I could not imagine living my life as these people do. To have such a skewed view of the world where every man is considered a rapist, and where one has to be in a constant state of high alert. It must be fucking exhausting to be like that day in and day out. To not be able to genuinely enjoy anything in life because one is always on the lookout for some threat or danger. What kind of life is that? How can someone even function as a normal human being when this is all they think about?
And that's the point. These people are damaged. They have had something so traumatic happen to them at some point in their lives that they have not had the strength, or means, to actually deal with it. They have not been able to let those traumas go or face them head on and begin healing. They have let it consume them and they have forgotten how to live life without that fear and constant sense of being a victim. And that fear and victimization has become so familiar to them that it is hard to let go because in some sense, it comforts them. It is the one thing that they can control, because they might feel they can't control anything else in their lives.
Being a victim gets you sympathy and attention. It makes you feel special and safe when others come to comfort you. It allows the victim to say that nothing is their fault. These responses can be very appealing... Addictive almost. Letting go of being a victim means losing all of those things and forces you to stand on your own two feet. For many, this is a terrifying thing to even consider, and so remaining the victim is preferable.
I truly do feel sorry for those that have chosen to live like this. And yes, it is a choice... One always has a choice. Sadly, these people have chosen to remain fearful victims. But make no mistake. Just because one chooses to remain a fearful victim does not entitle them to anyone's sympathy or compassion. If people choose to enable them with sympathy and compassion that is their choice, but others will not choose to do so. That does not mean that those who choose not to enable them are being heartless or mean. It just means that they do not see any real benefit in doing so, or they see a benefit in not doing so.
Most people will feel sorry for you for a moment or two, but then they will expect you to stop using your fear and victimization as a reason for all the bad shit that happens in your life because, ultimately you are the one who decides whether past events will dictate your future or not.
Most of us have had bad shit happen to us, but we learn from it and move on. We don't let it rule our lives and dictate how we will proceed as life goes on. We understand that life moves on with or without us, and if we want to enjoy this one life we have, we cannot be stuck in the past with all our baggage.
Apparently, you need the lottery explained to you.
ReplyDeleteWhy do people play the lottery? If you point to the ticket someone just bought and ask if that one will win the jackpot, they'll laugh and say no. So why do it? Because the chance of winning is large enough to be worth the effort of buying tickets day after day.
Read that a few times over until it sinks in. Understand it? Good. Now let's do some word substitution:
Why do people take precautions against rape? If you point to a stranger on the street and ask someone if that one will rape them, they'll laugh and say no. So why do it? Because the chance of getting raped is large enough to be worth the effort of taking precautions against rape.
Now do you get it?
Yes, because dripping condescension always wins over your interlocutor?
DeleteAnyhoo, there are some issues with the analogy. "If you point to the ticket someone just bought and ask if that one will win the jackpot, they'll laugh and say no. So why do it?" Well actually they would say "maybe" because if they buy a ticket they have some chance of winning, incredibly small but a chance nonetheless. They buy because despite the low chance of hitting the jackpot, if they do they win really big. That small but real chance and fantasies of what they'd do with such riches is why they go to the effort and cost of buying the ticket.
Then of course there's the wee fact that most people lose the lottery...
Anyways, the main point of your response seems to be justifying precaution and this response made to a post titled 'All Men are Rapists'. Nowhere within this post is there the suggestion that no one should ever take any precaution but that certain people given to excessive worry should quit seeing rapists around every corner, demonising a gender out of expediency. Your response implies - and I admit I may be misreading you - that this 'is' a reasonable position, that one should act as though any man may in fact be a rapist so assume they are the worst until proven otherwise. Does one assume that everyone is a potential violent thief, thug or murderer? That every car may suddenly slew out of control and run you down? These are everyday occurrences after all. But I very much doubt that you do because whilst very possible events, they're not exactly common.
"Yes, because dripping condescension always wins over your interlocutor?"
DeleteYou may wish to tell that to Wooly Bumblebee: "Apparently JT is saying that all atheists are 'movement atheists', according to his pre-k doodle which got him a silver star."
"Anyhoo, there are some issues with the analogy."
You bet! But they're not the ones you bring up. "Incredibly small chance of winning" matches well with "small chance of being raped." "Most people lose the lottery" goes with "most people are not raped." You've really just reinforced my point, but whatever because:
"Nowhere within this post is there the suggestion that no one should ever take any precaution but that certain people given to excessive worry should quit seeing rapists around every corner, demonising a gender out of expediency."
