IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags privacy issues , school incidents , transgender incidents , transgender issues

Reply
Old 3rd December 2012, 09:03 PM   #481
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,090
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
And heaven knows anything not normal is a terrible threat to all and sundry.
It might indicate such, depending on what it is. Assuming it's dangerous because it's abnormal isN'T always adaptive, but assuming it's not dangerous because it's abnormal is frequently maladaptive.

So we have to do the hard thing and think.


Haha, he said 'do the hard thing' hahahaha.


EDIT: Fixed left out 'n't'.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

Last edited by tyr_13; 3rd December 2012 at 10:39 PM.
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 09:05 PM   #482
No Nice Things
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by appalling View Post
It's odd.

I would say that the only witnesses to the oddness of it were people who were trying to get rid of a "man" in the first place.
I was under the understanding that the person who checked on the situation after receiving reports and definitely noticed the nudity allowed her to stay and apologized.

Did I miss something?
No Nice Things is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 09:36 PM   #483
appalling
Critical Thinker
 
appalling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by No Nice Things View Post
I was under the understanding that the person who checked on the situation after receiving reports and definitely noticed the nudity allowed her to stay and apologized.

Did I miss something?
The swim coach went to the front desk, asked them to call the cops.

The cops came, the college and the woman's friend talked the situation down.

But she apologized after that for the misunderstanding.
appalling is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 09:41 PM   #484
No Nice Things
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by appalling View Post
The swim coach went to the front desk, asked them to call the cops.

The cops came, the college and the woman's friend talked the situation down.

But she apologized after that for the misunderstanding.
Okay, then I fail to see how she is likely to fall under your previous all-the-witnesses-had-an-axe-to-grind thing. The original parents/child *might* have. And I'm sure there have been articles since that outright demonize the transwoman. But I'm basing my assessment on at least a seemingly reasonable witness.
No Nice Things is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 10:32 PM   #485
appalling
Critical Thinker
 
appalling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by No Nice Things View Post
Okay, then I fail to see how she is likely to fall under your previous all-the-witnesses-had-an-axe-to-grind thing. The original parents/child *might* have. And I'm sure there have been articles since that outright demonize the transwoman. But I'm basing my assessment on at least a seemingly reasonable witness.
Oh you're right. I only mean that she told the cops she was dealing with a "man" and that it was a similar misidentification between the two people who had complaint that day. The parents complained after the fact.
appalling is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 04:07 AM   #486
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
Originally Posted by appalling View Post
This woman apparently used the center for years with no complaint. This gets lost in the outrage.
Really?

How many years?
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 04:39 AM   #487
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I find it rather surprising that so many people link nudity to sex, and sex to violence, so readily. It's a public place, this locker room, isn't it? Is one man, or shemale, or whatever, such a threat that he or she can terrorize all who behold him or her by merely being present? Or does he or she have to punch through some brick walls and rip some heads off to get that level of intimidation? "Eeek a penis! We're all doomed!" and then all the ladies pray for a swift death? What the heck?
I don't think a reasonable person would conclude that there is an imminent danger of sexual assault when a man uses a woman's locker room, assuming that the locker room is well occupied during normal hours of use. If there are quite a few people going in and out, and nearby that could hear any screaming, the immediate safety isn't a concern.

What I have been talking about is an underlying level of anxiety related to the fear of sexual assault.

I'll illustrate the difference with a hypothetical. Suppose an average woman is sitting in a waiting room at a therapists office with another patient. Male. She has no knowledge of him whatsoever, but he happens to be reading a pornographic magazine. Something like "Barely Legal". (For the record, I don't know if that's an actual publication, but I think it is.) She can't see anything but the cover, which just has a pretty girl on it, and perhaps some text promising what one might see inside. Would she be nervous? Should she be nervous?

My opinion is that she ought to be nervous. There's no real danger of imminent sexual assault, but something about that situation would, and should, set off alarm bells. She's in a perfectly safe environment, and he's causing no harm at all, but I think every woman would have an issue, and I'll bet that if they happened to be leaving at the same time, they might decide to find some excuse not to share the same elevator or be alone in the same stairwell. I think that's a normal reaction.

It's that sort of anxiety that I'm talking about.

So it is with a man in the locker room. There's no imminent harm, but alarm bells will, and should, be going off all through the heads of any post-pubescent woman who is about to take off her clothes in that locker room. If she subsequently learns that the man self identifies as a woman, the anxiety level might go down, although if she subsequently learns that the man self identifies as a lesbian, all that anxiety would return, double strength. As noted before, she would be standing naked next to a big, strong, person who has a penis and would like to shag her. That's going to produce some anxiety in a normal woman.


A decent person would recognize that, and do whatever could be done to not provoke that anxiety. For example, if offered a private changing room, a decent person would accept. Colleen didn't accept. She told the swim team that they could move instead. That makes me think that "she" is not a decent person. I find her scary. I would not want an eight year old girl naked in "her" presence.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 4th December 2012 at 05:54 AM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 04:54 AM   #488
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
What I have been talking about is an underlying level of anxiety related to the fear of sexual assault.

I'll illustrate the difference with a hypothetical. Suppose an average woman is sitting in a waiting room at a therapists office with another patient. Male. She has no knowledge of him whatsoever, but he happens to be reading a pornographic magazine. Something like "Barely Legal". (For the record, I don't know if that's an actual publication, but I think it is.) She can't see anything but the cover, which just has a pretty girl on it, and perhaps some text promising what one might see inside. Would she be nervous? Should she be nervous?

