Schrödinger Rapist, once again.

The Patrician wrote:The problem I have with SR is that the proponents of this idea think that it's a representation of all women everywhere, which isn't the case. Of course some women will identify with it, but I imagine they'll be plenty of men who will also relate to it.

My real world circle of friends have no real interest in the atheist/sceptic movement, on-line or as activists, most would identify as atheist/agnostic, but their interest in the subject goes no further. I informed women, who are friends, and girlfriends of friends about SR and gave them a link to starling's original post about it. None of them said it related to their lives, they had all been frightened while being alone in certain situation(as we all have) but the thought that they changed their daily routine over the threat that some guys out there might be rapists was comical to them.

What I found interesting, and the reason that I subjected you to such a long winded story about my friends is, several of them came back to me and said that after reading sterling's post, they'd been in an isolated situation with a man and had thought of SR which had made them feel very uneasy in the presence of a strange man. It had turned into a (kind of) self fulfilling prophecy for them.

Again, I don't think a group of 7 or 8 women is enough to claim that their experiences is the norm for women everywhere, but, i'm not the one claiming to talk for women.

I'm not that surprised by your findings. The idea behind Schroedinger's rapist is incredibly toxic, it's no wonder women feel unnerved around strangers with these sorts of paranoid concepts floating about their (subconscious) minds.

Imagine if people looked at a day, not as a stretch of time to do stuff in, but rather as a period of time wherein one must avoid dying. It'd result in paranoid jumpy bundles of nerves looking for dangers around every corner (if they're not to busy cowering under the covers in the foetal position).

Three of my friends were raped. That is only the ones that have told me So I'm not sure it is an unreasonable fear.

Add: And a fourth drove off an attacker.

AliRadicali wrote:

The Patrician wrote:The problem I have with SR is that the proponents of this idea think that it's a representation of all women everywhere, which isn't the case. Of course some women will identify with it, but I imagine they'll be plenty of men who will also relate to it.

My real world circle of friends have no real interest in the atheist/sceptic movement, on-line or as activists, most would identify as atheist/agnostic, but their interest in the subject goes no further. I informed women, who are friends, and girlfriends of friends about SR and gave them a link to starling's original post about it. None of them said it related to their lives, they had all been frightened while being alone in certain situation(as we all have) but the thought that they changed their daily routine over the threat that some guys out there might be rapists was comical to them.

What I found interesting, and the reason that I subjected you to such a long winded story about my friends is, several of them came back to me and said that after reading sterling's post, they'd been in an isolated situation with a man and had thought of SR which had made them feel very uneasy in the presence of a strange man. It had turned into a (kind of) self fulfilling prophecy for them.

Again, I don't think a group of 7 or 8 women is enough to claim that their experiences is the norm for women everywhere, but, i'm not the one claiming to talk for women.

I'm not that surprised by your findings. The idea behind Schroedinger's rapist is incredibly toxic, it's no wonder women feel unnerved around strangers with these sorts of paranoid concepts floating about their (subconscious) minds.

Imagine if people looked at a day, not as a stretch of time to do stuff in, but rather as a period of time wherein one must avoid dying. It'd result in paranoid jumpy bundles of nerves looking for dangers around every corner (if they're not to busy cowering under the covers in the foetal position).

I have PTSD, I have lived many days like that. I can tell you that most people (male or female) do not do so, because I worry like crazy about the bad decisions they make (from the perspective of somebody who thinks like you describe).

I'm beginning to think Scrodinger's Rapist is like a rorshack test. The tactless language combined with some genuinely good advice as well as the implication that even good guys need to be told not to rape all come together to get people to react strongly in one way or another.

Of course people not familiar with you won't know whether or not you would do them harm. Biology is heavily weighted to make false negatives in cases of risk assessment. After all, a false positive... deciding that something is safe when it isn't... has a much greater impact on gene propagation than a false negative... deciding something is unsafe when it is safe.

I too have loved ones who have been raped. I despise rapists. I certainly don't like others presuming that I am in support of rapists or am one.

Of course there is risk, and it is only natural to overestimate the likelihood of that risk.