See, here's the funny thing. I went looking at FreeThoughtBlogs for posts by McCreight, Bensen, Christina, Zvan, and Thibeault for posts that discussed rape and men. The best I could find came from the Thibeault:
"One of them, in this last post, suggested that I believe all men are rapists. I do not. I don’t even believe all men are capable of rape. I have made the point previously that I will not brook statements that all men are rapists, and I stand by it — if you make this statement and refuse to recant, you will be summarily banned, I don’t care whose side of the argument you claim to be on."
Zvan weighed in on rape recently, but that was over war-time rape. And... that's it. Thinking I'd missed something, I checked the Slymepit. Nothing. Neither I nor the Slymepit have found evidence that any of the above bloggers demonize a gender.
So where did you get that idea from?
Or, maybe I'm misreading you, and you're making the same point John C. Welch does below. In which case, I ask you the same question:
When I lock my door, do I call you a thief? No? Then if I protect myself against rape, how am I calling you a rapist?
"You may wish to tell that to Wooly Bumblebee:"
DeleteNo I directed that to you, please don't try to excuse yourself by exclaiming, "but they did it too." Besides, I at least see some measure of difference between blog posts and commenter's trying to directly engage the blog poster. Your not going to win them over by putting them down from the outset.
""Incredibly small chance of winning" matches well with "small chance of being raped.""
I'm sorry but I never said that, I was refuting your contention that, "...ask if that one will win the jackpot, they'll laugh and say 'no'," which is incorrect, they think there is a small chance of winning not none. It was an error in your analogy that had it been worded properly from the outset would have meant you were making that comparison; that didn't suit so you fudged it some. As for, "Most people lose the lottery" goes with ""most people are not raped,"" well that's true, most folks are not raped. Oh and merely asserting that this somehow reinforces your point does not make it so.
"See, here's the funny thing. I went looking at FreeThoughtBlogs for posts by McCreight, Bensen, Christina, Zvan, and Thibeault for posts that discussed rape and men."
Did I accuse them specifically of doing so?
"Then if I protect myself against rape, how am I calling you a rapist?"
Ahhh but what do define protecting yourself as? If it entails no expectations on the random male like crossing the street then it probably doesn't matter to anyone else as they simply won't be aware; though I'd imagine fearing every random male as a potential rapist to be a somewhat discomfiting. Be like me going about thinking every male I see is a potential violent thief.
"No I directed that to you, please don't try to excuse yourself by exclaiming, "but they did it too.""
DeleteI didn't excuse myself. I just pointed out that if you're criticizing me for being condescending, you should also be criticizing Bumblebee for the same. Will you?
"I was refuting your contention that, "...ask if that one will win the jackpot, they'll laugh and say 'no'," which is incorrect, they think there is a small chance of winning not none."
*sigh,* if you want to be a pedant, fine:
"Why do people play the lottery? If you point to the ticket someone just bought and ask if that one will win the jackpot, they'll laugh and say it's unlikely. So why do it? Because the chance of winning is large enough to be worth the effort of buying tickets day after day."
"Why do people take precautions against rape? If you point to a stranger on the street and ask someone if that one will rape them, they'll laugh and say it's unlikely. So why do it? Because the chance of getting raped is large enough to be worth the effort of taking precautions against rape."
Happy? Then I have some homework for you: tell me how this new argument substantially differs from the old one.
"Did I accuse them specifically of doing so?"
Yes: "certain people given to excessive worry should quit seeing rapists around every corner, demonising a gender out of expediency." Or are you going to be a pedant again, and claim you weren't *really* talking about FtB, even though Bumblebee's post was directed specifically at them?
"Ahhh but what do define protecting yourself as?"
I see your shtick: when you are losing an argument, you start re-defining words or shifting the context, to confuse the issue or shift the argument in your favor. So let's take a different tactic:
1. What percentage of the time can a woman successfully tell who is a rapist and who is not?
2. How often do they falsely guess someone is a rapist? And how often do they miss an actual rapist?
3. What is the cost of falsely thinking someone is a rapist?
4. What is the cost of falsely thinking someone is not a rapist?
Yes, there's no way to put an exact number for any of the above. That doesn't matter, because every woman is also forced to guess at these values. Just ballpark some numbers, we'll play around with them during the cost-benefit analysis.
