Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok? [Archive] - Page 4

FattyCatty

15th September 2010, 03:39 PM

A female friend sent me this and I'm a little unsure of how I feel about it.

http: //kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger’s-rapist-or-a-guy’s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced

I think this is bigotry, prejudicial and uncritical, but I'm not sure I have a problem with it...

Is this a good example of weighing social incentives? If a guy is so socially awkward/unaware is it acceptable to treat him as a potential rapist?

Or is this borderline CTer delusion and dishonest use of a statistic? Populating the world with shadow agent boogeyman where every man is a possible rapist, every Arab is a terrorist and every homosexual is a disease vector?
I'm new to this forum and to skepticism and I hope I'm following the proper procedures. I've read this whole thread and have found some posters extremely helpful (HansMustermann, Dunstan, and Professor Yaffle) in my attempt to understand the article and decide how to respond to the OP.

Note that many posters have forgotten that the article is a guy's guide to approaching strange women without getting macedThey treat it as if it were a tutorial for women.

Response to the OP:

I do not think that the article is bigoted or prejudicial. I'm not sure how you're using "uncritical" here. I do think the article does a good job of telling men how women weigh risks in some specific situations.

I'm not sure what you mean by "social incentives" being weighed. I do think it is acceptable to treat the "guy" as a potential rapist.

I disagree with your last paragraph.

Assumptions for response:

I don't think the article was paranoid or illogical, or that it adopted unsound policies, as many state or imply in this thread. The author, it seems to me, lays things out quite sensibly as a guide for men approaching strange women. She begins by assuming you are a good sort of person who wants to become acquainted with a women you see in public.
She lets you know that women are dealing with a set of challenges and concerns that are strange to you, a man and that preventing assault or murder are part of a women's daily routine. This doesn't necessarily mean that it is the most important thought going through her mind at all times, just that is a part of her conciousness. She goes on to say that you may or may not be a man who would commit rape. I won't know for sure unless you start sexually assaulting me.

She then explains, to the men who might approach her, the risk assessment process she uses.

1. She sets her own risk tolerance level. As is her right
2. Be aware of what signals you are sending by your appearance and the environment (she will pay close attention to your appearance and behavior and match those signs to her idea of a threat. I think most people do this
3. Learn to understand and respect women's communication to you.
a. Initial cues (e.g., body turned away from you)
b. Negative response (e.g., monosyllabic, without looking at you)
c. Positive reponse (e.g., answering in a friendly and talkative manner, body turned toward you, making eye contact)
4. Failure to respect what women say (including non-verbal cues, as in #3) labels you a problem.
a. A man who ignores a women's NO in a non-sexual setting is more likely to ignore NO in a sexual setting, as well.
b. You believe your desires are a legitimate reason to override her rights. why would she wish to become further acquainted with such a man?
5. Don't rape.
Shouldn't this go without saying? Of course it should. Sadly, that's not the world I live in. This seemed offensive to many posters. If you're not planning on raping anyone, can't you just ignore it?

Several posters also seemed offended by the idea that all men were considered potential rapists. 3bodyproblem, on page 4, post 133, said: Certainly women don't want to be raped, but men don't want to be considered "rapists" either. I understand his point of view, but I believe her effort to be safe overrides his feelings.

Uncayimmy

15th September 2010, 03:43 PM

The writing is sloppy, but it only requires two assumptions to be read charitably:

1) That there are about as many women as men.

2) That multiple men aren't sexually assaulting the same women to hide their numbers.

The first one is basically true, and the error in the second one runs in favor of the argument that there are fewer rapists in relation to the general population.
Fewer than what? Obviously you're applying some sort of comparison if you're arguing that it's fewer, right?

As for #2, it's poorly written. I think I know what you're trying to say, but you booted it as bad as she did.

That's the point: she made conservative assumptions. They were likely wrong, but each mistake weakens her case, and thus, they're not really that big of a deal.
I don't follow what you're trying to say there...

I don't know that she made conservative assumptions at all. I know she made some bad assumptions and propped them up like they were meaningful and insightful. If she arrived at a number that conservatively estimates the number of rapists in the male population, that was just dumb luck. It's your subjective judgment that she made a "conservative" estimate. It's my judgment that she had no idea how to estimate the number of rapists and pulled numbers out of her ass. I also get the impression that she had no clue that the women raped in the last 12 months were raped an average of 2.9 times, and about 80% were raped by the same individual. If she did, she wouldn't have said anything about men averaging 10 rapes like she did.

TraneWreck

15th September 2010, 04:15 PM

Fewer than what? Obviously you're applying some sort of comparison if you're arguing that it's fewer, right?

As for #2, it's poorly written. I think I know what you're trying to say, but you booted it as bad as she did.

Please. It's not a complicated prospect. If we assume that each rape victim has a unique attacker, and each attacker has a unique victim, as the author in the OP did, then there will be fewer rapists in the overall male population than if we make other available assumptions.

If we assume that multiple males are abusing the same victims, than an area with 1 in 6 female victims could have a population of assailants of 1 in 4 or 1 in 3.

Thus, it was an assumption that ran contrary to the goal of her piece. She then went even further and assumed that the average rapist has 10 unique victims to get to the 1 in 60 number.

It's simple, it's clear, you can complain all you want, but if rapists have multiple, overlapping victims (which they do in the real world) then for every woman assaulted there could be more than one assailant, and therefore there could be a larger percentage of male rapists to the general population.

I don't follow what you're trying to say there...

If I want to make an argument that medication X is deadly, and I tell you, "1 out of 1,000 people will become ill and die after taking medication X, so the FDA should take it off the market." You telling me, "Your stats are way off. It's actually 1 in 500," doesn't hurt my case even if I was wrong on the facts.

She overestimated the number of rapists in the general male population. Perhaps she should have revised her stats for "stranger rapes," but once again, she was talking about a subset of males, not every male stranger, so those stats aren't perfect either.

I don't know that she made conservative assumptions at all. I know she made some bad assumptions and propped them up like they were meaningful and insightful. If she arrived at a number that conservatively estimates the number of rapists in the male population, that was just dumb luck. It's your subjective judgment that she made a "conservative" estimate. It's my judgment that she had no idea how to estimate the number of rapists and pulled numbers out of her ass. I also get the impression that she had no clue that the women raped in the last 12 months were raped an average of 2.9 times, and about 80% were raped by the same individual. If she did, she wouldn't have said anything about men averaging 10 rapes like she did.

If we're trying to figure out the ratio of rapists in the general male population, an assailant raping the same victim multiple times doesn't really help us.

It's your subjective judgment that it was dumb luck, so what? There's a basic assumption of charity when interpreting someone's argument. I tried to interpret her stats in the best possible light. They're still flawed and riddled with errors, but those errors aren't fatal to her argument.

TraneWreck

15th September 2010, 04:17 PM

Perhaps you missed the entire point of the article? The author is saying "Listen guys, you really want to know why women are blowing you off? Because we're evaluating you as a potential rapist"

[...]

I know this because when a jerk moves into a neighborhood nobody blinks, but when a sex offender moves in people go bonkers. It doesn't matter if his probability of re-offending it 1% or 99% or if he was simply caught hanging a leak behind the pub.

Haha. Wow.

Uncayimmy

15th September 2010, 05:06 PM

Please. It's not a complicated prospect. If we assume that each rape victim has a unique attacker, and each attacker has a unique victim, as the author in the OP did, then there will be fewer rapists in the overall male population than if we make other available assumptions.
1) By author, do you mean the lady who wrote the article or the member who made the opening post?

2) If we assume each victim as having a rapist who raped nobody else, which is what I think you are trying to say, then that assumption gives us the highest possible number of rapists unless we assume multiple rapists per victim. It seems to me you booted it again because you wrote that this number will be lower than for any other assumptions. That's backwards. This number will be higher and any other assumptions will be lower, such as her malformed statement about 10 rapes per rapist. Your post is not a model for clarity.

This is because 1 in 6 female victims will have a roughly equal number of male assailants.
This is what 3B was arguing the author believed.

If we assume that multiple males are abusing the same victims, than an area with 1 in 6 female victims could have a population of assailants of 1 in 4 or 1 in 3.
Yes.

Thus, it was an assumption that ran contrary to the goal of her piece. She then went even further and assumed that the average rapist has 10 unique victims to get to the 1 in 60 number.
That's what I said about 20 posts back, but apparently people can't let sleeping dogs lie.

It's simple, it's clear, you can complain all you want, but if rapists have multiple, overlapping victims (which they do in the real world) then for every woman assaulted there could be more than one assailant, and therefore there could be a larger percentage of male rapists to the general population.
Well, once again you are using the term a comparison and not identifying to what you are comparing it. I assume you mean the 1 in 60 number.

As for me "complaining" the thread title is "when is uncritical thought ok?" If this article were instead a post about psi by Rodney, we'd be ripping it to shreds. Being "right" for the wrong reasons doesn't cut it in my book. The reality is that her 1 in 60 number is not "right" anyway, and I'm under no obligation to be "charitable" when evaluating her article.

I hold her and the subject matter up to the same standards as I do anything else. I've run into you before on this forum. Several times, in fact. I've never seen you be "charitable" towards arguments. In fact, I've found that you often rip apart arguments using techniques that remind me of a lawyer trying to confuse a witness and/or jury rather than arrive at an understanding. I've seen you deliberately (in my opinion) construe an argument in the harshest manner possible when it was clear to me what the other person was saying.

So, I wonder about your comments in this thread. It seems almost paternalistic to be talking about charity and making assumptions on the author's behalf.

If we're trying to figure out the ratio of rapists in the general male population, an assailant raping the same victim multiple times doesn't really help us.
Right. But that's not what the article as about, was it? I addressed this already. Looking at rapist density (for lack of a better term) is not particularly useful by itself. There's a time factor involved (the 1 in 6 number is lifetime) as well as an age factor (rapists of adult females are typically not under 14 years old, and most of the intimate partner ones are not going to be under 18). What's important is identifying a person who will rape you (meaning the author, other women) and under what situations it's most likely.

It's your subjective judgment that it was dumb luck, so what? There's a basic assumption of charity when making an argument. I tried to interpret her stats in the best possible light. They're still flawed and riddled with errors, but those errors aren't fatal to her argument.
I don't even know what her argument is.

TraneWreck

15th September 2010, 05:25 PM

1) By author, do you mean the lady who wrote the article or the member who made the opening post?

The woman who wrote the article.

2) If we assume each victim as having a rapist who raped nobody else, which is what I think you are trying to say, then that assumption gives us the highest possible number of rapists unless we assume multiple rapists per victim. It seems to me you booted it again because you wrote that this number will be lower than for any other assumptions. That's backwards. This number will be higher and any other assumptions will be lower, such as her malformed statement about 10 rapes per rapist. Your post is not a model for clarity.

I said fewer rapists with respect to the general population. This is not backwards.

You're trying as hard as you can to not understand:

"If we assume that each rape victim has a unique attacker, and each attacker has a unique victim, as the author in the OP did, then there will be fewer rapists in the overall male population than if we make other available assumptions."

That's not complex, it's clear, and it's correct.

That's what I said about 20 posts back, but apparently people can't let sleeping dogs lie.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean. I've now repeated this to various posters about 50 times. It's only moot when you step in and make a statement?

You can't simultaneously complain things are unclear and then complain about repetition. I have no idea what you're having trouble with, so I have to be comprehensive.

Well, once again you are using the term a comparison and not identifying to what you are comparing it. I assume you mean the 1 in 60 number.

There are a range of possible assumptions. As I explicitly stated in the last post, the comparisons are between these available assumptions.

As for me "complaining" the thread title is "when is uncritical thought ok?" If this article were instead a post about psi by Rodney, we'd be ripping it to shreds. Being "right" for the wrong reasons doesn't cut it in my book. The reality is that her 1 in 60 number is not "right" anyway, and I'm under no obligation to be "charitable" when evaluating her article.

No one said you were obligated, it's just a principle of decent argumentation.

I've now also said that she's wrong on the stats about 50 times. Being wrong on the stats doesn't affect her argument. This is something that happens from time to time.

I hold her and the subject matter up to the same standards as I do anything else. I've run into you before on this forum. Several times, in fact. I've never seen you be "charitable" towards arguments. In fact, I've found that you often rip apart arguments using techniques that remind me of a lawyer trying to confuse a witness and/or jury rather than arrive at an understanding. I've seen you deliberately (in my opinion) construe an argument in the harshest manner possible when it was clear to me what the other person was saying.

If you think I'm being uncharitable, you're welcome to point it out.

So, I wonder about your comments in this thread. It seems almost paternalistic to be talking about charity and making assumptions on the author's behalf.

Haha, and the relentless urge to personalize everything and engage in needless sanctimony is the hallmark of your history here. Why did you even bring this up? It has no bearing on the discussion. Do you just want to try and launch empty barbs like 3body?

Right. But that's not what the article as about, was it? I addressed this already. Looking at rapist density (for lack of a better term) is not particularly useful by itself. There's a time factor involved (the 1 in 6 number is lifetime) as well as an age factor (rapists of adult females are typically not under 14 years old, and most of the intimate partner ones are not going to be under 18). What's important is identifying a person who will rape you (meaning the author, other women) and under what situations it's most likely.

What I find amusing is that you want to restrict conditions on the general stat when it suits your argument, but don't attempt to deal with restrictions that more closely match the situations discussed in the article.. A lot of surveys that have been linked in this thread put the number of self-identified rapists at about 1 in 20. Let's say it's twice that for the purpose of this argument, 1 in 40.

You argue that this is the wrong number because we're discussing stranger encounters on public transit. The number should be much lower.

But the stranger numbers aren't appropriate either. First, most of the rape statistics include "other acquaintances" as separate from strangers. Once again, this could mean the guy that rides the bus with you every morning. It's simply an answer to the question, "did you know your rapist?"

Secondly, the article is not aimed at the general population of strangers. It's a subset of strangers who approach women and then ignore their desire to be left alone. There are no statistics available to indicate whether this increases the chance of rape or not or how significant that change happens to be.

Additionally, women who are raped later in life are often sexually abused when they're younger, as your stats show. I don't know why you think this negates the argument that women are in danger. People who were assaulted when younger also ride public transit.

The fact of the matter is that there are no decent statistics to give an accurate risk assessment of a woman dealing with a man she recognizes who is harassing her against her wishes.

I don't even know what her argument is.

That would be a problem.

INRM

15th September 2010, 06:39 PM

Strikes me as overreactive

Uncayimmy

15th September 2010, 06:42 PM

TI said fewer rapists with respect to the general population. This is not backwards.

You're trying as hard as you can to not understand:

"If we assume that each rape victim has a unique attacker, and each attacker has a unique victim, as the author in the OP did, then there will be fewer rapists in the overall male population than if we make other available assumptions."

That's not complex, it's clear, and it's correct.

I am trying to understand. You made a simple If X then Y statement.

X: Assume 1 rapist per 1 victim.

Y: "there will be fewer rapists in the overall male population than [with other assumptions]"

If the population is 10,000 and the 1 in 6 women are raped, that means 1 in 6 men are rapists. That's 1,660. Right?

X: 1,660/10,000

Any other assumption, which I take to mean rapists having more than one unique victim, results in a fewer than 1,660.. Right? She said 10.

Y: 166/10,000

X > Y but you said X < Y

Sorry, but I'm just not parsing your sentence as you intend. I'm trying.

No one said you were obligated, it's just a principle of decent argumentation.
LOL! Okay, I'm going to remember that for future reference.

Haha, and the relentless urge to personalize everything and engage in needless sanctimony is the hallmark of your history here. Why did you even bring this up? It has no bearing on the discussion. Do you just want to try and launch empty barbs like 3body?
I'm expressing my surprise at you being "charitable" towards someone who misuses statistics to arrive at a number that is wrong and wondering if the subject matter has an effect. It seems to twist a lot of people into knots.

What I find amusing is that you first want to restrict conditions on the general stat. A lot of surveys that have been linked in this thread put the number of self-identified rapists at about 1 in 20. Let's say it's twice that for the purpose of this argument, 1 in 40.
A lot of surveys? Nope. A couple of limited use, yes. I agree that would be a good start for arriving at the number.

You argue that this is the wrong number because we're discussing stranger encounters on public transit. The number should be much lower.
Now you're not being charitable with me. I went into great detail about what women should be looking at. Rapist density is way down the list.

But the stranger numbers aren't appropriate either. First, most of the rape statistics include "other acquaintances" as separate from strangers. Once again, this could mean the guy that rides the bus with you every morning. It's simply an answer to the question, "did you know your rapist?"
You're not being charitable with me again. I have already established that the acquaintance and stranger pools (those men a woman encounters) are huge compared to the intimate partner pool - a couple orders of magnitude, actually. In terms of perpetrators, the two groups combined make a smaller percentage than intimate partners.

Secondly, the article is not aimed at the general population of strangers. It's a subset of strangers who approach women and then ignore their desire to be left alone. There are no statistics available to indicate whether this increases the chance of rape or not or how significant that change happens to be.
I disagree with your assessment. It's aimed at all men who even consider talking to a strange woman. Did you not recall the church example?

Additionally, women who are raped later in life are often sexually abused when they're younger, as your stats show. I don't know why you think this negates the argument that women are in danger. People who were assaulted when younger also ride public transit.
Sorry, but that's not what I or the stats say. The stats show that women who were raped as minors are twice as likely to be raped as adults.

The fact of the matter is that there are no decent statistics to give an accurate risk assessment of a woman dealing with a man she recognizes who is harassing her against her wishes.
True.

That would be a problem.
With her writing, yes. It's crap.

TraneWreck

15th September 2010, 06:57 PM

I am trying to understand. You made a simple If X then Y statement.

[...]

Sorry, but I'm just not parsing your sentence as you intend. I'm trying.

If 1 in 60 men are rapists, the number of rapists is lower with respect to the general population than if 1 in 6 men are rapists.

