23
24

Schrodinger's Rapist is Just Anti-male bigotry (self.OneY)

see_you_soon が 投稿

I’m sure many of us have heard of this horribly bigoted phrase “Schrodinger’s rapist”. It is a terrible misapplication of the Schrodinger’s cat thought experiment. The Schrodinger’s cat thought experiment was used to illustrate how quantum mechanics is quite different from Newtonian physics – in the quantum world, particles can exist as an indiscernible melding between two different states – this does not happen in the macroscopic world we all live in. Cat’s are never in some indiscernible state between life and death. Likewise, men are never some indiscernible melding between rapist and non-rapist (a pseudo-rapist of sorts) – to suggest they are is profoundly sexist and bigoted.

Let’s dissect the sexist myth of “Schrodinger’s rapist” to illustrate why this postulate is exceedingly misandric and bigoted.

“Schrodinger’s rapist” is based on the highly controversial assumption that 1 in 6 women will be raped sometime in her life. Of course, the “statistic” says nothing of the sort (it’s 1 out of 6 women will face some form of sexual harassment or assault at some point, not actual rape). But let’s assume that is the case and forget the fact that there is a similar statistic of 1 in 7 men.

So let’s assume one out of every six women will be “raped” by a man at some point. Given the fact that each woman will interact with literally thousands of men in her life, (depending on how you calculate it, it will be approximately 6,800 people in total or 3,400 men )we get the logical result that approximately 1 out of 20,400 men will rape a woman (1 rapist out of 6 x 3,400 men). Therefore, even if this 1 in 6 figure is to be believed, we come to the inescapable conclusion that an overwhelming majority of men (99.995% in fact) will never rape! Even if the 3,400 figure is incorrect (I suspect women will cross paths with much more than 3,400 men in her life) – clearly it is only a tiny fraction of a percentage of men who rape – in the 0.005% range.

The fact is even the 1 in 6 figure shows that men are very safe and to think otherwise is to give into sexism and bigotry. Indeed, when a woman goes on a dinner date with an unfamiliar man, she is far more likely to suffer severe food poisoning from the restaurant than get raped by the man who took her there. (The CDC estimates that 75 million people every year get food poisoning in the US – which works out to a 0.02% chance of any individual meal causing food poisoning as opposed to a 0.005% of any individual man being a rapist). Have you ever heard feministsTM refer to Schrodinger’s food poisoning – something which is approximately 100 times more likely to happen to a woman? It seems that if these people were truly worried about the “personal safety” of women, they would each be thin little waifs from the real and palpable fear of sever food poisoning. They usually are not.

Schrodinger’s rapist “postulate” does serve one useful purpose, however. It’s a sure fired indication that the person using it is an extreme anti-male bigot whom should to be avoided.

全 91 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]teh_booth_gawd 11ポイント12ポイント  (1子コメント)

Not sure how many of you in here listen to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast, but they discussed the inaccuracy of the 1 in 6 statistic on their most recent episode. Worth a listen.

[–]doubleunplussed 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh wow. They would never have been able to be sceptical of feminist stuff when Rebecca Watson was still with them. I'm so glad she's gone. Will have to give this one a listen.

[–]Zxkkx-Kzxkzr 16ポイント17ポイント  (1子コメント)

Of course it's misandrist - it's an example of how stereotyping whole groups of people based on the actions of a few is totally WRONG.. except of course in the case of men, in which case, have fun.

[–]Apellosine 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

When it is stereotyping men it isn't sexist either, don't forget that.

[–]MadKingRyan 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

funnily enough, schrodingers cat, like the big bang theory, was created as a way to mock the original ideas, in this case the uncertainty principles, and universal expansion. they caught on, and became popular.

seems some people missed the irony

[–]see_you_soon[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes - it was used to show that it was wrong to view quantum particles as existing in two separate states simultaneously.

[–]rottingchrist 13ポイント14ポイント  (1子コメント)

The bottom line is that men really have no obligation to make women "feeeeeeel safe". It's not our problem. You want to be paranoid, go ahead, it's your choice.

So to me the whole Schrodinger's Rapist thing says more about the person buying into it than those who they villify with it. That they are paranoid bigoted scum, and worst of all, that they don't understand the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment. The person who came up with it was probably of the same ilk as those who branded Newton's Principia a rape manual.

[–]anon445 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think the "bigoted scum" part is worse than not understanding quantum mechanics :P

[–]SleazyCheese 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

I'm sure someone will miss the point and say that 0.005% is still too high.

[–]spazdor 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

0.005% is also a result obtained by knee-slappingly bad math

[–]see_you_soon[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

0.005% - 0.05% - 0.1% - none of those are reasons for bigotry. I'd like to point out that the allegedly low false reporting rate of 2% has been argued as justifying that victims should simply be listen to and believed. If 2% is too low a figure to warrant the preposition of Schrodingers rape bomb, then surely 0.1% is too low as well.