My opinion is that she ought to be nervous. There's no real danger of imminent sexual assault, but something about that situation would, and should, set off alarm bells. She's in a perfectly safe environment, and he's causing no harm at all, but I think every woman would have an issue, and I'll bet that if they happened to be leaving at the same time, they might decide to find some excuse not to share the same elevator or be alone in the same stairwell. I think that's a normal reaction.
What you're advocating is typically called "Schroedinger rapist" in feminist circles, and no, that fear IS unfounded and its a fear that is aided and supported by fearmongering that most men are violent sexual abusers to such an extent that we need to fear all men by default. Even in rape statistics "stranger rape" is minority and unlikely. Womans levels of fear are disproportionate to the level of risk. We can profile black men for the same reason except we have much more of a reason to do so, since most convicts are black men. But we would consider such things to be absurd and racist yet for some reason we seem to think profiling men in general in this way against women is reasonable. Also, men have far more reason to be fearful of other men from violent crime and murder than women do. But men in general are also more unconcerned of their risks and have less fear despite being more likely to experience violence, even if they have been victimised in the past. Women on the other hand are being left to believe they are far more likely to be victimised than they are. Its the same kind of scaremongering that has led us to believe that we should think twice about leaving children around men compared to women. Im really not surprised you think this way considering you already said that men are "inherently violent" and we need to force ourselves to overcome these compulsions. And btw, your scenario is absurd not only because of the above, not only because of how unlikely it would be that someone would be looking at hardcore porn in public, but also because it assumes that we should fear men more if they look at and enjoy porn.

Last edited by Edx; 4th December 2012 at 05:17 AM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 05:53 AM   #489
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
What you're advocating is typically called "Schroedinger rapist" in feminist circles, and no, that fear IS unfounded and its a fear that is aided and supported by fearmongering that most men are violent sexual abusers to such an extent that we need to fear all men by default.
I had never heard the term before Stout used it, but I googled the term and read the essay that popularized the term. Your characterization above is just plain wrong.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 05:55 AM   #490
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I had never heard the term before Stout used it, but I googled the term and read the essay that popularized the term. Your characterization above is just plain wrong.
The article is fear mongering at its finest. There is absolutely no way to justify it. Its written by someone that wants to justify their extreme paranoia toward all men as reasonable no matter what. This is a writer that is so disturbed that she says when she goes on a date she "always leave the man’s full name and contact information written next to my computer monitor... so the cops can find my body if I go missing" and presents this is normal reasonable behaviour for women.

Last edited by Edx; 4th December 2012 at 06:48 AM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 06:02 AM   #491
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 68,744
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
What I have been talking about is an underlying level of anxiety related to the fear of sexual assault.

I'll illustrate the difference with a hypothetical. Suppose an average woman is sitting in a waiting room at a therapists office with another patient. Male. She has no knowledge of him whatsoever, but he happens to be reading a pornographic magazine. Something like "Barely Legal". (For the record, I don't know if that's an actual publication, but I think it is.) She can't see anything but the cover, which just has a pretty girl on it, and perhaps some text promising what one might see inside. Would she be nervous? Should she be nervous?

My opinion is that she ought to be nervous. There's no real danger of imminent sexual assault, but something about that situation would, and should, set off alarm bells. She's in a perfectly safe environment, and he's causing no harm at all, but I think every woman would have an issue, and I'll bet that if they happened to be leaving at the same time, they might decide to find some excuse not to share the same elevator or be alone in the same stairwell. I think that's a normal reaction.
So it's male sexuality that is threatening to women. I see.

If he'd been reading a gay porn mag, would that still be threatening to women? They'd be less likely targets of his horrible sexual desire, but they'd still know that he, a male, possessed sexual desire, and therefore is terrifying.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 06:09 AM   #492
Stout
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,449
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
The article is fear mongering at its finest. There is absolutely no way to justify it. Its written by someone that wants to justify their extreme paranoia as reasonable no matter what.
I fully agree ( on SR being paranoid )

The only reason I raised it was because Colleen was a women's studies student and had to be aware of it. It was the reason I described her behavior as odd.

I'm not trying to suggest Colleen had even the remotest intention of committing any sort of assault nor do I think the presence of children had much of anything to do with "the display" but Colleen had to know that a significant percentage of her intended audience would view her actions as, at least, creepy.
Stout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 06:42 AM   #493
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Stout View Post
I fully agree ( on SR being paranoid )

The only reason I raised it was because Colleen was a women's studies student and had to be aware of it. It was the reason I described her behavior as odd.

I'm not trying to suggest Colleen had even the remotest intention of committing any sort of assault nor do I think the presence of children had much of anything to do with "the display" but Colleen had to know that a significant percentage of her intended audience would view her actions as, at least, creepy.
Personally I dont know how to handle a situation like that, its a tough one. I just object to the arguments and reasoning I've seen by Meadmaker.

Last edited by Edx; 4th December 2012 at 06:44 AM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 07:05 AM   #494
Stout
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,449
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Personally I dont know how to handle a situation like that, its a tough one. I just object to the arguments and reasoning I've seen by Meadmaker.
IMO Meadmaker's arguments are all within the realm of possibility. We have no way of knowing how some people would react given the situation and my perusal of feminist/social justice issues leads me to believe that there are enough survivors of sexual assault out there who may just be triggered by seeing "the equipment", unexpectedly.

I'm no social justice advocate but IMO Colleen made this all about Colleen in full face of the knowledge of the possible outcome(s) of her actions. Was she hoping to find a sexual partner, or hoping to deliver an education ?

