Unintended consequence of ***some*** modesty teachings is distrust of men and other insights

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's possible but the evidence doesn't support it, which is why I said it.  

But come on.  After what you said about women who believe that all men are potentially rapists, how can you talk about "imputing motives to the other guy" with a straight face?  

Because prejudice is, by its very nature, irrational and unreasonable.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

nd the reason is this:  Women cannot tell the ones that will hurt and harm and harass from the ones who won't.  You.  All.  Look.  And. Act. The. Same. until it's too late for us to safe ourselves.

And to be clear this is not for the want of trying, laziness, not being able to see that nonraping men are actually very different from men who rape (since it is not possible to tell the difference by appearance and most behaviour), etc.

Edited February 14 by Calm

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

So we're in the "imputing motives to the other guy" mode of the discussion now?

No, we are in describing what we are seeing mode.

Okay.

What I am seeing is rank prejudice and bigotry being not just excused, but justified and praised, and opposition to it being excoriated as tantamount to disregarding the safety of women.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And it's never true as to "all men."  Nobody here can claim to have "knowledge, thought ,or reason" as to "all men."

Okay.  I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

"All men are potential rapists" remains, in my view, a patently prejudiced statement.

Thanks,

-Smac

When I go on walks, sometimes it'll be in a spot that no cars drive by and there could be a situation where someone could cause harm without someone seeing in time. There have been times when I feel safe enough and then some times that I don't and then I'll have this odd adrenaline hit me where I run faster than I had ever thought possible until I find the safe spot again. It's just a short span that is iffy, but I guess I love the walk near a creek etc. so I take the chance. So at that time any man is a threat. Now do you understand? It's in this context, not the ones you have in your mind, I'm guessing. Or sometimes it could be women as well, it all just depends. So in these situations, aren't all male and females potentially a threat? 

Edited February 13 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Your lack of acknowledging my attempt to bridge a gap makes me think we might be talking past each other. I thought we were closer in agreement or am I misreading you? I thought my post was a concession that I understand why women would consider themselves in potential danger.    

I'm trying to understand why you want to bridge the gap by lumping men and women together in a discussion about male sexual violence.  Because from my perspective, I'm not sure the concession is beneficial or provides any solutions that will positively impact rates of male violence or help women feel safer.  But I want to know why you believe the concession is beneficial or what it's worth before responding so I can make sure I'm understanding your point.

To explain why I don't understand the benefits of that concession, I see it as similar to being in a discussion about rates of injuries from dogs compared to cats and having someone suggest that the best way to move forward is to say that both cats and dogs are potentially dangerous.  Sure, the statement is true (and dog lovers who bristle at ordinances and laws meant to protect people from dogs would probably latch onto it with both hands), but how does it decrease the number of people who are mauled to death by dogs each year? 

Going back to the idea that "it's best to say we're all potentially dangerous," how is it best and who is best for, from your perspective?  While I think we can all agree it's a true statement, how is it relevant and what problems does it attempt to solve specifically in regards to the topic of male sexual violence against women?

(I'm sincerely trying to understand what you are saying and not being snarky).

 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

When I go on walks, sometimes it'll be in a spot that no cars drive by and there could be a situation where someone could cause harm without someone seeing in time.

Yes.  Some Aileen Wuornos wannabe might target you and murder you.

Therefore, you are justified in declaring that all women are potentially hooking serial killers.  All women.

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

There have been times when I feel safe enough and then some times that I don't and then I'll have this odd adrenaline hit me where I run faster than I had ever thought possible until I find the safe spot again. It's just a short span that is iffy, but I guess I love the walk near a creek etc. so I take the chance. So at that time any man is a threat.

A potential threat, anyway.

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Now do you understand?

Only if you are saying "When I say 'all men are potential rapists,' I am not referring to 'all men,' but to men whom I may encounter in compromised or isolated circumstances, and/or is acting suspiciously, it is this vastly smaller subset of 'men' that I, in the moment, may view as 'potential rapists.'"

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It's in this context, not the ones you have in your mind, I'm guessing.

"All men are potential rapists" cannot be justified by adding context, because context negates the categorical prejudice, and even the very coherence of the statement. 

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Or sometimes it could be women as well, it all just depends. So in these situations, aren't all male and females potentially a threat? 

