Yikes, hostiles detected. But it doesn't rustle my jimmies, I actually love discussions like this. Hopefully you'll read everything I have to say.
lillerina wrote:Aleksandr, I think you've missed most of the subtlety in the Schrodinger's Rapist article (never mind that a threat level of 100% would mean someone is definitely going to rape you, so goodness knows what a threat level of 200% would be). How much of a threat someone is has little to do with their physical appearance.
The exaggerated threat level was a hyperbole to the describe the extremity of how defensive it is suggested you should be because of the situation, statistics, and environment as opposed to the individual. Granted, obviously, you don't know the individual, so the precaution is to look at them and make a judgment.
lillerina wrote:I don't feel more threatened by scene or punk looking people than anyone else.
Which is indeed wonderful. But believe me, to you it might not make a difference, but that isn't the same case with just everyone else else. This really wasn't supposed to be about ethnicity at all, but you have to understand that I have more than just rape statistics working against me, and those statistics are working against me to a much greater degree. To shed a little light on where I'm coming from with this, you're talking to a minority living in the city of Davie, FL. (At the bottom of the Bible belt no less). Up until the mid-90s the Ku Klux Klan were still rallying and marching in this predominantly redneck community. Profiling and I are quite acquainted. But there's more to it than that.
The threat card.
I'm also coming from a single-parent household of an abusive mother. Granted, I am aware of and understand her suffering. She was abused by passed boyfriends, and after a rough divorce with my father before I was even born, I grew up with her constant reminder that she couldn't stand the sight of me because of my resemblance to father. I also understand the pressures she faced as a single parent. Nowhere in that, however, does it justify (to me at least) beating a 7 year old with the metal end of a belt until he bleeds over watching television before his homework was finished. Locking him outside in the dead of winter in nothing but his underwear, then going to sleep. Beating with irons, broomsticks, spray cans, fists, kicking, a number of those instances drawing blood. Her level of abuse was extreme, and added to her untreated bipolar disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, and a neurotic need for control (stemmed from the abuse), it made my childhood a living Hell.
The police were called a few times when she did this in public, but due to the fact that she was ostracized from her family and my father's (meaning there were no relatives close or in the country that she could communicate with), and the fact that I was young and not a citizen at the time (I was born in London), I feared being deported to a strange land I never knew (moved to Canada with my father when I was a baby, didn't actually meet my mother until I was 4 and moved to the states) so I decided to stick with that abuse. Finally at the age of 13, I stood up to her and told her never to hit me again. I refused to be a victim anymore, and of course this instilled a fear in her that most likely spawned from loss of control, and memories of past abuse. Her method of abuse against me changed, and got far worse. After I outgrew her, and there wasn't anything she could do to physically harm me without going to an extreme, she decided to "defend" herself using less straightforward methods. Destroying my things (computers, projects, phones, thing
I bought. Because what could I really do about it?) , threatening people close to me with random legal action (when I'd run away to get away from her, she'd threaten anyone who gave me a place to stay that she'd press charges for "harboring a fugitive minor", so I was forced to sleep on the streets), and oh yes, calling the police on me.
Knowing full well that male domestic violence claims were in her favor, she'd call the police whenever she couldn't settle a dispute with words. "You know what, I'm going to get you out of this house. I'm sick of seeing you, I'm calling the police." 17 times. This is the number of times the police were called to the house during my teens. You have to understand that being a minority male in a domestic violence situation, I am guilty before proven innocent before the police show up. Even having done nothing, I'm still spoken to as though I am guilty of a crime because of the hysteria she's able to muster up when she's on the phone. "He's holding a chair, I feel threated" which evolved into "He threatened me with a chair" by the time the police arrive. All the while I sat on the staircase near no such chair. In fact, all the chairs in the house were made of a heavy solid wood (like oak), it would be exhausting to lift them (I am very lazy, yes. I never even liked moving them to set the table, much less to actually lift one enough to throw it) and impossible to throw them without enough room to swing them around. Her claim was not only a lie, but improbable and completely out-of-character. Nevertheless, the police were called, so I'm guilty by default and treated as such. They slap those cuffs on tight enough to cut off your circulation.
Every police phone call included the exact phrase "I feel threatened," because they
will not show up otherwise. So I've had the "threat" card pulled on me several times. Please don't take this the wrong way, but that's part of your female privilege. In a low to middle-class household setting, If a woman or child cries abuse, or even the threat of physical violence against her, she is given the benefit of the doubt due to the unfortunate likelihood that she's telling the truth (based on statistics). Not from what I've "seen", or "heard" but from personal experience. In this case, you have a woman abusing that privilege to assert her dominance, and believe you me, it works. It worked every time. After the police left it was always "I can get rid of you any time I want, it's just a phone call away." When I was 17, I was forcibly removed from the house, the police told me I had 5 minutes to get out any of my belongings, and anything I left inside was legally hers. (I'm not sure if they were bluffing, or if that's legal, but I can't fight the system in this situation, so I just have to roll with it.)
