“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. “
This one is wrong too. But this is probably more a matter of her lack of understanding of how stats translate than anything else so I’ll mostly let it slide. Suffice it to say that this is not how frequentist probability works.
“How do I know that you, the nice guy who wants nothing more than companionship and True Love, are not this rapist? “
Rational and calm thought? Considering the realistic probabilities? Actually talking to the person and maybe finding out what kind of person they are?
“I don’t. “
Of course not.
“When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist. “
Ok, I waited until now to actually address the title of this thing. Just to show how ridiculous this essay is; Miss LonelyICan’tFuckingBelieveThoseIdiotsBoughtThisCrap couldn’t even get the title accurate.
Schroedingers Rapist is a reference to Schroedingers Cat. For those who don’t know Schroedingers Cat is a quantum mechanics thought experiment. In simple terms The Cat theorizes this:
Schrödinger’s cat: a cat, a flask of poison, and a radioactive source are placed in a sealed box. If an internal monitor detects radioactivity (i.e. a single atom decaying), the flask is shattered, releasing the poison that kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when one looks in the box, one sees the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead. This poses the question of when exactly quantum superposition ends and reality collapses into one possibility or the other.
The author is attempting to draw an anology between her ideas and The Cat. Here now is why they fail.
Schroedingers Cat is a matter of observation, or more precisely a lack of observation. It theorizes that since one cannot observe the cat, nor gain information about the status of the cat, you cannot know if the cat is alive or dead and so exists in a state where it is both until it can be observed.
She applies this to rape. Saying that she cannot know if a man is a rapist or not because she has no means of determinging either and thus any man she meets is both at once.
First of all, The Cat entails a lack of observation. However in The Rapist there is observation. She can observe the man and he her. Also the man is aware of whether he is a rapist or not. She also has information allowing her to determine whether he is a rapist or not (probability, body language, location of where they are meeting etc). So there is no simultaneous rapist/non rapist state present.
If she really wanted a pithy title what her essay should really be called is “Rapist of the Gaps”. Again, if you are unaware, the term “God of the Gaps” is a phrase often used by atheists in regards to many theistic arguments. It essentially comes up when a theist is asked to provide evidence for their god and their claim of evidence comes along the lines of “The world is so perfect and awesome that it simply has to be created by a god”. It’s a form of fallacy known as the argument from ignorance, which is when one claims that their proposition must be true because they can’t imagine or consider an alternative.
This describes her entire position perfectly. The entire reasoning that she presents for why it’s perfectly reasonable to treat all men as rapists is for no other reason than because she does not know if they are rapists or not. She presents no actual evidence to justify it. It’s entirely based on the fact that they could be and she doesn’t know for sure. So they must be rapists by default.
So, Rapist of the Gaps it is.
“You may or may not be a man who would commit rape. I won’t know for sure unless you start sexually assaulting me. I can’t see inside your head, and I don’t know your intentions. “
I don’t know, therefore rapist. Sounds perfectly logical.
I’ve been doing this for about fourteen pages of writing now and I’m starting to feel very, very sick and tired of this. Excuse me for a moment, I think I need to go to a happy place for a while.
“If you expect me to trust you—to accept you at face value as a nice sort of guy—you are not only failing to respect my reasonable caution, you are being cavalier about my personal safety. “
I really have to ask how this works exactly. If I have no intention of hurting you how am I putting you in danger by assuming that you’ll trust me enough to say hello without macing me on sight and running off crying to the nearest computer so that you can bitch and moan about what a violent asshole I was for thinking I was just being polite to a fellow human being. I mean I get that in your little made-up reality you feel that I’m threatening you. But you do realize that your feelings do not control reality right? Right? Just because you have an irrational feeling that your personal safety is at risk does not actually mean that it is at risk.
Do I actually need to take the time to elaborate on the difference between fantasy and reality to you?
Nevermind, that was probably a silly question.
Since it is your personal safety we are talking about anyway, one would have to wonder how I can be cavalier about it regardless.
“Fortunately, you’re a good guy. We’ve already established that. “
You’re a good guy. A rapist in training, but a good guy. Again, I have to point out that if we really are “good” guys then why is she afraid of potential rape whenever she is around a man? We’ve already established that her readers are good. So unless “good” equals “rapist” this would be entirely pointless to say.