"I didn't excuse myself."
DeleteUmmm yes you did, you're trying to absolve yourself of pointless condescension by crying that the other person is doing it too so that must mean it's okay for you. Then you forgot what I followed with, "Besides, I at least see some measure of difference between blog posts and commenter's trying to directly engage the blog poster." As I said before, if you're trying to directly engage and persuade the blogger as responding on a comment board implies, you're probably not going to get very far talking down to them. You could have simply said that you couldn't care less about how Wooly takes it and your aiming at everyone else and we'd have been done.
Now I had a lot more written about the rest but I think there may be some misconstruing of positions occuring and we're arguing about different things. I took your argument by analogy to a blog post about not living in constant fear to be a refutation of that position. That constant fear and viewing all men as potential rapists and treating them as such is reasonable, however, subsequent comments seem to be focusing on precautions. Can you clarify, by precaution do you mean that the fear is justified so that all men should be viewed as potential rapists and treated as such, or is precaution just a carried weapon / deterrent and awareness?
You are arguing against statements I never made.
DeleteYou are ignoring my questions.
You ignored my observation that you're splitting hairs, in favor of splitting a few more.
It's clear I'm no longer needed here, you're more than entertained by the wonderful strawman you've constructed, and the two new hairs you can split for every one you slice. Have fun!
"You are arguing against statements I never made."
DeleteI agree, this might be the case as I am now of the impression that you appear to be arguing against a position not expressed in the blog post, which is why I was asking for clarification or as you call it splitting hairs and ignoring your questions. I said as much in my last comment, "I think there may be some misconstruing of positions occuring and we're arguing about different things," but you don't seem to be reading what I'm saying.
"You are ignoring my questions."
I see no point in answering if we're talking about completely different things, that would only be an exercise in futility.
"You ignored my observation that you're splitting hairs, in favor of splitting a few more."
That might be because I think the observation was just an assertion and a symptom of us talking past each other. Like I said I was looking for clarification, if I were ignoring your questions I'd have just dismissed them and repeated the question, "Ahhh but what do define protecting yourself as?"
"It's clear I'm no longer needed here, you're more than entertained by the wonderful strawman you've constructed, and the two new hairs you can split for every one you slice. Have fun!"
No longer needed!? Whatever do you imagine yourself to be? As for strawmen there are none, there is only what my impression was and it has been stated as such. That claim is as empty as the assertions of redefining words, shifting context and "losing" the argument were. 'Losing' as though this is some sort of contest and not an opportunity to learn. In fact the only one erroneously attributing things to the other is you, for example the assertion that I speak of specific FTB bloggers when I mention not a single one.
So to sum up I think you're saying that taking precaution is a reasonable position, just like keeping distance from a bunch of hoodied scobies would be to limit ones exposure to possible physical assault and robbery. Despite the quoted pieces later I don't think you mean to suggest that being constantly fearful and suspicious of all men at all times is reasonable; be as incorrect as thinking that as some Muslims blow themselves up for their faith it is therefore reasonable to fear and suspect them all. I have no disagreements here.
Hi, Wooly, excellent analysis, as always.
ReplyDeleteI, being in the receiving end of the "all men are rapists" BS, have been doing some thinking about this, and I´ve come to the conclusion that, while they seem to be living in constant fear, the A+´ers are more delusional than sad.
Yes, they seem to be afraid of every man they come across, but they also have a reason to explain away anything that happens in their life as somebody else´s fault, be it a man´s, society´s or the patriarchy´s.
If they don´t get a job, it´s because they were discriminated. If someone else has something they want, they got it because of privilege, not because they did something better than them.
If someone disagrees with them, it´s not because their arguments were flawed, but because the other person hates them because of their gender or social ideas.
The advantages they find in living in that state of mind fully outweigh the disadvantage of living in fear.
And that´s taking into account that I´m not even sure they really live in actual honest fear, but use the idea and emotional appeal of that fear to try to control the behavior of the people they don´t like (usually men, but also chill-girls) and to justify their own bigotry.
Someone who is actually scared that every man they come across could potentially rape them right there right now would find it extremely difficult to function in the world.