If we give in to paranoia (that is, "unjustified suspicion and mistrust of other people or their actions"), then yes.  Otherwise, such categorical declarations are per se prejudicial.

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Only if you are saying "When I say 'all men are potential rapists,' I am not referring to 'all men,' but to men whom I may encounter in compromised or isolated circumstances, and/or is acting suspiciously, it is this vastly smaller subset of 'men' that I, in the moment, may view as 'potential rapists.'"

So you do agree that it is rational to view "all men are potentially rapists"?  If a woman is in a isolated circumstance, then she should treat all men as a potential rapist?

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Because prejudice is, by its very nature, irrational and unreasonable.

Then it can’t be prejudice because women are giving rational and reasonable explanations for why they feel this way.

Glad we sorted that out.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  Some Aileen Wuornos wannabe might target you and murder you.

Therefore, you are justified in declaring that all women are potentially hooking serial killers.  All women.

Is this  real fear you have? You commented earlier that you have never once feared rape. And now you are mocking those that through sad experience go through life on guard every single day? 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, webbles said:

So you do agree that it is rational to view "all men are potentially rapists"? 

No.

3 minutes ago, webbles said:

If a woman is in a isolated circumstance, then she should treat all men as a potential rapist?

"All men whom a woman encounters in isolated/compromised circumstances, and/or who behaves suspiciously in those circumstances," yes.  That would be reasonable.  But "All men are potential rapists" is a categorical statement.  It denigrates literally all men, with no regard as to behavior or circumstance.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Quote

When I go on walks, sometimes it'll be in a spot that no cars drive by and there could be a situation where someone could cause harm without someone seeing in time.

Yes.  Some Aileen Wuornos wannabe might target you and murder you.

Therefore, you are justified in declaring that all women are potentially hooking serial killers.  All women.

Is this  real fear you have?

Not really.  I was responding to Tacenda's hypothetical.

That said, I resort to heightened situational awareness when circumstances warrant it.  This never involves me thinking of whole categories of persons (women, men, Muslims, blacks, etc.) to be "potential rapists" or murderers or whatever.

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You commented earlier that you have never once feared rape.

No.  But I have had other experiences where I have feared other types of untoward behavior.

For example, I was once groped by a gay man, but I would not use that experience as justification for categorically condemning all gay men everywhere as "potential" instigators of unwanted sexual contact.  

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And now you are mocking those that through sad experience go through life on guard every single day? 

I'm not mocking anyone.  There are substantial numbers of sexual assaults committed by women these days.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 13 by smac97

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

By your reasoning, men are justified in designating all women as potential hooking serial killers.    You.  All.  Look.  And. Act. The. Same. until it's too late for us to save ourselves.

 

If you believe your safety is improved by approaching women as potential serial killers, I say go for it.  Causes no issue or offense for me.  
 

——

Do you lock your home or car doors when leaving, @smac97?

Edited February 14 by Calm

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

If you believe your safety is improved by approaching women as potential serial killers, I say go for it.  Causes no issue or offense for me.  

I don't need to denigrate all women, or harbor patently prejudiced views about them, as part of looking after my personal safety.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

There are substantial numbers of sexual assaults committed by women these days.

And a thread discussing how to be safe in that context would be useful.  Feel free to start one though as this thread is about why women distrust men, though a bit off target from what was originally foreseen.

———

Are you ever planning on answering my original question to you, Smac?

Quote

What do you think distrust of men by women if women were to accept the idea that men can’t control their sexual thoughts about women leads women to think?

———
And by the way since you said earlier:

Quote

I have no problem with a woman evaluating my behavior

If so, why have a problem with women saying all men are potential rapists which is about evaluating every man’s behaviour and not assuming there are safe types out there from whom we can ignore warning signs.

Edited February 14 by Calm

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't need to denigrate all women, or harbor patently prejudiced views about them, as part of looking after my personal safety.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am not denigrating all men or harboring prejudicial views by describing them as potential rapists anymore than I am denigrating a crowd of men by saying I can’t tell who is and isn’t  a rapist among them and certainly can’t tell who might be a potential rapist among them and for all I know every one of them could be a rapist or none of them now or sometime if the future.

Thankfully I can say statistically speaking there are tons more potential nonrapists in that group.

