Shuffling Feet: A Black Man’s View of Schroedinger’s Rapist

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Crommunist

Crommunist is a scientist, musician, skeptic, and long-time observer of race and race issues. His interests, at least blog-wise, focus on bringing anti-racism into the fold of skeptic thought, and promoting critical thinking about even those topics that make us uncomfortable. More about Crommunist here.

Comments

  1. I realize I’m late to this discussion, but, let me just say this. I have no expectation that men make any accommodation for my feelings. If you want to get in the elevator with me, go ahead. However, I’m responsible for my own safety and no one will take that away from me. If I suspect that a man might be following me then, yes, I might step into a store or cross the street. If you approach me and want to talk to me, if I feel uncomfortable, I may refuse to talk to you. That’s my right. I’m not responsible for protecting the feelings of random strangers. I’m not going to scream “rapist!” at anyone, and in fact, I think fear of stranger rape is greatly exaggerated. But that doesn’t mean I won’t be cautious. Most people who cross my path are not purse snatchers, but when I’m walking down the street, I still keep a good grip on my purse. It’s just common sense.

    • “I’m not responsible for protecting the feelings of random strangers.”

      Nobody is saying that you are. But likewise strangers aren’t responsible for protecting your feelings which is what this articles is saying.

  2. Agreed, people can do whatever they like. Go ahead and get in the elevator. But don’t be offended if a woman waits for the next elevator rather than getting in with you. (Not that I do that, normally, with elevators. But I have crossed the street to avoid someone who was making me nervous.)

    • But don’t be offended if a woman waits for the next elevator rather than getting in with you.
      Me personally, this wouldn’t offend me. What does offend me is the idea that I need to go out of my way to make said woman feel safe (like for example expecting me to take the next elevator to show that I’m not threat to her) while at the same time if this were just about any other situation other than male/female people would be tripping over themselves to call it an -ism.

      • nemesis says:

        agreed, in fact I HOPE you run like a scared kitten from me when I walk down the street. You wanna walk around feeling like your a hunted class of human being you go a head and live like one. If you wanna pretend like you have something to fear from me just because your naive sense of the world around you tells you your not just in as much danger when your not standing next to somebody that looks like me then you hide in the shadow the streetlight casts on me.

      • What does offend me is the idea that I need to go out of my way to make said woman feel safe – See more at: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/shuffling-feet-a-black-mans-view-of-schroedingers-rapist/#sthash.jNZZ0Tus.dpuf

        Sorry Danny, but this is called, living in civilised society. We all (should) go out of our way to help those in need, make others feel safe, and strive to be a positive, productive person in the community. With all due respect, if you resent this so much, go live alone on an island somewhere …?!

        (no-one is saying you have to wait for the next elevator – take off your sunglasses or hoodie, adjust your body language, make eye contact, smile or say hi in a polite, non-threatening way, and give her plenty of space. Easy.)

  3. John Anderson says:

    I believe in freedom of association so I don’t think a woman has to talk to a man or get in the same elevator or walk on the same side of the street, etc. I do wonder how this is different from a guy not wanting to talk to a woman because she’s not conventionally attractive. People would criticize him for being shallow, but he already knows that he doesn’t want an intimate relationship with her, which is more than the woman who is afraid of a stranger knows.

    SR basically affects men in the same way that men’s expectation of beauty affects women. Why is one wrong and not the other? I’m in a male dominated field and in general, we don’t hang out with the female tech. They lose out on some non-work related information, non-work related resources, and of course some social interaction. I’m sure it’s lonely being the only female. Some people would think that it’s wrong to “freeze out” a woman even unintentionally, but why is that different from SR? We act differently around her so limit our social interactions at work with her.

    • There’s a difference between what you’re talking about. A woman (or man) who is avoiding walking down the same side of the street as a man is doing it out of a sense of fear…misguided fear, but still it’s out of fear for personal safety. Also, these interactions are extremely brief, and avoiding it is not depriving anyone of social networking or harming interpersonal or professional relationships.

      When you talk about ‘freezing out’ a woman who is a co-worker, the consequences of that are much greater. Firstly, there is no fear of personal safety that is driving it. Secondly, by doing so it hampers her ability to create professional relationships with her co-workers. A better parallel would be if the women in a most-women field were to ‘freeze out’ the men in that field…like in nursing or something. Context is key.

      • John Anderson says:

        I’m sore men in nursing have it worse than she does since often times they’re prevented from performing intimate procedures on female patients. Granted, we don’t make her do the heavy lifting, but I doubt she would complain that we didn’t let her move a 500 lb. VAX and she hasn’t.