[–]william44isme 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Some radical feminists seem so willing to uphold justice for a minority of women that they forget they are revoking even the most fundamental rights of all other men in the process - fair trial, innocent until proven guilty, right to be treated equally based on gender, etc...

[–]Caelestia 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I've only heard Shrodinger's Rapist as an explanation to questions like "why do you carry pepper spray?" None of my googled results seemed to be advocated anything, just trying to explain some feelings and reactions. The numbers don't really matter if the fear is real. And let's face it, the fear is real. A lot people are told as children that strangers are scary and dangerous; for many women that fear never goes away. There are few ways to explain that hot white fear going through you when you're alone and suddenly a person twice your size appears in your path. This concept seems to explain it for some people. I can agree that the Schrodinger's Rapist concept may add fuel to the fear-fire. But I can't see how this phrase is advocating that people act bigoted or misandrist.

[–]see_you_soon[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The numbers don't really matter if the fear is real.

BINGO!

A lot people are told as children that strangers are scary and dangerous; for many women that fear never goes away.

YES! EXACTLY

I can agree that the Schrodinger's Rapist concept may add fuel to the fear-fire.

And you hit it out of the park!

Thank you very much - your analysis was well thought out, sincere and very clear. I wish I could have expressed it as eloquently as you have.

[–]israellover 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

I find the best way to get the gears turning in people's heads when this issue comes up is to ask them what they think about stand your ground laws. Invariably they talk about how terrible they are and how people are often wrongly killed because of unfounded fears on the part of the individual who "stood their ground", so to speak (also that these laws often excuse racist killings, Trayvon Martin being a famous example).

Once a person realizes stand your ground laws are problematic, then it is easy to see how Schrodinger’s rapist is also problematic. (I am aware that there has been controversy about women being found guilty for defending themselves from abusive men, etc. using stand your ground as defense, I am merely pointing out that assumption behind both is the same for dealing with encounters with others anyone perceived to the observer as threatening) is the same and problematic for the same reasons.)

[–]william44isme 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not familiar with this concept, I check Wikipedia which says:

In the United States, a stand-your-ground law is a law that authorizes a person to protect and defend one's own life and limb against threat or perceived threat. This law states that an individual has no duty to retreat from any place he/she has a lawful right to be and may use any level of force, including lethal, if he/she reasonably believes he/she faces an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death; this is as opposed to duty to retreat laws.

Could you explain what you mean? I'm not attacking what you're saying or anything, I'm genuinely curious but I'm probably missing something :)

[–]see_you_soon[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

That is a useful way of looking at it.

[–]Huwbacca 2ポイント3ポイント  (61子コメント)

well.. first off. A cursory google shows the most popular hits are like 6 years old. I had to look it up because I've never heard of it and after reading about it, it's used in one very specific circumstance so I want to quickly highlight that you're being a bit of an SJW getting wound up over something by misinterpreting it's message and prevalence.

Secondly, you misunderstand what the point of Schrodinger's rapist.... a lot. First, don't get caught up trying to jam it onto the original thought experiment, that's just deliberately changing the message. No one, at any point has ever claimed it is a strict theory where every man has an equal chance of being a rapist and not, it's a turn of phrase and you hurt only your own argument to ignore that.

Basically it means how a woman may feel like she has to take precautions with men she hasn't before, because she doesn't know if he's capable of rape or not.

It's that simple. It's the "should I be alone with him?"... "he wants to get drinks just us two... should I?"

[–]israellover 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

You do realize that women rape other women, right? (to get the gears turning: "In San Francisco, one in three lesbians reported being sexually assaulted by another woman, whereas one in five women of the total U.S. population have reported being raped, according to 2005 California Coalition Against Sexual Assault and San Francisco Women Against Rape data. These numbers don’t tell us anything about straight women raped by other women, however." from http://www.autostraddle.com/when-women-rape-everything-were-not-talking-about-185931/)

With these statistics and your defense of Schrodinger’s rapist in mind, why shouldn't these women also react this way to encounters with other women?

[–]Huwbacca 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

you're taking a weird stance that apparently gay women don't. Which I'd like to see that evidence for because it seems to be a pretty strong claim.

Again, my defense of schroedingers rapist phrase is that it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to make an assessment if she feels safe with a man she doesn't know. No amount of data to any situation makes that discrimination, especially when you point to data, the counter to which is "gay women, also make assessments of strange men AND women that they meet". This is still not discrimination, the only people to use the schroedingers rapist comment to say it means discrimination, are people who need to find something to be offended about so they say that it's the cause for "society being scared of men!!" without offering evidence of how men are mistreated by this. They scream "BUT IT'S UNJUST!" without showing the unjustice caused by someone not going for drinks with you.