Edited February 14 by Calm

[Calm]

Do you always lock your home or car doors when leaving or do you only do it when you see someone creepy around? @smac97

Edited February 14 by Calm

[webbles]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

No.

"All men whom a woman encounters in isolated/compromised circumstances, and/or who behaves suspiciously in those circumstances," yes.  That would be reasonable.  But "All men are potential rapists" is a categorical statement.  It denigrates literally all men, with no regard as to behavior or circumstance.

Thanks,

-Smac

So, we just need to discuss all the situations where it is reasonable for women to view "all men as potential rapists".  Isolated/compromised circumstances and suspicious behavior is already covered.  We can also include parties (especially if alcohol is available but it doesn't need to be).  We can include public parks, sidewalks, trails (isolated and not isolated).  We can include homes, apartments, work places.  That includes a lot of places.  What isn't covered?  Where can a women NOT view "all men as potential rapists"?

[Rain]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

So, we just need to discuss all the situations where it is reasonable for women to view "all men as potential rapists".  Isolated/compromised circumstances and suspicious behavior is already covered.  We can also include parties (especially if alcohol is available but it doesn't need to be).  We can include public parks, sidewalks, trails (isolated and not isolated).  We can include homes, apartments, work places. 

Busy church buildings (look at Morningstar's posts on social), cars, buses, trains, filled classrooms, grocery stores...

2 hours ago, webbles said:

That includes a lot of places.  What isn't covered?  Where can a women NOT view "all men as potential rapists"?

 

Edited February 14 by Rain

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Rain said:

Busy church buildings (look at Morningstar's posts on social), cars, busses, trains, filled classrooms, grocery stores...

 

I can add library, parking lot, office building, classroom hallways, classroom closet…

Edited February 14 by Calm

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, webbles said:

So, we just need to discuss all the situations where it is reasonable for women to view "all men as potential rapists".  Isolated/compromised circumstances and suspicious behavior is already covered.  We can also include parties (especially if alcohol is available but it doesn't need to be).  We can include public parks, sidewalks, trails (isolated and not isolated).  We can include homes, apartments, work places.  That includes a lot of places.  What isn't covered?  Where can a women NOT view "all men as potential rapists"?

Gay bars?

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Gay bars?

Unfortunately no since rape is not about attraction generally speaking.

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, I have not done this.

I don't think someone who declares "I hate all Jews"  can credibly claim to "have reason and experience" to justify such a prejudiced statement.

If you said this about black men, it would be a prejudiced statement.

Yeesh.  So is this.

And this.

And female predators may look and act like Aileen Wuornos (in her good days, anyway).

By your reasoning, men are justified in designating all women as potential hooking serial killers.    You.  All.  Look.  And. Act. The. Same. until it's too late for us to save ourselves.

This reasoning, can be deployed to justify every sort of prejudice and bigotry.  Not just against men.  Against Blacks, Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, Hispanics.  You name a category and it can be preemptively declared to be "potential predators," and thus prejudice against them is justified.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, our opinions in regards to each other are worthless.  But this is a very important subject and I think it would be beneficial for you to talk to your daughters about it.  You could ask them, for example, how they tell the difference between a man who has ill intent toward them and one who doesn't and then hopefully a respectful and thought provoking discussion will flow between you guys from there. 

From most of your responses on this thread, it seems that you're not that knowledgeable about acquaintance rape statistics or the basics of sexual violence by men on women.  If you are interested in understanding this subject better it would probably be beneficial to watch a documentary on Ted Bundy (or read the book) because it goes into how men often use women's desire to appear helpful or be "nice" to harm them.  Missoula (about a rape crisis in that college town) by Jon Krakauer would also be helpful in that his books on these kinds of subjects are well referenced and driven by data. 

I think that one reason this topic can sometimes be hard for men is because most men are good men and they want to protect and be useful, and date rape and sexual violence by other men towards women can probably seem very nebulous from the perspective of how to keep loved ones safe.  That, and how the topic is so completely outside of most men's lived experiences.

I know it's hard to hear, that we can't tell the good men from the bad men.  It's also hard to have a man so completely dismiss women's lived experiences of sexual violence because he doesn't like how they make him feel or he thinks they are unfair to him in some way.  If you ever get to the point where you are capable of seeing this from a woman's perspective (and hopefully a discussion with your daughters could help with that), I think you could be an incredible ally for women on this topic.