        “Firstly, there is no fear of personal safety that is driving it.”

        I’m not 100% sure that there is no fear aspect though. She seems cool. She complained about one of the guys once to a female manager, but didn’t want to press forward with the complaint when the female manager wanted to involve our manager. The guy she accused is kind of a prick so I believe her. Still, we moderate our own interactions when she’s around. We don’t let her borrow our personal external hard drives because of certain explicit digital media. There was one female tech who wanted some of the files I had so bad she promised that she wouldn’t be offended by anything she might see. I didn’t take the chance.

        I’m sure there are several ethically dubious tricks she would be interested to learn if only to protect herself. Once I got hit with a virus that spoofed my DNS. I got redirected to a fake bank site that looked like mine with what looked like the same URL. I got suspicious when it asked for more than my user name and password. Now I surf on a virtual system so my changes aren’t permanent unless I want them to be.

  4. a wortman says:

    I think there is an important flaw in the parallel between men scaring women on the street and black people scaring white people: This example flips the oppression. Men deciding to behave differently towards women is an acknowledgement of male privilege and oppressive behavior. Black people behaving differently in order to make white people feel safe is what people of color do regularly in order to make it in a predominantly white society.

  5. John Anderson says:

    “I’ve frequently heard people object to the Schroedinger’s Rapist argument as sexist,”

    I remember reading a comment from a man, who described himself as 6 foot 3 and all musclely, but reported that he was deathly afraid of women as one woman used the threat of false accusation to abuse him. Why would his perception be treated differently from the typical woman and why shouldn’t all women be held accountable for his feelings? I don’t know if you even have to compare it to black people to see that it’s sexist. You just have to answer the question why women as a collective shouldn’t be held accountable for the discomfort of an individual man and/or why a man’s discomfort wouldn’t be valid.

    • John Anderson, the example you’re giving there is of an abused man. It would be more accurate to compare his behaviour/reactions to that of other abused women, rather than to the majority.

  6. The term “Schroedingers Rapist” and the argument it describes is NOT about the “dark stranger”. It was first introduced in an article that talks about women going on a date, not being accosted in an alley. This entire piece is predicated on a fallacy, and is an attempt to belittle women’s real world experience into the elevator-purse-hugging meme of racism.

    It is well known that the majority of rapes are committed by someone the woman knows or has met at least once. The meme of “stranger rape” has been demonstrated over and over again to be false. Anyone with sense is not going to be fooled by these arguments. I expect better of GMP.

    • Mark Neil says:

      But unknown men are being treated as potential rapists. THAT is what this article is about. The idea that an unknown man is going to rape you, and therefore feeling justified in treating him like a rapists.That is the argument Schroedinger’s rapist describes, and it very much IS about stranger rape. That ever man who is unknown is both a rapist and not a rapist at the same time, and can not be known until you/he open the box.

      The fact stranger rape is so rare actually serves to make this attitude even worst. I’m not entirely sure what you are actually trying to debate with your disparaging GMP, your disappointment, your know-it-all attitude and self righteousness. In telling us how we are belittling women’s experiences by belittling our own as a fallacy. You haven’t actually acknowledged the argument, but ironically, you’ve subsequently provided reasoning that the “all men are potential rapists and it’s ok to treat them as such” attitude is unjustified, all the while, wincing you don’t like the topic of discussion as if you’re someone of importance that gets to dictate this stuff.

  7. It’s hard to come by educated people on this subject, however, you sound like you know what you’re talking about! Thanks

  8. Anonymous says:

    here is a comment i read here
    ” I’m in a male dominated field and in general, we don’t hang out with the female tech. They lose out on some non-work related information, non-work related resources, and of course some social interaction. I’m sure it’s lonely being the only female. Some people would think that it’s wrong to “freeze out” a woman even unintentionally, but why is that different from SR? We act differently around her so limit our social interactions at work with her. ”
    i am an Israeli and been working for many years in a “male dominamt field” it is not always easy but i never felt “freezed out”… leads me to think that america society is a very sexist one… happy i did not have to e periance this….

  9. I agree with the gist of this article, and I’d like to add that, while women (rightly) argue we shouldn’t be held responsible for the actions of a rapist or thug, we change our behaviour to avoid the threat all the time – regardless.

    We dress differently to avoid attention or judgement, we don’t go places alone, we take the long way home because it’s safer and better lit, etc etc. Not every woman, and not all the time, but most women, most of the time. So it’s not a one way street by any means.