Common courtesy can help to put people at ease. Still, I do not think anyone should 'go out of their way' to help put people at ease.

dancer_rnb wrote:Three of my friends were raped. That is only the ones that have told me So I'm not sure it is an unreasonable fear.

Add: And a fourth drove off an attacker.

Do you think that you and your friends experiences are the norm?

The Patrician wrote:

dancer_rnb wrote:Three of my friends were raped. That is only the ones that have told me So I'm not sure it is an unreasonable fear.

Add: And a fourth drove off an attacker.

Do you think that you and your friends experiences are the norm?

Yes. No particular reason to think I'm an outlier, except maybe that my women friends feel comfortable enough with me to tell me about it.

dancer_rnb wrote:

The Patrician wrote:

dancer_rnb wrote:Three of my friends were raped. That is only the ones that have told me So I'm not sure it is an unreasonable fear.

Add: And a fourth drove off an attacker.

Do you think that you and your friends experiences are the norm?

Yes. No particular reason to think I'm an outlier, except maybe that my women friends feel comfortable enough with me to tell me about it.

So you'd say your friends experiences are representative of women?

dancer_rnb wrote:

The Patrician wrote:

dancer_rnb wrote:Three of my friends were raped. That is only the ones that have told me So I'm not sure it is an unreasonable fear.

Add: And a fourth drove off an attacker.

Do you think that you and your friends experiences are the norm?

Yes. No particular reason to think I'm an outlier, except maybe that my women friends feel comfortable enough with me to tell me about it.

What I'd be more curious to know is how many of your friends knew their rapist/assailant beforehand. If they were all raped accosted by a stranger, I think it's more probable that you have/had a serial rapist in the neighborhood.

Statistics indicate that the vast majority of rape and unwanted sexual attention is initiated by a friend, relative or spouse, typically in the home of the rapist or the victim. Rape by strangers in outdoor/public areas is exceedingly rare, yet it's the type of rape most commonly covered by the media, and it shows. Women aren't worried about their boyfriends or spouses, they are worried about creepy looking strangers, which is part of the problem with SR. Not only does it overemphasise the risk, it completely misdirects it.

Two by known people, one by a stranger. The thwarted attack was also by a stranger.
I don't think any of them were reported to the police.

you can talk about this without needing a safe space, I applaud you for your bravery. This isn't rebecca watson bravery, this true bravery. I commend you.

It's not like anything happened to me, and I'm a guy. I really would have liked to do bodily harm to those who attacked my friends.

Is you saying you'd like to do bodily harm to anyone, anything like me saying i'd like the state to kick anyone's head in?

Thank you Argyle, for making a post that made it so much easier for me to formulate exactly why I think SR is such a dysfunctional line of reasoning.
Here goes:

Argyle wrote:
Quick few things (regardless of actual incidence rates):
1 - Does our society more often tell women or men that they are likely to be raped. (WOMEN)

So what? This says nothing about how often this occurs in fact, nor does this somehow serve to validate the argument being made. I could just as easily make the argument that women ought to exercise more critical judgement when told that they are likely to get raped

Argyle wrote:
2 - Does our society, by way of media and narrative fiction, reinforce the idea that women are at constant risk of being raped. (YES)

You asserting this doesn't make it true. Media, by that logic is also constantly telling us to be vary of terrorists, the Russians, the Chinese, and so forth. How much time do you spend worrying about these?

Argyle wrote:
3 - Having established that does it not make sense to assume that women in society will feel at risk of being raped. (YES)

No, and you have established nothing, only asserted.

Argyle wrote:
4 - Does the same go for men (NO)

Not in terms of rape, but it could easily be said for robbery and assault, yet I doubt you'll find an argument reflecting how men are in constant fear of other men because any man is a potential violent attacker.

Argyle wrote:
5 - Is there any hope of correcting any and all misunderstanding of the risks in the near term throughout society (NO)

Argument please.

Argyle wrote:
6 - Given all of this are women in society going to suffer emotional stress by being approached by unknown men, especially when alone, especially on unfamiliar grounds (HELLZ YES!)