[–]see_you_soon[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

And we know that these prejudices couldn't possibly affect men in other ways, for example the criminal justice system or whether or not women will hire men as employees? By the way, that sarcasm.

[–]see_you_soon[S] 6ポイント7ポイント  (30子コメント)

Here is the point - men are not responsible for the bigotry some women have for men, any more than a black woman is responsible for the bigotry of the KKK. 99.995% of us should not be held accountable for the actions of the remains 0.005% of us (and that applies to any gender, creed, race or sexual orientation).

[–]Huwbacca -3ポイント-2ポイント  (29子コメント)

That's a million miles from the original post. The original post was basically, "hurr durr, look at dumb feminists TM!!" by building up a fallacious argument and saying how we are such victims to it.

No one has ever said men are responsible for the bigotry some women have, because that doesn't make sense. Again, I really want to reiterate how ridiculous the mind-set that "she might think I'm a threat! how offensive!" is . It is not bigotry for a woman to assess whether she feels safe with you no more than it would be bigotry for you to assess how safe you feel walking through a neighbourhood with a bad rep.

There is no negative treatment of men happening by women thinking they won't be alone with them until they know them better.

I can't even imagine how it must feel to even have to make those assessments, but I bet it feels much worse than having to deal with "she crossed over the road, maybe she thought I could harm her".

We are not being 'held accountable' for others crimes and twattery. We literally are not impacted by the schrodingers rapist idea. It is purely to describe the though process of threat assesment, self-protection etc. that a woman may go through when she meets a man for the firs time.

[–]see_you_soon[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (23子コメント)

It is not bigotry for a woman to assess whether she feels safe with you no more than it would be bigotry for you to assess how safe you feel walking through a neighbourhood with a bad rep

Great, so now men are analogous to a neighbourhood with a bad rep.

So, according to you, it's not bigotry for someone to be fearful around someone of a certain characteristic - like gender (or skin colour)? Because I'm 100% certain that if you feel "fearful" in the presence of black people that you're a racist.

GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD (because, I think you're not picking this up) - women have no REASONABLY fear of men - they have bigoted fears of men which have been drummed into their skulls by people like you.

And by the way - the OP was about how deeply unreasonable and unjustifiable the fear is - hence why the Schrodinger's rapist "thought experiment" is nothing but a justification for bigotry. Its obviously based on a misunderstanding of the 1 in 6 figure (which has essentially been misinterpreted to meaning that 1 in 6 men are rapey).

[–]Huwbacca -5ポイント-4ポイント  (22子コメント)

I don't know if you're doing it on purpose under the assumption people that everyone else is really dumb, or if you're completely unaware that you're arguments have entirely been "BUT WHAT IF WE TAKE THIS TO THE EXTREME!!" or "BUT YOU STILL HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF!!"

I've been quite deliberate in my words. Which is a shame because you've been quite liberal in your reading of them... "it is a process of deciding if you feel safe around a man who you don't know"

Now, you're welcome to be offended by that as if I've said that men are all rapists. You're also welcome to ignore that my statement has two outcomes: Deciding "no, I don't like this situation I'm leaving" or "Hey, it's fine. I'm staying".

Nowhere has "women are scared of all men" come into it.

[–]see_you_soon[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (21子コメント)

Jesus - I don't know if you are deliberately trying to bait me or if you are genuinely incapable of understanding. Let me spell it out for you:

FACT - 1 in 5,000 salads might make you so sick that you will have to be hospitalized (over 5,000 people every year die of food poisoning in the US).

FACT - Women have no fear of salads - they never think about whether or not eating them will get them sick.

FACT - 1 in over 20,000 men are rapists (and the ones that are rape only a small percentage of the women they meet).

FACT - some women are fearful of men and will think carefully as to whether or not they will be left alone with them for fear of rape.

QUESTION - Given that the fact that salads are far more dangerous then men, what drives women's to fear men but not salads?

PROPOSITION - Women are educated to be fearful of men - to hold unreasonable fears (prejudices/bigotry) concerning men. Women are not educated to be fearful of salads. Ergo, women fear men (safe) while they don't fear salads (less safe).

Schrodinger's Rapist is an attempt to explain away this prejudice of men (misandry).

[–]spazdor 6ポイント7ポイント  (13子コメント)

FACT - 1 in over 20,000 men are rapists (and the ones that are rape only a small percentage of the women they meet).

Alright buddy, hang the fuck on here.

Let's consider a population of 1 million people: 500,000 men and 500,000 women.