The cases of legitimate domestic violence in Florida are
very overwhelming. According to the
Florida Department of Law Enforcement Domestic Violence Statistics: "In 2010, 113,378 crimes of domestic violence were reported to Florida law enforcement agencies resulting in 67,810 arrests." To put that into perspective, according to a 2010 census, the population of my city was 91,992 that year. So enough people were charged to account for 123% of the population of this city. Enough people to account for 73% of the population of this city were actually arrested. Let's not be naive here. Not everyone who is guilty of a crime is brought to justice. And not everyone who is brought to justice is guilty of a crime. However, because of the overwhelming statistic, it's very common to find people in law enforcement that come from abusive homes and/or know sexual assault and abuse first hand. This is not something that is taken lightly here in this state. Again, whether or not you want to believe this or acknowledge this, here in the state of Florida, a woman's ability to claim a threat is
very powerful. My fear of it being used against me is a completely rational one, as it's happened many, many times. Those 17 calls of domestic violence are on
my record. If in fact a random stranger were to abuse this because she misread me, or was just subconsciously seeking justice against a past attacker, and even wanted to press charges, I have 17 false accusations of domestic violence against me. I'd never hit anyone, I've never started a physical fight, I'm a pacifist. But that's not on any sort of record, so I can't prove that. The issue here is that while women are understandably encouraged to do so if they feel they need to, there is no help, sympathy, or understanding for anyone who is falsely accused. They are at the mercy of the system, and most female victims of abuse and assault feel justified in having the mentality of "well he must have done
something threatening, so it's his fault anyway. It's certainly not hers".
lillerina wrote:Most of what determines how threatening someone is is their body language. Are you invading my personal space? You're more of a threat. Are you trying to touch me in any way, even making it look like an accident? More of a threat. Are you watching me? More of a threat. Do I feel followed by you? More of a threat. Are you ignoring my signals and boundaries? More of a threat. Ethnicity doesn't make a difference to threat level. Culture doesn't make a difference to threat level. Someone's behaviour and the signals that they are sending, that's what makes a difference.
I understand all of that completely, I actually thought I was illustrating that. (guess not?) What I was trying to say was all of those things you'd deem as "more of a threat" have the likelihood (a very strong one) to be completely innocent or coincidental. I'm not saying to treat them as such, I'm saying to bare that in mind. The idea given by things like Schroedinger's Rapist is to inform women of life-saving safety tips. But I've never seen any such article or instruction guide that illustrates just how dangerous abusing this system is for those who've done nothing wrong. Much like my friend who almost maced a stranger who was asking for 35 cents, it's a shoot first/ask questions later system when it comes to making assumptions and accusations. This is great deterrent against guys who are actual threats. But not so fun for the guys that haven't done anything and mean no harm. I personally get this impression of
treat them the same, it doesn't matter or
it's perfectly fine for you to be treated the same, so deal with it from articles like Schroedinger's Rapist. Being victim of the of the abuse of things like this, I can't be okay with it, but I understand the necessity. At the same time, my experiences have made me more sensitive to the suffering of those few who go unnoticed in the wave of actual guys who've done something wrong or mean to. Try being in a work environment where your superiors, and co-workers have
all accused you of a crime you did not commit, with very little evidence, actually
fabricating eye witness accounts, and only
after you've suffered the consequences of this does the real perpetrator turn himself in and absolve you of the crime.
lillerina wrote:Also, don't take this the wrong way, please, but stop taking things so fucking personally.
Not to worry. Like I said, my jimmies have not been rustled. But most of what I think you're referring to pertained to my early-mid teen years. Being a hormonal time for anyone, you're a lot more open to social anxiety and insecurity. I'll try to express that better next time.
lillerina wrote:I'm sorry that due to your male privilege you are more of a threat to a rape survivor than if you were a woman, but if it's not about you, don't make it about you, and someone being more wary around you because you fit a profile that makes them jumpy isn't really about you and isn't hurting you in any way.
There's no need to be so defensive, and I'm not trying to take anything away from survivors. As far as I know, this isn't a contest. But there are no advocates I know of for people in my situation. This
does affect me, whether you choose to acknowledge that or not. So I'm speaking on behalf of those of use who have no specific group to advocate this cause. Because the MRA is far from that, and their ass-backwards practices only make things worse for the group of guys I fall into. But you're missing my point, I think. I've been falsely accused of a variety of crimes based on people's ability to perceive whether or not I'm a sketchy individual. Something I do not trust. While there's encouragement for survivors to exercise safety, there's
no encouragement for them to exercise responsibility. And that, frankly, scares the
shit out of me.