Some are, some aren't. How exactly is it my job or responsibility to relieve the stress felt by women in a given situation when the source of that stress is a complete misunderstandings of statistics(given the fact that women are much more likely to be raped by someone they know and trust, not a stranger in the street)?
How about spending time building a culture with true awareness of the problem, and reinforcing confidence in women, rather than further attributing to women's emotional frailty by sweeping the problem under a rug by asking men to step on eggshells?

Argyle wrote:
---- And now the actual questions ----
7 - What is the appropriate response to these facts for a man to have to encountering a woman who is alone and in an unfamiliar place? What model might he use to mentally assess the situation? Should he not assume that the woman might be afraid of being a rape victim, and should he not assume that she has been taught by society to assume that he is a potential rapist?

See my point above.

Argyle wrote:
I find that many if not all of the objections to schrodingers rapist seem to center around whether it is a rational to assume that men you meet on the street when you are alone whom you do not know might rape you. They tend to completely ignore that the whole point is that women are taught to fear being raped and that they will feel fear and emotional distress in such a situation regardless of what the statistics are and men should be aware of and account for that.

Or, maybe society as a whole should account for it?
The notion that I should have to make concessions to make women feel safe due to a misconception that I didn't make nor attribute to, is inane because it asks me to assume responsibility for something which has nothing to do with me at all.

Argyle wrote:
All the rest of the waffling about the statistical probabilities and the "I don't know women who feel that way" is just red-herring-itis.

No, they're perfectly valid objection to a line of reasoning that implies that it's mens responsibility to make a certain group of women feel safe in public, rather than that group needing to reevaluate their threat evaluation process.

If you disagree, how about you argue why their assessment is correct, and why it's mens job to fix the problem? As it is, the original argument doesn't do this, and you merely assert without argument.

Argyle wrote:
Also, I think the term "Schrodinger's Rapist" while inaccurate, and possibly misleading, is tied to a well known enough meme that it makes the mental model easy to remember. EG: When you meet a woman who is socialized by our society and is alone, don't walk behind her down a dark alley, not because it would be rational for her to assume that there is some high probability that you will rape her, but rather because you acknowledge that the vast majority of women in society have been taught to use a "Schrodinger's Rapist" model when confronted by men, and it will make her feel unsafe, and it will terrify her, and hopefully you aren't an asshole enough to want to do that to another human being.

And now the moral lecture? Yes, because the definition of assholes should be made to include people who're not willing to make extra effort to protect the emotional frailty of people whose emotional frailty is mainly a result of an emotional response that is potentially completely out of touch with reality, and worse, directs womens sense of caution away from the very real threat of rape from people they are in close relation to.

Now, I can already forsee objections along the lines of, "you are belittling the experience of women, and you don't have the right to tell people how they ought to feel", but this line of reasoning is just as inane as SR itself.

Firstly, it's self-defeating, because almost all arguments made, including those of SR, propose how people ought to feel about a given topic(SR proposes that I ought to feel sympathetic to womens sense of danger to the point that I make special concessions as not to scare them) when presented with the facts regarding said topic. If you accept this line of reasoning, why are you arguing people to begin with?

Secondly, it ignores the fact that we almost uniformly, at some level, agree that using emotions combined with a disregard for facts, to inform personal policy, is not particularly smart. It is therefore imperative that we do discuss whether certain emotional response are constructive or not in a given situation. To ask why certain women would run with the assumption that any strange man is a potential rapist, when they don't make the same assumption on part of their friends, husbands and boyfriends(despite those being more likely to attempt such an act), is a perfectly reasonable question to make when the woman entertaining this selective suspicion also thinks men ought to act to alleviate said suspicions.

Thirdly, SR makes no account for what situations and by what degree its principles are to be manifested - that is to say, when am I, as a man, most likely to be perceived as a rapist? How far am I supposed to go to make women feel safe, and how do we determine how far it is reasonable to expect me to go, if any attempt at asking critical questions in regards this is discarded as an unwarranted attack on the female experience?

At the end of the day, the above points are the biggest reason I don't like SR.
I don't really care whether a woman thinks I'm a potential rapist or not - what I do care about though, is consistency and intellectual honesty, especially if a certain line of reasoning is supposed to convince me to change the way I act in general. This doesn't even address the dangers of wrongfully aimed suspicions. To me, a women going into SR mode when faced with a strange man, is as pointless and counterproductive as a white person in a predominately white society worrying about the "Islamification" of his/her country, while ignoring the fact that the majority of problems are caused by other white people.