You say on the order of 1/20,000 men are rapists. That makes 25 rapists in our sample of 1 million people.

But you postulated that 1/6 of the women are victims of rape. That makes 83,333 victims in this 1-million person sample.

25 rapists, 83,333 victims. That means each rapist has 3,333 victims, assuming no overlap.

But you started from the assumption that each person will meet about 3,300 people of the opposite sex, total.

So, yes, by your own math, rapists will rape 100% of the women they meet. That's the implicit assumption you made when you extrapolated 1/20,000 rapists from 1/6 victims.

tl;dr you should give up on mathing because you're not a very good mather

[–]spazdor 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Furthermore, you shouldn't attempt to use the word "whom" as you did at the end of the OP, unless you're absolutely sure of your grammar. Most everyone will overlook it if you use "who" when "whom" would be appropriate, but incorrectly using "whom" just gives the impression of trying to sound more educated than you are.

[–]see_you_soon[S] -4ポイント-3ポイント  (10子コメント)

No. If there are 500,000 women, and each woman meets 3,400 men, then the total number of men met is 500,000 x 3,400 = 170 million (assuming no overlap).

The point of the exercise is not the math - indeed, the 1 in 6 number is bogus - and yes there would clearly be overlap. Also, it's also fairly clear that one man can rape many women (Paul Bernardo was alleged to have raped close to 100 women). The point is that out of the thousands of thousands of men women meet, very few are rapists. The actual statistic (% of men who are rapists) could be more accurately calculated by dividing the male population by the number of convicted rapists. That would give you a more realistic measure of the true number. I'm curious as to what that number (%) would be.

[–]spazdor 3ポイント4ポイント  (9子コメント)

No. If there are 500,000 women, and each woman meets 3,400 men, then the total number of men met is 500,000 x 3,400 = 170 million (assuming no overlap).

lol, you're gonna be hard pressed to find 170 million men in a population of 1 million people.

You took the Cartesian product, the number of pairings of people, and then mistakenly assumed that each and every one of those was its own unique person.

In reality, sometimes 2 women will be acquainted with the same man.

[–]see_you_soon[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (8子コメント)

Yes there is overlap - and for the record, it's quite possible that 500,000 people have interacted with 170 million.

Of course there is likely to be overlap - how much is anyone's guess. The 1 in 6 figure is very much anyone's guess as well.

As I said - the most accurate way of finding things out is divide the people in prison for rape by the total population - that would give you a much more accurate figure. Using that metric, I get a figure of 0.07% - which I suspect is much closer to the "real" number.

[–]Huwbacca 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

I'm not trying to understand your salad analogy because it's idiotic.

You're doing a Glenn Beck by saying FACT loudly, stating something that isn't a fact. I'm worldly enough to know when someone wants to argue on their terms, which is what you are doing. You're setting up false rules for the argument, in a way that is utterly self serving and circular. Kafka trapping, bad arguing, or circular logic... call it what you will but the reason you're getting so stressed out over this is because your initial premises have been so far off the mark that they might as well have been written in esperanto in terms of you getting a message across.

Now, for your entertainment, I'm going to give that salad analogy infinitely more respect than it deserves. You know literally nothing about assessment of risk. As a quick run-down of risk aversion and misconception see that link, further anything by Daniel Kahneman is really good. Not only does everyone rate certain risks much higher than they actually happen, but a big factor in risk assessment is not the probability of it happening but the severity of if it happened. Example, average risk of being killed by homicide is 0.01, that would shrink even lower for people in some groups. The probability of meeting a stranger in the US who owns a gun is 0.34 with 88 guns per everyone 100 people in the US. 48% of gun owners do so for protection. The number of people murdered every year is 48 times less than the number of who buy guns to prevent it.

Probability doesn't factor in to risk assessment all that much because we're not a hive mind creature, not only are humans innately bad at probability. And frankly it makes sense, I'm not made safer if the pre-requisite amount of people have already been murdered in a month. To think that would decrease my threat of being murdered would be gamblers fallacy. Probabilities are only reflective of what has happened, and do not dictate what will happen... we will always think "but what if it's me next?".

So, first off the mark your arguing that "oh look! how silly women are by not understanding probability" when no one does, we're not a logical species. Secondly, your analogy starts and ends with probability. Not severity which is the overriding factor of deciding risk aversion. Food poisoning is a day or two on the toilet. Not a days to weeks in the hospital, a week of PEPs, a possible abortion and then potentially months or years of therapy, again I want to iterate that your being selfish, entitled and acting like a 13 year old only child if you feel your rights have been infringed by someone wanting to avoid that.