And lastly, I remember reading on twitter that you had some sort of man-related traumatic experience in the past, so I congratulate you on not letting that define you and on not projecting that event on every other male human in the planet.
Kudos to you and every other woman who has had the ability to do that.
You are describing clinical sociopathy.
Deletesigh...you're almost too stupid for words. however, i feel charitable, so here goes:
ReplyDeleteby your ridiculous analogy, either you walk around
1. wrapped in bubble wrap
2. with a lightning rod stuck up your ass
3. never eating solid food, being fed by IV
4. not being fed by IV, since that can cause infection
5. with an epi-pen in your pocket
6. with matches, fishing line, and other survival gear
and...
7. never take a shower
8. never leave your house
9. never toss your garbage
10. microwaving everything you eat
11. never drinking/drinking a glass of wine a day
12. taking or not taking vitamin supplements....
srsly, look stupid one, everything one does in life carries risk. EVERYTHING. for you to equate the probability of being raped with the probability of winning the lottery, is not only woe-is-me pathetic, it's also erroneous on its face, since different lotteries have different odds of winning (which just shows you don't understand middle school math), and since rape statistics, such as they are, are rife with under reporting, over reporting, lying, misinformation, and a slew of other problems that can't be controlled for, are not only misleading, but the likelihood is that rape statistics, whatever the source, are almost certainly wrong, which is ultimately to say, you're an idiot, you don't have a leg to stand your 'argument' on, and by the way, commits the logical fallacy of an appeal to the consequences.
now do you get it?
PS: you're not good at snark, jackass. leave that to the professionals.
iconografer @3: Wow. Not only does your reply fail to address any of my points, it reinforces my argument.
ReplyDelete"everything one does in life carries risk. EVERYTHING"
That's one area where my analogy falls flat. You need to buy a ticket to win a lottery, whereas you only need to be breathing to be raped. One event is determined by your actions, the other by someone else's. Both require very different strategies to deal with, and the latter in particular requires constant vigilance.
"since rape statistics, such as they are, are rife with under reporting, over reporting, lying, misinformation, and a slew of other problems that can't be controlled for, are not only misleading, but the likelihood is that rape statistics, whatever the source, are almost certainly wrong"
So are traffic statistics. They're always gathered after-the-fact, from a huge range of conditions which will never be the same as your own, and don't include incidents which never get noted by insurance companies or the police. Given all the problems with traffic statistics, then, will you give up wearing your seatbelt?
"the logical fallacy of an appeal to the consequences."
So you think I'm arguing the following, then:
1. The costs of being raped outweigh the benefits of taking a certain few precautions to minimize the odds of being raped.
2. It is possible some person will rape you.
3. Therefore, it follows from 1. and 2. that everyone will rape you.
"PS: you're not good at snark, jackass. leave that to the professionals."
Well, I've been schooled! I won't be snarky ever again.
HjH: I don't think amyone's saying that you shouldn't bother to take precautions against rape. Of course you should. But you need to be realistic about it; it doesn't need to be your overriding concern.
ReplyDeleteSince you seem to be fond of analogies, let's try another one. If it's cold outside, I'll probably need a coat if I go out. If it's raining, I might need an umbrella.
With me so far? Good, and hang on tight, because here's where it gets complicated.
So, do I need to carry a coat and umbrella everywhere I go, even inside the house, in case it gets cold or starts to rain?
rjmx @5: Good, good, you clearly understand my argument! Let's carry on with your analogy, then:
ReplyDelete1. If it's cold outside, I'll probably need a coat.
2. Do I need to carry a coat [...] everywhere I go?
Now, that would be analogous to my arguments if I claimed we are under the same level of threat at all times. That I had to always be on guard against rape, even in situations that I know are highly unlikely to end in rape.
Where do I make that claim?
I watched this video by the RSA the other night: http://youtu.be/XBmJay_qdNc?hd=1
ReplyDeleteFrom their description:
"Are you more honest than a banker? Under what circumstances would you lie, or cheat, and what effect does your deception have on society at large? Dan Ariely, one of the world's leading voices on human motivation and behaviour is the latest big thinker to get the RSA Animate treatment.
Taken from a lecture given at the RSA in July 2012 . Watch the longer talk here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGGxguJsirI"
I think this gives some interesting insight into the mindset of Watson et. al. The talk was interesting enough for me to buy his book, it's next on my list once I am done reading "The Science of Evil", which interestingly enough also starts to explain a few things about Watson et. al.