Of course, all this is not to say that I don't recognize that women at times have reasonable justification for assuming an unknown man is a potential rapist, nor am I trying to say that there is nothing I would be willing to do to make women in general feel safe. I happen to think that in particularly nasty environments, such mental habits are great for self-perseverance. However, it's always a matter of degree and context. SR does nothing to account for this. It justifies the worst emotional reaction to a threat divorced completely from context, and then asserts that its the group being perceived as threatening, that bear full responsibility for changing that perception.

The irony in this, is that a similar line of reasoning would be labeled as victim-blaming and as abhorrent by most people who think SR makes sense, if it was applied to any other phenomenon.

Great response Musashi, but I think Arygle has given up on the forum or at least this thread so I wouldn't expect a reply.

musashi wrote:I don't really care whether a woman thinks I'm a potential rapist or not

That's really weird.

I just happened to stumble on this forum today. I am very happy to see that it was created. I was actually initially intrigued by atheism+ when I first heard about the forum a few months back. After 3 days trying to be a member there, I bid them farewell and joined the anti-atheism+ crowd. Not sure where else to post this comment so just posting here as it's the first thread I opened up.

SR makes a single valid point. You don't know if a man is a rapist. Where it fails is on the implications of that lack of knowledge.

First, it claims that a woman should assume that all men are rapists until shown otherwise. Rape makes up approximately 1/15th of violent crimes. The risk of a man being a rapist is minuscule compared to the risk that he will assault or mug her. Also, the odds of a man raping her are a small fraction of the odds that a woman would assault, mug or murder her. Statistics show that while women are less likely to be prosecuted, they are almost as likely to be arrested for violent crimes. A man doesn't pose that much more of a risk to a woman than does another woman.


Second, it claims that a man should act to appease the woman's fear. Besides the comparison to other crimes, there is simply the odds itself. In 2011, there were 83,425 rapes. There was roughly 155,000,000 women in America. That is 0.05%. Lets say a woman encounters 10 new men per month (an extremely conservative estimate for anyone in a city), that would still be 120 new encounters per year. Just to keep the math simple, lets say it's 100. That would make the chance of being raped per encounter per year at 0.0005%. Now, lets add in the fact that roughly 3% of rapes occur outside of a domicile. You are now looking 0.000018% chance of actually being raped by some one you just met. So women should live in constant fear and men should actively appease women that they aren't going to make them part of that 0.000018%. It is utterly irrational.

Yes, women should be cautious as all people should be cautious. This is the part that feminists don't get. Women are not a special subsection of humanity. They are people just like men are people. They should be treated the same. Equality means equal, not special treatment for one group. I have lived my life that way and have never had problems with women. I treat women exactly the same as I treat men. I do not modify my behavior because a woman is around.

We all have to deal with risks. I am an above average sized guy. I did competitive power lifting when I was younger and still have a lot of the residual strength from that. I also am fairly experienced in fighting, received combat training in the military, and took 6 years of tae kwon do in middle school and high school. I am fairly confident of my ability to handle myself. I am the type of guy that they say is too "privileged" to understand a woman's fears. I still don't feel "safe" walking through bad neighborhoods at night. I live in Jakarta, Indonesia atm. I don't walk down the street at night here unless I am with a large group of people. I carefully pick the taxi's that I take as some of the shadier taxi's are known to rob people. My first time hanging out with a group of black guys that I didn't know was rather uncomfortable for me as well as they were notably louder and rowdier than I was used to. Etc. So yes, I do understand feeling uncomfortable and afraid. I do understand having to be cautious and aware of my surroundings. I do understand having to take precautions. The difference is I understand this is part of life. We ALL have to go through shit like this to varying degrees. But we are adults. We are not children that need to be coddled.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

ateisten wrote:

musashi wrote:I don't really care whether a woman thinks I'm a potential rapist or not

That's really weird.

Why is that weird?