We have no way of knowing but I'd guess that committing an assault wasn't one of them.
Stout is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 07:10 AM   #495
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Stout View Post
IMO Meadmaker's arguments are all within the realm of possibility. We have no way of knowing how some people would react given the situation and my perusal of feminist/social justice issues leads me to believe that there are enough survivors of sexual assault out there who may just be triggered by seeing "the equipment", unexpectedly.

I'm no social justice advocate but IMO Colleen made this all about Colleen in full face of the knowledge of the possible outcome(s) of her actions. Was she hoping to find a sexual partner, or hoping to deliver an education ?

We have no way of knowing but I'd guess that committing an assault wasn't one of them.
If the argument is that many women will be fearful of their safety, then they will. I dont know anyone that can object to this.
What I object to is the suggestion that the levels of fear commonly expressed by women in this area toward men is reasonable.

Last edited by Edx; 4th December 2012 at 07:47 AM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 08:00 AM   #496
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,090
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
So it's male sexuality that is threatening to women. I see.

If he'd been reading a gay porn mag, would that still be threatening to women? They'd be less likely targets of his horrible sexual desire, but they'd still know that he, a male, possessed sexual desire, and therefore is terrifying.
Pretty sure that would still be objectionable in any locker room. Besides on planet x. There the privacy screens are made of them and face out over an auditorium complete with tiny binoculars.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 09:10 AM   #497
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
I would say the anxiety yclept "Schrodinger's Rapist" by some is not necessarily motivated by fear of rape in a particular situation. The "fear" might be simply of being trapped in an awkward or squicky situation. Take the waiting room scenario mentioned above with the guy reading pornography. The woman who makes an excuse not to follow the guy out into the elevator isn't necessarily afraid of being raped or assaulted; she might simply want to avoid standing right next to the guy while he adjusts the erection the magazine gave him, or (being in an aroused state of mind) attempts to start a sexually-charged or suggestive but otherwise completely friendly and benign conversation with her. It's not the fact that men have penises or sexuality that bothers her - she'd have gotten in the elevator with the same person any other time, despite knowing that he's a man and that pornography exists in the world - it's the reading of the pornography in front of her, the engaging in such an overt sexual act that the woman has no interest in participating in, is what makes her anxious and motivates her to extricate herself from that person's presence. And yes, I think the consumption of pornography reasonably counts as an overt sexual act, even when done fully dressed and with no immediate intention of frigging the rigging, as it were.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 09:14 AM   #498
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Checkmite you did not read the actual article or you selectively read it. It certainly is entirely about justifying her extreme paranoia toward men. I even pointed out a quote to demonstrate this.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 09:23 AM   #499
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Checkmite you did not read the actual article or you selectively read it. It certainly is entirely about justifying her extreme paranoia toward men. I even pointed out a quote to demonstrate this.
He's not talking about the article. He's talking about meadmaker's scenario, which you have incorrectly characterized as a Schroedinger's Rapist scenario. It's not. So men do things like that. It's not so absurd that a dude with sexual issues would be consuming porn in an inappropriate place. I've seen it on planes, in cars, and in other public spaces. When a guy is so out of societal norms as to consume pornography in a doctor's office, women are being reasonable in avoiding further contact with them.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 09:47 AM   #500
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
He's not talking about the article. He's talking about meadmaker's scenario,
Yes he is, thats why he said the writer of SR is not written by someone necessarily motivated by fear of rape in a particular situation, but rather the fear is being made to feel awkward, which is certainly not what the writer is talking about. Being raped and/or murdered is what the fear is connected to and you know this because thats what is specifically written in the article and why its called Schrodinger's Rapist in the first place .
Quote:
I would say the anxiety yclept "Schrodinger's Rapist" by some is not necessarily motivated by fear of rape in a particular situation. The "fear" might be simply of being trapped in an awkward or squicky situation.
Quote:
which you have incorrectly characterized as a Schroedinger's Rapist scenario. It's not.
Yes it is, it perfectly fits SR. He is justifying the fear as reasonable. He has already said men are "inherently violent" by the very nature of us being male, that testicules themselves are "inherently violent" and that we can will ourselves against being driven by our "inherently violent" male compulsions. This isnt about a specific scenario where a guy is acting particularly creepy and thus give her a reason to fear, its trying to justify being fearful at all times.


Quote:
So men do things like that. It's not so absurd that a dude with sexual issues would be consuming porn in an inappropriate place. I've seen it on planes, in cars, and in other public spaces. When a guy is so out of societal norms as to consume pornography in a doctor's office, women are being reasonable in avoiding further contact with them.
His scenario is absurd for the reasons I pointed out, Im sorry you have ignored them all. The main reason is its intentionally extreme in order to make it seem more reasonable to be generally fearful in a normal situation. As Meadmaker has said several times now, women always have reasons to fear men, because they are men, and men are inherently violent.

This:
Quote:
So it is with a man in the locker room. There's no imminent harm, but alarm bells will, and should, be going off all through the heads of any post-pubescent woman who is about to take off her clothes in that locker room. If she subsequently learns that the man self identifies as a woman, the anxiety level might go down, although if she subsequently learns that the man self identifies as a lesbian, all that anxiety would return, double strength. As noted before, she would be standing naked next to a big, strong, person who has a penis and would like to shag her. That's going to produce some anxiety in a normal woman.
Is just as much a warped view of reality as SR is.