You can tell a person what to look for, and key signs of "suspicious" persons/behavior, and of course some people just follow their own instinct on this, but you cannot control how they handle the situation at all. You really don't know to what extremes an individual is going to go when they feel threated. Any woman I approach could've just recently been raped, not even gone through council, not given any form of justice, and carrying a loaded weapon. She's already looking out for red flags based on her own perception, but giving her an amen and additional advice,
without, in my opinion, a strong warning to to add wisdom and discretion to your judgments/suspicions/fears, that's somewhat irresponsible. As is putting the latter half of that in the hands of otherwise unsuspecting individuals.
If you really genuinely believe I have no reason to fear this, please show me something to change my mind. I'd love to not care about this. (That isn't sarcasm, to clarify. I know a lot of emotion can be lost in text).
lillerina wrote:Am I less comfortable around men than women? Yes, but that's not really to do with the individual men involved, it's to do with the fact that the society in which I was raised, and in which most of the men I come into contact with were raised, taught both me and them that men can hurt women, can attack women, can do anything they like to women and will basically not be punished.
I can't speak for most of the men you come into contact with, but I know that's not how most of the men I come into contact with were raised. I've had a friend accused of rape, and I'm not going to make claims for or against it, because while my biases would make me think he didn't, I wasn't there. My personal experience in life has shown me that if a man is accused, he is guilty until overwhelming evidence proves otherwise. Even
if it was a lie, and woman were to revoke her charges, there will always be a shadow of doubt. The majority will always believe "Oh, it's just because of the oppression women face why she didn't come forward." or "they bullied her until she gave up." There is no instance in which the public while wholeheartedly believe that a woman could ever lie about this, then have a change of heart due to guilt. If the accuser doesn't face legal consequences, then he wears that mark for the rest of his life. To every survivor he's never met, he's every man that's hurt her throughout her life, and there is nothing you can say or do to tell them otherwise. That could be this man's next potential employer, the person who gets his next letter of recommendation, Hell,
anyone who does a background check on him.
lillerina wrote:Also, don't use 'has a penis' to mean 'is a man', because a lot of men don't have penises and a lot of people with penises aren't men.
I wasn't using "has a penis" as "is a man", I actually meant "has a penis" as "just because I was born male,
something beyond my control, does not mean that I will grow up having a predisposition to harming you. At all. And you shouldn't use that as a method to justify calling me guilty of a crime I have no committed and have no intention to commit", though I guess I should have been more literal with that one.
I don't think it's any less a legitimate cause just because there aren't as many victims of it. If the tables were turned, and we lived in a world where women were rarely raped, but there was an overwhelming statistic of men who were falsely accused of it, both causes would still be equally important to me.
Male privilege doesn't always outweigh someone's individual disadvantage. In the event that I'm falsely labeled as displaying "threating" behavior, due to someone else's oversensitivity (which, albeit with logic behind it, is
encouraged) I have no defense. You can't assume this doesn't hurt me, just like I can't assume behavior I feel is innocent doesn't hurt you. You might mistake my signals and get me cuffed, and that won't weigh on your conscience afterwards (in fact, you'll have an endless wave of supporters including me and people like me), but it definitely won't do me any good, and there isn't any movement that I've seen that
genuinely cares about that at all if I end up in that situation.
lillerina wrote:And I'm sure you don't realise this, but a lot of men feel entitled to have a woman talk to them in the street anyway and by telling women that they should talk to people who they feel threatened by you're encouraging the women to send mixed signals which will just encourage their pursuers. A woman is entitled to refuse to engage with someone, she's entitled to do what she needs to do in order not to feel threatened, she's entitled to protect herself against perceived threats.
You can't assume that. You can't assume any such majority of men want women to talk to them when they leave their homes. I myself, don't like dealing with people unless I absolutely have to. I'd rather live my entire life anonymously and not talked to by anyone, actually. Also I understand all of what you've said, but again, I'm for equality. My belief, whether you agree or not, is that a man who means no harm has an equal right not to be dealt with as such. Why can't every sex/gender be equally respected in this?
lillerina wrote:Yes, men are limited by patriarchy, but if the worst that you can complain about is that you don't like the neutral clothing that says nothing about you and that you worry that someone is going to think you're a rapist then you need to get your head out of your ass.
Correct, men as one gigantic demographic do not all fall under the label of oppression.
lillerina wrote:Yes, men are limited by patriarchy, but if the worst that you can complain about is that you don't like the neutral clothing that says nothing about you and that you worry that someone is going to think you're a rapist then you need to get your head out of your ass.