    I’d also add that I think it’s a simple risk management slash cost/benefit process. I’m sorry if I offend you by crossing the street to avoid you. But – and one way or another, many of us have learnt this the hard way – the cost of treating an innocent man like a potential rapist (possible offence caused) versus the unwanted attention I have to deal with, or the risk to my safety if you *do* turn out to be a threat – it’s a no brainer. I’m sure plenty of innocent guys would cross the street to avoid possible trouble from a large, loud group of drunk men – they might be perfectly harmless as well! – but it’s no different.

  10. I heard the term ‘Schroedinger’s Rapist’ for the first time today. To me it seems to be just another symptom of rape culture. As long as potential victims are constantly told to prevent being raped (sic in itself), they will check every situation and everyone for dangers and act cautious. Because if an assault happens to them, they will for sure be asked “Why did you do this / wear this / be there / talk to / drink ……….” and so on.
    It hurts everyone involved.

  11. A very interesting read. I thought you might be interested in this analogy. I’ve shamelessly stolen it and used it repeatedly when friends comment about caution being unfair, catcalling being complimentary, etc.

    http://gyzym.tumblr.com/post/52983582368/consider-the-bank

  12. I liked the article, and it was a good point of view, but I do have to point out an often misquoted statistic. Black people don’t commit more crimes than white people. That’s just a flat out lie. The crime data consistently shows that an individual is anywhere between 2-7 times more likely to be the victim of a crime done by a white person than a black person. That gap in likelihood is based on the type of crime. White Collar Crimes are overwhelmingly white. Murder is roughly 1.3-1 white/black. Sexual assault, child kidnapping, and child pornography are also overwhelmingly white. etc.

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43

    Forcible rape – Roughly 2-1
    Aggravated assault – roughly 2-1
    Burglary – roughly 2-1
    Larceny-theft – roughly 2 to 1
    Arson – roughly 3-1

    Blacks commit more crimes per capita, but that’s a useless statistic when you’re talking about YOUR safety. It’s only useful if you’re a racist peddling that they’re an inferior race or more prone to commit crimes. In the real world, if 65% of forcible rapes are done by whites than you have almost a 7 in 10 chance that your rapist will be a white person.

    This isn’t to suggest that we should have anti-white racism, it is to suggest that ANYONE’S fear of black people is completely irrational, not based on information, and totally and entirely based on your own preconceived notions. Add in the fact that most violent black crime is committed in focused geographical pockets, if you live outside of those pockets your chances of being raped/burglarized/assaulted/killed by a black person are pretty much slim to none.

    As almost a matter of universal experience Human beings get more cynical as they grow up because negative emotions carry more weight than positive ones. If you get raped by a man you may understandably forever be affected in a way that the countless positive experiences with men won’t measure up to. If you get robbed in a city once, you’ll easily forget the years and years you’ve lived there with nothing bad at all. We understand these psychological traumas, while still creating a statistically irrational fear, they’re understandable. The problem is that we begin to internalize media and news portrayals of certain groups of people in ways that don’t actually mirror our own real world experience.

    So all of the people being scared by the author here are wrong. Unquestionably. Because after all they are judging him on the “color of his skin and not the content of his character”.

    I’m not black, and if I get scared by a black guy (because I’m programmed to by years and years of media portrayals), that’s on me. That’s my bullshit I have to work through. It’s not up to anyone else to make me feel comfortable.

  13. http://www.timwise.org/2013/08/race-crime-and-statistical-malpractice-how-the-right-manipulates-white-fear-with-bogus-data/

    I didn’t write this but it’s an amazing piece deconstructing the data.

    “Whites are 6 times as likely to be murdered by another white person as by a black person; and overall, the percentage of white Americans who will be murdered by a black offender in a given year is only 2/10,000ths of 1 percent (0.0002)”

    So again. White fear of black people is entirely irrational and based not on personal experience but on subconscious racist viewpoints hammered home by nurture, not nature.

  14. John Anderson says:

    When boys are taught not to hit girls, is that a sign of sexism by denying girls equality or is it a survival technique because in a sexist society, it doesn’t matter who the aggressor actually was? When a man hits, he’s automatically the aggressor regardless of the number of times she struck him first.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] This comment is by Katherine, on the post Shuffling Feet: A Black Man’s View of Schroedinger’s Rapist [...]

  2. [...] I stumbled across an article at TGMP written by someone named “Crommunist” entitled Shuffling Feet: A Black Man’s View of Schroedinger’s [sic] Rapist. He opens the article stating: “This morning I made a reference to the fact that men are often [...]

  3. […] should also point out that the folks over at The Good Men Project have cross-posted Monday’s piece. The comments are… not encouraging, to say the least. […]

Speak Your Mind