Last edited by Edx; 4th December 2012 at 10:14 AM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 10:05 AM   #501
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
He's not talking about the article. He's talking about meadmaker's scenario, which you have incorrectly characterized as a Schroedinger's Rapist scenario. It's not. So men do things like that. It's not so absurd that a dude with sexual issues would be consuming porn in an inappropriate place. I've seen it on planes, in cars, and in other public spaces. When a guy is so out of societal norms as to consume pornography in a doctor's office, women are being reasonable in avoiding further contact with them.
Agreed. I clearly recall one time being at the public library on one of their sign-up internet terminals working on a paper for one of my classes, and was taking a sit-back-rest-my-fingers break when I noticed the computer next to me (whose user wasn't at it right that moment) had it's browser open on a porn site. While I did my best to simply ignore the fact at first, once I noticed that a man returning from the restroom with a somewhat ruddy face turned out to be the user who sat down to continue browsing, it was just too much "squick" and I quickly saved all my work, got up, and quietly moved to a computer bank on the other side of the floor.

Now I'm a man and he was looking at straight (or perhaps lesbian?) pornography; so it's not like I was afraid the man would turn around and "assault" or "rape" me. But the situation nevertheless made me extremely uncomfortable - enough to extricate myself from the situation, even though I had every right to sit there and use that computer no matter what he was doing next to me, to say nothing of what he may or may not have been doing in the restroom between porn browsings.

Now notice: I didn't turn to the guy and say anything. I didn't go up to the library staff and inform them of what he was doing or demand they stop it so that I could go back and use "my" computer. I got up, and moved to another one. My attitude is readily discernible: do what you do, but I'm not going to lend my presence to the proceedings if what you're doing is that. I'm simply not interested in being a witness, and I can't sit there and pretend I don't know it's happening, either.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 10:21 AM   #502
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Yes he is, thats why he said the writer of SR is not written by someone necessarily motivated by fear of rape in a particular situation, but rather the fear is being made to feel awkward, which is certainly not what the writer is talking about. Being raped and/or murdered is what the fear is connected to and you know this because thats what is specifically written in the article and why its called Schrodinger's Rapist in the first place .
That's not what I said. I didn't say anything about any writer of any article. I said:

Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
I would say the anxiety yclept "Schrodinger's Rapist" by some is not necessarily motivated by fear of rape in a particular situation.
Meadmaker, the writer of the doctor's-office-porn scenario, did not call the situational anxiety "Schrodinger's Rapist"; you did:

Quote:
What you're advocating is typically called "Schroedinger rapist" in feminist circles, and no, that fear IS unfounded and its a fear that is aided and supported by fearmongering that most men are violent sexual abusers to such an extent that we need to fear all men by default.
But fair enough: what would you classify my situational anxiety, as related in the library porn incident above, to be motivated by? I've already told you it had nothing to do with fear of a violent assault; so what was it? And once you've given your answer, tell me if you think it might theoretically be possible for a woman who's feeling uncomfortable with certain situation involving a man to be motivated by concerns more closely resembling mine, than a fear of "violent assault"?

Last edited by Checkmite; 4th December 2012 at 10:25 AM.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 10:35 AM   #503
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
That's not what I said. I didn't say anything about any writer of any article. I said:
Ok, then maybe I can just blame your extremely poorly worded sentence.

Edit: Although we're talking about fear of "violence" not awkwardness, so you're still wrong there.

Quote:
Meadmaker, the writer of the doctor's-office-porn scenario, did not call the situational anxiety "Schrodinger's Rapist"; you did:
I know, I was telling him it was an expression of the same thought process. The only difference is SR doesnt even bother to give us an extreme scenario.

Quote:
But fair enough: what would you classify my situational anxiety, as related in the library porn incident above, to be motivated by? I've already told you it had nothing to do with fear of a violent assault; so what was it? And once you've given your answer, tell me if you think it might theoretically be possible for a woman who's feeling uncomfortable with certain situation involving a man to be motivated by concerns more closely resembling mine, than a fear of "violent assault"?
For a start the idea that its normal to see men all over the place looking at and watching porn openly is ridiculous. I've been alive for a number of years myself and cant think of a single time I've personally seen it. But if it really is that normal, then I have to say it goes against your argument, since if everyone does it its not abnormal anymore and can no longer be used the way you're using it. The whole intention of using it is that it is extreme and is abnormal, if its now a mundane scenario then its saying that in any situation its just as reasonable for a women to be fearful.

Secondly, if someone would so openly act like that then there is reason to think they have a mental issue that stops them from knowing how to act appropriately in social situations. For that reason there is a reason to suspect that they may have a behavioural disorder, which may possibly also include violence, but not necessarily.

Im sorry Checkmite but Meadmaker has already told us all what he thinks about men, so there's no possible way for you or him recharacterize his position as being something more reasonable now. Men are inherently violent because they are men and so women are justified at being afraid around all men. That is what he has said.

Last edited by Edx; 4th December 2012 at 11:26 AM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 10:54 AM   #504
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
Unless "naked man in women's locker room" or "man with porn in therapist waiting room" are "all men," then I haven't seen Meadmaker say what you characterize him as saying. I guess I must have missed it.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 11:13 AM   #505
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Unless "naked man in women's locker room" or "man with porn in therapist waiting room" are "all men," then I haven't seen Meadmaker say what you characterize him as saying. I guess I must have missed it.
Yes, you did miss it.

It all started with him saying testicles were "inherently violent" (hence why I keep putting that in quotes) which is why it is reasonable for women to fear men because men are "inherently violent" by the very nature of them being men, saying that we as men are able to suppress our "inherently violent" impulses.