My point was that regardless of clothing, my profile works against me when measured against crime statistics. This is even if (well, especially if) I was naked. When you perpetuate the idea that anyone with tattoos for example is some sort of red flag, it creates more problems for me and people like myself. Male advantage, individual disadvantage.
Mathmo wrote:I don't think that apologising when approaching a stranger is directly related to being threatening/male/"guilty". (I guess it's indirectly related in that if you do know that you are more likely than average to be perceived as threatening, it perhaps is good for you to be extra-careful e.g. to observe appropriate levels of personal space.)
If I (as a 5'4", pretty unthreatening looking woman) need to approach a stranger in public to ask the sorts of questions you describe, I would apologise (or start with "Excuse me" or some other words that show that I realise I am imposing on them). "Excuse me, do you know if there are any public toilets around here?" The apology is not because I think they think I will rape or assault them. The apology is because they don't know me, I don't know them, and I am asking something of them that will take a bit of effort on their part (at the least, I am hoping they will respond with "I don't know").
I do my bit to make sure the interaction isn't a problem for them (stay an appropriate distance away, speak clearly, phrase my question in a way that makes it easy for them to say "I don't know" so they know I am not demanding information from them, avoid approaching someone who is clearly upset/buried in a book/otherwise clearly unavailable for conversation) but they could be lost in deep thought, or grieving for their mother who recently passed away (but with a blank expression on their face so I didn't realise to leave them alone) - there might be all sorts of reasons why they don't want to talk to me even to tell me the time, and all of that's none of my business. I don't want to disturb them. That's why I apologise.
I should clarify that it's not the apology itself I was really making reference to, but rather the body language I would not have for anyone otherwise. It's a proceed with caution method because I don't want to deal with the consequences of a stranger's inability to properly judge my actions in less than 2 seconds.
I think a few of you misunderstood me, actually. My entire point was that just as you can perceive my behavior in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable, due to the fear of what could actually happen to you, I also live with a degree of fear guiding my actions every time I leave my home. The only difference is, just as in this scenario, there isn't a cause or movement sensitive to my predicament, while I'm actually one of the people defending that of victims/survivors. Despite my experiences, I try to remain as objective as possible, without bias. I'm trying to illustrate here that this holds implications of a necessary but also dangerous practice of using past experiences and pent up hostility as a loaded gun. With an encouraged lack of discretion as to whom you're pointing at. I hope I didn't come across as rude or cynical in any way, but I'm trying me best for you to understand where I'm coming from with this. It's not one-sided. Between my mother and fiancée (the bane of my existence and the reason I live, respectively) I'm coming from both ends of the spectrum here and trying to create an understanding, not belittle a movement or cause, and certainly not take it away from people who have suffered more than enough.
monk wrote:Alexsandr
You're taking the Schrodingers rapist article to a ridiculous extreme. It's not meant as an instruction manual for your general behavior, it's meant as an indicator of what to expect with interaction with women alone. In your whole walgreens scenario everything you stated should be completely discounted and ignored except for two points. The first point (and obvious) is don't be a rapist, the second is if you do find yourself in the same isle/space of the store as the woman, pay attention to the signals she's putting out and act accordingly. Everystep of your Wallgreens scenario was what YOU would/should be doing in advance of any perceive or described behavior of the woman. If she's sending out no signals warning you away then you should treat her pretty much like you would treat a man of similar age/style as the woman by basically going about your business and ignoring them.
It's not your job to go about making stranger women feel as comfortable as possible, the idea is to not make an uncomfortable person more so.
I think you're misunderstanding me as well (and making me out to be some kind of White Knight at the same time). This isn't the overwhelming thought at the top of my mind, believe me. I'm actually focused at this point on my sandwich and want to pee, and hoping at home that she didn't start the movie without me. This is a highlight of the subliminal thoughts guiding my responses. Just as I don't think it's at the top of every woman's priority list when she leaves home: "1. Defend against potential rapists 2. Pick up groceries." No one can assume anyone else's priorities. I don't know this woman and I could care less what she thinks of me, I won't/don't even remember her face. But in the moment, because of past experiences, both mine and the potential of hers (1 in 5), and how an onlooker can perceive the situation, I cannot ignore the possibility of a situation spiraling completely out of control due to a misunderstanding. It's happened before. I'm just trying to highlight a clear lack of balance. Based on my reading of Schroedinger's Rapist the tl;dr version is
Since the guy could be a rapist: < follow protocol a. >
Since he could just as equally not be a rapist: < well, who cares, he could be a rapist, so that's his problem. >
Guys, since you could be a rapist: <women will follow protocol a>
Since you could just as equally not be a rapist: <whatever>
It just seems lacking to me, although what
is there is on point. Kudos to Miss LonelyHearts.