If someone said to me "I believe you're a potential (insert something extremely offensive) I wouldn't value their opinion either.

uncrystal wrote:

ateisten wrote:

musashi wrote:I don't really care whether a woman thinks I'm a potential rapist or not

That's really weird.

Why is that weird?

If someone said to me "I believe you're a potential (insert something extremely offensive) I wouldn't value their opinion either.

I'd go one step further. I don't generally value some one's opinion unless I have a reason to. If you state something retarded, I just lump that with 99% of what people say. The vast majority of the world's population are bumbling idiots who are incapable of a reasoned thought. As such, I generally dismiss everyone's opinion until I have reason to do otherwise.

I'm not a rapist and never would be. If a woman wishes to think that I am, she's a fucking idiot.

uncrystal wrote:Why is that weird?

It's weird that if a woman doesn't think you are a rapist, you don't care.

ateisten wrote:

musashi wrote:I don't really care whether a woman thinks I'm a potential rapist or not

That's really weird.

I'm sorry. That was poorly phrased. Of course, I don't mean to say that I don't care at all whether women fear that I might be a rapist(something I make a point of clarifying in the final part of my post) - what I meant is that, I've seen many men make the point that SR is judgemental and offensive, which is what I don't really care about.

I'm not particularly offended by people who think this way, nor am I willing to go to extra lengths to satisfy their needs. If a woman is afraid I might be a rapist simply because I refuse to meet her specific bar of what constitutes threatening behavior, despite the points I made above in my post, then I'm sorry. I don't care, and I'm not willing to do that. Deal with it.

The silly thing about this SR bizo is that it failed to make what could have been a far more valid point because it went too far into irrational territory. The original article should be called, and about, Schroedinger's Sexual Harasser. If we include verbalisations of a sexual nature as sexual harassment, then I think most people would agree that it isn't an irrational fear of a women to being sexually harassed some way, particularly when out at night in certain areas. And I think this would be a very good point to make. But the originator of this idea went to far and tried to sensationalise it, and wound up with a thoroughly irrational and fairly indefensible concept, and one that is totally open to ridicule and countering with things like Schroedingers Terrorist, or Schroedingers Mugger etc.

rEvolutionist wrote:The silly thing about this SR bizo is that it failed to make what could have been a far more valid point because it went too far into irrational territory. The original article should be called, and about, Schroedinger's Sexual Harasser. If we include verbalisations of a sexual nature as sexual harassment, then I think most people would agree that it isn't an irrational fear of a women to being sexually harassed some way, particularly when out at night in certain areas. And I think this would be a very good point to make. But the originator of this idea went to far and tried to sensationalise it, and wound up with a thoroughly irrational and fairly indefensible concept, and one that is totally open to ridicule and countering with things like Schroedingers Terrorist, or Schroedingers Mugger etc.

Except men are sexually harassed quite frequently and sexual harassment of a non-physical nature is not something to be paranoid about.

Another issue is what would be considered sexual harassment. For instance, if I walk up to a woman and say "hello", is that sexual harassment? What if I say "hello sexy"? What if I am in an argument with a woman say "fucking cunt" or "suck my dick"? Is that sexual harassment? If I said it to a man, few people would view it as sexual harassment.

We are all adults and people do not have a right to not be offended.

Eldin Alvere wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:The silly thing about this SR bizo is that it failed to make what could have been a far more valid point because it went too far into irrational territory. The original article should be called, and about, Schroedinger's Sexual Harasser. If we include verbalisations of a sexual nature as sexual harassment, then I think most people would agree that it isn't an irrational fear of a women to being sexually harassed some way, particularly when out at night in certain areas. And I think this would be a very good point to make. But the originator of this idea went to far and tried to sensationalise it, and wound up with a thoroughly irrational and fairly indefensible concept, and one that is totally open to ridicule and countering with things like Schroedingers Terrorist, or Schroedingers Mugger etc.

Except men are sexually harassed quite frequently and sexual harassment of a non-physical nature is not something to be paranoid about.

But let's be honest here, women are far more likely to be the target of lewd verbalisations and/or inappropriate touching and/or full on sexual assault.

And I wouldn't agree with your last bit about "sexual harassment of a non-physical nature ... not something to be paranoid about". Why not?