I already said I have no idea how you'd really deal with the issue of transsexuals in a single sex dressing room, its a tough and complex subject. What I object to is Meadmaker's reasoning for justifying womans fear towards men.

Last edited by Edx; 4th December 2012 at 11:21 AM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 11:25 AM   #506
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
For a start the idea that its normal to see men all over the place looking at and watching porn openly is ridiculous. I've been alive for a number of years myself and cant think of a single time I've personally seen it. But if it really is that normal, then I have to say it goes against your argument, since if everyone does it its not abnormal anymore and can no longer be used the way you're using it. The whole intention of using it is that it is extreme and is abnormal, if its now a mundane scenario then its saying that in any situation its just as reasonable for a women to be fearful.

Of course it's abnormal - that's the entire point. We're arguing that it's reasonable, for a woman who would normally not care about getting into an elevator with a person, to suddenly be anxious about doing so when confronted with an abnormal scenario.

Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Secondly, if someone would so openly act like that then there is reason to think they have a mental issue that stops them from knowing how to act appropriately in social situations. For that reason there is a reason to suspect that they may have a behavioural disorder, which may possibly also include violence, but not necessarily.
Right! It might possibly involve violence, and it might not - but either way you don't want to be nearby, so you extricate yourself. You make an excuse to change computers or not go in the elevator with him. Right?

Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Im sorry Checkmite but Meadmaker has already told us all what he thinks about men, so there's no possible way for you or him recharacterize his position as being something more reasonable now. Men are inherently violent because they are men and so women are justified at being afraid around all men. That is what he has said.
Fine; forget his position and focus on mine. Given my reasoning, do you think it could be understandable for a person (by happenstance a woman) to experience anxiety in a situation involving another person (by happenstance a man) who is behaving in a sexually-odd manner?
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 11:27 AM   #507
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
I went back and read the exchange. Not my argument, I guess.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 11:36 AM   #508
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Of course it's abnormal - that's the entire point. We're arguing that it's reasonable, for a woman who would normally not care about getting into an elevator with a person, to suddenly be anxious about doing so when confronted with an abnormal scenario.
There is no reason for the scenario as I dont see it as comparable to the scenario in the OP. In fact as far as I know we dont know what the exactly happened is in the OP, the extremity of it differs considerably depending on what actually happened.

Quote:
Right! It might possibly involve violence, and it might not - but either way you don't want to be nearby, so you extricate yourself. You make an excuse to change computers or not go in the elevator with him. Right?
What I said and what he is saying is however very different, the level of risk we are both talking about and level of justifiable fear is not the same.

We can see it expressed in this extremely weird paragraph when he describes the hypothetical thought process:
Quote:
So it is with a man in the locker room. There's no imminent harm, but alarm bells will, and should, be going off all through the heads of any post-pubescent woman who is about to take off her clothes in that locker room. If she subsequently learns that the man self identifies as a woman, the anxiety level might go down, although if she subsequently learns that the man self identifies as a lesbian, all that anxiety would return, double strength. As noted before, she would be standing naked next to a big, strong, person who has a penis and would like to shag her. That's going to produce some anxiety in a normal woman
EDIT: This kind of thing is what sounds just like Schrodinger's Rapist. The man isnt creepy or scary because he is doing something creepy such as looking at hardcore porn openly in public, he is just there and by the very nature of him being a man she should be fearful of him. The fact that he makes the comparison at all shows you something about how he sees men in general. Add to that how we already know he sees men as inherently violent and how we need to overcome our violent compulsions tells us what he really means when he says all this. He tries to use an extreme scenario as a comparison but it fails because it is based on the idea that the man did something to make the fear/concern reasonable. This is then claimed to be the same as a man in a locker room with a women, but even as he described it, it comes down to the women being fearful of the man because he is a man regardless of whether the he did anything to justify that fear or not.

Quote:
Fine; forget his position and focus on mine. Given my reasoning, do you think it could be understandable for a person (by happenstance a woman) to experience anxiety in a situation involving another person (by happenstance a man) who is behaving in a sexually-odd manner?
I would say I answered that in the previous post.

Last edited by Edx; 4th December 2012 at 01:36 PM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 02:51 PM   #509
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
Just out of curiosity, since more seems to have arisen as to what happened. Was she naked in the sauna that was attached to the locker room, or was she naked in the locker room? If she was in the sauna and the kids were in the locker room, I see less of an issue. A lot of sauna's only have a small observation window that allow you to see if anyone is in there, often made of a frosted glass. If she was in such a sauna alone, I'd say that a lot of the issues, and allegations of "loitering" are completely unfounded.

Now having said that, I would still suggest that it is a poor idea to be naked in a public sauna, even if you weren't a TG with the opposite lower half than would be expected, but this is quite a different senario to sitting naked, legs open, in the public locker room area itself. Perhaps the best solution for this would be to institute a "swim wear only" policy for the saunas.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 4th December 2012 at 03:09 PM. Reason: found the missing "n't" floating under my desk where I must have dropped it.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 02:57 PM   #510
bumlet5
Indescribable
 
bumlet5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,366
I've skipped over the last few pages, but here is what I think happened based on the links I have seen:

Colleen has gone through the process to be known as a woman. Even though she sees herself as a female, she has decided to not go through with the genital reassignment surgery in order to skip the possibility that she could never enjoy sex again.

She goes to a gym, in which I am not sure of the frequency of nakedness in the sauna (other people. Is it a regular thing?) but I am going to assume it is for the sake of argument. Colleen, being legally known as a woman, uses the women's sauna. People use saunas without clothes, it happens.