While we're linking to things, here's something more on-topic:
ReplyDelete"The first thing people did, of course, was deny at length and with many attempts at diversion that we should be talking about rape at all. There were demands for statistics, demands for the sources of statistics (which had already been given), demands that we talk about women exactly the same way we talk about men despite no evidence that female soldiers do the same thing. [...]
he also claimed that Greg was “calling all soldiers in all places in all of history rapists.” And that Greg needed to apologize. And a whole bunch of other crap that was anything but discussing the problem of rape in wartime.
It was a great distraction. Since the idea of Schroedinger’s Rapist hadn’t been presented yet, we spent quite a bit of time trying to get that same idea across."
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/09/15/too-ugly-to-be-raped/
As for Schroedinger's Rapist, it's what I argued above:
"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.
“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. [...]
Do you think I’m overreacting? One in every six American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. I bet you don’t think you know any rapists, but consider the sheer number of rapes that must occur. These rapes are not all committed by Phillip Garrido, Brian David Mitchell, or other members of the Brotherhood of Scary Hair and Homemade Religion. While you may assume that none of the men you know are rapists, I can assure you that at least one is. 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?
I don’t."
http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/
Your kinda misusing statistics, even allowing your number of every unequivocal rapist committing ten - where does that number stem from btw? - to extrapolate your number of one in sixty, it does not follow that four of your class, one of your co-workers etc. must be a rapist. There is a possibility one could be, then again they may very well just be an ordinary person with no designs on forcibly taking anyone ever. How do you know which classmate, which co-worker? Do you malign them all, treat them all as though they're sexual predators? The point is, and the article, that you should not be going around fearful of every man you see merely because they're male. Don't be careless, be savvy yes just like you are about your possessions or other drivers, but don't just assume that every guy is Schroedinger's rapist
DeleteActually I just realised that you were quoting someone else and as such can hardly know where they got their numbers from or be expected to defend them. However, I still think that preemptively maligning people is not a good approach but I'm not going to argue other peoples statements with you.
DeleteRead my reply to John C. Welch below, and give your own answer.
DeleteTHe problem is Hornbeck, what Schroedinger's "Rapist" is talking about is actually "Schroedinger's *Potential* Rapist".
ReplyDeleteSee, and this is the part where you seem to miss why people get pissed: when you say "women don't know if a man is a rapist or not", what you're saying is: "We have to behave as if all men *have already committed rape, and are looking to do it again". That's what the word "rapist" means in unqualified usage.
This isn't treating unknown men as if they *might* be bad people. SR is saying "all men ARE bad people, until you manage to prove otherwise." Really. When you call someone a rapist, which is what SR does to every male on the planet, you're saying "You've already raped someone, we just don't know about it yet."
I know this will seem very, very strange to you, but people have this really weird, unfathomable reaction to being accused of crimes and evil actions they haven't committed: They get angry about it.
I know, it's so weird, but some people just think, they have this fucked up idea that you should be judged on what you are ACTUALLY doing, not what someone else with the same reproductive bits did to someone else, or what you MIGHT do based on blind supposition that is actually at odds with *clear* majority of of danger sources in terms of rape and sexual assault.
So maybe, and this is just a thought, but maybe change it to Schroedinger's *Potential* rapist, it might work better.
Or you could, you know, stop using concepts that are completely ridiculous to manage real problems, but we know THAT'S not happening.
Excellent point, John, but you can expect it to be dismissed in favor of more justifications for cowering in fear at all times.
DeletePardon me while I go get my meteor helmet; I'm going out for lunch, and impacts can happen anywhere!
If I lock my door, am I calling you a thief? No? Then if I protect myself against the possibility of rape, how am I calling you a rapist?
Deleteah, of course, the land of shitty analogies. Funny how 'Shroedinger's Black Man" is dismissed as rank racism, yet a crap analogy like "locking my doors" is considered raconteury writ large.
DeleteFirst, because you completely ignored it, SR is not saying men are *potentially* bad until proven guilty. SR is saying men *are* bad, *are* rapists until you can prove otherwise, until you can show you're "one of the good guys". I'll assume you also believe in Laden's idiocy about men being testosterone-damaged women with rape switches too. I've yet to see evidence you disbelieve anything from that lot, no matter how stupid.
