On Schrodinger's Rapist

I posted this on FB the other day (which I found on here). Both great articles which you should read, but to summarise - Schrodinger's Rapist is basically saying that women are justified in exercising caution around men they don't know, because given the ridiculously high sexual violence stats (1 in 4 women will experience it in her lifetime); we have no way of knowing if the man will be a rapist or not, until the rape happens.

Got this message shortly after, from a pakeha, male (and as far as I know, straight, cis-gendered and able-bodied) friend:

On Schrodingers Rapist- it had some killer lines, and made excellent points. But, the underlying logic is problematic. THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT I DISAGREE WITH ITS GOALS/ENDS (ending rape).

My summary of the argument-

1- Some members of group A (men) commit X (rape).
2- All X (rape) harms.
3- I do not want to be harmed.
Conclusion- I should treat all of group A (men) with caution in order to avoid X (rape).

Firstly, I agree with this goal. Caution is reasonable and important for preventing sexual assault. But I also think its important to recognise that the same argument structure is more problematic if we substitute group A (men) with group B (an ethnic group), and X (rape) with Y (steal/assault). I am not equating caution with racism, but comparing two argument structures. I am talking about soundness of means, not validity of ends.

Thoughts?

Since I wrote a fairly long response, I figured I might as well share it with the world. J

To start with, the issues of rape culture and racism are rather different; so the methodology used in one context will not necessarily work for the other. That is fine, because they are different issues.

Yes, some people from Y racial minority commit X crime, in the same way that some men rape. But people from Y racial minority also experience racism, including stereotyping because people from the majority race make assumptions about them being criminals. This makes it harder for them to do well in society, because they face prejudice every step of the way. This in turn makes it more likely for them to feel disconnected to the rest of society, as well, often, as being impoverished, which makes it more likely for them to commit crime.

Obviously, if we are “cautious” towards people of Y ethnicity, this is racism, will lead to more harmful stereotypes, etc etc etc. You know this, and I realize that the point of your analogy was to show that the methodology does not make sense, because of the bizarre outcome that would result when applied to race. Yes.

But I think it is really important to keep in mind that in terms of gender, women are the oppressed group, and men are privileged. The power dymanic changes completely when you substitute men for a racial minority, because you are reversing the roles of the privileged and the oppressed.

A better analogy would be if white people were group A, and some white people have been racist towards Y group in whatever way (say, denying them employment); therefore people from Y group are cautious towards people from A group, because they are not sure if person from A group will be racist to them or not. Person from Y group writes a blog in an attempt to get A group to understand the oppression Y group struggles against on a daily basis, and asks for a little patience and understanding if someone from Y group is cautious in their interactions with person from A group (because person from Y group has no way of knowing whether person from A group is racist or not).

Also, I think you’re missing the point of the article a little bit. Yes, the (long term) ends are ending rape. But I think your conclusion “I should treat all of group A (men) with caution in order to avoid X (rape)” misses the point. Treating men with caution will not avoid rape. Men not raping will avoid rape.

The article is not telling women to be cautious. The author realizes this will not end rape culture. Nowhere does she tell women to treat men with caution. In fact, the entire article is aimed at men. It takes as given that women treat men with caution, because that is the experience of the author.

The article is trying to get men to understand why women are cautious; and, based on this understanding, to treat them appropriately.

I was quite stoked with the response I received, which showed that he’d really thought about what I said:

Hey. Great response! You're totally right about the crucial difference being relative privilege. My little formal logic formulation should have included that, ie "Some members of PRIVILEGED group A (men) commit X (rape)", which would have meant that swapping 'men' for an ethnic group wouldn't have worked. Huzzah for civility!  

Re the article: I dont think I missed the point, really. I know the article isn't arguing women should be cautious in order to avoid rape. Men not raping is what stops rape. I totally agree here. But the article was explaining the author's/women's caution, and it was this caution that I was addressing. That is not to say I disagree with the caution, just that I was engaging critically with it. And now I feel a little silly that I didn't consider the power factor- which is one of the first things I should consider.....  

I saw this issue as part of the interaction of left-leaning people/politics and probability/statistics. I have an issue that I dont know how to resolve. People use probability all the time to help make decisions, and also to be racist. I think the left isolates people (and thus empowers the right) by not (in my opinion) sufficiently engaging with how people employ probability for their own safety. 

But the issue is so enmeshed with racism, that I dont know how to go forward. Perhaps postgrad will help me figure it out... Identity politics is so complex!

And as the conversation progressed, I realised that my friend was actually much more concerned about the implications of this type of reasoning in the context of racial stereotypes; than about critiquing the reasoning itself. We had a really interesting discussion about it – about the way that we, as pakeha, are socially conditioned to be cautious when we see, for example, young Māori men wearing hoodies late at night.

Are we justified in exercising caution? I would argue no – and my friend agreed, I think. Are we intuitively more cautious around people from racial minorities? Probably. Is this racist? Yes. The question then becomes, what can we do about this? How can we overcome and unlearn the implicit racism we have been taught from birth?

I think the moral of the story is twofold. One, it’s really interesting to look at different types of oppression and draw parallels between them. Two, this will only get us so far, and actually, in many cases, analogies are difficult. It’s really important to remember that as a Pakeha woman, I will never understand racial oppression; just like men will never really understand sexism (although I have met a few who come close).

We can only empathise, listen and learn – and use our positions of privilege to challenge our own (individual and collective) stereotypes and misconceptions.