“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. “
Why the flying fuck would I do that? We’ve established that the problem is entirely yours. You’re the one being crazy and irrational, so why is it my job to fix it. Aren’t you supposed to be the tough independant modern woman type?
Don’t get me wrong, I would certainly agree that I should take reasonable steps to ensure that a girl I like feels safe around me. But there are two important caveats.
1.I said reasonable steps. That does not mean that I should be in charge of making you feel safe just because you’re either too crazy and unwilling to get help or because your own irrational prejudices are the cause.
2.I said girl that I like. That’s because when you’re in a relationship, whether romantic or friendship, it is natural and more importantly human to care about their welfare and want to see them well. Even if it at times personally inconveniences you. I call it my “don’t be a selfish git” philosophy.
That does not however apply to every single person that I meet. Just because I am willing to inconvenience myself to help and console someone that I like, even if they’re being irrational, does not entile everyone I meet to the same. Also, and this is the very important part that you need to understand, it does not mean that I have to do this.
FOR FUCKS SAKE TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELF AND FOR YOUR LIFE YOU SELF-CENTERED, INFANTILE, DUMBASS. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO SPECIAL TREATMENT JUST BECAUSE YOU LACK THE ABILITY TO PROPERLY ASSESS REALITY AND HAVE YOUR REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS ON THE INSIDE!!!!! DON’t SIT THERE WITH YOUR THUMB LODGED UP YOUR ASS AND WHINE TO OTHERS ABOUT YOUR DESIRE TO BE ACCOMODATED! YOU ARE A CONDESCENDING AND CONNIVING SNAKE-OIL SALESMAN TRYING TO MARKET YOUR BRAND OF HATE AND ABJECT STUPIDITY TO PEOPLE WHO ARE TOO IGNORANT AND TOO TRAPPED BY THEIR PRIMITIVE GENDER IMPULSES TO REALIZE WHAT YOU’RE DOING! YOU ARE NOT A VICTIM!
Ahem. Sorry about that, I just had to get that out for a moment. The bile is rising a little faster than I would like. Let’s move on and get this shit over with..
“To begin with, you must accept that I set my own risk tolerance. “
Actually I must accept nothing. Unless you were suddenly given some sort of special authority I’m unaware of.
Also, it’s your risk tolerance. Which means you are the one responsible for it. Even if I actually was of a mind to care, I do not know what is in your head, so the onus is on you to act in such a way that so as to fix the problem if you feel your “risk tolerance” has been compromised. You have no such authority which allows you to dictate the behaviour of others, which makes you responsible for your own behaviour. If you don’t like the fact that a person is talking to you then you ask them not to, or you move. If they still follow you and talk to you, then you’re approaching the area of a crime, and there are people with actual authority you can go to for that. However just because you feel that your “risk tolerance” has been compromised does not mean that you are actually in any sort of danger. Nor does it mean others are obliged to respond to your subjective and erratic emotions.
“When you approach me, I will begin to evaluate the possibility you will do me harm. That possibility is never 0%. “
Yes, I know. We have long since established that you’re paranoid and mentally unstable. Can we move past this please?
“For some women, particularly women who have been victims of violent assaults, any level of risk is unacceptable. Those women do not want to be approached, no matter how nice you are or how much you’d like to date them. Okay? That’s their right. Don’t get pissy about it. Women are under no obligation to hear the sales pitch before deciding they are not in the market to buy. “
Agreed. However while she doesn’t have to listen it’s not their right to tell everyone else that they can’t make the sales pitch. If a woman does not want to be approached then there are actions that she herself can and should take. Sitting there waiting for a man to read her signals and solve the problem for her is not an action. You are capable of getting through a single day without the help of a man, right?
“The second important point: you must be aware of what signals you are sending by your appearance and the environment. We are going to be paying close attention to your appearance and behavior and matching those signs to our idea of a threat. “
There’s that must again. I really do wonder where she aquired this mystical ability to authoritatively dictate human discourse. Also note how she says “our idea of a threat”. So the criteria is still entirely subjective and based on the whims of the individual woman.. Which brings up the next logical question of how a man is supposed to be aware of what signals he is sending since the criteria to meet is “our idea of a threat”.
Followed by the next logical question of “who the hell read this and actually thought it was worthwhile?”