A teenage girl sees a person in the sauna without clothes. She happens to notice that this person has a penis. Being a teenager, she automatically assumes the person is a man (due to misunderstanding the circumstances) and goes to tell the coach that there is a man in the locker room. The coach, not having seen or met the person in question, takes the girl at her word and action is then taken.

The girl didn't say that the "man" tried to touch her or that he was aroused- nothing that would cause anyone to believe that the person was doing anything other than sitting. The person was doing what any other woman would do in a sauna. She just happened to have a penis, also.

I have seen nothing to show that the girl understood that Colleen was transgendered or that the girl even knew what that meant. I have seen nothing to show that Colleen had any malicious intent. I have seen nothing to show that Colleen is a sexual predator.

If you have proof of any of this, please show me.
__________________

"I'm a soundwave tsunami, vocal origami, hijack the mic and it's not like anyone could stop me." -mc chris
"I've seen so much death" <("<) (>")> <("<) (>")> <("<) (>")> -Nathan Fillion
bumlet5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 03:23 PM   #511
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
People come up with weird ideas sometimes.

For example, speaking of "Schrodinger's rapist" Edx characterizes the article as

"its a fear that is aided and supported by fearmongering that most men are violent sexual abusers to such an extent that we need to fear all men by default."

In fact, in the original article, "most men" was actually 1 man out of 60, although that was viewed as a lower bound. The upper bound was given as 1 man out of 6.

Even if it were one man in 6, it would not be "most men", and would be off by at least a factor of 3.

The rest of Edx' analysis is of equal quality.




I have attributed the situational anxiety that women experience when naked around men as arising from a fear of sexual assault. I am not saying that this fear is calculated or even conscious. Since it is often has a subconscious source, I cannot truly say that most of it is really from a fear of sexual assault. That seems plausible as a source, but it could be something else. What I know for sure is that it is visceral, primal, and perfectly natural. Saying, "Don't worry about my penis. I'm a woman." isn't going to make the anxiety go away. In fact, it may very well increase the problem. If you add, "and a lesbian", .......... you figure it out.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 4th December 2012 at 03:29 PM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 03:40 PM   #512
No Nice Things
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by No Nice Things View Post
Okay, I did an impromptu poll of some female friends of mine in a FB group. Not everyone has responded yet. I simply asked how common it is in their experience that women are substantially naked (not counting the occasional flash while changing) in locker rooms/changing rooms/saunas.

So far: 5 answered never, 5 answered rarely (not including my vote), and one answered pretty common. None for frequently. The pretty common vote came from a non-American though.

Judging from their comments, none of them engage in such nudity themselves and several expressed discomfort with overly naked women in this context, so I can imagine the scenario here wouldn't have gone over well either.

We are an extremely pro-LGBT group. I didn't think they needed the actual discussion point to answer the more general experience question, so I didn't address it at all, but I'm confident that all or most of them would be reasonably supportive of transwomen using women's changing rooms/saunas, but not this particular behavior. Not sure if this helps, but it was interesting.
Since I see the norm question came up again. Here's the final tally:

Never: 7
Rarely: 12
Pretty Common: 1 (Non-American)
Frequently: 0
No Nice Things is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 03:42 PM   #513
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
Originally Posted by bumlet5 View Post
A teenage girl sees a person in the sauna without clothes. She happens to notice that this person has a penis. Being a teenager, she automatically assumes the person is a man ...
Another possibility is that she is playing the role of the heroine in a 21st century "edgy" adaptation of "The Emperor's New Clothes".
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 06:20 PM   #514
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Another possibility is that she is playing the role of the heroine in a 21st century "edgy" adaptation of "The Emperor's New Clothes".
Is there any evidence that she was doing more than just sitting in the sauna?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2012, 06:15 PM   #515
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
People come up with weird ideas sometimes.

For example, speaking of "Schrodinger's rapist" Edx characterizes the article as

"its a fear that is aided and supported by fearmongering that most men are violent sexual abusers to such an extent that we need to fear all men by default."

In fact, in the original article, "most men" was actually 1 man out of 60, although that was viewed as a lower bound. The upper bound was given as 1 man out of 6.

Even if it were one man in 6, it would not be "most men", and would be off by at least a factor of 3.

The rest of Edx' analysis is of equal quality.
How did I miss this?

You're wrong for various reasons. This is how we are presented with this information above. So she calls it a horrifying number and also proceeds to tell us how she sees the world when she leaves the house. She looks around and sees potential rapists everywhere, at her school, at work, at the gym and even the "nice guy who [appears to] want nothing more than companionship and True Love".
Quote:
Consider: if every rapist commits an average of ten rapes (a horrifying number, isn’t it?) then the concentration of rapists in the population is still a little over one in sixty. That means four in my graduating class in high school. One among my coworkers. One in the subway car at rush hour. Eleven who work out at my gym. How do I know that you, the nice guy who wants nothing more than companionship and True Love, are not this rapist?
We know that she is paranoid because she describes her behaviour as if this is normal. No, it is not normal behaviour to assume you are at such a high risk of getting raped and murdered and your body dumped somewhere by a man that you do this when going on a date...
Quote:
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
The article also starts out addressing men specifically, they are the claimed intended audience of the article. (They arent really, they are other feminists, but lets go with it. )

This is how the article starts:
Quote:
Gentlemen. Thank you for reading.

