When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist. You may or may not be a man who would commit rape. I won’t know for sure unless you start sexually assaulting me. I can’t see inside your head, and I don’t know your intentions. If you expect me to trust you—to accept you at face value as a nice sort of guy—you are not only failing to respect my reasonable caution, you are being cavalier about my personal safety.The post deals with the issues I've been trying to talk about lately, but does it in a far better and more eloquent way than I have been able to. To wit:
Now, you want to become acquainted with a woman you see in public. The first thing you need to understand is that women are dealing with a set of challenges and concerns that are strange to you, a man. To begin with, we would rather not be killed or otherwise violently assaulted.I don't think I've gotten this across well enough, so I would urge you to read the whole post. In a nutshell, this is why I've been arguing that men and women are coming at the issues of public interaction from different places. This is why so many men just "don't see" the insidious side to the "nerd on a train" XKCD comic.
“But wait! I don’t want that, either!”
Well, no. But do you think about it all the time? Is preventing violent assault or murder part of your daily routine, rather than merely something you do when you venture into war zones? Because, for women, it is. When I go on a date, I always leave the man’s full name and contact information written next to my computer monitor. This is so the cops can find my body if I go missing. My best friend will call or e-mail me the next morning, and I must answer that call or e-mail before noon-ish, or she begins to worry. If she doesn’t hear from me by three or so, she’ll call the police. My activities after dark are curtailed. Unless I am in a densely-occupied, well-lit space, I won’t go out alone. Even then, I prefer to have a friend or two, or my dogs, with me. Do you follow rules like these?
So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this man rape me?
And this is why it's so important that men read the whole thing, linked again for emphasis.
I know that devils advocacy is wholly unappreciated in these contexts, but the notion of Schroedinger's Rapist irks me quite a bit. Being vigilant about your personal safety and being very cautious with strangers is one thing, but to look at me and see Schroedinger's Rapist...
ReplyDeleteThere was a while, especially after the night when I was mugged, where whenever I saw a black man approaching me at night, I would get a jolt of adrenaline and hold my breath as I walked past him. Every black man was my Schroedinger's Mugger. Once I realized I was doing this, though, I thought to myself "This is racist."
For women, I know the stakes are higher, and they may be less able to defend themselves. Does that make their Schroedinger's Rapists more defensible than my Schroedinger's Muggers?
I guess I feel like there's right principle, and right action. Being hypervigilant, especially at night, is right action. Actually looking at an individual man, and actually thinking "Probable Rapist," strays away from right principle.
To me, this is a wholly inadmissable comparison.
ReplyDeleteYou are trying to compare action based on racist ideas (which, yes, we are all bombarded with) to action based on an analysis of rape statistics and the general rape culture. This doesn't square with me. One is based on false assumptions and unfounded fears, the other is not. And no, I don't see the comparison in terms of racism vs. sexism either, since I don't see this as sexist against men (actually, I don't believe it's really possible to be sexist against men under our current conditions).
Also, I think you're confusing terms here. I think a better word than "probable" is "potential" in terms of whether X man in public is a rapist or not.
I wish the comparison was just wrong (for the reasons you stated) rather than inadmissible.
ReplyDeleteBriefly in my defense, my own reaction was not exactly unfounded, because I was actually mugged by a black man. My generalization to black men was wrong though.
I don't think the Schroedinger's Rapist position can be described as more rational, however. I doubt most women who feel that way have actually analyzed rape statistics, because most people are not sociologists or demographers, so they're not coming from a reasoned position first. Also, I can't read minds, but I'd guess that large black working class men are more likely to be thought of as a Schroedinger's Rapist than a skinny white well dressed man. Besides, if a woman doesn't recognize a man, he's actually less likely to be a rapist, since apparently 73% of rapists are non-strangers (I got that from the RAINN website, and may have mis-interpreted "non-stranger").
So I don't think it's defensible from a reasoned ground, which is why I was focusing on the costs. Is it the potential cost that rape has (over a mugging) that justifies generalized suspicion of all men? I think I'd be way more comfortable with a Schroedinger's Rape Context, applying the probability to the context, rather than to an individual within it.
And I get the difference between racism/sexism and racial/sexual prejudice, and while the case is more urgent with the first, can't I be against both?
Given that we live in a rape culture, what do you think the "costs" of women having this mentality are? Of course, it's not ideal -- but we don't live in an ideal world, and the potential losses from adopting such a mentality are exceedingly minimal compared to the personal safety gained.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the worst that happens here? That men feel bad about being thought of as a potential rapist? I think most men can take it, and as people have pointed out, if a woman has to choose between her safety and someone else's emotional well-being, it's no contest.