In the first case, in a population of 600 men, 10 will be rapists, in the second case, 100 will be rapists. The first case has fewer rapists.

You're not being charitable with me again. I have already established that the acquaintance and stranger pools (those men a woman encounters) are huge compared to the intimate partner pool - a couple orders of magnitude, actually. In terms of perpetrators, the two groups combined make a smaller percentage than intimate partners.

Right, but that's just one half of the modification.

It's acquaintance plus a certain pattern of behavior, namely ignoring women's decisions.

Take the commenter talking about the man who followed her home from the bus. What are the odds that he's a rapist?

There's really no good way to tell, and this is the population of people that the article is frustrated with and most of the comments are directed at.

I disagree with your assessment. It's aimed at all men who even consider talking to a strange woman. Did you not recall the church example?

The article is aimed at all men. The fear and concern is saved for men who behave in a certain way. The entire point is that not behaving in those ways would make women more comfortable.

Sorry, but that's not what I or the stats say. The stats show that women who were raped as minors are twice as likely to be raped as adults.

I fail to see how that's any different that what I said:

"women who are raped later in life are often sexually abused when they're younger, as your stats show."

Furcifer

15th September 2010, 08:23 PM

Haha. Wow.

Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your news letter :D

TraneWreck

15th September 2010, 08:36 PM

Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your news letter :D

I'm flattered by your interest, but I'm not sure you'd get much out of the letter. It's in English and we deal with a lot of basic arithmetic, so it's probably a little challenging for you.

You might want to try something more your speed, like a tv station that only shows one color or Time magazine.

Elizabeth I

15th September 2010, 08:38 PM

And no man is ever asked if he is forced to insert his penis in a vagina or anus.
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.

Furcifer

15th September 2010, 08:39 PM

If 1 in 60 men are rapists, the number of rapists is lower with respect to the general population than if 1 in 6 men are rapists.

In the first case, in a population of 600 men, 10 will be rapists, in the second case, 100 will be rapists. The first case has fewer rapists.

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.

Furcifer

15th September 2010, 08:48 PM

Uncayimmy

15th September 2010, 09:47 PM

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.

There's some circular logic there. We don't ask about men being forced to perform a sex act because we somehow already know that it's rare?:confused:

Women can respond physically to rape and some even orgasm (http://ouradopt.com/adoption-blog/nov-2008/faitha/trauma-tuesday-orgasms-during-rape-and-sexual-abuse). Why do you automatically assume that the same cannot happen for men? If a man is forced to allow himself to be fellated, do you believe he will not respond? The reality is that a man can be physically aroused and raped (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/528821). Do you understand that men sometimes have erections during a prostate exam (http://ehealthforum.com/health/erection-during-prostate-exam-t137706.html)? I would say that all victims are subject to feeling guilt about their bodies responding.

What about male prostitutes that are expected to give rather than receive? Do you think these young men are sexually aroused by some fat, hairy old man with bad breath?

I wouldn't say that I have been raped, but I have managed to have sex with a woman when I did not want to have sex and was suffering a very bad migraine headache (we were trying to conceive). Once I achieved an erection the stimulation kept me from losing it despite my poor attitude towards it and terrible pain in my head. I was physically but not emotionally aroused. Hell, gay men manage to have sex with their wives for years.

Even if a man is not aroused, do you understand that there are devices that can be used to create and/or maintain an erection? A vacuum pump and restrictive device is all that's needed (not that it's necessarily needed at all). The simple reality is that the body can respond physically to stimulation (http://www.aest.org.uk/survivors/male/myths_about_male_rape.htm).

A woman in Russia was convicted of raping 10 men using drugs (http://www.mosnews.com/weird/2009/06/18/blackwidow/), so that avenue (for lack of a better term) for rape is open to both genders. Drunk men can be taken advantage of just like drunk women.

But as I noted several times, "force" is undefined. Many people believe that "consent" given due to psychological and emotional blackmail is not consent at all, and a woman who has sex under those conditions would be considered as being raped. Do you not think the same thing is applicable to men? Can we not be coerced? Emotionally blackmailed?

What about a man who is stimulated in his sleep? If he wakes up with a woman on top of him, is he not being raped in the same way as a woman who wakes up with a man inside her? It happens. What about a man who doesn't want to go "all the way" and the woman coerces him or physically forces herself on him? If a man does that, we call it rape, but we don't even ask men if a woman has ever done that to him?

The majority of rape victims are minors. We consider it statutory rape when the partner is an adult (laws vary, of course). A 12 year old boy presumably cannot consent, can he? Yet the NVAWS doesn't even ask about it.

The NVAWS was severely flawed in gathering information about male victims of rape. I also believe it was flawed in capturing data for female victims. I'm not sure at all whether rapes committed through coercion or drugs/alcohol were included. I believe they should have been.

I also believe our language needs to differentiate the various "types" of rapes to give all of us a better picture of what actually happens. I'm not saying any one "type" is worse or better than another. However, the circumstances surrounding (say) stranger abductions, threats of violence, consensual sex acts gone bad, waking up to being violated, being violated while willingly intoxicated, being violated while unwillingly intoxicated, coercion through emotional blackmail, and statutory rape have about as many differences as they do similarities. Each "type" represents different situations and different relationships (if any) with the perpetrator, and we do ourselves a disservice by lumping them all together. The result is articles like the one referenced in the OP where the woman seems preoccupied with the danger of strangers and seemingly oblivious to the far greater dangers she faces in a relationship.

Furcifer

15th September 2010, 10:02 PM

If you don't feel that the message is valid because you don't like the delivery, that's fine.

I don't think a single person has suggested her message is invalid. Not one. It's her reasoning that's faulty.

Her message is clear, women are cautious because there are far too many that have been assaulted, or will be assaulted in their lifetime.

It's saying that they are cautious because 1 in 60 men they meet are rapists that's faulty.

It's her saying some men should NEVER approach women that's faulty.

Don't drink and drive is a valid message, don't drink and drive because you might spill your drink is still a valid message, but the reasoning is faulty.

UNLoVedRebel

16th September 2010, 12:35 AM

Elizabeth I

16th September 2010, 03:26 AM

Dipayan

16th September 2010, 04:02 AM

Yes, if pursuasion was her intent she radically underestimated male sensitivity. I'm surprised at how easily feelings were hurt. .

It was simply supposed to be dating advice, I would think. Speaking for myself, I don't think my feelings are hurt.

Of course the article was more of a venting of frustration than anything. The complaint about tone and civility strikes me as quite similar in construction to theist whining over the mean, nasty New Atheists. Sometimes it's necessary to just call ******** ********.

'Venting of frustration' is not what I get from the article. What I do get is what she herself makes clear in the article - that this piece is on how a decent, regular person can strike up a conversation with a woman without setting off a woman's 'rape radar'.

Which is why I took no offense. That article wasn't directed at me. It was directed at the endless dirtballs, scumbags, douche-knozzles, and, at worst, sexual assailants that women have to deal with on a dialy basis in a way that few, if any, hetero-sexual men ever encounter.

I think the reason why this discussion is getting so heated is because some people, such as yourself, feel that others are taking offence. I have no problem with being called a Schrodinger's Rapist. In fact, I find that term quite clever, which is what made me explore this thread in the first place. My position is based only on the fact that while the general foundation (namely, the bolded statements) are reasonable, the specifics are not. There are truths in the article, sure, but the overall article is not that good.

For example, saying that a 'man who overrides a woman's personal choices can more likely be a rapist' seems quite reasonable, but then to claim that saying 'Hi' to a woman on a subway who is looking out of a window is 'overriding her personal choices' is a big reach.

If you read that article and come away thinking you're being called a rapist, you're either insecure on an astonishing level or really bad at reading.

Do you think one can be critical of this article without assuming that the authoress is calling one a rapist? If you do, then we can definitely have a fruitful discussion :)

Dipayan

16th September 2010, 04:16 AM

The writer of this article wasn't writing for skeptics or a large audience, she was guest hosting a blog. It is far from perfect. But the basic message "Please don't do these things, it's disrespectful and it creeps women out." is valid.

Talking to a woman in a subway when she is looking out of the window is 'disrespectful and creeps her out'? Talking to a woman if you have tattoos on your face is 'disrespectful and creeps her out'? Talking to a woman in an elevator (enclosed area) is 'disrespectful and creeps her out'?

The basic message being valid does not take away from the fact that the specific messages are muddled and incorrect. So why can I not agree with the basic message while still being critical of the article?

The OP asks 'When is uncritical thought ok?'. Apparently the answer is 'When we are talking about rape'.

MarkCorrigan

16th September 2010, 04:41 AM

Of course I can't speak for all women, only those I've discussed this issue with. The yelling obscenities at you starts pretty young. Usually by the time you're 13, you've heard every descriptive term for every sexual act from strangers. At that age, you do nothing, you keep walking. It's incredibly frustrating and it never lets up. You do get used to it because it happens so often. But each time it's a bit startling, you're walking along minding your own business and suddenly there's this guy telling you which body parts he has noticed and/or what he would like to do to it. So you've got 10 minutes out of your day that's wrecked and for what?

It's worth talking to women, especially women in cities, about this. If you're not the sort of person that would grope a woman on the subway or follow her from a bus stop to her apartment, it's difficult to imagine someone behaving that way.

I can say that EVERY woman I know has many stories that, at best, make you cringe, and at worst turn your stomach.

For every sexual assault there are countless instances when a woman is left wondering if something terrible is going to happen.
First, nobody is saying don't talk to men in public. She outlines specific situations where a woman may be uncomfortable (alone, at night, without an easy exit) or when a woman is clearly uncomfortable with a man's advances. Nobody is suggesting that women start screaming "Potential rapist!"

So....what do you think about men telling women that they can't speak to them at church? Are they being jerks?
Every woman I know too. It's a part of life that you are going to be groped or approached in a lewd and creepy way. It happens even in daylight on busy roads, but it's always worse when you're in a more vulnerable state.

She's saying that some guys need to know that they may not be as appealing to a broader group of women. If you have poor hygiene habits, most women won't want to chat you up. If you're a guy with tattoos, it's probably okay to approach women who seem to be of a similar mindset. If you start hitting on older, more conservative women, they may be a little warier of you. Yes, most guys with tattoos are super nice guys, but it would make my antenna go up if one approached me for something.

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?

Ivor the Engineer

16th September 2010, 04:53 AM

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?

One might speculate that men's behaviour is at least partly determined by what aspects of it women reward and reinforce. I.e., if women didn't **** men who behave like macho ****heads then there would be a less men who behaved in that way.

Cavemonster

16th September 2010, 05:10 AM

One thing I've noticed, and I haven't read the entire comments section on the article, so correct me if I'm wrong.

1) This is a descriptive article about how women view risk, it is prescriptive towards men in how to read those cues. Most posters here acknowledge that.

2) I have not yet seen a single woman disagree with this as a basic description of the behavior of women in general. Again, correct me if I'm wrong. I have not seen a single woman speak out and say "No, when I'm reading a book with my headphones on I would hate to miss the opportunity to meet you! If you follow me into an empty stairwell late at night I am very likely to be charmedby you!"

At the end of the day, risk benefit assessment for personal harm is a subjective, cultural phenomenon. Whatever the numbers are, there is no objective way to decide how much possibility of rape to tolerate for what possible benefits. Never leaving your house would be pretty extreme, but the range we're talking about, how much you talk to strangers, any judgement on that comes down to a subjective value.

And every evidence from the discussion is that women in these threads, a small sample to be sure, agree with the author's assessment of their behavior.

Dipayan

16th September 2010, 05:11 AM

if women didn't **** men who behave like macho ****heads then there would be a less men who behaved in that way.

Careful now. When you say something like this you are automatically going to be called up for blaming the victim.

Cavemonster

16th September 2010, 05:11 AM

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?

Mark, have you considered the possibilty, that women don't always share these stories with men, that many women in your life may have experiences you're unaware of?

MarkCorrigan

16th September 2010, 05:18 AM

Mark, have you considered the possibilty, that women don't always share these stories with men, that many women in your life may have experiences you're unaware of?

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.

TraneWreck

16th September 2010, 05:23 AM

I think the reason why this discussion is getting so heated is because some people, such as yourself, feel that others are taking offence. I have no problem with being called a Schrodinger's Rapist. In fact, I find that term quite clever, which is what made me explore this thread in the first place. My position is based only on the fact that while the general foundation (namely, the bolded statements) are reasonable, the specifics are not. There are truths in the article, sure, but the overall article is not that good.

Do you think one can be critical of this article without assuming that the authoress is calling one a rapist? If you do, then we can definitely have a fruitful discussion :)

Look, I appreciate you aren't offended, but clearly there are people in this thread who are. They've said so quite explicitly. If my statement doesn't apply to you, it doesn't apply, but it's odd to pretend like I made it up from whole cloth when you can find ample examples of exactly what I'm talking about:

"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."

Dipayan

16th September 2010, 05:26 AM

1) This is a descriptive article about how women view risk, it is prescriptive towards men in how to read those cues.

I have an issue with that. This is actually a descriptive article about how one woman views risk.

2) I have not yet seen a single woman disagree with this as a basic description of the behavior of women in general.

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.

I have not seen a single woman speak out and say "No, when I'm reading a book with my headphones on I would hate to miss the opportunity to meet you! If you follow me into an empty stairwell late at night I am very likely to be charmedby you!"

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'.

At the end of the day, risk benefit assessment for personal harm is a subjective, cultural phenomenon.

Yes, subjective, cultural phenomenon. Which is why Ms. Starling's generalizations leave a lot to be desired.

And every evidence from the discussion is that women in these threads, a small sample to be sure, agree with the author's assessment of their behavior.

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'.

TraneWreck

16th September 2010, 05:26 AM

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

16th September 2010, 05:30 AM

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

16th September 2010, 05:33 AM

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

16th September 2010, 06:01 AM

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

16th September 2010, 06:47 AM

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. :rolleyes:

Dipayan

16th September 2010, 06:50 AM

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

16th September 2010, 07:36 AM

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

16th September 2010, 07:54 AM

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

16th September 2010, 07:55 AM

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

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

16th September 2010, 07:57 AM

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 :blush:

Sun Countess

16th September 2010, 09:02 AM

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

16th September 2010, 09:04 AM

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 :rolleyes:

TraneWreck

16th September 2010, 09:22 AM

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 :rolleyes:

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

16th September 2010, 09:38 AM

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

16th September 2010, 09:55 AM

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. :rolleyes:

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 :rolleyes:

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. :cool:

TraneWreck

16th September 2010, 10:02 AM

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. :rolleyes:

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 :rolleyes:

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. :cool:

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.

cornsail

16th September 2010, 10:13 AM

cornsail

16th September 2010, 10:32 AM

bookitty

16th September 2010, 10:57 AM

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

16th September 2010, 11:00 AM

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.

bookitty

16th September 2010, 11:08 AM

One might speculate that men's behaviour is at least partly determined by what aspects of it women reward and reinforce. I.e., if women didn't **** men who behave like macho ****heads then there would be a less men who behaved in that way.

In a very general sense, there may be some societal expectation for men to be more aggressive or to seek power. Yet the men who get the most respect for this do so quietly. A guy who is always bragging about how tough he is doesn't get respect from women or his peers. Just like a businessman who is always talking about how much he makes doesn't get as much respect as the man who is known to be successful but rarely mentions it.

Women do not reward casual sexual harassment. The guys who yell obscenities from cars, try to cop a feel, or rub up against a woman on the subway don't do it because they get a positive reaction from women.

If there is any reward from rape or serious sexual assault, it is not coming from women or society.

LashL

16th September 2010, 11:10 AM

Several posts have been sent to Abandon All Hope. While the subject matter of the thread is one that often evokes strong emotions and emotional responses, you must stick to the topic and address the arguments rather than each other, and refrain from personalizing the discussion.

Uncayimmy

16th September 2010, 11:21 AM

You know, you took a whole lot of words to say exactly what I said in one paragraph. It can happen, drugs can be used to make it happen, and in my opinion it's still probably less likely than other forms of rape. Did I say men can't be raped? No. And none of what you said above is new to me.
You made the ridiculous and unfounded claim about men being virtually incapable of being raped short of using something like Viagra. That demonstrates an incredible amount of ignorance about the physical realities of male victim rape. It also ignores coercion, statutory rape, and being taken advantage in the situations I outlined.

Now you're changing your tune a bit by calling it "less likely" than other forms of rape when in fact you had called it "improbable" and claiming that it was just not worth inquiring about when interviewing males about rape. Fortunately, experts in the medical and psychology fields are finally realizing that it happens far more than they realize. Unfortunately, people like you still dismiss it with a wave of the hand and make false claims about how physically it is if not impossible, improbable, which creates an environment making it difficult for men to make reports.

And if you still think the woman who wrote the blog is obsessing about the likelihood of stranger rape, perhaps you really need to reread her item v-e-r-r-r-r-y slowly.
I did read her article several times, and that's what I got out of it. Things like, "So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this man rape me?" set apart in a paragraph by itself for emphasis and her expressing concern about "escape routes" on public transportation kind of give me that impression.

You may interpret her poorly written article differently, but unlike you, I won't tell you how to think and insult you for not seeing the article the same way I do. Ironically, it is you who is demonstrating exactly the kind of red flag behavior against which she warns.

Elizabeth I

16th September 2010, 11:39 AM

You made the ridiculous and unfounded claim about men being virtually incapable of being raped short of using something like Viagra. That demonstrates an incredible amount of ignorance about the physical realities of male victim rape. It also ignores coercion, statutory rape, and being taken advantage in the situations I outlined.

In other posts I have made here [in this thread} I have specifically mentioned male victim rape. I'm aware that it happens and I think it is just as shameful and deserving of condemnation as any other form of violence against a person. I think it should be prosecuted just as vigorously.