Now, moving on. You have this weird obsession with "because food poisoning happens more, women should not worry about rape". More women are raped than men. Because of this, it is now justified that there is no effort be made for male victims.... Do you see how stupid that argument is? Not only does probability not matter to risk assessment, but we are also capable of worrying about lots of things at once. I'm more likely to die of heart disease than in a car crash, but I still drive safely on my way to the gym for cardio.

Lastly, I really want to get into this number you keep bandying around. 0.005% of men are rapists, which you based... idiosyncratically, shall we say, on your misunderstanding of Schroedingers rapist and the 1 in 6 stat to begin with. I'm not sure if you're aware, but these days we have this great thing called google to look for those statistics, rather than amateur maths hour. This 1987 study surveyed nearly 3,000 men. If you look at the number of those who either attempted sex, or had sex by coersion, force, drugs etc. it comes to 7.1% (Table 5 for your convenience). Yes it's nearly 30 years old and hopefully things have changed, but I don't think you'd even be able to convince yourself that it's decreased to 0.005%. Page 2 of this paper has a whole list of estimates of men who commit sexual crimes from varying authors and it ranges from 4.8% to 14%. I'm not claiming it's as high as 14%, but I'll claim happily that you're made up numbers are as useless as a marzipan dildo.

Is there something left of your 'argument' for me to go over? From your initial misunderstanding of what schroedingers rapist actually meant, to your maths and your understanding of risk you have been demonstrably wrong on all counts.

[–]see_you_soon[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

So your argument is that using bigoted sexist "studies" showing that one out of six men are rapists justifies bigotry against men? Are those the same studies that define rape as something that only men do and that being raped is something that only women can suffer? Are those the studies that show that if a man and woman drink before having sex that means the man raped the woman? You are actually quoting fatally flawed studies which claim that every other man you meet on the street is just waiting for an opportunity to rape? Perhaps you'll be quoting from the KKK's website next?

Time and time again you refuse to see the forest because all of the trees are in the way. 0.005% or 0.05% or 0.5% it's all quite irrelevant. The fact is women fear men because they are educated and trained to fear men. They are taught over and over again that men are dangerous, evil and sinister. They are not given the same message about salads or tainted foods - despite the fact that food poisoning is far more common than rape. As a result, women don't fear food and never worry about it but they have a paranoid and totally unjustified fear of men.

Finally, the Schrodinger's rapist thought experiment is very similar to the arguments which members of stormfront and the KKK use to justify their bigotry. There is some "evidence" that black people commit proportionally more crime than white people - but that is not why some white people are racist against black people. They are racist because they have been educated to be so.

[–]Huwbacca 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Why didn't you open with "I'm steadfastly going to refuse to accept the meaning of schroedingers rapist in place of my own!" and save us all this bother? Because it's not a thought experiment, its a phrase someone coined about how she will make an assessment of threat when she meets a strange man. I've asked you time and again to tell me how you feel so discriminated against by this, and all you can do is try to misrepresent my argument or flat out make falsifications.

First paragraph. No, these are the studies that have numbers of men raped as well.

Second paragraph. Low and behold - Another 'Fact' that you join into your argument when your previous facts are debunked. Woman are trained to fear men? Even if we assumed that isn't a ridiculous statement... to what end? Why would society train women to fear men? How does this benefit anyone? When a group of people discriminate or practice bigotry, it's so they can benefit compared to another group. Where is that here? Show me something... anything that isn't just your own prejudices trying to shine through as scientific thought.

You've done nothing here to even try and engage in discussion, you dismiss articles without reading, you make false statement after false statement, you ad hominim, you try to change the aim the debate, you reject evidence to such a degree whilst sticking steadfastly to you utterly ridiculous calculation of rape (did you ever stop to think, that if 15% of women have been raped...that that is an awful lot of work for 0.005% of men to do? That's a logistically infeasible amount of rape).

Tell me how men are hurt by women making an assessment of threat when they meet a stranger? Don't deflect, don't try to tie up an argument with some ridiculous analogy. Discuss the point at hand.

[–]see_you_soon[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

(did you ever stop to think, that if 15% of women have been raped...that that is an awful lot of work for 0.005% of men to do? That's a logistically infeasible amount of rape).

Yes, that's exactly why the 1 in 6 figure is unadulterated bullshit. The actual figure is orders of magnitude lower.

Because it's not a thought experiment, its a phrase someone coined about how she will make an assessment of threat when she meets a strange man.

It's specifically described as a thought experiment. More to the point, it's specifically used to explain away prejudice and bigotry.

Woman are trained to fear men? Even if we assumed that isn't a ridiculous statement... to what end?