“This means that some men should never approach strange women in public. Specifically, if you have truly unusual standards of personal cleanliness, if you are the prophet of your own religion, or if you have tattoos of gang symbols or Technicolor cockroaches all over your face and neck, you are just never going to get a good response approaching a woman cold. “
So now we go towards also dictating who men can talk to and who they can’t. Not only that, but also dictating how all women will respond to any of the men that fall onto her list. I’m honestly wondering whether this statement is more offensive to men or to women. She is putting herself in the position of sole dictator regarding how people of all genders should behave.
She tosses away any consideration of who a person is or any actual value or good qualities they have, and simply based on appearances is not only saying that they have no right to even talk to a member of the opposite sex, that they will never even get a good response. Again not because of anything they have done or said, based simply on outward appearance. That is how a mans worth is determined. And I had thought men were supposed to be the shallow ones.
Furthermore this also claims that all women are equally as shallow as she is. I have to ask if you ladies actually feel good about this portayal? Keep in mind that this is another woman, a feminist, making you look like this. Are you starting to see why my opposite and I equated feminism to misogyny earlier. I honestly can’t think of a more debase depiction of women than the one she puts forth.
And speaking of women you do realize that women have their freaky styles as well, right? Does this mean that it’s cool for a guy to completely shun them as well? Somehow I’m beginning to suspect that there might be some sort of double standard.
“That doesn’t mean you’re doomed to a life of solitude, but I suggest you start with internet dating, where you can put your unusual traits out there and find a woman who will appreciate them. “
………All right. Now you’re just being a callous bitch solely for the sake of being a callous bitch.
“Pay attention to the environment. Look around. Are you in a dark alley? Then probably you ought not approach a woman and try to strike up a conversation. The same applies if you are alone with a woman in most public places. If the public place is a closed area (a subway car, an elevator, a bus), even a crowded one, you may not realize that the woman’s ability to flee in case of threat is limited. “
So you shouldn’t talk to a woman if you are alone in a private place. If you are alone in a public place. Or if you are in a public place that’s crowded but might be closed off and make it hard for her to flee (because it’s perfectly healthy for her to start planning out her escape routes immediately upon seeing a man). So basically you can only ever talk to a woman in a wide open public place surrounded by people where she can easily see the exit.
Seriously, you need treatment.
“Ask yourself, “If I were dangerous, would this woman be safe in this space with me?” If the answer is no, then it isn’t appropriate to approach her. “
1:By your own admission the answer is always no. The answer is no even if you know that he’s not dangerous. So what you really mean is that you can’t ever approach a woman.
2.If the person was dangerous and completely intent on doing dangerous things there would be no safe place at all. So again the answer is always no. Also it really doesn’t matter “if I were dangerous”. What would matter is whether I have done anything that should logically make her feel not safe. Not whether or not she feels safe because of her own irrational belief that everyone is after her body. I have no control over her mental deficiencies, so I have no obligation to cover for them. If she can’t function up to the standards of a reasonably normal human being in human society then she probably should have stayed home.
3:Did you ever think that maybe if you keep constantly telling every single man on the planet that they’re all automatically potential rapists and that all women are naturally scared, terrified, and helpless against them that this might backfire in some way?
“On the other hand, if you are both at church accompanied by your mothers, who are lifelong best friends, the woman is as close as it comes to safe. That is to say, still not 100% safe. But the odds are pretty good. “
You got that ladies? Even at church surrounded by friends and family during the middle of the day you need to be fearful for your chastity.
Anyone feeling empowered yet?
Seriously, is this really the kind of message they want to send to young girls? That the world is a dark and violent place where no one is ever safe and the danger of being raped is constant and ever present. Even when you’re surrounded by your most trusted friends and loved ones you can be taken and hurt by a man (and only by a man of course) to be used and abused solely for bestial gratification and there is nothing you can do about it. You have no agency, you should not scream out or assert yourself because you exist only to be an object of his desire to savage and ravish you.
While we’re on the subject, I wonder if the people who try to claim that this isn’t misandrist have actually really thought about this essays message. I am forced to wonder if they realize that if you take a group and tell them that they should constantly fear another group that you openly villify. That it is in fact right and natural to fear them because they might harm you brutally. That such things really only lead down one road. So even if you’re actually able to convince yourself that Phaedra really did not mean this to be misandrist (which would require leaps and bounds in logic that make Bucky O’ Hare look like a wheelchair bound cripple suffering from arthritis), there’s no mistake that the overall message is still nothing short of a justification for hatred and violence against men.
I am getting very, very tired of this.