On the other hand, if we go around thinking that all black men are potential muggers, we're reinforcing racist stereotypes and potentially causing serious harm in doing so.
I think it's tempting to say "but I'm not a rapist!" in response to the concept. The article deals with this, though. People are working with different information, and in a public place, there's no way for a stranger to know that you are just the nicest guy in the world. To expect otherwise is to ask women to put themselves at unnecessary risk.
Ah, well that's a lot more like a defense I can understand. I have to agree that the cost of this mentality is rather low. However, even putting aside ideals, I do think they're non-zero. A generalized suspicion of men is likely to build walls against male allies just a little higher, and as I said, I suspect that there are a lot of racial and class attitudes being brought to bear here too (re: the article's references to cleanliness and tattoos).
ReplyDeleteI think the efficacy of generalized suspicion is also questionable. It's not really possible to tell how many rapes or assaults were prevented by female hypervigilance. And of course, if you fear assault, so you do X, Y and Z actions, and then you don't get assaulted, you're likely to attribute preventive effects to X, Y, and Z.
I think it's only fair to say that we can't accurately judge the costs or the payoffs of Schroedinger's Rapist. It's definitely an unfair attitude to have towards most men, but if it's actually effective at preventing sexual assault, then I don't know what more I could say about it.
P.S. I just read the whole linked article (probably should've done that before posting) and besides the "Schroedinger's Rapist" part, everything about respecting women's space, communications, and security concerns was just reasonable common sense as far as I can see. I'd pass along similar advice to my clueless guy friends. That is to say, I liked it.
Joe: It may irk you to be seen as a potential (not probable, potential) rapist or assaulter. You know what? It irks the hell out of me when women patiently and in a non-confrontational manner try to explain what their lack of male privilege means for their everyday lives, and men immediately zero in on whatever part of it lets them cast themselves in the victim role.
ReplyDeleteIt is possible to argue that every person is a potential rapist, but that is not what the article does. It says that the strange woman on the train has no way of knowing that you're one of the good guys, and that there are ways of signaling that you are. It's not about how this makes YOU feel, it's about how you can make HER feel safer. Because chances are, she's terrified of strange men approaching her - I know I am.
I recommend you read through the comments to the post over at Shapely Prose. I know it's a ridiculously long read, but pretty much every concern you have (Schrödinger's mugger, the race and class issues) are addressed there by some seriously smart people.
It strikes me as a an extremely healty behavior. I would open the definition beyond rapist. But that is mostly because I make a threat assesment on everyone I see in my day to to day. Is it fair to others? Who cares; life's not fair. Ask the victim. I think what needs to be mentioned is that the discipline involved in this sort of activity can be liberating. It may take time to become a regular behavior but situational awareness is a healthy trait to possess.
ReplyDeleteto joe:
ReplyDelete"A generalized suspicion of men is likely to build walls against male allies just a little higher..."
in talking about male/female differences, I don't want to say that females have no sex drive or that men are maniacs, but males and females have very different libidos (most of getting off for a lady is psychological, whereas most of getting off for a man is physical)
anyway, I'm just trying to counter that even the closest male allies can't be fully trusted. I think the original article addresses this;
I can never feel 100% safe with a man no matter how well i know them.
From experience I know that I can never be 100% safe with a man no matter how well I know them.
you could argue with me that I shouldn't have to feel this way, but with a PTSD diagnosis under my belt, hypervigilance is kind of unavoidable for me.
I find this whole idea offensive, we do not live in a rape culture and all men are not likely to or even inclined to rape.
ReplyDeleteI've worked in rape counselling for many years and frankly all this theory does is give rapists and excuse "Oh it's not my fault, it's my cultural background" - "I couldn't help it, it's instinct"
We have evolved past non-consensual animalistic breeding, we are evolved to the point where consensuality is a key factor in most of our daily lives, those who make the distinction between rape and consensual intercourse are the majority, Males (and females) who ignore a persons preference should not be able to hide behind these theories.
It is one thing to protect ones self against potential assualt, but then if we do that to the fullest conclusion why would anyone leave the house?
Now i'm sure I will be accused of being wrong, not understanding the meanings, however as a Counsellor and professional sociologist I can tell you, this is a very dangerous theory to embrace.
I've remained anonymous as I do not wish my views to effect anyone i've worked with or indeed the media to make assumptions as to my personal choices based on my oppinions.
I am a 54yo female.