, I think?) probably just meant to write a funny little strip about two nerds who like each other but just can't connect, just like you describe. In fact, the first time I saw that strip, I didn't notice anything off-putting about it. But the way he drew the comic, he's showing a woman who physically appears to be trying to ignore the man, but we know (from the thought bubbles) that she really, secretly wants him to approach her. It's not wrong to point that out and discuss what it means.

Secondly, there's a big difference between occasionally saying something that is racist, sexist, promotes rape culture, etc. and actually being a racist, sexist, pro-rape culture, etc. Just like there's a difference between telling a lie once in a while and being "a liar," and between being rude on occasion and being "a rude person." We pretty much all recognize that it's silly to drag out the "but some of my best friends are black!" defense.

I realize that it's not fun to be accused of saying something racist or sexist. These kind of prejudices have become such Really Bad Things that we have Godwin's Law because Nazism (and the attached racism) is considered such a clear evil. And we're all a little on our guard about being fired or reprimanded or sued for having that label attached to us.

But we all need to chill out about this a little. The way you avoid being a rude person is not to never, ever, ever do anything rude -- because that's pretty much impossible -- but to try not to, acknowledge when you've failed, not freak out when someone points it out to you, and try to do better in the future.

And so it is with sexism and rape culture. Randall Munroe is not an awful, awful person because he drew one comic out of hundreds that has some unintentional baggage. It just makes him a human being living in a flawed society.

And yes, that's a two-way street. A woman can make the occasional misandrist statement without being a misandrist. You can argue that the writer of the Schrodinger post (or the Civil post) is making some anti-male statements without having to accuse her of being a man-hater.

I suppose it's possible, it's just that even if he's "only human" the comic is still pretty far removed from suggesting women really mean yes when they're saying no. You've really got to be looking for it to see it.

The author of the article however, Kate Harding, seems to be critical of men no matter what they say or do. After reading a few of her blogs I can say with relative certainty you simply can't win for losing with her. Read them, men aren't allowed to talk about women because they aren't women and can't possibly understand them. If a guy says "Women can do what they want", she says she doesn't need their permission to do what she wants. Apparently men don't open their mouths without intending to control women.

It's not so much the Civil post that paints her as a misandrist as it is the entire website. Read some of the 140 blogs in the "feminism" category, it's enough to make you weep.

Or apologize. The women that have participated in this thread have been more than fair in comparison. I certainly have a different opinion of what constitute an extreme feminist viewpoint after reading more of her blog. Sorry ladies.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

In the same comic, that woman's idea of attracting the guy however means turning her back at him and pretending to be focused on the laptop. Which is illustrating the same kind of mentality that appeared over and over in the comments, and at least once in the thread. That maybe someone going through all the trouble of giving certain signals doesn't _really_ mean it, and it's therefore ok to go ahead and ignore them.

Again, the girl in the comic is basically showing the guy the back of her head. Look at the position of the notebook. To look at the screen at all, someone needs to be looking in the exact opposite direction than the guy is, and to do any typing the shoulders would need to be at _least_ 45% turned.

I can't even imagine even an Aspie thinking that that's the proper signal for "I hope he starts talking to me."

Also, I'm not sure what your point is about guilt by association. It's pretty hard for any comic to make an "all" claim, so most of what they do generally are illustrating an example or by example. The issue is what they choose to illustrate.

YOu've never dealt with anyone cripplingly shy, have you?

I know that the whole hunched over, arms tucked in a bit, protecting my drink and keeping my head down in a bar is not exactly a welcoming pose, but no matter whether I wanted a certain (or indeed, almost any) woman to come talk to me or not, it was the pose I always adopted. I wouldn't come out of my shell because I was afraid of what might happen, and I know that there are men and women who adopt defensive poses even if they want some guy/girl/monster from dimension Z to come and talk to them because they're afraid that even if they do, it's not because they want to actually have a real conversation. Frankly, I can imagine (and have done but with a text message and not a blog) doing the exact thing the girl is doing in that situation.

Furthermore, you have no idea if that is the sole pose the girl is in. She could be turning to look at him from time to time, you don't know because the "real world" is only one panel. She might be turned away just because that enables her to use her laptop for something else that she's doing.


To be totally honest, I think it's a bit stupid to assume that any man who comes up to you and says hi and makes a comment like, for example, cute notebook is a potential rapist. I think it's a really unfortunate state of affairs when a single comment is considered creepy. However, I DO agree that if the response is dismissive then to continue the conversation is creepy, and is something I think you would find most men wouldn't do.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I'm guessing you wouldn't actually go out of the way to have your back turned at her, though, right? We're not really talking just defensive posture, which would be hard to judge in a stick figure drawing.

I mean, really, the eyes are on this side, the back of the head is on the other side. Even if someone started the conversation him-/her-self, I'd feel uncomfortable talking to the back of their head. It goes way past defensive.

As for the rest, well, yes, we don't really know exactly what was in the author's head. Maybe somewhere between those panels the girl is looking at him. Or maybe she has an extra pair of eyes on the back. Or maybe there's a tentacled alien on the opposite bench. Whatever. But in the end it's the author's responsibility to give the reader all the elements that are needed or relevant. If that's what he actually drew, well, that's what is provided as relevant to the situation at hand. Adding one's own extra "what's actually happening in between" is really just ending up talking about one's own fanfic, rather than what's actually there.