Oh, so gender roles don't exist? There are no re-enforced and preconceived notions about gender? Wow - tell me more about this new breed of feminism you've dreamed up which claims that all attitudes that men and women have about each other are based on the clear and mutual understandings men and women have for each other (or does this feminist theory of yours only work one way?).

you make false statement after false statement

Translation - "I don't agree with you, ergo, everything your saying is false".

you ad hominim

Was that before or after you "ad hominimed" me? Pull the plank out of your eye.

Discuss the point at hand.

I'd be happy to as soon as you show me your "I'm the boss of the internet certificate and I decide what the topic of conversation is" certificate - until then, I'll argue as I see fit.

But I'll "do you a solid" and address your point. You're asking the question "how are men hurt by women having bigoted attitudes about them to the point where they will be fearful of being alone with them or having a personal relationship with them because they might be rapists"? As a man who worked under the supervision of women, in a profession where I present cases in front of women judges and met with opposing council who were women, in an office building where I ride the elevators with women, in a business environment where several of my clients, employees and business associates might be women - I think it is very important that I be able to meet with and discuss issues with and have personal and professional relationships with women without the bigoted and sexist fear that I'm going to rape those same women. Women who have unrealistic (bigoted) attitudes about men being violent rapists are, in my opinion, much less likely to meet with me at my office late in the afternoon to discuss with me their legal issues. Women who have paranoid delusions about how men are dangerous are far less likely, in my opinion, to engage my services, provide me with assistance, advise me when I need advice, provide me with for fee services or otherwise interact with me in my normal day to day affairs.

Oh - and its fucking insulting to be thought of as a rapist simply because of my genitalia. But those are "man feels", so I guess that doesn't count.

[–]see_you_soon[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

And for the record, it is apparently clear that you are of the opinion that a very large percentage of men are rapists. Perhaps you are also of the opinion that black men are particularly prone to being rapists, or is your bigotry confined to gender and not race? It's hard to tell because sexists and racists use the same arguments to justify their bigotry.

[–]Huwbacca 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

well apparently this only a debate of opinion since facts long since died a death here.

[–]spazdor -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

It's also worth noting that the only 'responsibility' the author claims men bear toward this prejudice, is to respect women's autonomy in making their own safety decisions. (regardless of whether those decisions are based on sound statistical reasoning or not.)

If you're walking at night, a woman sees you, is afraid, and goes out of her way to avoid you... No further action is required on your part. Keep going where you're going, no one has violated your right to get around.

The only way that's a problem is if you were hoping to strike up a conversation - and a lost opportunity to connect is always a shame, but it's not like anyone owes anyone a shot at chatting them up.

Schroedinger's Rapist is addressed specifically to the guys who were hoping for a chat-up. There's that whole "lonely hearts" pre-amble about trying to make romantic connections happen with strangers in public.

[–]Kareem_Jordan 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

Schroedinger's Rapist is addressed specifically to the guys who were hoping for a chat-up. There's that whole "lonely hearts" pre-amble about trying to make romantic connections happen with strangers in public.

But it was taken way beyond that and some of those ideas keep popping up now and then. It went from, "women may not want to talk flirt with you at this point," to "cross the road to make lonely women feel safe and if a woman is afraid of you, it's your fault."

I saw this post in 2X where a woman was going into an apartment building she only recently moved into on a rainy day. When she spotted a black man behind her, she closed the door to the building and told him she didn't know him. He opened the door to his own fucking building and called her racist. Like usual, people rushed in to save her from realizing she's a fucking idiot and blamed the guy for being mad at her.

[–]see_you_soon[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Schroedinger's Rapist is addressed specifically to the guys who were hoping for a chat-up.

It's a justification for bigotry. It's using the "chat up" scenario to justify the preposition that men are scary and creepy and that women's bigotry against men is acceptable.

[–]Huwbacca -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

honestly. Anyone starts randomly talking to me who I don't know and my brain starts going "Who are you?! What do you want?! what is this?!!?"... but then I also spend my late nights arguing on the internet with strangers so probably more a reflection of me

[–]spazdor 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think the best way to make this sort of reasoning clear to dudes who don't have any experience of sexualized street harassment, is by analogy to most people's common experience with beggars or panhandlers, and to what kinds of boundaries we'd like them to observe when approaching us for anything. Most people can relate to the irritation of dealing with panhandlers who come on too strong, or those few who will try to engage you with (ostensibly) a long story of woe (even though we can sense where they're going), and it's clear to most people that respecting their humanity does not obligate any particular person to spare time or energy to hear them out.

It's not a crime for them to ask anyone for change, but if they have unrealistic expectations about how willing people will be to converse with them, then that misjudgment is on them. Nothing's wrong, though, as long as they observe body language, respect 'no's, and make good-faith efforts to speak only to people who want to be spoken to. If dudes trying to strike up flirtations with strangers would observe those same rules of engagement, there'd be no problem.

[–]see_you_soon[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (26子コメント)

I guess you missed the point where women are 100 times more likely to be violently ill from food poisoning on a date as opposed to being raped - yet judging by the girth of many of the people making the Schrodinger's rapist analogy, risk is something they are willing to take. (that was "unkind"). We can only suppose therefore, that the Schrodinger's rape analogy is nothing more than an excuse for misandric bigotry.

[–]Huwbacca 4ポイント5ポイント  (25子コメント)

That's not a point to miss.... Thing A happens more than thing B... What's your point? You're acting as if a woman meeting a stranger and thinking "how cautious should I be around this man?" is not a good idea because they should instead be thinking "how cautious should I be around this food?"

[–]see_you_soon[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (24子コメント)

It shows that Schrodinger's rapist is an excuse for bigotry and sexism.

[–]Huwbacca 4ポイント5ポイント  (23子コメント)

Huh? You need to offer a little bit of explanation.

First off, I really have to reiterate the bit of my first statement you didn't read. The rare, unfrequently used term 'schrodingers rapist' has in no way meant '50% of men are rapists!' or 'all men are potential rapists'. The only people who say that, are people building up a straw feminist to knock down.

It means when a woman meets a strange man and has to think "Should I be careful around this man? Does he have the potential to harm me?". Whether he has the potential to cook a shit omelette is neither here nor there.

Now, in no way can you reasonably argue that is sexism. The only conceivable way I can possibly think you would be offended by that is "Oh, she might be thinking I could be a threat... How upsetting!". That train of though is pure selfishness, that someone could be so offended by what someone hypothetically thinks about them as to think that is more important than the potential fear they must feel in order to think that.

[–]alcockell 2ポイント3ポイント  (12子コメント)

"All men are potential rapists" was a common Feminist(TM) statement back in the 1990s.

[–]DonMartinSFX 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Also heard "All men are rapists."

[–]alcockell 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yup - cultural message from Dworkin/french. Imagine the cognitive dissonance I had being sexually abused by girls and unknown-at-the-time being Asperger.

When they went on to blackmail me by threatening to cry rape if I talked...

Hello suicidal eating for 30 years...

[–]DonMartinSFX 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Sorry you got so fucked up. Personally it led me to stay in an abusive relationship for 10 years, because of course I must be the abuser because I'm the man, natch.

I wonder how many more there are of us.

[–]alcockell 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

A lot of this is driving MGTOW.

[–]Huwbacca -1ポイント0ポイント  (7子コメント)

and in the 90s, as is now, the trend amongst reactionary anti-feminists was to take isolated quotes, jokes, quips either wrongly, out of context or from the complete extremes of feminism.

People fighting a battle by creating the fights will never feel like they've lost and that's kind of how the men's rights message boards work.

[–]alcockell 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

The trouble was it wasn't "extreme". Or even if it was - it was the loudest heard, and therefore inspired the laws passed.

And when this is sent through the culture, to an autistic boy around 13, it can read as "YOUR PENIS MAKES YOU A RAPIST!"

[–]Huwbacca -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

the laws passed? I don't know where you live but I'm completely unfamiliar with any country that has laws that in anyway have made life worse for men by making it better for women as you imply.

Remember loudest voice is very rarely the representative voice. Reddit, on the whole, doesn't get angry by wanting more women in video games, doesn't think all black people rioting are animals, doesn't think that only idiots and bigots worship gods. Yet they're the loudest voices.

[–]alcockell 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

UK - Affirmative Consent is the law of the land here. But of course there's no clear defence in law for proving what level of consent there was.

And Jaclyn Freidman ups the ante again - and there's this insane lawyer who wants to deny other women the agency to say whether they themselves consented....

[–]DonMartinSFX 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Wow. Nice to see you totally shoot down a man's experience solely by virtue of him being a man.

Get the fuck out of OneY, radfem.

[–]Huwbacca -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

god you are such an SJW. Just because you see someone disagree with someone you assume they must be your complete enemy without trying to look at the situation at all.

[–]see_you_soon[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (9子コメント)

My god, you utterly cannot see the forest for the trees, can you. Women have no reasonable belief that the man they just met is a rapist since the chance of him being one is just 0.005% (much less than her chances of being hospitalized for eating a salad). Women don't fear salad - so why, given the fact that salads are far more dangerous then men, would they fear men. Case in point - why are they more likely to fear black men in particular? Because they are bigots and because we teach them to hold bigoted attitudes about men.

And by the way - Schrodinger's rapist is a term thrown around by feministTM , not by straw men - and it is used specifically to argue that the fear of men is justifiable. The KKK uses similar arguments to justify their bigotry.