However, I'm also aware that a man's ability to get and sustain an erection can be strongly influenced by his emotional state. I would think fear would not conduce. I understand there are drugs that could overcome that fear. I even mentioned that that could be a possible way of forcing a man to penetrate someone else.

If you want to inform me that a man scared ******** is likely to get a hard-on, I'll take it under consideration but I will still be doubtful.

Statutory rape is indeed a different category that I hadn't thought of and you are correct there.

Furcifer

16th September 2010, 11:42 AM

redacted pending approval

TraneWreck

16th September 2010, 11:47 AM

Now you can dress it up and claim it's only a probability of being a rapist, but it doesn't matter, it's already too late, you called someone a rapist. Employ your best sophistry, it doesn't matter, the damage is done.

No, you just didn't. Words have meaning. If I say, "The Defendant is an accused murderer," have I called him a murderer? There's a reason why the term is modified.

Is Schrodinger's cat dead or alive when it's in the box?

I can only guess why you're having such trouble with this, but it may have to do with not understanding the allusion.

Let me know how saying "potentially" or "Schrodinger" before using a word works out for you. And like I said, feel free and try to rationalize it all you want after you make the initial statement.

If someone called me a Schrodinger's rapist to my face, I would laugh. The women I choose to surround myself would likely understand the allusion and laugh if I used your inelligant phrase. Of course, I already know them, so the uncertainty element is eliminated.

And once again, this fable of running around hurling the phrase at people is purely a construct of your fevered imagination.

AvalonXQ

16th September 2010, 01:11 PM

However, I'm also aware that a man's ability to get and sustain an erection can be strongly influenced by his emotional state. I would think fear would not conduce.
If you want to inform me that a man scared ******** is likely to get a hard-on, I'll take it under consideration but I will still be doubtful.
You're blaming the victim by claiming that a raped man who was aroused must have really wanted it.
Does victim arousal excuse all sexual assault, or only sexual assault against men?

Uncayimmy

16th September 2010, 01:19 PM

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.

So, I sit down on the seat next to you and say, "Good morning." According to this woman I have violated you in some way by disrespecting your wishes. If I didn't know before this article what I was doing, I certainly do now, right? Are you, like this author, now planning your escape route should you need to flee?

According to the references Professor Yaffle provided, I might be more likely to be a rapist because they don't respect boundaries like that. Then again, I might be less likely to be a rapist because rapists score lower on the exravert scale, meaning they are less likely to be gregarious or assertive socially.

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.
Well, if you're just looking out the window, you haven't made anything clear except that you're looking out the window. If you think that's a clear indicator that you're unwilling to talk, I think you should reconsider that notion. There world's far more complex than that.

If you continue as you describe, you're sending a clearer message that you're not interested in conversation. Guys do this as well, only most of the men I know don't get all freaked out when somebody, male or female, persists. Some people just don't get social cues, and it's annoying.

Are you thinking "rapist" when this happens to you? Are you looking for escape routes?

I think she makes it clear that there are different occasions for meeting women,
In what article? Seems to me you are projecting. The only other situation she describes is at church where the mothers are life-long friends, and that was only to say that this situation is "still not 100% safe. But the odds are pretty good." She doesn't get into any of the things you describe about parties, clubs or other social situations except to say, "nor have you been introduced through mutual friends or drawn to the same activities."

Of course, same activities excludes anything in public because she introduces the rest of the article with, "you want to become acquainted with a woman you see in public." Her admonition is then, "we would rather not be killed or otherwise violently assaulted."

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.
It happens to everybody all the time. That's not to excuse it but to point out that it's a common and rather benign element of social interaction.

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.
Do you believe that anyone needed to be told that? Now, apparently what I needed to be told is that at least one woman plans escape routes on a crowded bus or subway car. I didn't know that. My advice up to now to any woman in peril is to flee towards a crowd, not away from one. I also had no idea that when I'm standing in line at the grocery store and say, "Is that the Android? How do you like it?" that the woman is thinking, "Are you going to rape me?"

That said, I think her risk assessment is based on a warped perception of reality.

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.
Be careful. When I said the same thing about myself, I was accused of "chest beating" and repeated choruses of "I'm glad I'm a man."

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.)
The article is not about avoiding risky situations.

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.
If this woman had written the article, then I would be told that if an elderly person is "obviously occupied" doing something like figuring out how to reach a poorly situated door handle, that I would be violating their right to be left alone by saying, "Here, let me get that for you."

I've struck up conversations with elderly people on countless occasions, both male and female. In most cases they were previously occupied because, well, most of us always occupied doing something, even if it's just staring out the window in boredom. I can't recall ever being rebuffed, which must mean I don't respect their wishes and just plow ahead without any consideration for the signals they are sending me.

I'm an extravert. I strike up conversations all over the place. The other day I was at Souper Salad with my two sons. Some older person was "obviously occupied" choosing a soup. I was waiting behind her. I said, "You gotta try the clam chowder. I'm on my fourth bowl." A very short "conversation" ensued, which must mean that she wasn't interested in talking to me, right? She must have been planning her escape route out of the restaurant.

Funny thing, though, next time she got up she stopped at my table to tell me that yes, indeed, that clam chowder was excellent and that she was going to get more. She then told me how cute and well behaved my boys were and chatted with them. I, of course, had my boys say, "Nice to meet you" and give their names.

That's the world I want to live in, not one where every innocuous comment carries with it the baggage of sexual or physical assault or one where every person who struggles with social cues is rated on the Rapist Scale. Sure, I recognize that I'm in the 90th percentile for men when it comes to weight and height, and that I'm a chest beating, chili-dog eating, friendly greeting, kindly treating, bully defeating, never retreating, rock and roll man who's kind to children and dogs, but I still understand how others view risk differently.

About 1 in 60 adult women will be raped by a stranger in their lifetime. If we very conservatively estimate one stranger encounter per week, that's 2,500 in a 50 year adult lifetime (another conservative number). That means 1 in 150,000 stranger encounters results in a rape. So, I do consider planning escape routes on a subway car to be a disproportional reaction to that threat.

Furcifer

16th September 2010, 01:23 PM

No, you just didn't. Words have meaning. If I say, "The Defendant is an accused murderer," have I called him a murderer? There's a reason why the term is modified.

Yes you have, and that's how it appears on a criminal record. You don't think being falsely accused of murder is a bad thing? Do you think everyone is going to forget because you "modified" it?

I thought you said you were a lawyer and yet you don't know the ramifications of calling someone a murderer? Come on.

Is Schrodinger's cat dead or alive when it's in the box?

It depends how long it's in the box and the decay rate ;)

If someone called me a Schrodinger's rapist to my face, I would laugh.

You'd crap your pants if it was a couple cops arresting you on a 5% probability.

You'd lose your mind if your 8 year old niece telling her teacher you were a "Schrodinger's Rapist" because you brushed up against her and wouldn't leave her alone when she was listening to her iPod.

You'd be freaking out if it was a female co-worker telling your boss.

The probability of you "laughing" it off is highly dependent on the situation. This is a serious accusation to be making. Sure we're talking about a mental evaluation, but that can be just as damaging if someone's acting a certain way towards you because they've misinterpreted you and told their friend or co-worker they aren't comfortable around you.

I've admitted the author seems to be rational. It's just that she's being deliberately inflammatory. She's really saying it's for men but selling it to women. I don't know why you've bought it.

Uncayimmy

16th September 2010, 01:43 PM

In other posts I have made here [in this thread} I have specifically mentioned male victim rape. I'm aware that it happens and I think it is just as shameful and deserving of condemnation as any other form of violence against a person. I think it should be prosecuted just as vigorously.
But apparently you don't think that when surveying 8,000 men they should ask about it. You apparently just "know" how rare it is already. We "knew" how rare female rape was for years - just look at the police reports. Fortunately, open minded people started asking about it and learned that over 80% are not reported to the police.

However, I'm also aware that a man's ability to get and sustain an erection can be strongly influenced by his emotional state. I would think fear would not conduce. I understand there are drugs that could overcome that fear. I even mentioned that that could be a possible way of forcing a man to penetrate someone else.
You have no scientific basis to say that a man's penis is not going to respond to physical stimulation. That you persist in this misguided notion despite being shown scientific evidence to the contrary is amazing. Your attitude is implying that if a man does get an erection, his emotional state is conducive to sex, therefore he wasn't really raped, right?

If you want to inform me that a man scared ******** is likely to get a hard-on, I'll take it under consideration but I will still be doubtful.

That's an unfortunate choice of words (scared ********) when discussing male rape. Did you know that men anally raped will often have erections and ejaculate? You didn't answer my direct question: Do you believe that a man forced to allow someone to fellate him will not respond physically? You think the powerlessness and anxiety will keep him flaccid despite an onslaught of stimulation?

Your doubtful attitude is one of the reasons that it goes unreported. The NVAWS reports that about 70% of female rape victims do not report an actual threat of harm and 60% do not report a perceived threat of harm. We have no reason to believe it would be any different for men, so your "scared ********" stereotype for rape at best only reflects a minority.

When it comes to the violent rapes we hear about on True Crime shows, I'm not going to argue that a man is going to be overpowered physically in a back alley, forced to get an erection and then penetrate the perpetrator in the same way that a male perpetrator could penetrate a victim. That's just one type of rape on a broad spectrum of rapes.

Statutory rape is indeed a different category that I hadn't thought of and you are correct there.
You apparently didn't think of coercion either. You didn't think of a man being stimulated in his sleep. You didn't think of a man already engaged in sexual activity and being forced to continue against his will. You didn't think of men being intoxicated willingly and being taken advantage of.

TraneWreck

16th September 2010, 01:53 PM

Yes you have, and that's how it appears on a criminal record. You don't think being falsely accused of murder is a bad thing? Do you think everyone is going to forget because you "modified" it?

I thought you said you were a lawyer and yet you don't know the ramifications of calling someone a murderer? Come on.

That's astonishingly sloppy, even for you. It would really suck to be falsely accused of murder. Calling someone an, "accused murderer," does not imply either that the party speaking thinks the person is a murderer nor does it imply false accusation. One can quite easily be an "accused murderer" and be guilty. The point is simply that "accused murderer" is not identical to "murderer."

Here's one that might make your head spin: If I call someone an "acquitted murderer," am I calling them a "murderer?" Strange how modifications of a term carry actual meaning.

It depends how long it's in the box and the decay rate ;)

This is the internet version of an opossum playing dead when danger is present. This is glib, meaningless, and evasive. Understanding the allusion makes your ridiculous claim that the author is calling people "rapist" wholly worthless.

You'd crap your pants if it was a couple cops arresting you on a 5% probability.

You'd lose your mind if your 8 year old niece telling her teacher you were a "Schrodinger's Rapist" because you brushed up against her and wouldn't leave her alone when she was listening to her iPod.

You'd be freaking out if it was a female co-worker telling your boss.

Look at how comically you had to stretch this in order to make it actually harmful. Where on Earth are you getting this nonsense? Who is suggesting that this is appropriate behavior? This is more fantasy from your deviant imagination.

If a cop arrests me because someone told them I was a potential rapist, I might have a lawsuit in the making. Someone "brushing up" against an 8 year old girl could really be a criminal, depending on the specifics.

If my boss fired me because someone in the office told her I was a rapist with no evidence, I would likely have a lawsuit against both of them for wrongful discharge and various other tort actions.

These are vapid, meaningless hypotheticals that have nothing to do with the article or any subsequent debate.

The probability of you "laughing" it off is highly dependent on the situation. This is a serious accusation to be making. Sure we're talking about a mental evaluation, but that can be just as damaging if someone's acting a certain way towards you because they've misinterpreted you and told their friend or co-worker they aren't comfortable around you.

No, it's not a serious accusation, and no one is making it. This is all nonsensical theater on your part.

I've admitted the author seems to be rational. It's just that she's being deliberately inflammatory. She's really saying it's for men but selling it to women. I don't know why you've bought it.

Bought what? What the hell are you talking about?

Uncayimmy

16th September 2010, 02:06 PM

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

While I would agree that it's less common, I disagree with your terminology of "much rarer." Truth is, we just don't know. The NVAWS was flawed because their screening questions excluded:
* Females forcing a male to penetrate her (even statutory rape)
* Either gender forcing a male to penetrate the anus
* Either gender forcing a male to accept fellatio or manual stimulation of the penis even though females were specifically asked about this happening to them.

Yet despite this omission, 3.6% percent of women were raped while under age 12 compared to 1.3% of men. For children, it seems the numbers are much closer than most people realize. Once boys get older (12 to 17), the difference becomes more pronounced (women about 10X as likely), but if you think about it, a boy is in his teen years (not to be crude) finally has some apparatus of a more adult size, so one would presume more interest.

The problem is that researchers don't seem to ask about it. The NVAWS didn't. The common misconception is that a man cannot have an erection in those circumstances unless he's aroused, which probably means a lot of men feel guilty or torn emotionally. They are being told in effect, "Obviously you weren't raped - you had an erection and ejaculated."

Uncayimmy

16th September 2010, 02:31 PM

Women do not reward casual sexual harassment.
Yes, they do, only in many cases we don't term it sexual harassment when it happens. Talk to some guys about their teen and college years. Ask them if they ever had any luck yelling to women, "Show us your boobs!" I've seen it work on more than one occasion. Mardis Gras is full of events like that. The Girls Gone Wild videos show all manner of sexual harassment being rewarded. Go to some wilder clubs and see how many women wear incredibly short skirts with thong or no panties at all dancing on elevated platforms and essentially flashing men. Sometimes guys grope, and the reactions are mixed. If the guy is attractive, he's likely to be rewarded for his contact.

Search Google Videos for Upskirt Club to see some examples. Warning: The videos are not safe for work. If a guy came at you with a video camera, you'd probably tell him to go away. So would my wife. If he lowered it to see up your skirt, you'd be highly offended, and rightly so. But as you will see with just a few seconds of Googling, there is no shortage of women who reward this behavior.

Now, if you want to define "casual sexual harassment" to only be things like rubbing against a woman on a bus, I would agree that it's typically not explicitly rewarded. However, as we discussed in another thread, it's implicitly rewarded by the apparently commonplace silence of the woman. The "reward" is that the pervert gets his jollies without repercussion. I made my feelings on that known by saying that society needs to become conducive to women "making a fuss" loudly and publicly so that the rest of us can shun the pervert.

Somebody in the other thread related the story of a woman accepting a drink from a man and having him put his hand up her skirt. Casual sexual harassment, right? Is it always unrewarded? Absolutely not. Sometimes it's a precursor to a sexual encounter. It's sexual harassment if she's not interested. Some women I know would always been taken aback by that, which is fine. Other women I know don't think anything of it, even if they have no interest at all in the man. They move his hand away and don't think much more about it unless the guy persists.

Thinking back to my days with my ex, when I was younger and not a father, I can't recall any specific occasions of groping. I do recall numerous occasions of men trying to get a look up the skirt or down the blouse. Casual sexual harassment? Yep. Was it rewarded? Yep. My wife was somewhat of an exhibitionist. I remember going to a restaurant on Thanksgiving where she repeatedly gave pantie shots to the teenage boy at another table after she caught him eying her lasciviously. And if you whistled or hooted at my ex, there's was a good chance she'd swing her hips or strike a pose. If somebody yelled, "Show me your boobs!" he stood a halfway decent chance of getting a look, sometimes just the bra, sometimes with the bra lifted.

You can draw whatever conclusions you want from this, but the reality is that human sexual-social interaction is complex and not the simple, black and white issue some want us to believe.

Furcifer

16th September 2010, 02:52 PM

Here's one that might make your head spin: If I call someone an "acquitted murderer," am I calling them a "murderer?" Strange how modifications of a term carry actual meaning.

You seem to be missing the point again as usual. Are you going to hire the "aquitted rapist" or the guy with the clean record? If you're a lawyer you know the burden of proof rises in proportion to the seriousness of the crime. There's no reason the same thing shouldn't apply when we determine the probability of someone committing the crime. If you want to consider a person a murderer or a rapist the same standards should apply because of the consequences of doing so.

This isn't rocket science.

If a cop arrests me because someone told them I was a potential rapist, I might have a lawsuit in the making. Someone "brushing up" against an 8 year old girl could really be a criminal, depending on the specifics.

Yah, and that's why we're making a case against this authors faulty use of statistics. This is the Skeptic People's Court. :D

The fact you are trying to make a case out of a young girl misinterpreting the authors poor standards of what is or isn't a rapist it pure handwaving. Kids say things all the time without realizing the consequences and this is just such a case. Nice dodge though ;)

If my boss fired me because someone in the office told her I was a rapist with no evidence, I would likely have a lawsuit against both of them for wrongful discharge and various other tort actions.

Who said he was going to fire you? I'm just talking about people treating you differently. That happens all the time. Rumors are very powerful things.

These are vapid, meaningless hypotheticals that have nothing to do with the article or any subsequent debate.

They do, you just aren't capable of comprehending them. I don't really expect you to acknowledge anything here. You're just trolling, I realized that long ago. I also know you aren't an idiot so this is getting through to you, you just won't admit it. It's all good.

Bought what? What the hell are you talking about?

Bought nothing dude, it's what we scholars call a "figure of speech".

"It's raining cats and dogs"

"The coast is clear"

"falling in love"

"break a leg"

"You're burnt"

etc. etc.

You should just Google these things if you don't know :D

Xephyr

16th September 2010, 03:07 PM

I think TraneWreck and 3bodyproblem should just have sex and get it over with already. You know you wanna.

:p

Furcifer

16th September 2010, 03:15 PM

I think TraneWreck and 3bodyproblem should just have sex and get it over with already. You know you wanna.

:p

Fair enough, we might even switch positions, I'm tired of being on top ;)

Xephyr

16th September 2010, 03:26 PM

Fair enough, we might even switch positions, I'm tired of being on top ;)

And here I thought you were going to show your true canuckness by offering to spoon with him instead.

Pfft.

