Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
colinprince 1492 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite

What I find interesting about this (and yes, I am sure I am biased, and showing male privilege), is that this still seems based around the assumption that it is a man's job to chase, and "obey the rules", to get what they want (the woman). Nowhere is it suggested that you should let women make the first move.

Sure, they are trying to adjust the rules, but not adjust the game itself (which I feel is where much of the unhealthyness around male/female interactions comes from)

I don't think there's anything in the article that suggests that a woman can't talk to a man. I took it as "If you are going to talk to a woman, here's a few things to keep in mind." This isn't necessarily about how to "get what [men] want" but more about being a decent person, by getting a better understanding of how our [male] behaviour can affect those around us, in ways that we don't normally have to consider.

That's not the point of the article. The point is to give men a guide on a woman's perspective when he approaches her. Yes, the entire game should be changed, but that is beside the point.

It is a valid assumption that men are the initiators because in most cases this is how the world works. If you want to change it, feel free.

> If you want to change it, feel free.

Men can’t change that, only women can.

As a male, I can refrain from taking the first step, and in theory, I will have created a revolution. In practice it just means girls will think I’m not interested in them.

I also have zero hope that the great feminists of our time will change it. They’re campaigning for more power and perks for women, not less. Right now, men buy dinners, gifts, and have to beg for sex even after they’ve been married. Why give that up?

> In practice it just means girls will think I’m not interested in them.

My point exactly. Railing against the system as it exists is counterproductive unless you have a viable alternative.

My point is that instead of writing sob stories directed at men, about how women feel threatened by men who approach them, the author could’ve written about real empowerment, like about how it’s A-OK for a girl to ask a guy out. After all, this was written on an all girl feminist blog, where the male audience is likely minuscule.

I could write an article: Schrodinger's Thief: A guide for black people.

I could highlight the disproportionate instance of black crime, I could talk about how they should dress better so I don't confuse them with the "other" black people. I could talk about how they should change their speech and other ways they can accomodate my racism.

But that would be absolutely disgusting.

True, and in this case of Schrödinger’s Rapist it doesn’t work out: there’s little proof that women are raped more often than men.

NOTE: The article in question is from 2009.

The 1 in 6 (and 1 in 33 among men) chance of being raped from the article is absolute nonsense that comes from a terrible 1992 "survey" by the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault.

That said, excluding prisons, women are vastly more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than men.


Because few men report such an occurrence, and because in many jurisdictions ‘rape’ is only recognized when it’s a man having sex with a woman against her will and not the other way around, it’s hard to get reliable numbers.

“Much like female erectile response, male erectile response is involuntary, meaning that a man need not be aroused for his penis to become erect and be placed in a woman's vagina; mechanical stimulation is all that is necessary.

However, male victims of sexual abuse by females often face social, political, and legal double standards. Gender-neutral laws have combated the perception that rape rarely occurs to men, and other laws have eliminated the term rape altogether.”


The not-so-subtle difference is this:

For a lot of crimes on which we have data, such as drug use/possession, the numbers of black people who commit the crimes are proportionally the same as the numbers of non-black people who also commit the crime. That means, for instance, that the percentage of white people who admit to using and possessing marijuana is the same as the percentage of black people who admit to it, and hispanic, and so on. But, if you look only at the number of arrests and convictions, the percentage of black people arrested and convicted is much higher. This difference suggests there is something besides "being black increases the chances of being criminal".

On the other hand, the reasoning in this article is "across the board, being a woman comes with a 1:6 chance of being raped by a man, therefore women will have defenses, here's how to respect them".

Here's another way to look at it: something far less than 1:10 email attachments in my inbox are malware. Yet I take precautions against ALL attachments as a result. My buddy that works in computer security probably isn't sending me a virus, but I still consider the attachment from him to be that until I know better. I'm sure you do too, it's just sane and rational security. Hell my work has banned almost all attachments, and most email services just automatically screen all attachments for evil intent. Even the ones that have a picture from my mom's phone are default considered to be evil and come from an horrible monster. Are you up in arms over this? Do you get pissed about articles about how to safely send email attachments, or transfer files in alternate safe ways?