Another issue is what would be considered sexual harassment. For instance, if I walk up to a woman and say "hello", is that sexual harassment? What if I say "hello sexy"? What if I am in an argument with a woman say "fucking cunt" or "suck my dick"? Is that sexual harassment? If I said it to a man, few people would view it as sexual harassment.

While some of that may be true, it still doesn't change the fact that women get more lewd verbalisations and more physical harrassment than men (of a sexual nature, that is).

We are all adults and people do not have a right to not be offended.

I always struggle with that saying every time I see it. Too many negations. What are you meaning with this phrase?

rEvolutionist wrote:
But let's be honest here, women are far more likely to be the target of lewd verbalisations and/or inappropriate touching and/or full on sexual assault.

And I wouldn't agree with your last bit about "sexual harassment of a non-physical nature ... not something to be paranoid about". Why not?

While some of that may be true, it still doesn't change the fact that women get more lewd verbalisations and more physical harrassment than men (of a sexual nature, that is).

I always struggle with that saying every time I see it. Too many negations. What are you meaning with this phrase?

I mean I can offend you all I want. As long as I am not doing anything that actually harms you or violates your own rights, there's nothing wrong with what I do.

Why do you need to be afraid of some one stating you have a nice ass?

Yes, women are more often the targets of sexual statements. However, I don't think the gap is nearly as drastic as you think. I'd wager men are anywhere from 20% to 50% as likely to be sexually harassed. The difference is that men don't usually make a big deal about it.

The statement is quite clear. You do not have the right to not be offended. I can tell a woman she has a nice ass if I want to. I wouldn't but there's no reason why I shouldn't.

Do you have a problem with people insulting Christianity? Do you have a problem with people mocking Republicans? It's only when it targets a particular demographic that you support in a way that you don't agree with that it becomes a problem. Do you not see how that is hypocritical?

Eldin Alvere wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:
But let's be honest here, women are far more likely to be the target of lewd verbalisations and/or inappropriate touching and/or full on sexual assault.

And I wouldn't agree with your last bit about "sexual harassment of a non-physical nature ... not something to be paranoid about". Why not?

While some of that may be true, it still doesn't change the fact that women get more lewd verbalisations and more physical harrassment than men (of a sexual nature, that is).

I always struggle with that saying every time I see it. Too many negations. What are you meaning with this phrase?

I mean I can offend you all I want. As long as I am not doing anything that actually harms you or violates your own rights, there's nothing wrong with what I do.

Ok, yeah, that's what I thought it meant. I don't subscribe to this. Society is a dynamic collection of individuals who need to have consideration for other people if it is going to work. Such an absolutist view as you espouse above is not very helpful or functional.

Why do you need to be afraid of some one stating you have a nice ass?

Well, it's not necessarily "nice ass" that is being said and done. In Australia a common call out is "show us your tits". And of course there is a LOT worse being said than that too. The reply to this is relevant to the answer I just gave above this. Words can harm as well. Harm can't be logically defended as only being physical. People can suffer psychological harm as well. And, if we want to get all navel gazing-y about it, everything is manifest in and by the mind. There's potentially very little difference between verbal and physical abuse (of a minor nature).

Yes, women are more often the targets of sexual statements. However, I don't think the gap is nearly as drastic as you think. I'd wager men are anywhere from 20% to 50% as likely to be sexually harassed. The difference is that men don't usually make a big deal about it.

Where are you from, if you don't mind me asking? I can promise you that in Australia women are FAR more likely to be sexually harassed than men.

The statement is quite clear. You do not have the right to not be offended. I can tell a woman she has a nice ass if I want to. I wouldn't but there's no reason why I shouldn't.

This just ignores the whole social dynamic that we all exist within. No man is an island...

Do you have a problem with people insulting Christianity? Do you have a problem with people mocking Republicans? It's only when it targets a particular demographic that you support in a way that you don't agree with that it becomes a problem. Do you not see how that is hypocritical?

Christianity and republicanism are a choice. Gender isn't (well, generally speaking). And even if we put that aside, an rational argument can be made that there are differences to criticise in religion vs atheism, and democrats vs republicans. But what difference are you attempting to criticise in women vs men?