TraneWreck

16th September 2010, 03:39 PM

You seem to be missing the point again as usual. Are you going to hire the "aquitted rapist" or the guy with the clean record? If you're a lawyer you know the burden of proof rises in proportion to the seriousness of the crime. There's no reason the same thing shouldn't apply when we determine the probability of someone committing the crime. If you want to consider a person a murderer or a rapist the same standards should apply because of the consequences of doing so.

This isn't rocket science.

Amazing, just amazing.

It's hard to accurately explain all the things that are wrong with your posts. You leap between arguments so randomly and bizarrely.

First, we're discussing whether adding a modifier to a word can change the meaning. You have said time and time again that "Schrodinger's Rapist" is indistinguishable from "rapist." Thus, if you call someone a "Schrodinger Rapist," you're accusing them of being a rapist.

This is silly and absurd. "Acquitted murderer" does not mean "murderer."

Instead of dealing with that point, that a modifier changes the meaning, you make an astonishingly dumb point and say that an acquitted murderer might have a difficult time finding employment.

That's a total non-sequitur. The issue is whether a modifier means something different, it clearly does, so you engage in these inanities.

Is a "wrongly accused thief" the same thing as a "thief?"

Yah, and that's why we're making a case against this authors faulty use of statistics. This is the Skeptic People's Court. :D

The fact you are trying to make a case out of a young girl misinterpreting the authors poor standards of what is or isn't a rapist it pure handwaving. Kids say things all the time without realizing the consequences and this is just such a case. Nice dodge though ;)

What does that have to do with anything? Somehow a kid misunderstands a phrase and that means something? If a kid accused someone of being a "Schrodinger's Rapist," adults should get together, understand what the phrase means, and behave accordingly.

A kid can mistake anything, so what?

Who said he was going to fire you? I'm just talking about people treating you differently. That happens all the time. Rumors are very powerful things.

Again, this is just silly. How is someone misunderstanding a phrase and starting a rumor relevant? They can do that with any phrase.

If someone said of a co-worker's skill, "He's one bad mother," does an interpretation of that as a negative assessment change the meaning of the phrase? No, it's just a misunderstanding.

And once more, at no point has anyone advised calling people "Schrodinger's rapist." This is your fantasy.

They do, you just aren't capable of comprehending them. I don't really expect you to acknowledge anything here. You're just trolling, I realized that long ago. I also know you aren't an idiot so this is getting through to you, you just won't admit it. It's all good.

That's called "projection." Now, a child might think I'm talking about showing a movie, but it's actually referring to a psychological phenomenon.

Yeah, real tough to grasp the brilliance of a kid not understanding a phrase. So deep and insightful.

Bought nothing dude, it's what we scholars call a "figure of speech".

[...]

You should just Google these things if you don't know :D

I understand the phrase. I'm asking what you think I "bought." Your statement made no sense, like most of what you produce.

This is your MO. We're about two posts away from you just being directly obscene.

TraneWreck

16th September 2010, 03:40 PM

Fair enough, we might even switch positions, I'm tired of being on top ;)

Yeah, I thought you'd be a little less grumpy and try harder to figure things out if I let you sit in my lap.

My mistake.

Furcifer

16th September 2010, 03:41 PM

And here I thought you were going to show your true canuckness by offering to spoon with him instead.

Pfft.

We've been nose to nose, that's kinda like Eskimo kisses.

There's been a lot of blubbering too. :D

Lyrandar

16th September 2010, 04:11 PM

Well, if you're just looking out the window, you haven't made anything clear except that you're looking out the window. If you think that's a clear indicator that you're unwilling to talk, I think you should reconsider that notion. There world's far more complex than that.

You say that the world is more complex than that, yet in my experience I don't get any strangers talking to me when I sit and stare out the window of the subway, ignoring everything around me.

You're right that it's not a 100% clear indicator that that person doesn't want to talk, but that doesn't mean it doesn't indicate anything at all about how open that person wants to be.

Do you believe that anyone needed to be told that? Now, apparently what I needed to be told is that at least one woman plans escape routes on a crowded bus or subway car. I didn't know that. My advice up to now to any woman in peril is to flee towards a crowd, not away from one. I also had no idea that when I'm standing in line at the grocery store and say, "Is that the Android? How do you like it?" that the woman is thinking, "Are you going to rape me?"

That said, I think her risk assessment is based on a warped perception of reality.

I don't think anyone is trying to say that overreactions to minor risk factors are going to or should happen. I think we're focusing more on the "problem" part of such behavior that demonstrates that risk as opposed to the "minor". I don't think that's necessarily wrong either, since part of the point is to fix these problems, and not just the major ones.

That's the world I want to live in, not one where every innocuous comment carries with it the baggage of sexual or physical assault or one where every person who struggles with social cues is rated on the Rapist Scale. Sure, I recognize that I'm in the 90th percentile for men when it comes to weight and height, and that I'm a chest beating, chili-dog eating, friendly greeting, kindly treating, bully defeating, never retreating, rock and roll man who's kind to children and dogs, but I still understand how others view risk differently.

... this is probably not as important or relevant as I think it is, but I would like to ask - what about those people that have more trouble reading and/or sending social cues? They're going to have a harder time being certain what baggage any innocuous comment carries, I would think. Should they be less cautious, and deal with what to them is a higher risk (since they aren't as certain what's being implied or left unsaid, or what they might inadvertently send) or should they be more cautious in light of having less reliable information? If they choose the latter, are they wrong to do so?

I don't think the author of the blog is a person of that type who has trouble reading others, but I do think it matters at least a little, since it'll affect the risk assessments that seem to be the point here.

Furcifer

16th September 2010, 04:14 PM

Amazing, just amazing.

Flattery will get you no where. Randi's house, he's the only allowed to be "amazing". But thanks :D

It's hard to accurately explain all the things that are wrong with your posts.

Listen, we all know you're having trouble explaining things you don't have to make excuses. You'll get the hang of it eventually.

First, we're discussing whether adding a modifier to a word can change the meaning.

Ah, no we haven't. We've been saying how using "Schrodinger" in front of a word doesn't make the word itself disappear. It doesn't get lost in a probability cloud like you are suggesting.

This is silly and absurd. "Acquitted murderer" does not mean "murderer."

This is another strawman. Nobody said that. What I said is there are ramifications to using such an inflammatory word. Even more so in the criminal context rather than just "thinking it". It's important to be careful when we use words with so much meaning attached to them.

Instead of dealing with that point, that a modifier changes the meaning, you make an astonishingly dumb point and say that an acquitted murderer might have a difficult time finding employment.

Yes, or being a counselor, or a coach, or a volunteer, or even traveling to strange and exotic places.

What does that have to do with anything? Somehow a kid misunderstands a phrase and that means something? If a kid accused someone of being a "Schrodinger's Rapist," adults should get together, understand what the phrase means, and behave accordingly.

Again you miss the point. People are liable to over look some dead guy's name and focus instead on the inflammatory word "rapist" That's what the whole thread is about.

A kid can mistake anything, so what?

So we are careful to chose our words around children. We're careful to chose our words around anyone. Unless you're a trucker or a sailor :D

Again, this is just silly. How is someone misunderstanding a phrase and starting a rumor relevant? They can do that with any phrase.

Because dealing with the rumour you've got the worst breath or poor fashion sense isn't the same as being most likely to rape someone. There's no room for misunderstanding if we make precise statements of fact when dealing with a serious issue.

And once more, at no point has anyone advised calling people "Schrodinger's rapist." This is your fantasy.

Just the author:

"When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist."

Are you sure you read the right article?

I understand the phrase. I'm asking what you think I "bought."

The article, we're talking about the article "Schrodinger's Rapist". This thread is about the article. You're playing the fool again and it just doesn't suit you. I know we've been going back and forth and taunting each other, but you're intelligent enough to know what you "bought" was the article. You're not kidding anyone. I've got to tell you, when you do this "What? I don't get it? What?" I can't help but think you're Rodney Dangerfield. He always played that "What? What? I don't know what's going on around here?" lovable fool type character. It makes me laugh every time, thanks :D

Furcifer

16th September 2010, 04:25 PM

You say that the world is more complex than that, yet in my experience I don't get any strangers talking to me when I sit and stare out the window of the subway, ignoring everything around me.

From what we've read, being ignorant of everything around you is more likely to make you a victim.

This might be effective for you, but the stats seem to suggest being aware of who and what is around you at all times is the best method of preventing an assault. For all intents and purposes rapists are predators looking for an easy victim.

TraneWreck

16th September 2010, 04:26 PM

This is another strawman. Nobody said that. What I said is there are ramifications to using such an inflammatory word. Even more so in the criminal context rather than just "thinking it". It's important to be careful when we use words with so much meaning attached to them.

Yes, or being a counselor, or a coach, or a volunteer, or even traveling to strange and exotic places.

The problem is not the word, it's the status of the applicant. Yo

Again you miss the point. People are liable to over look some dead guy's name and focus instead on the inflammatory word "rapist" That's what the whole thread is about.

I see, so we shouldn't use words that dumb people can't understand because they might mistake it for something else.

The word, "niggardly," shall now be banned.

So we are careful to chose our words around children. We're careful to chose our words around anyone. Unless you're a trucker or a sailor :D

Uh, ok. That doesn't mean adults can't use the word.

Because dealing with the rumour you've got the worst breath or poor fashion sense isn't the same as being most likely to rape someone. There's no room for misunderstanding if we make precise statements of fact when dealing with a serious issue.

But you can just start a rumor that someone is a rapist whether you employ the Schrodinger modifier or not. This is just pure insanity from you.

Just the author:

"When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist."

Are you sure you read the right article?

Oh god. Find the part where it says, "When I'm on the bus I am going to point at random strangers and call them Schrodinger's Rapist."

This is another strawman. Nobody said that. What I said is there are ramifications to using such an inflammatory word. Even more so in the criminal context rather than just "thinking it". It's important to be careful when we use words with so much meaning attached to them.

Yes, or being a counselor, or a coach, or a volunteer, or even traveling to strange and exotic places.

The problem is not the word, it's the status of the applicant. If you are, in fact, an acquitted murderer, then you might have difficulty finding a job. Changing the phrase won't do much to affect that.

But you're basic argument is that the phrase "Schrodinger's Rapist" can't be used because people won't be able to understand it.

That's the author's fault?

Again you miss the point. People are liable to over look some dead guy's name and focus instead on the inflammatory word "rapist" That's what the whole thread is about.

I see, so we shouldn't use words that dumb people can't understand because they might mistake it for something else.

The word, "niggardly," shall now be banned.

So we are careful to chose our words around children. We're careful to chose our words around anyone. Unless you're a trucker or a sailor :D

Uh, ok. That doesn't mean adults can't use those words and phrases with one another.

Although it is funny that you've now descended to the, "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN" phase of your horse-****.

The article, we're talking about the article "Schrodinger's Rapist". This thread is about the article. You're playing the fool again and it just doesn't suit you. I know we've been going back and forth and taunting each other, but you're intelligent enough to know what you "bought" was the article. You're not kidding anyone. I've got to tell you, when you do this "What? I don't get it? What?" I can't help but think you're Rodney Dangerfield. He always played that "What? What? I don't know what's going on around here?" lovable fool type character. It makes me laugh every time, thanks :D

I bought the article. The hell does that mean? There are parts I agree with, others I don't. I've been clear about each.

This is distinguished from your approach, which is to make up bizarre, absurd hypotheticals and pretend like they're relevant to the quality of the article.

Are Stephen Hawking and Einstein at fault because theists don't understand their poetic use of the word, "God?" Should they be restricted from using that type of phrasing because idiots will misconstrue the point?

This is just childish nonsense. The point is clear, you're just whining about nothing in particular.

MarkCorrigan

16th September 2010, 04:38 PM

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.

It's not just a case of people knowing everyone. In the nearby town I know virtually no-one and yet the few cases of indecent exposure or other unwanted sexual advance make the headlines of the local news. Obviously it's likely some will not be reported, but I think if you asked the majority of people in this area most would look at you like you had flown in from the moon.

In other posts I have made here [in this thread} I have specifically mentioned male victim rape. I'm aware that it happens and I think it is just as shameful and deserving of condemnation as any other form of violence against a person. I think it should be prosecuted just as vigorously.

However, I'm also aware that a man's ability to get and sustain an erection can be strongly influenced by his emotional state. I would think fear would not conduce. I understand there are drugs that could overcome that fear. I even mentioned that that could be a possible way of forcing a man to penetrate someone else.

If you want to inform me that a man scared ******** is likely to get a hard-on, I'll take it under consideration but I will still be doubtful.

Statutory rape is indeed a different category that I hadn't thought of and you are correct there.
Wow. The ignorance here is what I would love to call astounding, but frankly, I've seen it before on this very forum by Skeptic Ginger.

Male on Female rape is by far and away the biggest type of rape out there (assuming we aren't including statutory rape which is possibly even higher, although I've not seen any stats) but to claim that a man can't get an erection when he's scared boggles the mind. All the penis needs in the majority of cases is physical stimulation. That's it. Sometimes obviously this won't suffice, all men are different and all situations unique, but honestly, if it all works ok and it's not a painful or overly aggressive stimulation, the guy WILL get an erection.

It's therefore quite simple for a woman who has in some way coerced a man, be it by any number of means, drugs, blackmail, physically overpowering him and so forth to be able to stimulate a man who does not want to have sex with her, and indeed does not find her sexually attractive at all to the point at which she can mount and rape him by making him penetrate her vagina or anus.

Similarly as Uncayimmy stated, when a man is anally penetrated this often results in arousal even if the situation is not remotely pleasant for him. The main male erogenous zone often refered to as the male g-spot is located near the prostate gland in the anus, thus penetrating a man with a dildo, or other.....object (an episode of Law and Order SVU I watched had a guy use a piece of metal piping) can lead him to be hard enough to rape as above, or can be the sole method of rape.

Equally ridiculous and in a similar vein is the assertion that women cannot and do not get aroused during rape. It happens. A lot. Why would it be any different for men? Why would the act of a woman stroking, fondling or sucking on a man's penis be any less likely to produce a reaction than a man raping a woman?

Lyrandar

16th September 2010, 04:40 PM

From what we've read, being ignorant of everything around you is more likely to make you a victim.

This might be effective for you, but the stats seem to suggest being aware of who and what is around you at all times is the best method of preventing an assault. For all intents and purposes rapists are predators looking for an easy victim.

Ah, well, I should probably specify that I don't have to worry about rape, at least not from your average guy...

And I do keep a higher level of situational awareness when I feel threatened. That's usually when I'm in an unfamiliar area of a city, though - the only time I've felt threatened by someone else's presence in an area I knew was when some delinquent on a subway took occasional glances in his direction as a cue to strike up a conversation with me. I was quite afraid I would provoke a fight somehow (which I assuredly would have lost).

Uncayimmy

16th September 2010, 04:55 PM

You say that the world is more complex than that, yet in my experience I don't get any strangers talking to me when I sit and stare out the window of the subway, ignoring everything around me.
Define "talking to me" in this context. The way I was brought up it is rude to insert yourself in someone's personal space (even if by necessity on a train) without at least saying something like "excuse me" or "good morning" or "How ya doin'?"

You're right that it's not a 100% clear indicator that that person doesn't want to talk, but that doesn't mean it doesn't indicate anything at all about how open that person wants to be.
Fortunately for us nobody ever said it meant nothing.

I don't think anyone is trying to say that overreactions to minor risk factors are going to or should happen. I think we're focusing more on the "problem" part of such behavior that demonstrates that risk as opposed to the "minor". I don't think that's necessarily wrong either, since part of the point is to fix these problems, and not just the major ones.

I read that twice and still don't understand what you're trying to say.

... this is probably not as important or relevant as I think it is, but I would like to ask - what about those people that have more trouble reading and/or sending social cues? They're going to have a harder time being certain what baggage any innocuous comment carries, I would think. Should they be less cautious, and deal with what to them is a higher risk (since they aren't as certain what's being implied or left unsaid, or what they might inadvertently send) or should they be more cautious in light of having less reliable information? If they choose the latter, are they wrong to do so?
Dealing with socially awkward people can be and is done without ever bringing up rape or escape routes. The fact is, based on very conservative estimates, that 1 in 150,000 stranger encounters results in a rape. She's obviously dealt with these "rude" people countless times without coming to harm. So have lots of other women.

The author, however, seems to be implicitly saying that men shouldn't do it because she (irrationally) perceives a serious risk (she plans escape routes on a bus). There's no mention of women doing it. Or children. What she does not say says a lot about what she does say. So, I dismiss the notion that this was some friendly lecture on picking up on social cues.

I don't think the author of the blog is a person of that type who has trouble reading others, but I do think it matters at least a little, since it'll affect the risk assessments that seem to be the point here.
I think she has lots of trouble reading others. She plans escape routes while on public transportation. When she goes on dates, she leaves the man's name and address by her computer and requires a friend to check in on her the next day.

Furcifer

16th September 2010, 05:18 PM

Ah, well, I should probably specify that I don't have to worry about rape, at least not from your average guy...

We don't need to know why to know that's a good thing. :)

And I do keep a higher level of situational awareness when I feel threatened. That's usually when I'm in an unfamiliar area of a city, though - the only time I've felt threatened by someone else's presence in an area I knew was when some delinquent on a subway took occasional glances in his direction as a cue to strike up a conversation with me. I was quite afraid I would provoke a fight somehow (which I assuredly would have lost).

Everyone does, that's just instinct. Men do this as well, and I can say from the few times I've seen it most men will get defensive if we see another being an obnoxious jerk, at another man and especially if it's at a woman.

I can't say for sure, but the guys the author seems to be warning against are probably the most likely to help if a woman was approached on a bus or in an intimate situation by a rapist. Guys that are aggressive towards women in public are usually aggressive towards everyone. That's just an observation on my part.