So why is it that when the odds look to be similar for a woman, but where the consequence is "get raped", it is sexist and batshit crazy for them to be concerned? Why not just have a de-facto "be very cautious" approach?

The rape statistics are really sad, but this way of talking about it is misleading. Most rapes are committed by someone the woman already has a relationship with. Therefore all the stuff she's talking about is actually focusing on the less common issue because the more prevalent problem is so much harder to address.

Those aren't rape statistics, they are sexual assault statistics, which she then incorrectly treats as rape statistics. Sexual assault is a very different thing and has an incredibly inclusive definition.

For example, if a woman happened to see a man peeing, in the eyes of the law (in some jurisdictions at least), she was sexually assaulted. If a man touches a woman's ass in a bar without an explicit invitation, she was sexually assaulted.

FWIW, I'm a man and I've been "sexually assaulted" well over ten times in my life.

A million times this. Additionally, if you say to a woman "don't go into a dark alley with a strange man", you'll probably also say "you shouldn't have been in a dark alley with a strange man". That is, you're already blaming the victim, before any crime has even occurred.

This reads more as an article about how the author believes that all men who approach her are potential rapists. Hitting the feminist fallacy of "All men are evil" square out of the park. This turns away most male readers, exclusive of the most valorous of white knights. (Source: "I will begin to evaluate the possibility you will do me harm. That possibility is never 0%.")

There is also no real "guy's guide" here, there are a few pointers but they're wrapped in a "You're a rapist, Harry" hearsay stories.

Perhaps the author could have either focused more to enlightened male readers on acceptable ways to approach women (top ten lists are still popular on blogs right?), or better yet disclose where she is meeting these guys so other females can avoid encountering such douchebags.

And for those who can't find the points in the article:

* Respect women * Dress nice * Take subtle clues * Don't Rape (you don't say?)

If we're pulling out all the statistics then it's overwhelmingly more likely that the rapist will be a friend or acquaintance, rather than a random stranger, strangers being the focus of the article.

I am a big, blonde, bearded man from Northern Europe. I have pretty much only experience interacting with women who absolutely are not afraid of me. Maybe those ladies would not manage well in New York City streets, but that's how they, and me, were brought up in this country.

Going to a date with a girl who'd suspect me to be a potential rapist would be uncomfortable, and somewhat insulting. Realizing to be in that kind of a situation I probably wouldn't even dare to try talk about it, would just try to leave the situation.

Chances are woman would look at you differently if you weren't a blonde man from Northern Europe. Because in countries like Sweden (perhaps your country?) a disproportionate amount of rape (80%) is performed by immigrants of Middle-Eastern / North-African descent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fEhy0H3fsM

Of course a big problem in this is the religion of Islam, which values woman lower as man anyway and kafir woman (unbelievers) even lower still: http://bulletinoftheoppressionofwomen.com/2012/01/27/rape-te...

> 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.


For similarly delusional writing, I suggest: http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction

I would have flagged this article but decided not to seeing that it currently sits at 22 points. So instead, I'll ask this question instead to any woman out there whose daily routine consists of avoiding being assaulted and murdered and still goes on dates, alone, with strange men:

Why go on dates alone with strange men? Why not get a chaperon? Sure western society would probably find it weird that you insist to be chaperoned on your dates but I would think the embarrassment beats being assaulted?

This article seems very American in its pathology, fear, perspective from a "person with issues".

While I find the article rather disgusting, it is this person's right to think this way, and I have no problem with that. However I think it is the case (no idea why) that far, far more American women think this way than European women. On the whole.

>You are a threat, remember? You are Schrödinger’s Rapist.

Aaannd scene...

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact