Schrodinger's Rapist

TomBayes · 2012-08-19T13:32:18+00:00

The difference between Shrodinger's cat and Shrodinger's rapist is that for Shrodinger's cat, after an hour you open the box and the cat is either alive or dead, experiment over. For Shrodinger's rapist, after an hour you open the box and if the man isn't a rapist, you close the box and wait another hour. This process is repeated till either the man is a rapist, or he dies of starvation from being locked in a box.

NWOslave · 2012-08-19T14:01:23+00:00

In Shrodinger's cat, there's a cat in the box, you can tell by the word, "cat." In Shrodinger's rapist, there's a rapist in the box, you can tell by the word "rapist."

altmehere · 2012-08-19T13:58:23+00:00

On the first article:

making an anti-feminist argument that Schroedinger’s Rapist is profoundly sexist and unfair

An anti-feminist argument? So let me get this straight; regardless of anything else here, you believe that the mere argument that men should not be treated as rapists by default is somehow anti-feminist.

I guess it's not about the rights of men, apparently, even though men are the central issue here - everything must be framed in terms of feminism.

As much as I hate it when white people use anti-black racism as a cudgel with which to beat other people

It's now racist to compare a particular aspect of being part of a group to a particular aspect of another group? It's not like people are saying "being a man is like being black." All they're saying is that in this particular aspect, the two groups share certain qualities.

The problem is that in both case of race and gender here, people are being treated differently due to tendencies of some members of their group which the group is not responsible for. The laws, however, offer more protection against discrimination based on race (black people don't have to sit in a separate section of the plane because they're more likely to commit crime, but men have to move if they are sat next to children). Social issues are a different story, because the law doesn't really deal with that. I see you'll be bringing those up below.

(we) can rail against the hypocrisy of claiming to be anti-sexist whilst engaging in sex-based prejudicial behaviour

So now it's sex-prejudicial not to go out of our way to behave differently around the other sex?

“we don’t care about your comfort, toots! Nut up or shut up!”

It goes something like "I am not a rapist, and I will not go out of my way to prove that I'm not one. I shouldn't have to, because I'm not a rapist."

black people engage in tons of behaviours to make white people feel safer

This sounds like a social problem that needs to be addressed rather than ignored in this way. If all you do is coddle ignorant people, they will continue to be ignorant.

The fact that you rail against its manifest unfairness is indicative of the fact that you have no idea we’re doing it

This is circular reasoning at its best, and is used to stifle discussion. It follows that, given that "you have no idea we're doing it," the other party is automatically wrong and does not have the proper awareness to make an argument contrary to yours. I find that this stands in stark contrast to "free thought."

nwz123 · 2012-08-19T16:46:45+00:00

I'm torn by this. I'm a black (rather large) male myself and his experiences accord to my own 100%. But I think differently. I steadfastly disagree that we (black folk) ought to change our behaviour to coexist. The fact that it's even "normal" for us to have to do it is fucked up. I've never agreed with this sentiment and I oppose it vehemently. It's one thing to have people-skills (which is the ability to make people like you), it's another to accommodate to racist views. This is the reason why we have to work 3x harder than normal just to get the same results (and even more-so in a sales-oriented job). The comparison IS apt and he even acknowledges it, yet he disaparages at the fact that we're not bending over-backwards to accommodate it? Are you kidding me?

I'm a fucking teddy-bear myself (it's true!) but I get mad when I see people look at me like I'm inherently dangerous. When I see people give me a fake smile to hide their fear, or when they give me a smile of relief to learn that i'm "not like the rest". That shit tears me up inside and it's conditioned my existence ever since I became aware of it. It's a horrible experience to have, and it's systemic. The fact that men face this, as a gender, means that it's also system. And the idea that pointing to stats can justify these oppressive notions..only makes it that much more unpalatable. People use stats to point to blacks being "more violent" all the fucking time. Does that justify their racist views? Of course not. "Sure, i might have a greater chance, as a white person, of being victimized by another white person, but blacks have a higher concentration of crime-incidences (ie inner-city areas), therefore my racist views are justified!" According to the author of that blog, such a statement like that is 'okay'. Well, I, for one, do not think it so.

If blacks are treated differently due to an inherently wrong notion of who they are (essentialist), then it ought to stop (ie anti-racism movements). If men are treated differently due to inherently wrong notions of who they are, then it ought to stop too.

AnthonyZarat · 2012-08-19T13:28:10+00:00

There is no reason for people not to take precautions. Many men, for example, treat all women as Schroedinger's false accusers, particularly in the context of marriage and strategic false allegations of domestic violence (for custody/property division purposes).

The problem with your argument is that women are as likely to rape men, as men are to rape women:

http://i.imgur.com/Ps9wW.jpg

zyk0s · 2012-08-19T14:49:18+00:00

I won't bother reading the full articles, their domain names already hint at them being awful. But I'll try to adapt the reasoning of the excerpts you quoted.

The first part is pure feminist style logic. Saying that an argument neglacts that "the issue under discussion is about wether or not want women to feel more comfortable" subtly derails the discussion (whoever made the accusation was talking about sexism, not about women) and does so through shaming ("you wouldn't be saying that if you care about women"). Indeed, if we based our judgement of the injustice of something on wether a group feels comfortable, well I'm uncomfortable seeing all these women out of the kitchen voting!

Then there's the issue of "accommodating" for other people's racism. What the author did with this is an incredible reversal of the situation. Men are already accommodating women's irrational fears (walksafe programs, busses stopping between two stops at night for women only, special rape defense programs for women only, weaker burden of proof in rape accusations) but it's never enough. On the other hand, very few black people are this accommodating, and when they are, it's for practical reasons (they know a cop is racist and can't win against them, they don't want to be perceived as "that guy"). There is still a large social discourse that goes in the direction of tolerance, where there is a strong opposite discourse for the schroedinger rapist.

The third point is the most interesting, because it clearly would not pass scrutiny in any other context and made by anyone else but a feminist. It's not worth deconstructing, so I'll just showcase how it would work in this other context and hopefully expose its ridiculousness. It goes like this: I look up stats saying 75% of men in relationships experience some form of domestic violence. I see that a (unspecified) portion of them involves women stabbing their partner with a knife. I know women still spend a lot of time in the kitchen, so I conclude women, in general, have access to knives. I then can make the argument that men, in general, fear getting stabbed with a knife, that this fear is not irrational thanks to my statistical evidence, and I could even at this point make the claim 75% of all men will experience knife stabbing in their lifetime. So:

Gals (and some guys) who are not getting this stabbing thing are making two mistakes. First, they consider the event post hoc and say that no one was stabbed or killed, therefore there was no threat of stabbing or anything else serious. If it didn't happen, it couldn't have happened. Second, they think of this sort of thing generally and figure that the chances that Kitchen Lady was a real threat was low. Why or how they assess this is beyond me, since they weren’t there, but I suppose statistically it is a reasonably valid guess … Chances are that Kitchen Lady was just a socially ignorant slightly drunk bitch of no consequence.

Or not. And it is the “or not” part that a man MUST pay attention to in order to live his life as long as he can before his first stabbing, or to increase the amount of time spent between his last stabbing and his next one, or to make the next stabbing hopefully non-fatal or something that he can get out of quickly or minimize in some way.

Isn't it great to live in fear, and encourage other people to live in fear too?

Gingor · 2012-08-19T13:48:54+00:00

I learned to knock and then take several steps back from the door so as not to startle people.

This is extremely sad. Why should anybody have to make accomodations to racism?

It comes back to the central question: do we want women to be more comfortable?

Yes, we do. Thats why we should teach them that not every man is a rapist.

As for the other article:

A dog that acts clearly irrational and has foam at his mouth is very different from a normal person.

By all means, fear a big person that acts completely irrational, runs into walls, jumps randomly and drools heavily just as you would fear a dog.

But dont compare it to a man that is behaving completely normally.

“If the guy did what that guy did, asking me to his room, I’d totally Freak.”

Thats irrational. Extremely so, in fact. If somebody that is not acting crazy, blood-stained or with other clear signs of deviancy makes sexual advances and you dont like it, politely decline instead of "freaking" or punching him in the nose.

And it is the “or not” part that a woman MUST pay attention to in order to live her life as long as she can before her first sexual assault,

Huh. Funny. They want to be able to run down an alleyway in the bad part of town in the middle of the night, naked, and not be raped. If you point out that that might slightly increase the chances of rape, you are victim-blaming.

On the other hand, if you say that women should always be on guard around men because they'll probably rape them, its totally OK.

MockingDead · 2012-08-19T18:05:33+00:00

that the issue under discussion is about whether or not we want women to feel more comfortable.

It is not my job to make a woman comfortable or happy. No one inherently serves females. Why can't you, and many women, get that through your head? A butler or chatelaine makes about 20 an hour. That's fine. but given that you can accuse me of being a rapist, I must have insurance and a lawyer on retainer, so serving her now costs 35 an hour.

that black people often make similar behavioural adjustments to accommodate the racism of their white friends

Friends perhaps. Since when have every women become my friend. They didn't help me move my couch.

Your entire argument is flawed. Could it have happened? Sure. But whilst walking by an air port I could be struck by a plane. Or I could be hit by a car whilst walking down the sidewalk. That doesn't mean I should live in terror of cars or airplanes.

Comrade Physioprof has made this excellent observation: “It is not “sexist” for women to view all men as potential rapists,

And, you're wrong. We have nothing further to discuss. Unless you'd like to agree that it's not "sexist" to think of all women as as gold-digging, narcissistic hypergamic, hypoagent sluts with no regard for their fellow human being and no ability to solve problems that would boggle a 12 year old. I doubt you'll read more but here is your argument:

1) All men have a dick 2) Rape happens 2) Few (but some)Men rape women 3) All Men are rapists

non sequiter, much?

So because hypergamy, narcissism, hysteria, and hypoagency are female traits. All females must express them completely and wholly.

I do hope you can see how this argument is flawed. Because it's the female mirror of YOUR argument.

SteelCrossx · 2012-08-19T18:36:59+00:00

All men. ALL men who have given sufficient consideration to women’s position in our society do this walking trick in the right context (for some that will be common, for others, rare). If you are a man and you do not know about this trick then there is a problem with you.

If you are a man and you do not cross the street when nearing a woman to avoid causing her any undue stress because she will assume you are a rapist, then you are damaged. I'd change that out with some other race or gender to check for discrimination but the first article tells me that isn't allowed because...

Until I am convinced that you actually understand anti-black racism (which would take quite a bit of doing), I don’t appreciate being deputized into your anti-feminist screed in this way.

This all seems to be a very efficient way to make sure a group of people acts exactly the way the authors want them to. Do as I say or you are damaged and do not disagree for I am the one in the position of judging whether you understand the conversation at hand or not.

My short response, we all make concessions so that others are comfortable around us and those concessions are often due to differences in various groups we identify with or have membership ascribed to us. The problem with Schrodingers Rapist is not that concessions must be made, the problem is that treating every single person from a particular group as if they are vicious criminals is not acceptable. If I am at a club and someone hands me a drink I am not comfortable with, I do not throw it in their face and scream rapist. I politely accept and then simply don't drink it. The latter is being safe, the former is being violent in expressing my caution.

rottingchrist · 2012-08-19T15:02:29+00:00

because (other than in prison) men possess the privilege of being subject to a vanishingly small likelihood of being raped by either men or women, while women are subject to a substantial likelihood of being raped by men.

The fear of being raped is one of a number of fears that can make you feel unsafe. And I'd dispute that the fear of being raped for a man is "vanishingly small", but that isn't likely to cut any ice here. But, as a man who grew up in a not particularly safe city, I will say that I have to be constantly alert to any kind of danger or harassment. However I don't expect other people to go out of their way to make me feel safe.

Now. Even considering that some people are entitled to have all their irrational fears allayed; Why should I, as a man, care for the safety of those who already think of me as a rapist? Do I have some sort of moral duty to make them feel safe? Must I feel that I need to prove myself not a rapist?

Give me one reason why I should expend any kind of effort to bring comfort to those who think of me as a rapist.

This is one of the reasons why I maintain that being a man is in itself anti-feminist.

MechPlasma · 2012-08-19T15:03:36+00:00

This is stupid. I'm not going to even read the articles. Instead I'm just going to point out everything wrong with your post. (Edit: or as nwz points out, not your post but the summaries)

Men do not suffer a "vanishinly small likelyhood of being raped". They stuffer roughly about a half a chance as woman. Roughly.
Your racism example is messing with statistics. A black person is more likely to commit a crime against a white person than a white person is to another white person. But that's still rubbish, because the real reason is that it's not politically correct to say that about black people, but it's fine to say it about men.
But ultimately, the chances of being raped in your lifetime is high. The chance of any individual raping you in any one moment is small. The chance of a complete stranger raping you in any one moment is ridiculously tiny. Being afraid of that is not "rational thinking", it's pure paranoia. And when you only apply it to one gender, then it's very much sexist.