Unfortunately there aren't always people around and I realize that. I can assure you it isn't just women that get anxious when they are alone, men do to. I just went out a few hours ago and passed a few guys on the street that looked like they were doing a drug deal. One guy happened to notice me and started yelling "What are you looking at?". I was by myself, there were 4 guys, it was the middle of the day, literally 3 blocks from the police station, and I was still frightened. As I walked away the one guy kept shouting and I just ignored him. I wasn't even in danger, I was just being victimized by some low life. It sucks.

I wasn't in danger of dying or being raped, it was a busy street and there were tons of people around. That didn't even factor in to how I felt though, i was scared like my life was in danger even though it wasn't.

So I realize that being scared sucks, but I also realize sometimes it's irrational. You really need to keep a clear head and evaluate the situation as it happens or let the fear take over you.

When I see a woman saying they live in fear and it defines their daily routine, what's wrong with saying "No, take control, evaluate your situation properly, don't let the fear define you"

This author seems to be relying on the fear to make her argument for her. That's not always the best thing.

Uncayimmy

16th September 2010, 05:27 PM

I understand the phrase. I'm asking what you think I "bought." Your statement made no sense, like most of what you produce.

This is your MO. We're about two posts away from you just being directly obscene.

You told me, "If you think I'm being uncharitable, you're welcome to point it out." I do and I am.

TraneWreck

16th September 2010, 07:30 PM

You told me, "If you think I'm being uncharitable, you're welcome to point it out." I do and I am.

So you know what he's talking about?

I sincerely have no idea what he means by saying I "bought" her article, and if you think I'm exaggerating about the insults, just go read what was put in the AAH from this thread.

HansMustermann

17th September 2010, 08:06 AM

You'd crap your pants if it was a couple cops arresting you on a 5% probability.

You'd lose your mind if your 8 year old niece telling her teacher you were a "Schrodinger's Rapist" because you brushed up against her and wouldn't leave her alone when she was listening to her iPod.

You'd be freaking out if it was a female co-worker telling your boss.

Hmm? You're still trying to equivocate between "Schrödinger's Rapist" and actual rapist, and quite in the bogus circular logic way too.

If a cop actually arrested you for something, you're already implying that it is an accusation of criminal misconduct. Whereas the article made no such implication. A cop would not arrest you just because you happen to be a guy and have a 5% chance of being a rapist, or a 95% chance not to. A cop would would need a clear accusation of doing something illegal. In presuming that it's something a cop would do anything about, you're already assuming it's that kind of an accusation, when that's exactly what's being disputed in the first place.

In the girl example, again, the girl would complain about some actual wrong behaviours, and the accusation of being basically "maybe a rapist, maybe not, and nobody knows" would be a nonsense anyway. You're already implying it's something that would warrant a complaint, much less freaking about.

And if a female co-worker told a boss that basically that I might be a rapist or not, and she has no indication either way, as was basically the whole claim in the article, I'd laugh and tell them that probabilistically I might also be woman (no less than 51% of the population is, after all), or pregnant (almost 5% of women world-wide are at any given time, so that would make it about 2.5% of the total population), or I may already be a winner, and they can call me again when they have more evidence. Not that it would get that far anyway, because any boss would ask for any actual mis-conduct rather than just a general 1/60 probability.

But that's the whole problem actually. All three are supposed to illustrate why it's actually a serious accusation, but they only work that way if you're already assuming that it's a serious accusation. It's a textbook case of begging the question, AKA circular logic.

HansMustermann

17th September 2010, 08:17 AM

One might speculate that men's behaviour is at least partly determined by what aspects of it women reward and reinforce. I.e., if women didn't **** men who behave like macho ****heads then there would be a less men who behaved in that way.

While unfortunately there is a seed of truth there too, at least according to some studies, the thing is: it's not the whole story either. It's not like we have some circuit that accepts positive feedback only from women, or anything. A guy can just as well do dumb things to get the approval of other guys, or respectively a woman can do dumb things to gain the approval of other women. Or just about anyone can do some dumb thing just because they can rationalize it to themselves as the right thing. Etc.

HansMustermann

17th September 2010, 08:45 AM

It isn't simultaneous. If they commit 10 it's 1 in 60, if they commit 11 it's 1 in 66 if they commit 14 it's 1 in 84 if they commit 1 it's 1 in 6. It's a conditional statement.

This is sheer nonsense, time to give it up.

Except it doesn't work that way. Yes, you're spewing sheer nonsense.

For a start, if 1 in 6 men were rapists (which she doesn't say or use anywhere, but just for the sake of addressing your numbers), then 1 in 6 men were rapists. That's it. Committing 1 or 10 or 11 or 14 rapes each would still leave you with 1 in 6 being rapists.

If I say that 1 in 6 chickens in my coup are roosters, then that's it. It doesn't matter if they crow 1 or 10 or 14 times per fortnight, it's still the same number of roosters. What they do and how often, doesn't change their number or percentage of total chickens.

If 1 in 6 people in this company are programmers, then 1 in 6 are programmers and that's that. It doesn't matter if they wrote 1 program each or 10 programs each or 14 programs each. It's still the same number of programmers either way.

It's illogical to say anyone needs to believe 1/6 are programmers to get 1/60 are programmers. If the company has 600 people, you can believe that there are 10 programmers (1/60) or 100 programmers (1/6), but not both. Because only one can be true. Much less require believing the latter to believe the former.

Same for the article. For her to believe that 1/60 of men are rapists, she can't also believe that 1/6 are rapists. One or the other. Either you have basically 25 million rapists in the USA or 2.5 million. You can't believe both at the same time, much less have one be a pre-requisite for the other.

Second, again, the maths doesn't work that way.

If you actually assume 1/6 rapists/men and 10 rapes/rapist and multiply, you get 10/6 rapes/men, not 1/60. To get 1/60 you'd have to divide, in which case you end up with the units being something as stupid as rapists squared per men per rape.

The only maths that actually make sense is to assume, yes, 1/60 rapists/men and multiply by 10 rapes/rapist, giving 1/6 rapes/men ("men" as in, total male population), which is her 1/6 input data after she assumed basically that each woman is only raped once and the male/female ratio is 1 (or close enough for government work.)

Not only she doesn't need your bogus assumption for her maths to work, but actually it would make her maths no longer work at all if she did.

HansMustermann

17th September 2010, 09:33 AM

I hate to burst your bubble, but the National Violence Against Women Survey says that one in six women have have been raped. And by "says that" I mean, "One of every six women has been raped at some time."

NVAWS says, "...rape was defined as an event that occurred without the victim's consent that involved the use or threat of force in vaginal, anal, or oral intercourse." And by intercourse they include tongues, fingers and objects in the vagina and/or anus.

One big problem is that even though they surveyed 8,000 women and 8,000 men, the questions as asked excluded several events related to men. For example, a woman could not rape a man. Likewise, if someone performed oral sex on a woman by force, that was rape. If a someone performed oral sex on a boy/man, it was not. Same goes for stimulation by hand. Also, if a boy/man was forced to enter someone's anus with his penis, that was not counted. And by not counted I mean the screening questions not only didn't ask but gave definitions that did not include those acts. See page 10 (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/210346.pdf).

Also the definition of force was not defined. And the questions shifted around a regarding force and threats:
* 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...?

So, it's tough to get a handle on what happened in the 60% or so rapes that didn't involve either a threat of harm or a perceived threat of harm.

I'm not sure how that would qualify as rape under their questions if it didn't involve either. Over 60% of the yes results for women were for that first question which explicitly required one, the other, or both. (Again, accounting by itself for 1 in 10 women in the general population, as I already calculated in the other thread.) It hardly leaves a 60% where it's even possible to not have them, because, you know, you can't have 60% women raped _with_ force or threats, and 60% raped without, as it kinda goes above 100%.

Even in the questions about the last rape event, some 41.4% of women were outright physically assaulted in the process. That leaves 58.6% where just those where the actual physical assault is missing in that one attempt. Promoting that wholesale to also basically knowing that there was no other kind of force _or_ threat for that category, is a bit too big a taking a leap of faith. The actual study doesn't say that.

The only numbers I've ever seen you quote that would even vaguely support that, actually say that 43.1% of women (vs 21.3% of men) in the US DOJ report thought they or a relative are in danger of _serious_ injury or death. But even they don't say that everyone else was entirely free from any other threat or force.

At any rate, I see nothing in either report, which would support such an assertion as that 60% (or so) of the rapes happened without any threat or force.

Second, I think then that same objection would apply to the raped men too, and actually even more so. If you see rape as some kind of dichotomy where either there was a physical assault or there was no threat or force at all, which is kinda required for the idea that 60% of those rapes were that way, then the same number for raped men is over 66%. (As only 33.9% were assaulted during their last rape.) And the severity of assaults on women was also higher, with 7 to 14 _times_ more women than men finding themselves on the wrong end of a knife or gun in an assault. (See page 27.) And in the US DOJ report, the number who _didn't_ expect serious harm or death for raped men raises as high as 78.7%. (Only 21.3% were apparently expecting that.)

So I really don't think you want to go down the road of now trying to argue which rapes were really rape-y enough when done against women, without ending up nuking the claim of most raped men in that redefinition too. And neither of us wants to do something that insensitive, right? ;)

PS: Also, oh, since you repeatedly seem bothered that the questions for men didn't include everything, they also reference another study where the question was so generic as whether they were ever forced to do anything sexual against their will. The numbers for that one were 22% of women and 2% of men. (See page 13.) So I think we can put that uncertainty to rest now.

Furcifer

17th September 2010, 09:52 AM

Except it doesn't work that way. Yes, you're spewing sheer nonsense.

For a start, if 1 in 6 men were rapists (which she doesn't say or use anywhere, but just for the sake of addressing your numbers), then 1 in 6 men were rapists. That's it. Committing 1 or 10 or 11 or 14 rapes each would still leave you with 1 in 6 being rapists.

If I say that 1 in 6 chickens in my coup are roosters, then that's it. It doesn't matter if they crow 1 or 10 or 14 times per fortnight, it's still the same number of roosters. What they do and how often, doesn't change their number or percentage of total chickens.

If 1 in 6 people in this company are programmers, then 1 in 6 are programmers and that's that. It doesn't matter if they wrote 1 program each or 10 programs each or 14 programs each. It's still the same number of programmers either way.

It's illogical to say anyone needs to believe 1/6 are programmers to get 1/60 are programmers. If the company has 600 people, you can believe that there are 10 programmers (1/60) or 100 programmers (1/6), but not both. Because only one can be true. Much less require believing the latter to believe the former.

Same for the article. For her to believe that 1/60 of men are rapists, she can't also believe that 1/6 are rapists. One or the other. Either you have basically 25 million rapists in the USA or 2.5 million. You can't believe both at the same time, much less have one be a pre-requisite for the other.

Second, again, the maths doesn't work that way.

If you actually assume 1/6 rapists/men and 10 rapes/rapist and multiply, you get 10/6 rapes/men, not 1/60. To get 1/60 you'd have to divide, in which case you end up with the units being something as stupid as rapists squared per men per rape.

The only maths that actually make sense is to assume, yes, 1/60 rapists/men and multiply by 10 rapes/rapist, giving 1/6 rapes/men ("men" as in, total male population), which is her 1/6 input data after she assumed basically that each woman is only raped once and the male/female ratio is 1 (or close enough for government work.)

Not only she doesn't need your bogus assumption for her maths to work, but actually it would make her maths no longer work at all if she did.

You've turned this red herring into a white whale haven't you? :D

It's perfectly clear what she did, she said 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted and then assumed 1 in 6 men are rapists, she then assumed each rapist commits 10 rapes and arrived at her guesstimate of 1 in 60 men are rapists.

Now please, quit playing ignorant. As if it's some coincidence she states 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted and then by magic guesses a rapist commits 10 rapes and ends up with 1 in 60 men are rapists. If she didn't assume that why didn't she end up with 1 in 80? or 1 in 55? It's a multiple of 1 in 6 for a very specific reason and you know it.

This is by far the most bizarre derail I've ever seen. I can't believe you are defending someone who uses the number of sexual assaults over a woman's lifetime to determine the rapist concentration. :boggled:

Furcifer

17th September 2010, 10:32 AM

But that's the whole problem actually. All three are supposed to illustrate why it's actually a serious accusation, but they only work that way if you're already assuming that it's a serious accusation. It's a textbook case of begging the question, AKA circular logic.

No, you missed the point entirely.

Tranwreck said he would laugh if anyone called him a "Schrodinger Rapist". Granted the term is somewhat amusing, but we're talking about the consequences of how we think and rationalize treating other people based on assumptions.

It's a very simple concept. If you don't like someone because they rub you the wrong way you don't go around calling them a "rapist".

I realize the author doesn't do this exactly. But she's trying to rationalize thinking this way. We don't define any other group by the extremists within the group, why would we do that with men and rapists?

HansMustermann

17th September 2010, 10:53 AM

You've turned this red herring into a white whale haven't you? :D

It's perfectly clear what she did, she said 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted and then assumed 1 in 6 men are rapists, she then assumed each rapist commits 10 rapes and arrived at her guesstimate of 1 in 60 men are rapists.

Now please, quit playing ignorant. As if it's some coincidence she states 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted and then by magic guesses a rapist commits 10 rapes and ends up with 1 in 60 men are rapists. If she didn't assume that why didn't she end up with 1 in 80? or 1 in 55? It's a multiple of 1 in 6 for a very specific reason and you know it.

No, you just prove again that you don't understand simple English and elementary arithmetic.

This is by far the most bizarre derail I've ever seen. I can't believe you are defending someone who uses the number of sexual assaults over a woman's lifetime to determine the rapist concentration. :boggled:

But that's an entirely different objection than your "1 in 6 men are rapists" strawman, innit?

HansMustermann

17th September 2010, 11:12 AM

No, you missed the point entirely.

Tranwreck said he would laugh if anyone called him a "Schrodinger Rapist". Granted the term is somewhat amusing, but we're talking about the consequences of how we think and rationalize treating other people based on assumptions.

Actually, assuming they explained it meant she has no way of knowing if I'm a rapist or not, I'd think she's actually a smart woman. I like smart women, actually.

And, really, I see her point. I know who I am[1], she doesn't. For her I'm just some random stranger guy. It's not as much about "me" as about that stranger she's never seen before. Taking a risk assessment is actually the smart thing to do. If nothing else, because next time it won't be me.

Footnote:

[1] And actually even that is actually false. In studies people have repeatedly proven that they're the worst possible judges of their own abilities, humour or character. Just think of all the "I'm not a racist, but <insert horribly racist thing>" or "I'm not sexist, but <insert why the bitch should be in the kitchen instead of having her own job>". Those people genuinely don't see themselves as racists or sexists, yet they are. And in polls it's pretty much a given that any asking people to describe themselves will result in them describing a much better and more acceptable version of themselves, than they really are. And I won't pretend my crap doesn't stink. I'm also the worst possible judge of how good or funny I am, and it's possible to rub someone the wrong way, or be a worst choice than I think. I should hope not in the rape department, but, really, I'm the least qualified to judge that about myself either way. I can't blame someone for taking her own assessment instead of taking my word about something I'm not qualified to judge.

It's a very simple concept. If you don't like someone because they rub you the wrong way you don't go around calling them a "rapist".

Which she doesn't. She says she's not taking you home, not that she'll call you a rapist.

I realize the author doesn't do this exactly.

But if that's not what she says, then the previous quoted paragraph is really at best a red herring and at worst a strawman.

But she's trying to rationalize thinking this way.

No, she doesn't. She never says that at any point she'll think "this guy is a rapist". She even says that she won't know unless someone actually tries to rape her. That's the whole _point_ in the Schrödinger's Rapist quip.

She'll just adjust her risk assessment up or down, but there's no point where she says she'll call you a rapist even in her mind.

We don't define any other group by the extremists within the group, why would we do that with men and rapists?

But we do risk assessments anyway. E.g., try showing up at an airport with a strange metal box or a large bottle of strange liquid in your carry-on luggage, and you may see some over-the-top checks.

I've seen them twice get into overdrive checking just me because of that. First time was a large old camera which, due to the angle, looked even more like something really strange on the X-Ray, and the second time with an all-metal US-Robotics modem. You'd think that by 1990 they'd have heard about a modem, but for the airport cops a big metal box with LEDs and buttons was something to x-ray and test for smelling like any known explosive. (I assume that's what that big vacuum-cleaner machine was doing, anyway.)

Nobody accused me of being an actual terrorist or bomber, but, yes, for a few minutes there, I was "Schrödinger's Bomber" so to speak. Which is a very different thing from being actually accused of being a real bomber.

I didn't mind it much, actually.