Let me start out by assuring you that I understand you are a good sort of person. You are kind to children and animals. You respect the elderly. You donate to charity. You tell jokes without laughing at your own punchlines. You respect women. You like women. In fact, you would really like to have a mutually respectful and loving sexual relationship with a woman.
Later on it again makes sure to say we're a "good guy"...
Quote:
Fortunately, you’re a good guy. We’ve already established that. Now that you’re aware that there’s a problem, you are going to go out of your way to fix it, and to make the women with whom you interact feel as safe as possible
But here's the interesting part, at the end the writers feels the need to tell us that we must not rape. This is an unconscious admission that she sees all men as potential rapists, men that would rape if they had the opportunity. And you know this because she's already directed the article toward the "good men", she's referring to everyone that isnt a rapist, that she still thinks is a potential rapist thats why she has to remind them not to. So either she didnt really mean that any man is genuinely good, and all men are potential rapists, or she has to concede that you can be a good person and also commit rape.

Quote:
The fifth and last point: Don’t rape. Nor should you commit these similar but less severe offenses: don’t assault. Don’t grope. Don’t constrain. Don’t brandish. Don’t expose yourself. Don’t threaten with physical violence. Don’t threaten with sexual violence.
Dont try and defend the article, you'll lose becuase this is what these people actually think. Someone was quick to point out in the comments that she was also only talking about stranger rape, and that most rape occurs from men the woman already knows. So if you extrapolate this level of fear toward a kind of rape that is the most rare form, toward the kind of rape that most likely happens, then you see just how paranoid these people are. If they believe the level of fear toward men is so reasonable that they legitimately feel they could very well be raped and murdered when they go on a date because its so prevalent, then can you imagine what kind of behaviour we should expect to see directed toward those men they are statistically more likely to be raped by? (ie. toward men they know; husbands, boyfriends, family members, friends) All of a sudden, all men have to be rapists, if you take this article at its word. Because even if they seem nice, even if they have been your friend for years, even if they are your father or your uncle, even if they seem to respect women and are a good person it doesnt matter, its so common that even the "good men" are so likely to rape we need to remind them not to.

You gave an example of a man reading porn in public in order to say this is the same thing as a women being afraid of a man in a lockerroom, in order to show there is a reason for the women to be fearful. But as I said in my last post, your comparison files utterly because you then compared it to a situation where the only thing the man does to give the women a reason to be fearful is BE a man.

Quote:
I have attributed the situational anxiety that women experience when naked around men as arising from a fear of sexual assault. I am not saying that this fear is calculated or even conscious. Since it is often has a subconscious source, I cannot truly say that most of it is really from a fear of sexual assault. That seems plausible as a source, but it could be something else. What I know for sure is that it is visceral, primal, and perfectly natural. Saying, "Don't worry about my penis. I'm a woman." isn't going to make the anxiety go away. In fact, it may very well increase the problem. If you add, "and a lesbian", .......... you figure it out.
I agree, that is certainly how women fear, with no help from anyone trying to allay their highly disproportionate levels of fear I might add. But you want to tell us that this fear is reasonable which is why you argued earlier that men are inherently violent. So its not just that women fear men, its that women are right to fear men. That is the problem here. My point is the fear is disproportionate to reality.

Last edited by Edx; 11th December 2012 at 06:44 PM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2012, 07:20 PM   #516
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Dont try and defend the article, you'll lose becuase this is what these people actually think.
She actually thinks what she actually wrote.

And she's right.

So, I'll defend the article. Now, why is it that I will lose, then? You seem to think it has something to do with the fact that she actually believes what she wrote. Well, yes. That's why she wrote it.

An awful lot of people who read that article seem to have magnified the fear that she discussed, creating a caricature of what she wrote. You seem to be one of those people. Nevertheless, what she actually wrote makes a great deal of sense.

You seem to greatly exaggerate her paranoia. It's particularly obvious when discussing her habit of leaving an address next to a computer when she goes on a date. Let's think about this. She's willing to get into a locked car with a guy she doesn't know very well. She sometimes knows that something will keep her from phoning her friend until late in the day the next day, from which I infer that she sometimes sleeps with these guys. That doesn't sound paranoid to me.

Oh. She tells her best friend that she'll be out on a date, and she leaves the guy's name and address next to the computer. That doesn't sound paranoid to me, either.

Have you ever read adivce to people who use dating sites? (or are you old enough to remember the print variety?) They all say make your first date somewhere in public, during the daytime. Coffee is the standard. Are those sites, which exist to bring people together for romance, paranoid? Why do you suppose they give that advice? It's because there really are rapists and murderers in the world. Of course you aren't likely to meet one, but somebody is going to meet them, so just to be sure, exercise common sense precautions.

And yes. It's just common sense.

ETA: And let's not forget that you said the article was about "most men", when in fact it was about 1 man in 6, or less.

ETA2: And your most recent post also contains several statements that are statements of fact, and the facts behind them can be verified, and your statements are just plain wrong.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 11th December 2012 at 07:25 PM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2012, 07:21 PM   #517
appalling
Critical Thinker
 
appalling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
Your fear of this article seems disproportionate to reality.
appalling is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2012, 07:41 PM   #518
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
She actually thinks what she actually wrote.
I can see exactly what she wrote, you're the one that wants to ignore what she actually says.

Quote:
An awful lot of people who read that article seem to have magnified the fear that she discussed, creating a caricature of what she wrote. You seem to be one of those people. Nevertheless, what she actually wrote makes a great deal of sense.
There's no need to misrepresent and caricature the article, if you were going to caricature fear mongering paranoia around rape you couldnt write it better than Schrodingers Rapist.