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't need to denigrate all women, or harbor patently prejudiced views about them, as part of looking after my personal safety.

Thanks,

-Smac

You absolutely don't, because you are male.  It is incredibly frustrating that you don't see the privilege in that

[Calm]

Quote

It continually astounds me how many people don’t seem to understand the basics of the Schrodinger’s Rapist analogy. Being that my blog has been getting some traffic from people who don’t get it, I thought I’d take a stab at elucidating the idea. If you haven’t read the original post, go there now, and I’ll wait here while you finish.

Okay, good. Now, the Not-Really-Getting-It responses to this analogy are generally along the lines of:

You think all men are rapists! (incorrect)

You think all men are potential rapists! (correct or incorrect, depending on what you actually mean)

The “all men are potential rapists” bit is not saying what many people seem to think. It’s not saying that you in particular, Dear Reader Who Would Never Rape Anyone, might rape someone. It’s saying that an unknown person in public that you have no information about could potentially be a rapist. That is what you, Dear Reader, are when you approach a stranger in a public place. To that stranger, you’re an unknown. You know yourself out to ten significant figures, but a random stranger can guess out to one or two at best.

Imagine a friend asks you to play a game of Russian roulette. Serious Russian roulette, with a six-shooter and a single bullet. If you say no because you don’t want to die, is it appropriate for your friend to object by arguing, “What, do you think all of the chambers are loaded?” Of course not, because that’s not the point, is it? The point is that one of them is loaded, so each turn of the game you play could potentially kill you.

In this Russian roulette scenario, you, Reader Who Would Never Rape Anyone, are an empty bullet chamber. But not all of the chambers are empty, and on a given turn, the people playing the game have no idea whether the chamber that’s lined up to fire is you or one with a bullet in it. Until the gun is fired, Schrodinger’s Bullet. This is analogous to the type of situation Schrodinger’s Rapist is describing.

If you still think the most reasonable response to Schrodinger’s Rapist is that it’s ridiculous because not all men are rapists, I have made a list of other arguments you ought to be comfortable making, to illustrate the point.

You’re about to have sex with a new partner. That partner asks you to get tested for STIs beforehand. You respond with, “What the hell? Not everyone has an STI, you know!”

You get bitten by a wild animal. Your friend suggests you get rabies shots just to be safe. You respond with, “What the ****? Not all wild animals have rabies, you know!”

Your friend advises you to wear a seatbelt. You respond with, “What the ****? It’s not like you’re going to get in a crash every time you drive, you know!”

You want to have sex with a new partner, they want birth control to be used. You respond with, “Seriously, do you think women get pregnant every time they have sex?!”

Your friend suggests you get a flu shot. You respond with, “Jesus, do you think everyone gets the flu every year?!”

Does it make sense now? Schrodinger’s Rapist is not an argument of personal accusation, it’s an argument of statistics and precautionary measures. It’s an argument from trying to make the safest decision while not having all of the information that would be ideal to have. Not everyone has an STI, but a new partner could potentially have an STI, which is  why people get tested. Not every wild animal has rabies, but the one that bit you is potentially a carrier of rabies, and it’s better safe than dead. Not every car trip ends in a crash, but every car trip could potentially end in a crash, which is why you wear a seatbelt. Not everyone gets the flu every season, but there is a chance that you could get it, so you get inoculated.

https://researchtobedone.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/for-those-who-dont-understand-schrodingers-rapist/

Just in case too busy/lazy to read the whole thing…

”Schrodinger’s Rapist is not an argument of personal accusation, it’s an argument of statistics and precautionary measures. It’s an argument from trying to make the safest decision while not having all of the information that would be ideal to have.”

This is the original blog that needed the explanation for some reason:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190305001216/https://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger’s-rapist-or-a-guy’s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/

Edited February 14 by Calm

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

And to be clear this is not for the want of trying, laziness, not being able to see nonraping men are very difference from men who rape, etc.

Exactly.

It's because women have been raped by "friends" that they have known for over 20 years, by people they trusted unequivocally, by return missionary fiances they knew well enough and trusted enough to agree to marry, by family members who were supposed to love them, by someone they were trying to help, in public places, in restrooms, in cars, in homes...

****These are all instances where I personally know the person or know of them and their story has been verified.