Sun Countess

17th September 2010, 11:17 AM

So, I sit down on the seat next to you and say, "Good morning." According to this woman I have violated you in some way by disrespecting your wishes. If I didn't know before this article what I was doing, I certainly do now, right? Are you, like this author, now planning your escape route should you need to flee? If you don't continue to press me in a conversation that I don't wish to engage in, I won't think anything of it. If you continue to press me, then I will be thinking that I may need to "escape" your attention in some way.
According to the references Professor Yaffle provided, I might be more likely to be a rapist because they don't respect boundaries like that. Then again, I might be less likely to be a rapist because rapists score lower on the exravert scale, meaning they are less likely to be gregarious or assertive socially. For me, it's not even about whether you're more likely to rape me or not. If you're annoying me and don't listen to my cues to quit annoying me, you've just become a hassle in my day that I didn't need.
Well, if you're just looking out the window, you haven't made anything clear except that you're looking out the window. If you think that's a clear indicator that you're unwilling to talk, I think you should reconsider that notion. There world's far more complex than that. That's why it has to go a step farther. If you see me looking out the window and you say hello, and I then make it clear I don't wish to engage in a conversation with a stranger, and you continue from that point, it's actually pretty simple. Somebody who engages somebody who has made it clear that they don't want to engage is somebody who doesn't respect boundaries.
If you continue as you describe, you're sending a clearer message that you're not interested in conversation. Guys do this as well, only most of the men I know don't get all freaked out when somebody, male or female, persists. Some people just don't get social cues, and it's annoying. Yes. Extremely annoying.
Are you thinking "rapist" when this happens to you? Are you looking for escape routes? I'm not necessarily thinking rapist. The guy could be a simple creep or pervert, or possibly somebody who's just socially awkward.
Do you believe that anyone needed to be told that? Now, apparently what I needed to be told is that at least one woman plans escape routes on a crowded bus or subway car. I didn't know that. My advice up to now to any woman in peril is to flee towards a crowd, not away from one. I also had no idea that when I'm standing in line at the grocery store and say, "Is that the Android? How do you like it?" that the woman is thinking, "Are you going to rape me?" She's probably not thinking that. I know I'm not. I'm not against engaging in small talk in a public setting. A grocery store is reasonably safe and people make small talk all the time. I thought the author made it very clear that she was talking about situations where a woman would be vulnerable if you werea dangerous person.
That said, I think her risk assessment is based on a warped perception of reality. No. It's based on a perception that comes from being in the lower quartile of physical strength. If a good 75% of the people you come across are capable of physically harming you, you make different risk assessments than somebody who's in the 90th percentile.
Be careful. When I said the same thing about myself, I was accused of "chest beating" and repeated choruses of "I'm glad I'm a man." The reality is that large, physically strong men are not at the same risk as a woman who is much smaller. I don't think it's wrong to recognize that. What was construed as chest-beating was the (paraphrase) "I'm a big huge strong guy and I don't feel this way. Do women really have different challenges than I do?"
I'm an extravert. I strike up conversations all over the place. The other day I was at Souper Salad with my two sons. Some older person was "obviously occupied" choosing a soup. I was waiting behind her. I said, "You gotta try the clam chowder. I'm on my fourth bowl." A very short "conversation" ensued, which must mean that she wasn't interested in talking to me, right? She must have been planning her escape route out of the restaurant. If she engaged in conversation with you, then she wasn't planning an escape route. I don't even know what point you're trying to make here.
Funny thing, though, next time she got up she stopped at my table to tell me that yes, indeed, that clam chowder was excellent and that she was going to get more. She then told me how cute and well behaved my boys were and chatted with them. I, of course, had my boys say, "Nice to meet you" and give their names. That's great. You had a mutually pleasant social interaction with a stranger. I have them too. Do I need to tell you a story or will you take me at my word? The author is talking about people who make it clear that they don't want to engage with a stranger.

That's the world I want to live in, not one where every innocuous comment carries with it the baggage of sexual or physical assault or one where every person who struggles with social cues is rated on the Rapist Scale. Sure, I recognize that I'm in the 90th percentile for men when it comes to weight and height, and that I'm a chest beating, chili-dog eating, friendly greeting, kindly treating, bully defeating, never retreating, rock and roll man who's kind to children and dogs, but I still understand how others view risk differently, I'd like to live in a world where 1 in 6 women weren't raped.

I'd like to live in a world where somebody who's in the 10th percentile when it comes to size and strength could walk around with the exact same risk-free lifestyle as those in the 90th percentile.

I'd like to live in a world where a pleasant conversation with a stranger didn't turn into an expectation that the woman was now more likely to engage in sex with the man who initiated it. She answered his question, that must mean that she now wants to go back to his place and take care of his erection, right? Oh, I get that you probably didn't say that to the lady at the restaurant, and you probably wouldn't say it to any lady on the bus. But speaking as the lady on the bus or the restaurant or the grocery line, I'm telling every man here and now that my pleasant exchange about the weather doesn't mean that the next topic should be your penis or my breasts.

When that happens to you a few times, maybe you'll understand why some women don't like talking to strangers. I would just like to live in a world where men didn't ever do that. "Nice weather today." "Yes it is." "So you wanna give me head or what?" (<--- actual conversation stepping off a bus)

About 1 in 60 adult women will be raped by a stranger in their lifetime. If we very conservatively estimate one stranger encounter per week, that's 2,500 in a 50 year adult lifetime (another conservative number). That means 1 in 150,000 stranger encounters results in a rape. So, I do consider planning escape routes on a subway car to be a disproportional reaction to that threat. I have never been raped and I've never falsely accused anybody of rape or attempted rape. I've been hassled as described above on several occasions. Tell me what you think a more appropriate reaction should be, proportionate to the actual threat. Keep in mind that my physical stature is best described as "petite."

Furcifer

17th September 2010, 11:55 AM

No, you just prove again that you don't understand simple English and elementary arithmetic.

Yes, somehow I managed to get a degree and a diploma in science, but I don't understand elementary arithmetic. :rolleyes:

Do you see how irrational your arguments are? You're kidding no one but yourself here. There isn't a single person on this forum that doesn't understand arithmetic, and yet you're making the claim here. It's complete nonsense.

Furcifer

17th September 2010, 12:35 PM

No, she doesn't. She never says that at any point she'll think "this guy is a rapist". She even says that she won't know unless someone actually tries to rape her. That's the whole _point_ in the Schrödinger's Rapist quip.

Now you're just arguing nonsense again. This is a blog piece, not a scientific study. Hardly anything is literal. She says:

"So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this man rape me?"

If she didn't "think" this guy was a rapist, why the hell would she have to ask herself "Will this man rape me?" She has to think the guy is a rapist if she has to think will he rape me.

And that's her mistake, she doesn't HAVE to think anything, and especially not will he rape me. What she really wants to say is "Will this man harm me, is he capable of committing a violent act against me?" It's completely inflammatory to jump to "rape" like that.

She'll just adjust her risk assessment up or down, but there's no point where she says she'll call you a rapist even in her mind.

I'll be over here adjusting how much of an ass I think you are. I'm not saying you're an ass, I'm just adjusting how much of one I think you are.
:rolleyes:

But we do risk assessments anyway. E.g., try showing up at an airport with a strange metal box or a large bottle of strange liquid in your carry-on luggage, and you may see some over-the-top checks.

Nobody accused me of being an actual terrorist or bomber, but, yes, for a few minutes there, I was "Schrödinger's Bomber" so to speak. Which is a very different thing from being actually accused of being a real bomber.

I see your point, but don't forget this is policy. The airport treats everyone as a terrorist until they prove otherwise. They have a set of tests and if you pass them you are no longer considered a terrorist.

How exactly do you prove you aren't a rapist?

You're also confusing being accused and treated like a terrorist with being charged as a terrorist.

SOdhner

17th September 2010, 12:45 PM

If she didn't "think" this guy was a POTENTIAL rapist, why the hell would she have to ask herself "Will this man rape me?" She has to think the guy is a POTENTIAL rapist if she has to think will he POTENTIALLY rape me.

[…]

The airport treats everyone as a POTENTIAL terrorist until they prove otherwise. They have a set of tests and if you pass them you are no longer considered HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO BE a terrorist.

I've made some super-subtle changes to your post. Do you distinguish between this and what you originally wrote or do you think they are the same thing? I see a big difference.

Uncayimmy

17th September 2010, 01:13 PM

If you don't continue to press me in a conversation that I don't wish to engage in, I won't think anything of it. If you continue to press me, then I will be thinking that I may need to "escape" your attention in some way.
For me, it's not even about whether you're more likely to rape me or not. If you're annoying me and don't listen to my cues to quit annoying me, you've just become a hassle in my day that I didn't need.
That's why it has to go a step farther. If you see me looking out the window and you say hello, and I then make it clear I don't wish to engage in a conversation with a stranger, and you continue from that point, it's actually pretty simple. Somebody who engages somebody who has made it clear that they don't want to engage is somebody who doesn't respect boundaries.
Yes. Extremely annoying.
I'm not necessarily thinking rapist. The guy could be a simple creep or pervert, or possibly somebody who's just socially awkward.

That's good to hear. The article, unfortunately, comes across very differently, and that is with what I take issue.

She's probably not thinking that.
You're projecting. She tells us flat out what she's thinking. "So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this man rape me?"

People seem to be spending a lot of effort telling us what they think this woman was saying and ignoring what she actually wrote.

No. It's based on a perception that comes from being in the lower quartile of physical strength. If a good 75% of the people you come across are capable of physically harming you, you make different risk assessments than somebody who's in the 90th percentile.
Yep. That's not what her article was about.

If she engaged in conversation with you, then she wasn't planning an escape route. I don't even know what point you're trying to make here.
As I said, the "conversation" was very short. It was just a few words. She was preoccupied choosing a soup. Or maybe like the women in the article, she was preoccupied planning how to get away from me. Because according to this article, I should never have said anything to this woman because she's asking herself if I'm going to rape her.

You can hem and haw all you want, but that's what the article says. According to her, I should have stood several feet behind her and waited in silence.

That's great. You had a mutually pleasant social interaction with a stranger. I have them too. Do I need to tell you a story or will you take me at my word? The author is talking about people who make it clear that they don't want to engage with a stranger.
According to the author, "When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist." She then goes on to say, "You want to say Hi to the cute girl on the subway. How will she react?" She advises me to read the signals that she doesn't want to talk to me, and the author is telling me I can't even say Hi. C'mon, it's right there in the article. She set up the situation about saying Hi, not me.

As for why not? She tells me, "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." There's no back and forth exchange described there. She's telling me I can't say Hi to a woman if she's reading a book or working on her computer. It's right there in black and white.

I am utterly flabbergasted that people keep rewriting this woman's article for her.

I'd like to live in a world where a pleasant conversation with a stranger didn't turn into an expectation that the woman was now more likely to engage in sex with the man who initiated it.
You do live in such a world. Far more often than not, it doesn't turn into such an expectation. That's my point. Most conversations are innocuous. What you are doing is the same thing that racists do. They have a few run-ins with blacks, Mexicans, Asians, or whatever, so then it becomes, "I'd like to live in a world where I didn't have to worry that every time I see a Mexican walking down the street he's gonna steal my hubcaps."

We call people who make statements like that bigots. When somebody makes the same kind of statements about men being filthy pigs, we let it slide. Hell, lots of men cluck their tongues and say, "Yes, it is horrible, isn't it?"

She answered his question, that must mean that she now wants to go back to his place and take care of his erection, right?
If a woman asks me what kind of car I have, she's just fishing to see how much money I have so she can pretend to love me so I'll buy her things, right?

Oh, I get that you probably didn't say that to the lady at the restaurant, and you probably wouldn't say it to any lady on the bus. But speaking as the lady on the bus or the restaurant or the grocery line, I'm telling every man here and now that my pleasant exchange about the weather doesn't mean that the next topic should be your penis or my breasts.
And it's not, is it? You probably don't even realize how many innocuous conversations and brief exchanges you have every week with strangers or acquaintances. Keep some records and see for yourself how much confirmation bias is going on here.

And don't try to tell me the article is about guys who move straight from, "Is that an iPhone?" to "Are you wearing thong panties?" It's about guys saying Hi.

When that happens to you a few times, maybe you'll understand why some women don't like talking to strangers [black guys]. I would just like to live in a world where men [black guys] didn't ever do that. "Nice weather today." "Yes it is." "So you wanna give me head or what?" (<--- actual conversation stepping off a bus)
I altered your quote to reflect what I've heard other people say.

I have never been raped and I've never falsely accused anybody of rape or attempted rape. I've been hassled as described above on several occasions. Tell me what you think a more appropriate reaction should be, proportionate to the actual threat. Keep in mind that my physical stature is best described as "petite."
If you want to let the risk of some inappropriate comments keep you from having pleasant exchanges and meeting new and interesting people, that's your choice. It's also my choice to read that article and think that it's silly for a woman to think "rapist" every time a stranger approaches her and that I, the great guy she's seemingly addressing, should just keep my mouth shut.

Do you know what the end result is going to be if people like me listen to this woman? The only men who are going to talk to you are the perverts. Yeh, that's better.

Lyrandar

17th September 2010, 01:16 PM

Define "talking to me" in this context. The way I was brought up it is rude to insert yourself in someone's personal space (even if by necessity on a train) without at least saying something like "excuse me" or "good morning" or "How ya doin'?"

What I meant was that no one attempted to verbally communicate with me in any way, not even "excuse me" or "good morning". On second thought, though, this is not as useful as it could be, given that I only use public transportation rarely and frequently have someone else with me (so no one ends up having to ask for the seat next to mine, etc.).

I read that twice and still don't understand what you're trying to say.

... Sorry for the crappy phrasing, then. I'm inclined to just drop the point, as I'm not sure it's that important anyway, but I can try to reword it if you want.

Dealing with socially awkward people can be and is done without ever bringing up rape or escape routes. The fact is, based on very conservative estimates, that 1 in 150,000 stranger encounters results in a rape. She's obviously dealt with these "rude" people countless times without coming to harm. So have lots of other women.

The author, however, seems to be implicitly saying that men shouldn't do it because she (irrationally) perceives a serious risk (she plans escape routes on a bus). There's no mention of women doing it. Or children. What she does not say says a lot about what she does say. So, I dismiss the notion that this was some friendly lecture on picking up on social cues.

I get the impression, from your response, that you thought I was referring to a person dealing with socially awkward people. I was referring to a socially awkward person dealing with anyone.

Basically, I wanted your opinion on the following two premises and conclusion:
1) A socially awkward person, due to their reduced ability to interpret social cues, has less information available when making risk assessments.
2) It is usually better to err on the side of caution when making a risk assessment with incomplete or unreliable information.
Therefore a socially awkward person might justifiably make risk assessments that are far less forgiving towards others than normal.

A more general point might be that it's hard to generalize these judgments too much, since these risk assessments are inherently subjective, and two wildly different ones could theoretically be rational depending on the points of view.

So I realize that being scared sucks, but I also realize sometimes it's irrational. You really need to keep a clear head and evaluate the situation as it happens or let the fear take over you.

When I see a woman saying they live in fear and it defines their daily routine, what's wrong with saying "No, take control, evaluate your situation properly, don't let the fear define you".

Well, I view coming up with contingency plans and the like as a way of taking control. The author of the blog in question simply believes that a plan of action is necessary if the risk is higher than 0%, I guess... while that may seem excessive, what indications do we have that proves that she spends the same amount of time and effort on a plan for a 5% risk situation and a 75% risk situation? Or that she believes that the 5% plan has the same chance of getting used as the 75% plan? (I'm not trying to imply that there are no indications, I'm just curious where you get that impression, if that is the impression you're getting.)

In those situations I've been in where I started feeling worried, I always did come up with some type of plan (mostly "run like hell", along with some thought about the quickest way to a safe region). That wasn't necessarily because I believed the danger was serious, or because I thought I'd assuredly need the plan eventually. It was because I thought it'd be a nice thing to have if things did start going south and because it made me feel a little better.

Dunstan

17th September 2010, 01:31 PM

Do you know what the end result is going to be if people like me listen to this woman? The only men who are going to talk to you are the perverts. Yeh, that's better.

You hear that, ladies? Be careful, or you'll be deprived of the small talk of UY. No soup advice for you! That'll teach you.

Uncayimmy

17th September 2010, 01:40 PM

I'm not sure how that would qualify as rape under their questions if it didn't involve either. Over 60% of the yes results for women were for that first question which explicitly required one, the other, or both. (Again, accounting by itself for 1 in 10 women in the general population, as I already calculated in the other thread.) It hardly leaves a 60% where it's even possible to not have them, because, you know, you can't have 60% women raped _with_ force or threats, and 60% raped without, as it kinda goes above 100%.
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.

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."

The screening question separated "force" from "threat" using "or" in between. We covered this in the other thread. I wrote a lengthy response and you ignored it. If you want to address it, take it there. That's why I created the thread in the first place.

The only numbers I've ever seen you quote that would even vaguely support that, actually say that 43.1% of women (vs 21.3% of men) in the US DOJ report thought they or a relative are in danger of _serious_ injury or death. But even they don't say that everyone else was entirely free from any other threat or force.
Force has never been defined. See the other thread.

At any rate, I see nothing in either report, which would support such an assertion as that 60% (or so) of the rapes happened without any threat or force.
Good thing I never said that then, huh? My whole point is that force is not defined. It appears that 60% of the adult rapes involved force without a perceived threat of serious harm or an actual threat of [no modifier] harm. Like I said, I covered this in the other thread in direct response to you, so take it there.

So I really don't think you want to go down the road of now trying to argue which rapes were really rape-y enough when done against women, without ending up nuking the claim of most raped men in that redefinition too. And neither of us wants to do something that insensitive, right? ;)
Sometimes people go really far when building their straw men. Yours was huge. What I have explicitly said is that we don't know what was or was not reported for women when it comes to "force." As written, we don't know if coercion was included, for example. You keep wanting to me to make judgments about whether it should be or not when I explicitly stated that we should a) know what the data means and b) include this events so we get a more complete picture. Beyond that, we need to do the same for men, and the NVAWS blew it when it came to interviewing men. We know the data is not comparable.

PS: Also, oh, since you repeatedly seem bothered that the questions for men didn't include everything, they also reference another study where the question was so generic as whether they were ever forced to do anything sexual against their will. The numbers for that one were 22% of women and 2% of men. (See page 13.) So I think we can put that uncertainty to rest now.
Page 13 talks about "Rape Prevalence Among Minority Populations." Please try to be more careful. Second, what I think you are referencing is the NHSLS which asked about "being forced to do something sexual." There was no mention of will. And, of course, no definition of forced and "do" is ambiguous (if I allow myself to be fellated, did "do" something?). It leaves otu statutory rape. It's a terrible question.

It's disgusting to me how easily people are waving their hands and dismissing male rape. Some people seem to think that a man can't get an erection while being raped, so if he gets one, he wasn't raped. I wonder how many men believe that as well.

Just admit that the data for men is seriously flawed and quit making excuses.