So, once again, the definition of Rapist from *multiple sources*: "A person who has committed rape".
It's short, sweet, and clear. When you call someone a rapist, you are saying they have raped someone. Period. Not they *may* rape someone, but that they *have* raped someone, and so therefore, you must be on your guard lest yon stranger rape you as well. This ignores the rather large set of studies showing that strangers are the least of your worries, literally, in terms of rape. If you wanted to apply SR to reality, it would be aimed at *men you already know*.
But there's no fun in that, is there.
So, once again, so we're all on the same page about the word rapist.
Now, on to your simply execrable analogy. If you lock your door because you are being cautious against potential robbers regardless of gender, race, what have you, then actually makes sense. You don't want people who shouldn't be in your house in your house.
Now, if you tell me you only lock your door when a man comes by, I'm going to call you an idiot. For the same reason I call people who buy into SR an idiot, or someone who only locks their door when a black man comes by an idiot. You're not applying logic or reason to your precaution, you're being driven by prejudice. If someone only locks their door when known atheists or xtians come by? Idiots.
SR is not saying "Hey, around people you don't know, you should be careful, because well, you don't know them." *THAT* would actually be sensible. What it's saying is "Men are rapists until proven innocent." Do you have your guard up around women you don't know? Probably not, because you strike me as one of those white knight "women can't possibly do anyone harm" prats.
It's really simple: SR is based on an unreasoning fear not supported by any legitimate data and on one of the most flagrant cases of statistical manipulation i've ever seen, one that when applied to *any* other group is laughed out of the building, and rightfully so.
“Funny how 'Shroedinger's Black Man" is dismissed as rank racism, yet a crap analogy like "locking my doors" is considered raconteury writ large.”
DeleteIt’s not dismissed as “rank racism.” Here’s Crommunist’s take, for instance:
“Now there are two ways I could react to these encounters. I could rail against people for being racist and sexist and size-ist (if that’s a thing) – I’m so gentle and warm and loving! How dare they act as though I’m not? That’s one way – and it’s the stupid way. The other way is to recognize that while I strongly dislike the fact that people see me as dangerous because of how I look, it is up to me to decide what to do with that information. If I don’t care about spooking my neighbours, I don’t have to shuffle my feet – let them deal with their fright. But if I do care, then I have to find some way of mitigating that fear so we can coexist harmoniously.” - http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/2012/01/16/shuffling-feet-a-black-mans-view-on-schroedingers-rapist/
“SR is not saying men are *potentially* bad until proven guilty.”
I provided analogies to make it clearer that SR was arguing men are “potentially bad,” and not “bad.” You have not shown my analogies to be false, nor provided counter-analogies of your own, which makes that an assertion without evidence.
“I'll assume you also believe in Laden's idiocy about men being testosterone-damaged women with rape switches too.”
He was a bit more nuanced than you portray, but I still disagree with Laden on that point.
“This ignores the rather large set of studies showing that strangers are the least of your worries, literally, in terms of rape. If you wanted to apply SR to reality, it would be aimed at *men you already know*.”
It is, actually, hence it covers all men instead of just strangers. You’re also assuming the average woman has an unbiased view of who is most likely to rape them; thanks to popular culture, that’s not the case.
“Now, if you tell me you only lock your door when a man comes by, I'm going to call you an idiot.”
True! There’s no evidence to suggest men are more likely to rob you than women. The same can’t be said when it comes to rape: 97% of sex offenders are men ( see http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/sexcrimes/sas/statistics.php ).
“What it's saying is "Men are rapists until proven innocent."”
Strawperson. Your only evidence against my analogy was a false analogy. Try harder next time.
“It's really simple: SR is based on an unreasoning fear not supported by any legitimate data and on one of the most flagrant cases of statistical manipulation i've ever seen, one that when applied to *any* other group is laughed out of the building, and rightfully so.”
On the contrary, it’s based on a valid cost-benefit analysis, albeit with some bias as noted above. To prove that, here’s a spreadsheet: http://tinyurl.com/rapeSpreadsheet
Go on, play with the numbers and demonstrate that under reasonable assumptions, it makes no sense to always guard against rape. For extra credit, use the same spreadsheet to prove it makes no sense to do ethnic profiling at airports, changing only the probabilities and text labels. I can do it.