TracyMorganFreeman · 2012-08-20T01:18:15+00:00

Maybe we should start treating every fertile woman as Schrodinger's Employee-Who-Leaves-Early-After-Having-A-Child, every mother as Schrodinger's Child Abuser/Murderer, every middle aged woman as Schrodinger's Shoplifter, etc.

What? That would be sexist? I rest my case.

Cartesian_Duelist · 2012-08-20T01:21:24+00:00

Violation of the is-ought distinction is abound.

vikonymous · 2012-08-20T01:23:49+00:00

So... it's okay to treat an entire class of people negatively, based on the negative actions of a minority of that class of people?

2012-08-20T07:15:27+00:00

It might not be sexist, but it's certainly androphobic (fear of men).

Is homophobia of lesser concern than racism? No.

The end.

EDIT: Most of the things the MRM is concerned with are androphobic rather than sexist, but it really makes no difference. We don't bother splitting up homophobia (fear of gays) and heterosexism (hate of gays), so why bother with men?

inyouraeroplane · 2013-02-03T04:14:57+00:00

The only way I can see this being a valid response is if she's saying that your need for conversation doesn't override anyone's right to safety. I generally don't talk to anyone, male or female, in situations like this, partially because of things like this.

I hope and think that most feminists don't assume every man's a rapist in every situation until proven otherwise, although a few commenters in there clearly showed they do, but what they do feel uneasy about is the fact that men approach them and engage them in unwanted conversations because of some perceived entitlement to attention.

inyouraeroplane · 2013-02-03T04:26:48+00:00

Men are literally never afraid to get attacked unless they're in a war zone, this article said so. Being a man means never ever being worried to walk alone at night or in an unfamiliar location because male privilege means nobody's going to try mugging you.

I guess that's why I feel uncomfortable when people approach me, especially late at night or when they want money, especially if I think they could probably beat me in a fight, especially since I don't know who has a weapon.

Ultimately, it's men's fault that I feel scared around men. Just like it's black people's fault I feel scared around black men (although I'll post stats to avoid the conclusion of racism). I am a capable, independent adult who should not be dismissed as a hysterical, delicate flower of a being, but everyone must consider my emotions and change their behavior appropriately.

bigassbertha · 2012-08-19T19:05:35+00:00

Your TLDRs are not TLDRs.

TLDR

rightsbot · 2012-08-19T13:06:18+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

lemhi_divide · 2012-08-19T23:58:10+00:00

Every time this is talked about, I want to ask what MR would give as practical advice.

Because in my experience, there is almost no way to tell who might be a potential rapist. They don't drool, they don't hide in bushes. Statistically, they're someone you can name, someone who knows where you live, or someone you see more than once a year.

Some guy wants to walk you home from a party, so you don't have to walk alone. Do you trust him?

You leave someone in the library for a second with you laptop while you go buy a soda. Do you trust them?

And the answer to both questions is, it depends. But you have to think about it. As a woman, or a man, you have to- or you're going to get hurt someday by the one time you didn't think about it. And for anyone who says, "oh, but the risks of getting hurt are so small, thinking that way makes you paranoid, " I weigh the small probability of bad against the larger probability of ok.

Because rape, assault, theft, etc., can and will fuck you up mentally and/or physically.

There are people I know that I won't get drunk with. There are strangers sitting on the curb who say hi and make me want to hurry home a little faster. And there are men I trust completely, that I can be vulnerable with and nothing will happen to me.

But for someone I don't know all that well? What do I do? I try to not let on if someone makes me uncomfortable. But it absolutely changes my behavior- and I don't think that's a bad thing. I don't think all guys are out to rape me. But it's a little like Russian roulette in daily life. I don't drive on New Year's, St. Patty's day, or the 4th of July, because there are more drunks on the road than usual. How is this any different?

Title	Schrodinger's Rapist
Author	barraquda
Upvotes	16
Comments	44
Date	August 19, 2012 1:05 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ygyok/schrodingers_rapist/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/schrodingers-rapist.1015523 https://theredarchive.com/post/1015523

Comments