[–]Huwbacca 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

...a strawman is an argument someone makes up to discredit their opponents by misrepresenting their ideas or motives.

[–]see_you_soon[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Grew: "Yes, I went to kindergarten, I know how the alphabet works"

[–]Huwbacca 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I mean... I really want to know what "Schrodinger's rapist is a term thrown around by feministTM , not by straw men" was intended to mean.

It is a term thrown around by strawmen?

[–]SleazyCheese 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

Dear LordTM DudeTM you need a Chill PillTM.

Recognize idiots for what they are, and realize they don't deserve a moment's thought. Recognize that some women have issues and see the entire world as a threat, and move on with your day without a second thought because it doesn't affect you. Or shouldn't. Why does it?

These feministsTM you're so vehement about have apparently been established in your mind as The BoogeymanTM to be Really Scared Of Or Something. Which is pretty much the same mindset they take about rapists. Don't stoop to their level, it only brings you down.

[–]see_you_soon[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'm sorry, I'm pointing out how a misandric idea like "Schrodinger's Rapist" is just bigoted bullshit against men. I never implied it was a threat - only that it was an insult. I never implied that feministTM were dangerous, I just pointed out they were bigoted.

[–]SleazyCheese 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

I agree. I'm trying to say the delivery isn't conducive to the content of the message.

It's like if you got mad at every strung-out hobo who asked you for a dollar at a stoplight or walking down the street. They're not representative of the general population, and their problems aren't yours, so why waste the energy on it?

[–]see_you_soon[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

I don't think we should waste time on it - that was why I was pointing out why it was so ridiculous.

But you're right, there are more profitable enterprises than debating feminism (either feminismTM or genuine feminism).

[–]muchlygrand 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Schrodinger's anything is unfair when applied to any specific group - all or nothing. It's better to wait for evidence. Schrodinger never assumed the cat was either dead or alive, that's the point, he reserved judgement until he open the box and saw the state of the cat.

To use this to apply to possible rapists doesn't work if you're going to assume that the person is because you have no evidence to the contrary. You assume it could go either way, there is no way of knowing, that's the point of the theory.

Plus, he had reason to consider the cat dead - it's not just any old cat in a box, it's a cat in an irradiated box. There has to be a catalyst for the experiment to make sense.

Personally, I like to live by 'Schrodinger's asshole' theory. It applies equally to everyone - I don't know how much of an asshole you are until we actually meet, you could be the nicest person, or a total douche. I reserve judgement until I 'open the box' then I'll know if you are someone I can get along with or not.

[–]see_you_soon[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Personally, I like to live by 'Schrodinger's asshole' theory. It applies equally to everyone

Brother (sister?) - I see things you're way. All people are potentially assholes until we have reason to think otherwise - that's egalitarian at least (and probably true because lets face it, we are all assholes some of the time).

[–]see_you_soon[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just to make it clear - the likelihood of food poisoning should be viewed as a feministTM issue since women are 100 times as likely to suffer from it as opposed to rape. Schrodinger's restaurant is a thing. Fat is indeed a feministTM issue - i.e. It should be avoided. /s

[–]CheshireSwift -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

Your maths is terrible. There's overlap between the groups of 3400, plus some women will be assaulted multiple times. Your mathematical model involves each woman in the world having 3400 men to herself that never interact with any other women, and of those groups, 1/6 contain a single man who will ever assault her.

[–]see_you_soon[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Oh yes that's true about the overlap - also it's possible (in fact common) for one man to rape several women. But the point is that even if we consider overlap, the 1 in 6 figure (which is itself bullshit) shows that the overwhelming majority of men will never rape and the Schrodinger's rapist postulate is just an excuse for bigotry. Whether it is 0.005% or 0.05% makes little difference.

[–]CheshireSwift 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

And I think you're misunderstanding its purpose. It's a classic failure to follow Bayesian statistics. Approaching every interaction with caution makes sense when there is a relatively high chance for a given woman that at some point an interaction will be problematic. That's not the same as suggesting that anything approaching a significant proportion of men are problematic. If anything, your calculations show that it only takes a miniscule proportion of men to cause problems for a huge number of women.

The same is true the other way too, via the 1 in 7 statistic for men.

[–]see_you_soon[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Therefore only a small number of black criminals are required to justify racism? Only a few bad salads are required to have women fear eating salads? Only a few false rape accusations are required for men to justifiably believe that any woman is a walking rape bomb?

I think you want to rethink that. People are prejudiced because they are educated (trained) to be prejudiced, not because they weigh odds. Women fear men and not salads because they have been raised to view men as dangerous (despite the fact that salads are more likely to make you violently ill than a man is to rape you). Men don't fear women because men aren't allowed to fear anything except the most dangerous thing imaginable (a black man).