Quote:
You seem to greatly exaggerate her paranoia. It's particularly obvious when discussing her habit of leaving an address next to a computer when she goes on a date. Let's think about this. She's willing to get into a locked car with a guy she doesn't know very well. She sometimes knows that something will keep her from phoning her friend until late in the day the next day, from which I infer that she sometimes sleeps with these guys. That doesn't sound paranoid to me.
Your spin isnt going to work, she specifically says that her fear is that she will not only be raped, but that she will be murdered and that her body will never be found. On top of that she also gives this example as an example of typical behaviour and a fear that all women have that go on dates. This is not only showing how insanely paranoid she is, but also shows how twisted her view of the world is, since most women do not in fact have this level of fear for their safety like she implies they do.


Quote:
Have you ever read adivce to people who use dating sites? (or are you old enough to remember the print variety?) They all say make your first date somewhere in public, during the daytime. Coffee is the standard. Are those sites, which exist to bring people together for romance, paranoid? Why do you suppose they give that advice? It's because there really are rapists and murderers in the world. Of course you aren't likely to meet one, but somebody is going to meet them, so just to be sure, exercise common sense precautions.

When you are meeting someone off the internet that you dont know they could be anyone, hence the reason for the advice. Her entire argument is NOT that she should be fearful because she doesn't know them like on a dating website, that is not what she said. She has already argued that you could seem like the nicest person but you could still be a rapist (and murderer apparently). In fact, you could be a "good person" and "respect women" and have never raped a women, but she considers you so likely to rape her that she has to tell you not to rape anyway because in her mind all men are simply rapists that havent been in the right circumstances to allow that to come out, otherwise there's no reason to say it.


Quote:
ETA: And let's not forget that you said the article was about "most men", when in fact it was about 1 man in 6, or less.
It is about most men, thats exactly what she is talking about. If she wasnt then she wouldnt feel the need to tell even the "good men", the "good men" she addresses at the start and then later on as well, that they should not rape women. Why should good men be told not to rape? How can they be good men and be rapists at the same time? Clearly this article is not only about telling the "good men" how to approach a girl and not scare her, its also about telling the men who have yet to rape, not to rape.

If I tell a mother; look I know you're a good person, but please remember not to molest your children, then not only should she be insulted but I clearly dont really believe she's a good person, or I have one helleva messed up understanding of "good person".

To repeat myself again: even if they seem nice, even if they have been your friend for years, even if they are your father or your uncle, even if they seem to respect women and are a good person it doesnt matter, rape is so common that even the "good men" are so likely to rape we need to remind them not to.

Quote:
ETA2: And your most recent post also contains several statements that are statements of fact, and the facts behind them can be verified, and your statements are just plain wrong.
Thats nice and vague. In regards the OP you gave an example of how to justify a women feeling fearful of a man in a lockerroom, your example is invalid and you have still failed to deal with it. You argue the women who is next to the guy openly watching porn has a reason to fear him for that reason, but you cant connect that to a man in a lockerroom with a women because in your very own description of the scenario the man gave no reason to fear him other than he is a man.

Last edited by Edx; 11th December 2012 at 08:51 PM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2012, 07:57 PM   #519
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Thats nice and vague.
Ok. Let's get specific.

Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Someone was quick to point out in the comments that she was also only talking about stranger rape, and that most rape occurs from men the woman already knows.
She's talking about leaving a name and contact information next to her computer, so obviously she isn't "only talking about stranger rape".


If I were to detail all the similar examples where your statements were just plain wrong, I would spend far too much time typing.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2012, 08:11 PM   #520
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Ok. Let's get specific.



She's talking about leaving a name and contact information next to her computer, so obviously she isn't "only talking about stranger rape".
You didn't read the comment I refered to didja?

Here's the comment.
Quote:
You forgot the important statistic though: Three quarters of rape are by men already known to the women. Being a stranger isn’t the big problem.
Another commenter writes...
Quote:
...the vast majority of rape, is carried out by someone who knows the victim...
Going on a date with someone you dont know/being approached by someone you dont know is a stranger, compared with someone you already know such as your husband/friend/boyfriend/immediate family. So if the level of fear and behavior expressed in Schrodingers Rapist directed to a demographic of men that only accounts for a 1/4 of all rapes is reasonable, then what do you think is the appropriate level of fear that should be directed to the demographic of men that accounts for 3/4 of the men most likely to rape you, like your husband/friend/boyfriend/immediate family?

Also while her article mentions going on a date this was only to give an example of how fearful women are, the claimed purpose of the article at the start was to talk about how a man can approach a women they dont know, ie. strangers.

And for the nth time again, you dont tell "good men" to "not rape" unless you either think they arent really good men, or that you think you can be a good person and still be a rapist. Either way the message is clear, all men are rapists, even the ones that seem good.

Here's another comment I noticed.
Quote:
That doesn’t take into account gray rape or men who “convince” their partners to have sex they do not want.
I also love how rape is also to "“convince” their partners to have sex they do not want. " Not threats of violence or something else heinous mind you, just "convince". And thats exactly what happened with this guy who had been convinced by feminists like this that he had raped his past girlfriends because of something so terrible as foreplay and acting at all upset or disappointed that she didnt want sex. Thats rape now too, apparently.


Quote:
If I were to detail all the similar examples where your statements were just plain wrong, I would spend far too much time typing.
Still wont deal with the actual comparison you made earlier with the guy reading porn in public, eh? Didnt think you could because you already know it doesnt fit what you were using it for.

Last edited by Edx; 11th December 2012 at 08:44 PM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:26 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.