Furcifer

17th September 2010, 01:59 PM

Well, I view coming up with contingency plans and the like as a way of taking control. The author of the blog in question simply believes that a plan of action is necessary if the risk is higher than 0%, I guess... while that may seem excessive, what indications do we have that proves that she spends the same amount of time and effort on a plan for a 5% risk situation and a 75% risk situation? Or that she believes that the 5% plan has the same chance of getting used as the 75% plan? (I'm not trying to imply that there are no indications, I'm just curious where you get that impression, if that is the impression you're getting.)

If I've interpreted your question correctly, what I'm saying is why is she making the article about her 5% contingency plan, when she's really talking about the 75% contingency plan?

Her 5% plan is based on rape, the 75% plan is based on her being anywhere from uncomfortable to violently assaulted or murdered. She calls it "Schrodinger's Rapist" but it really is about "Schrodinger's Victim".

I'm telling you as a guy, a lot of guys are going to look at the article, see the title, read the first few lines and go "Oh God, another feminist going off about rape because some guy bugged her on the bus", and not finish reading the article.

I read the article a few times, I admit, she's not really saying all men are rapists out to take sexual liberties on any woman they see. I realize she's saying when women are approached by men they're evaluating what could happen if something goes wrong. I realize she saying there's a range of probabilities from 0 to 1 that something bad could happen. I realize that most of her article is rational and well meaning.

I'm just saying as a "general guide for men on how to approach strange women", making it about rape isn't necessary. Making up some number about the concentration of rapists isn't necessary. And making stuff up about how men don't have anything to worry about is a complete fallacy.

That's my general suggestion to the author from my male perspective after reading the article.

Uncayimmy

17th September 2010, 02:13 PM

What I meant was that no one attempted to verbally communicate with me in any way, not even "excuse me" or "good morning". On second thought, though, this is not as useful as it could be, given that I only use public transportation rarely and frequently have someone else with me (so no one ends up having to ask for the seat next to mine, etc.).
Fair enough.

... Sorry for the crappy phrasing, then. I'm inclined to just drop the point, as I'm not sure it's that important anyway, but I can try to reword it if you want.
It's no big deal. I just didn't want you to think I ignored your point. I honestly gave it a shot. It could have been my perspective not your phrasing.

I get the impression, from your response, that you thought I was referring to a person dealing with socially awkward people. I was referring to a socially awkward person dealing with anyone.
You understood me correctly, and apparently I misunderstood you.

Basically, I wanted your opinion on the following two premises and conclusion:
1) A socially awkward person, due to their reduced ability to interpret social cues, has less information available when making risk assessments.
2) It is usually better to err on the side of caution when making a risk assessment with incomplete or unreliable information.
Therefore a socially awkward person might justifiably make risk assessments that are far less forgiving towards others than normal.
That's a loaded couple of questions. First, I have been arguing that most of the stranger encounters have incomplete and unreliable information when it comes to risk assessment, so it really doesn't matter if you have difficulties picking up social cues from others. If you're red-green color blind faced with a situation where red and green aren't gonna tell you squat anyway, it doesn't matter.

Second, it's not always "better" to err on the side of caution. One always has to weigh the risk levels and costs of making their decisions. I'm saying that stranger encounters leading to rape are exceedingly rare. Of course, if someone moves from stranger to acquaintance to friend to lover, the risk steadily increases. At the lover stage, the risk is orders of magnitude higher.

Third, and this is the real kicker, in my personal experience dealing with people who have difficulty with social cues (including those who have been diagnosed by clinicians in this regard), they rarely ever think their deficiency is the problem. It's like, "Yeh, I know, but I don't think that had anything to do with it. The other guy was being a jerk [whatever]. I didn't read it wrong." The more severe the diagnosis, the less likely I have found them to acknowledge their part in failed social interactions. Makes sense to me. Who wants to think they read a situation wrong? Who wants to think of themselves as handicapped in the head? So, I'm not convinced someone is likely to acknowledge such a weakness and actually do something about it the way you describe.

A more general point might be that it's hard to generalize these judgments too much, since these risk assessments are inherently subjective, and two wildly different ones could theoretically be rational depending on the points of view.
As I have said before, it's an ongoing process. The time you are most likely to see the biggest clues regarding danger are after you've become lovers. That seems to be the paradox, doesn't it? We're hearing from women about all these strategies for judging rapists on very little data, yet the vast majority of rapes are committed by intimate partners.

Sun Countess

17th September 2010, 02:29 PM

That's good to hear. The article, unfortunately, comes across very differently, and that is with what I take issue.

You're projecting. She tells us flat out what she's thinking. "So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this man rape me?"

People seem to be spending a lot of effort telling us what they think this woman was saying and ignoring what she actually wrote. Except that she didn't say that it was for every single exchange. She asks men to read women's body language and to be more careful when they're in situations (like an elevator or dark street at night) where a woman is in a more vulnerable position. It's about a man approaching a woman he's never met before, not about meeting somebody at work or through friends. You may think that I'm projecting some of my own thoughts onto the article, but you're saying that she's applying the same thought process every time a man approaches a woman. She's not.
As I said, the "conversation" was very short. It was just a few words. She was preoccupied choosing a soup. Or maybe like the women in the article, she was preoccupied planning how to get away from me. Because according to this article, I should never have said anything to this woman because she's asking herself if I'm going to rape her. The article never said this. You were in a public place with other people there. That's not approaching a woman in a dark alley. You didn't continue to pursue a woman who made it clear that she didn't want to converse with you.
You can hem and haw all you want, but that's what the article says. According to her, I should have stood several feet behind her and waited in silence. Except the article doesn't say that. She never says that a man should never ever ever speak to a woman he doesn't know. She asks you to be cognizant of the woman's body language upon approaching her, and her subsequent body language and verbal cues if you do initiate a conversation.
According to the author, "When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist." She then goes on to say, "You want to say Hi to the cute girl on the subway. How will she react?" She advises me to read the signals that she doesn't want to talk to me, and the author is telling me I can't even say Hi. C'mon, it's right there in the article. She set up the situation about saying Hi, not me. No. She said that if the woman smiles at you and sits with an open posture, it's okay to say hi. If she's sitting toward the window or with headphones on, and doesn't make any acknowledgement that you're taking the seat beside her, then it's probably a good idea to amuse yourself during your bus ride.

As for why not? She tells me, "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." There's no back and forth exchange described there. She's telling me I can't say Hi to a woman if she's reading a book or working on her computer. It's right there in black and white. And why do you have a problem with that? If a woman is reading a book and doesn't look up to acknowledge you, why do you have to initiate a conversation with her?
You do live in such a world. Far more often than not, it doesn't turn into such an expectation. That's my point. Most conversations are innocuous. What you are doing is the same thing that racists do. They have a few run-ins with blacks, Mexicans, Asians, or whatever, so then it becomes, "I'd like to live in a world where I didn't have to worry that every time I see a Mexican walking down the street he's gonna steal my hubcaps." Great. Now I'm a racist. Yes, most of my conversations with strange men are innocuous, but the few bad apples do spoil things when it comes to me wanting to make small talk with complete strangers. Why is this such a huge deal? So, I don't like talking to strangers, so what? Is it really any skin off your nose? I'm not outright rude to people; I just try to convey with my body language that I'm not interested in talking to somebody that I don't know. Again, we're not talking about meeting people in a social setting where conversation is expected (at a shop or restaurant, at work, hanging out after a lecture).
We call people who make statements like that bigots. When somebody makes the same kind of statements about men being filthy pigs, we let it slide. Hell, lots of men cluck their tongues and say, "Yes, it is horrible, isn't it?" It's funny, though, that I've never had a woman ask me to blow her after I talked about the weather. This has happened with men at least a half dozen times. I don't care what their skin color is or even how old they are. I've said before that I really like men, but that doesn't mean I should trust every strange man who sits next to me on a bus and initiates conversation. If he's bigger and stronger than me, I'm going to be a little wary. It's not like I live my life in a bubble, but I do try to insulate myself from strangers in certain situations, depending on how I'm feeling that day. Some days I just don't want a hassle, even if the chance of it happening is small.
If a woman asks me what kind of car I have, she's just fishing to see how much money I have so she can pretend to love me so I'll buy her things, right? Do women on the bus routinely ask you what kind of car you have? Does a simple conversation about the weather or local sports turn into her asking you to buy her gifts? I've had several seemingly innocent conversations with strange men that turned into requests for sexual favors. I would bet that most women could tell you similar stories. Do you understand why I could be a little nervous when that happens and that I have a reason to be wary that another unknown man may act in the same manner?
And it's not, is it? You probably don't even realize how many innocuous conversations and brief exchanges you have every week with strangers or acquaintances. Keep some records and see for yourself how much confirmation bias is going on here. I know it's a rare occurence. But it's exceedingly unpleasant when it happens. There is absolutely no payoff for me having a conversation with a stranger. Chance of something really negative happening? Less than 1%. Chance of something really positive happening? Also less than 1%.
And don't try to tell me the article is about guys who move straight from, "Is that an iPhone?" to "Are you wearing thong panties?" It's about guys saying Hi. And sometimes the reason a woman doesn't want to say "Hi" is because she doesn't know if the guy is going to get all creepy on her. She doesn't know him, and she doesn't owe him the pleasure of her company. If she doesn't want to talk to you, and makes it clear with her body language, why in the world would you pursue her?
If you want to let the risk of some inappropriate comments keep you from having pleasant exchanges and meeting new and interesting people, that's your choice. Thank you. I don't find conversations with strangers pleasant in any circumstance. If you like having conversations with strangers, then have them with like-minded strangers. It's no hardship for you to avoid strangers who are avoiding you. The article is asking you to avoid making contact with strange people are clearly trying to avoid it.
It's also my choice to read that article and think that it's silly for a woman to think "rapist" every time a stranger approaches her and that I, the great guy she's seemingly addressing, should just keep my mouth shut. It's your right to consider it silly. I don't have a problem with that. I do wish that more men could understand that women have reason to view the world with a different perspective than men. It's nothing to do with racism. I'm more at risk due to my size, and between the two of us, I'm the only one at risk of an unwanted pregnancy via rape.
Do you know what the end result is going to be if people like me listen to this woman? The only men who are going to talk to you are the perverts. Yeh, that's better. No. The only men who are going to talk to me would be the ones who correctly read my signals that I'm open to talking to them, along with a handful of perverts. Why is it so hard to not talk to women who aren't in the mood to talk to strangers? From my experience, some men think it's a deliberate challenge to make them work a little harder at charming you. It's not.

Furcifer

17th September 2010, 02:46 PM

So you know what he's talking about?

I sincerely have no idea what he means by saying I "bought" her article, and if you think I'm exaggerating about the insults, just go read what was put in the AAH from this thread.

:confused:

I said she's selling this article to women, not men. "Selling it", it's another figure of speech. Like when an actor does a really good job at conveying emotion to the audience, we say they are "selling it".

If they are "selling it" someone else is "buying it". If she's selling it to women, women are buying it. That's why I said "I don't understand why you "bought" it.

Unless you're a woman? In that case I can see why you're confused. My apologies. :blush:

TraneWreck

17th September 2010, 03:31 PM

:confused:

I said she's selling this article to women, not men. "Selling it", it's another figure of speech. Like when an actor does a really good job at conveying emotion to the audience, we say they are "selling it".

If they are "selling it" someone else is "buying it". If she's selling it to women, women are buying it. That's why I said "I don't understand why you "bought" it.

Unless you're a woman? In that case I can see why you're confused. My apologies. :blush:

Yeah, that doesn't help. I've been upfront about the weak parts of the article. I haven't "bought" all of it. There are parts I agree with. It's an identical technique to the 9-11 Truther gambit of, "You just bought the government's argument? Dude, you just believe what they say?"

It's an attempt to make someone feel ridiculous about a stance without actually dealing with the stance. If there's a point in the article you want to challenge, go for it. I hope you can do better than you've done this far, but your transparent BS gets more annoying with each post.

You're using that phrase to make it seem like I've been fooled or tricked, but that's just an attempt and wangling around the fact that your criticisms are spurious.

Furcifer

17th September 2010, 04:16 PM

Yeah, that doesn't help.

You said you didn't understand, I explained, you say it doesn't help. You're just trolling.

I've been upfront about the weak parts of the article. I haven't "bought" all of it. There are parts I agree with. It's an identical technique to the 9-11 Truther gambit of, "You just bought the government's argument? Dude, you just believe what they say?"

It's not a "gambit", you're over thinking this.

The author suggests this article is a guide for men on how to approach strange women and not get maced. I don't believe that for a second. You seem to believe it is. That's all I was suggesting in saying "you bought it".

It's an attempt to make someone feel ridiculous about a stance without actually dealing with the stance. If there's a point in the article you want to challenge, go for it. I hope you can do better than you've done this far, but your transparent BS gets more annoying with each post.

If you feel ridiculous it's of your own doing, not mine.

You're using that phrase to make it seem like I've been fooled or tricked, but that's just an attempt and wangling around the fact that your criticisms are spurious.

I'm not sure "spurious" is the word you're looking for here? I've criticized the author for claiming men don't worry about being violently assaulted or murdered. It's verifiable, hardly spurious. I've also claimed she can't determine the "rapist concentration" by reverse engineering the claim that 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted in their lifetime. It's not mathematically valid. I claimed it isn't written for men like the author suggests. That may be spurious. One can never really know what the authors true intentions were, but we can try to make some determination from how the article is written. I'm fairly confident it's an article by a feminist for feminists. YMMV.

Uncayimmy

17th September 2010, 05:07 PM

Except that she didn't say that it was for every single exchange. She asks men to read women's body language and to be more careful when they're in situations (like an elevator or dark street at night) where a woman is in a more vulnerable position. It's about a man approaching a woman he's never met before, not about meeting somebody at work or through friends. You may think that I'm projecting some of my own thoughts onto the article, but you're saying that she's applying the same thought process every time a man approaches a woman. She's not.

Yes, she is. She put it all by itself in a one sentence paragraph so you couldn't miss it:

So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this man rape me?

The article never said this. You were in a public place with other people there. That's not approaching a woman in a dark alley. You didn't continue to pursue a woman who made it clear that she didn't want to converse with you.
When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist.

When you approach me, I will begin to evaluate the possibility you will do me harm.

Look around. Are you in a dark alley? Then probably you ought not approach a woman and try to strike up a conversation. The same applies if you are alone with a woman in most public places.

Except the article doesn't say that. She never says that a man should never ever ever speak to a woman he doesn't know. She asks you to be cognizant of the woman's body language upon approaching her, and her subsequent body language and verbal cues if you do initiate a conversation.
So if you speak to a woman who is otherwise occupied, you’re sending a subtle message. It is that your desire to interact trumps her right to be left alone.

Who isn't otherwise occupied in this world? We're always occupied, especially if you consider "looking out the window" as being occupied, the example keep putting up.

No. She said that if the woman smiles at you and sits with an open posture, it's okay to say hi.
The word "smile" appears once. It appears in the context of saying Hi to a cute girl who is looking out the window. She says not to expect a smile because "You are a threat, remember? You are Schrödinger’s Rapist." She's warning me off from even making the greeting.

If she's sitting toward the window or with headphones on, and doesn't make any acknowledgement that you're taking the seat beside her, then it's probably a good idea to amuse yourself during your bus ride. (emphasis mine)
An innocent but poor choice of words in this thread. :p

She does say that if you speak and get some positive feedback, that's a green light. If you read it charitably, she might be giving tacit approval to initiating a conversation. Only her advice is not good advice if you think about it. Some people are just not comfortable rejecting other people in social situations. They feel like they have to be polite and smile. Lots of people take advantage of this all the time. Sales people do it. Panhandlers do it. And Ted Bundy style rapists do it.

And why do you have a problem with that? If a woman is reading a book and doesn't look up to acknowledge you, why do you have to initiate a conversation with her?
Do you define a friendly greeting as initiating a conversation? If so, then I do it when (say) finding myself through circumstances being in her what would normally be her personal space because I think that's the proper course of action. It says, "I acknowledge that you may be a uncomfortable as me, but I am showing that I am not a threat by acknowledging you as a fellow human being and offering a friendly gesture of greeting."

It's interesting how most women and lot of men don't get this. Do you ever see men nod at each other in passing? Total strangers do it because it's a way of showing respect. Stated another way, failing to acknowledge someone can be taken as a sign of disrespect. I've seen interviews with rough and ready, inner-city young men talk about this. It really bothers them when somebody walks by without even looking at them. "It's not like we're not even there. Like we're not even worthy of being looked at. Like we're some thing to be avoided."

Social interaction is complex like that. There's no "right" way to do it all the time.

Great. Now I'm a racist.
I never said you were a racist. What I pointed out is that if we substituted race for men, your comments would be taken very differently. Extremely differently. I think that should give you pause.

Yes, most of my conversations with strange [black] men are innocuous, but the few bad apples do spoil things when it comes to me wanting to make small talk with complete strangers [black men]. Why is this such a huge deal?
When you can understand why it would be a "big deal" if you said that about black men, you can understand why it might be a big deal about men in general. If I'm wrong, please explain to me how the thought process is any different. I'm willing to listen.

So, I don't like talking to strangers, so what? Is it really any skin off your nose?
You can do whatever you want. You brought yourself into the conversation by relating your personal experiences. If you're going to take it personally, then discuss things in the abstract. The reality is that I don't know you my opinion of what you do should mean nothing to you. And considering that I know little else about you besides what you've written, I haven't formed any opinions of you as a person. I don't view you as Schrodinger's Misandrist. That would be shallow and uncritical of me.

It's funny, though, that I've never had a woman ask me to blow her after I talked about the weather. This has happened with men at least a half dozen times.
I've never had a man brush his crotch up against me, but I've had literally a couple of dozen women intentionally rub their breasts and/or buttocks against me.

I don't care what their skin color is or even how old they are.
I know. The distinguishing characteristic is the penis. So the actions of six men out of a few billion on the planet have the strongest influence. At least the racists can point to things like how the incarceration rate for black people is so much higher than for whites.

I've said before that I really like men, but that doesn't mean I should trust every strange man who sits next to me on a bus and initiates conversation.
Good thing I never said you should trust them.

If he's bigger and stronger than me, I'm going to be a little wary. It's not like I live my life in a bubble, but I do try to insulate myself from strangers in certain situations, depending on how I'm feeling that day. Some days I just don't want a hassle, even if the chance of it happening is small.

That's fine by me, not that it matters. Personally, I think the guy who's gonna ask for a blow job is going to do it regardless. Then again, some guys get a little pissed when women refuse to acknowledge their presence. If you're going to treat every man you meet as Schrodinger's Rapist, it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm not excusing anybody for saying such a rude thing, but if your goal is to avoid comments like that, I'm not convinced you're taking the best approach.

Seriously, in life if people treat you like you're an *******, there's a tendency to just act like one. It doesn't make it right, but it's real. Childish, yes, but real. I don't know the circumstances of your situations, but I don't think it's far fetched to thing that the reaction might be one of frustration. "You think I'm scum? Fine. I'll show you scum. It's not like I'll ever see you again."

Do women on the bus routinely ask you what kind of car you have? Does a simple conversation about the weather or local sports turn into her asking you to buy her gifts?
On a bus? I can't say. In a bar? Yep.

I've had several seemingly innocent conversations with strange men that turned into requests for sexual favors. I would bet that most women could tell you similar stories. Do you understand why I could be a little nervous when that happens and that I have a reason to be wary that another unknown man may act in the same manner?
I can understand it, but I don't have to agree with your level of response. It seems, however, that what you're telling me is that when you send signals to a man that you want to converse with him and have a pleasant conversation, he says something vulgar. Okay.

So, other than "has a penis" what observations have you made that might enable you to avoid those situations? That is critical thinking.

I know it's a rare occurence. But it's exceedingly unpleasant when it happens. There is absolutely no payoff for me having a conversation with a stranger.
So, you've never read "How We Met" stories? There's a lot of great people in the world, and 99.9999999% of them are strangers.

Chance of something really negative happening? Less than 1%. Chance of something really positive happening? Also less than 1%.
Define really negative.

And sometimes the reason a woman doesn't want to say "Hi" is because she doesn't know if the guy is going to get all creepy on her. She doesn't know him, and she doesn't owe him the pleasure of her company. If she doesn't want to talk to you, and makes it clear with her body language, why in the world would you pursue her?
Who said I wanted to pursue her? I'm not pursuing anyone. I like to talk to people. If they don't want to talk, that's fine with me. But I will offer that it kind of sucks when somebody doesn't want to talk to you because you are Schrodinger's Rapist.

Women don't see the other side of the coin. They don't get treated this way by men, so they don't know what it feels like. You want us to understand that an attempt at conversation might be viewed as a potential threat of harm. Fine. Have you ever thought that maybe men want women to think about how it feels to be a helluva nice guy in a loving relationship just wanting to have a little chat be viewed as a rapist because some ******* asked you to give him a blow job six months ago?

It's a two-way street.

Thank you. I don't find conversations with strangers pleasant in any circumstance. If you like having conversations with strangers, then have them with like-minded strangers. It's no hardship for you to avoid strangers who are avoiding you. The article is asking you to avoid making contact with strange people are clearly trying to avoid it.

We obviously disagree on what the article says.

It's your right to consider it silly. I don't have a problem with that. I do wish that more men could understand that women have reason to view the world with a different perspective than men. It's nothing to do with racism. I'm more at risk due to my size, and between the two of us, I'm the only one at risk of an unwanted pregnancy via rape.
I do wish more women could understand that it sucks to be considered Schrodinger's Rapist and being told "Don't rape." I do wish more women could understand that is sucks to be considered the gender that should do most of the initiating yet be told that our approaches are always considered in the context of harm.

I do wish more women could understand that it sucks watching a handsome man with a disarming smile wearing an expensive suit get all the "green light" signals from a woman who just moments before wouldn't even look at us, the ordinary looking guys in jeans and a clean shirt. It happens. All the time it happens. Sometimes we "know" that guy. He's a philanderer who disrespects and mistreats women.

Believe it or not, we guys are much better at pegging the type of men you want to avoid.

No. The only men who are going to talk to me would be the ones who correctly read my signals that I'm open to talking to them, along with a handful of perverts. Why is it so hard to not talk to women who aren't in the mood to talk to strangers? From my experience, some men think it's a deliberate challenge to make them work a little harder at charming you. It's not.
Why do you need to force this into a men vs women thing? Anybody who pursues a conversation with someone who doesn't want it is being rude. We don't need Schrodinger's Rapist to make that point.

Furcifer

17th September 2010, 05:38 PM

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/creepy.png

seewhatflows

17th September 2010, 05:46 PM

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/creepy.png

Come on baby, give it up. You know you want to.

Sun Countess

17th September 2010, 05:52 PM

When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist.

When you approach me, I will begin to evaluate the possibility you will do me harm.

Look around. Are you in a dark alley? Then probably you ought not approach a woman and try to strike up a conversation. The same applies if you are alone with a woman in most public places. Alone with a woman. Meaning the only two people there.
So if you speak to a woman who is otherwise occupied, you’re sending a subtle message. It is that your desire to interact trumps her right to be left alone.

Who isn't otherwise occupied in this world? We're always occupied, especially if you consider "looking out the window" as being occupied, the example keep putting up. Do you suggest that I wear a sign that says "Don't speak to me?" 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.
The word "smile" appears once. It appears in the context of saying Hi to a cute girl who is looking out the window. She says not to expect a smile because "You are a threat, remember? You are Schrödinger’s Rapist." She's warning me off from even making the greeting. I didn't read that the same way. If a woman smiles at you, make conversation. If her shoulders are hunched up and she's looking out the window or at the floor, what do you get out of speaking to her?
(emphasis mine)
An innocent but poor choice of words in this thread. :p Not so innocent. ;)
Do you define a friendly greeting as initiating a conversation? If so, then I do it when (say) finding myself through circumstances being in her what would normally be her personal space because I think that's the proper course of action. It says, "I acknowledge that you may be a uncomfortable as me, but I am showing that I am not a threat by acknowledging you as a fellow human being and offering a friendly gesture of greeting." A quick nod or a hello is fine, and is not initiating a conversation.

It's interesting how most women and lot of men don't get this. Do you ever see men nod at each other in passing? Total strangers do it because it's a way of showing respect. Stated another way, failing to acknowledge someone can be taken as a sign of disrespect. I've seen interviews with rough and ready, inner-city young men talk about this. It really bothers them when somebody walks by without even looking at them. "It's not like we're not even there. Like we're not even worthy of being looked at. Like we're some thing to be avoided." 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.

Social interaction is complex like that. There's no "right" way to do it all the time. No. But there's no reason to bother people who do their best with their body language to indicate they don't wish to be bothered.
I never said you were a racist. What I pointed out is that if we substituted race for men, your comments would be taken very differently. Extremely differently. I think that should give you pause. 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?

When you can understand why it would be a "big deal" if you said that about black men, you can understand why it might be a big deal about men in general. If I'm wrong, please explain to me how the thought process is any different. I'm willing to listen. 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.
You can do whatever you want. You brought yourself into the conversation by relating your personal experiences. If you're going to take it personally, then discuss things in the abstract. The reality is that I don't know you my opinion of what you do should mean nothing to you. And considering that I know little else about you besides what you've written, I haven't formed any opinions of you as a person. I don't view you as Schrodinger's Misandrist. That would be shallow and uncritical of me. 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've never had a man brush his crotch up against me, but I've had literally a couple of dozen women intentionally rub their breasts and/or buttocks against me. 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.
I know. The distinguishing characteristic is the penis. So the actions of six men out of a few billion on the planet have the strongest influence. At least the racists can point to things like how the incarceration rate for black people is so much higher than for whites. 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?
That's fine by me, not that it matters. Personally, I think the guy who's gonna ask for a blow job is going to do it regardless. Then again, some guys get a little pissed when women refuse to acknowledge their presence. If you're going to treat every man you meet as Schrodinger's Rapist, it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm not excusing anybody for saying such a rude thing, but if your goal is to avoid comments like that, I'm not convinced you're taking the best approach. 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. 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.
Seriously, in life if people treat you like you're an *******, there's a tendency to just act like one. It doesn't make it right, but it's real. Childish, yes, but real. I don't know the circumstances of your situations, but I don't think it's far fetched to thing that the reaction might be one of frustration. "You think I'm scum? Fine. I'll show you scum. It's not like I'll ever see you again."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.
On a bus? I can't say. In a bar? Yep. I'm not complaining about how men treat me when I'm in a bar. I'm saying that I've had disgusting things said to me by men I've spoken to on a bus or on the street. I'm sure you'll tell me that it all happens equally to men as to women, and that the perpetrators are as likely to be women as men.
I can understand it, but I don't have to agree with your level of response. It seems, however, that what you're telling me is that when you send signals to a man that you want to converse with him and have a pleasant conversation, he says something vulgar. Okay. Almost. I'm saying that there have been a number of times when I've responded to what I thought was a pleasant acknowledgement by a stranger to pass a few minutes with a discussion about good weather or poor performance by the Canucks that suddenly turned into a sexual come-on. Not at a bar, but on the bus and on the street.
So, other than "has a penis" what observations have you made that might enable you to avoid those situations? That is critical thinking. 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.

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.

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?
So, you've never read "How We Met" stories? There's a lot of great people in the world, and 99.9999999% of them are strangers. I know. I meet them all the time. I find it best to meet strangers through shared interests in safe settings. School, work, mutual friends, there are plenty of ways to meet strangers that have nothing to do with accosting people on a public street.
Define really negative. Asking questions about my genitalia. Telling me how awesome his genitalia is.
Who said I wanted to pursue her? I'm not pursuing anyone. I like to talk to people. If they don't want to talk, that's fine with me. But I will offer that it kind of sucks when somebody doesn't want to talk to you because you are Schrodinger's Rapist. 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.

Women don't see the other side of the coin. They don't get treated this way by men, so they don't know what it feels like. You want us to understand that an attempt at conversation might be viewed as a potential threat of harm. Fine. Have you ever thought that maybe men want women to think about how it feels to be a helluva nice guy in a loving relationship just wanting to have a little chat be viewed as a rapist because some ******* asked you to give him a blow job six months ago? So.....me not talking to strange men hurts their little feelings, is that what you're saying? Otherwise, I'm not getting this. I'm different than the author in that I'm not viewing random men as potential rapists, usually just people who are annoying me when I'd rather be left alone.

Why do you need to force this into a men vs women thing? Anybody who pursues a conversation with someone who doesn't want it is being rude. We don't need Schrodinger's Rapist to make that point. We agree on the being rude part, and that goes for women as well as men. But if a man continues to pursue a conversation with a woman who doesn't want one, that does bring up a dynamic that isn't there when the roles are reversed. Like I said, if a woman continues to pursue you when you've made it clear you want to be alone, you know you'll be able to extricate yourself from the situation, and you know your chances of coming to physical harm are negligible. I don't have that luxury. It's not being racist, or sexist; it's just stating a physiological fact.

Furcifer

17th September 2010, 06:59 PM

Come on baby, give it up. You know you want to.

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

SOdhner

17th September 2010, 07:01 PM

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/creepy.png

http://kateharding.net/2009/10/05/would-it-kill-you-to-be-civil/

Furcifer

17th September 2010, 08:05 PM

http://kateharding.net/2009/10/05/would-it-kill-you-to-be-civil/

wow*

That's the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. And off the same blog, this Kate Harding is some piece of work. When did misandry start passing as feminism?

If anyone was questioning whether or not this article was published by a woman for men, or by a feminist for radical feminists here's your answer. I changed my mind, I don't think this author had good intentions. This is about driving a nail between the sexes. If it was actually trying to help men it wouldn't have been published on Kate Harding's blog.

@Tranewreck- I take it back, you were fooled. So was I. I bought it. I might not have believed the title was entirely sincere, that the article was written for men, but I did believe they were trying to be helpful. I see now this is just a clever piece of misandry. I was wondering how a professional author could make so many basic mistakes in writing a simple blog. :rolleyes:

*note to self, don't offer a woman a cigar, that's "perpetuating the rape culture".

Dunstan

17th September 2010, 10:19 PM

In case anyone's unclear on the history: the "would it kill you to be civil" post discussing the xkcd comic that 3bp linked came first. 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, and that's his work is generally pretty pro-feminism, but that this particular comic has unfortunate implications, i.e. that a woman who is facing away from you and typing on her computer on public transit actually secretly wants you to make a move on her.

There was extensive discussion in the comments section, in which the author of the "Schrodinger's Rapist" post introduced that term and gave a brief description of it. That led to the post that was linked in the OP of this thread.

I believe -- though I'm not entirely certain -- that this originally took place on a blog called Shapely [something-or-other] devoted to feminism and "fat acceptance." It was a group blog that I gather has since been discontinued, and the archives are hosted at kateharding.net, who was one of the original SA bloggers but not necessarily the author of any particular post unless it says otherwise.

Uncayimmy

17th September 2010, 10:33 PM

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? :boggled:

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

17th September 2010, 11:10 PM

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

:con2:

"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

17th September 2010, 11:23 PM

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

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

17th September 2010, 11:26 PM

There isn't even a hint of rape.

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

Come on.

Furcifer

17th September 2010, 11:48 PM

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. :confused:

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

18th September 2010, 12:23 AM

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

18th September 2010, 12:40 AM

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

18th September 2010, 12:50 AM

:con2:

"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 (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnfortunateImplications)

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

18th September 2010, 01:01 AM

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.

HansMustermann

18th September 2010, 01:03 AM

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.

HansMustermann

18th September 2010, 01:10 AM

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

18th September 2010, 01:19 AM

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

18th September 2010, 01:35 AM

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 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6336233#post6336233) - 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://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6325810#post6325810

Uncayimmy

18th September 2010, 01:56 AM

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.

X_EFzF3zr6A

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

18th September 2010, 01:59 AM

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.

HansMustermann

18th September 2010, 03:27 AM

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.

HansMustermann

18th September 2010, 03:30 AM

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

18th September 2010, 03:38 AM

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 (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnfortunateImplications)

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

18th September 2010, 03:41 AM

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.

HansMustermann

18th September 2010, 04:00 AM

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.

bookitty

18th September 2010, 10:33 AM

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.

I would like to apologize to you as well. I got caught up emotionally.

In real life I'm not such a OMGWTFBURNMYBRABBQ!!!! feminist. It's just that there's a low-grade marginalization that happens on occasion. It's not really a big deal, it doesn't mess up my whole day, but it is annoying. Annoying can sometimes be worse than something that is a big deal. Like getting cut off in traffic. It's super-annoying but affects your mood more than anything else.

So yeah, the original article is flawed, a bit over-emotional and inflammatory. At the same time, I totally get what she's saying and I think it's important. So I try to express that, get cut off, and it all turns into numbers and semantics. Annoying. Yes, the flaws in the article are what started the stats and semantics, I get that. Really, I do. But still it's annoying.

I'm cranky when I'm annoyed. Sorry about that.

Furcifer

18th September 2010, 02:11 PM

I would like to apologize to you as well. I got caught up emotionally.

In real life I'm not such a OMGWTFBURNMYBRABBQ!!!! feminist. It's just that there's a low-grade marginalization that happens on occasion. It's not really a big deal, it doesn't mess up my whole day, but it is annoying. Annoying can sometimes be worse than something that is a big deal. Like getting cut off in traffic. It's super-annoying but affects your mood more than anything else.

So yeah, the original article is flawed, a bit over-emotional and inflammatory. At the same time, I totally get what she's saying and I think it's important. So I try to express that, get cut off, and it all turns into numbers and semantics. Annoying. Yes, the flaws in the article are what started the stats and semantics, I get that. Really, I do. But still it's annoying.

I'm cranky when I'm annoyed. Sorry about that.

lol, it's just the internet, it happens. It's a little surreal at times.

Yah it's flawed but compared to some of the other stuff on that blog it's rather tame. I'm not sure if it's deliberately inflammatory or not anymore. It certainly could have been worse.
Based on what Dunstan said earlier and what I read last night it was a clever little comment they spun into an article that gained a lot of attention in October of last year. I think it was written to incite some discussion amongst men and women. And apparently it did just that, and then some.
The arguments that we've seen in this thread were repeated almost verbatim on several different websites.

http://www.upliftmagazine.com/uplift/tag/phaedra-starling/

http://champagneandbenzedrine.blogspot.com/2009/11/giving-off-that-creepy-vibe.html

http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/10/15/of-schrodingers-rapist-zenos-paradox-and-the-problem-of-trying-to-prove-a-negative/

http://zaskoda.com/2009/10/12/a-response-to-women-regarding-starlings-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist/

http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2009/10/schrodingers-rapist-and-why-it-doesnt-say-what-you-thought-it-did.html

http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/shroedingers-rapist-and-the-imagined-right-to-intrude/

http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/shroedingers-rapist-and-the-imagined-right-to-intrude/

http://www.fourthwavefeminism.com/2009_11_08_archive.html

http://ethecofem.com/2010/08/17/1205/

The reaction was fairly predictable, the feminist leaning sites found it indispensable, a "must read for anyone with a penis" and the male friendly sites were like "I get it, but geesh, we're not all rapists".

It took some searching but there were a few responses from men and women that represented the middle ground. The men didn't feel centered out for having external sex organs and the women somewhat resented the implication that they scurry through public considering every man they meet as a potential rapist.

Anyhow, there are some excellent responses in the links above, and decidedly more female content than we've had here. I'm not sure how edited the comments are on any given site, and although there was a lot of criticism I didn't see very many people claim the issue was being marginalized. It honestly wasn't my intention to do so and I apologize if I came off that way at any time. I appreciate your comments and I did learn something along the way, thank you.