Friday, 4 October 2013

Thunderf00t finally gets to the end - Part 10

Closing statements from the counsel for the defense:
Let's be real. Boy meets girl, and after a while they ride off into the sunset is a happy ending that puts a smile on everyone's face. And trust is a big part of that happy ending. Telling young women that they should be paranoid that all men they meet are potential rapists and should never be trusted is not something that's going to increase the number of happy boy meets happy girl and ride off into the sunset hand in hand.
Though surely it will minimise their risk of being alone with a rapist, and I was kind of under the impression that's what this video was trying to be about?

During the paragraph above, he shows a screenshot of the famous "Schrodinger's Rapist" blog post.  A piece by a woman talking about the precautions many women already take to avoid danger, and how men can benefit from being aware of that.

I don't know if Thunderf00t has actually read that piece. If he has, he'll have read this:


The first thing you need to understand is that women are dealing with a set of challenges and concerns that are strange to you, a man.  
And this:
Is preventing violent assault or murder part of your daily routine, rather than merely something you do when you venture into war zones? Because, for women, it is.
And this: 
To begin with, you must accept that I set my own risk tolerance. When you approach me, I will begin to evaluate the possibility you will do me harm.
And this: 
The third point: Women are communicating all the time. Learn to understand and respect women’s communication to you.
(Obviously, the author of that piece can't speak for all womankind - and I can't speak for all men, but as a male reader I think she did a good job of giving me a perspective I'd never had cause to consider. Which hasn't stopped skeptical dudebros trying to show her she's wrong using the power of fallacious maths)

Aaaanyway: Thunderf00t has proved that he's aware that women are already writing about the steps they take to assess and minimise personal risk - and he's aware that much of the advice coming from women concerns being wary of men. 


And he doesn't seem to like that. To recap:
If you're gonna get paranoid about trusting people it will undermine both your ability to form and maintain healthy relationships

Telling young women that they should be paranoid that all men they meet are potential rapists and should never be trusted is not something that's going to increase the number of happy boy meets happy girl and ride off into the sunset hand in hand.


There is an optimum line here. Somewhere between assuming all men are rapists and should never be trusted under any circumstances, and 100% trusting every man that you meet to absolutely respect your personal desires.
Teaching men not to rape? Bloody stupid. 

Being "paranoid" about the men you meet? Ruins your chances of True Love.

Dressing demurely, not getting drunk, and having good posture? There we go!


Please listen to the man, ladies. He's only trying to help YOU.

But remember that stopped clock? The time for being right has come around again
, and this time Phil uses the opportunity to undermine every point he's been trying to make throughout this entire eighteen minute ordeal:
Now, accurately assessing a hazard does not mean you will never experience that danger. You can minimise your chances of getting raped, do everything that you can to minimise your chances of getting raped, and still get raped. You can minimise your chances of being killed and eaten in the wild but still get killed and eaten. But it will minimise your chances of being in such a situation, while allowing you the greatest chances of achieving your desires.
(On the screen at this point, he has a caption that says:

Minimize the risk factors you can influence! (lock your door etc!)

The locked door metaphor is beginning to look pathological. I'm willing to bet Thunderf00t has used that old "a good key is one that can open many locks, whereas a bad lock is one that can be opened by any key" cliché at least once on his path to becoming a misogyny guru)

But now, finally, we come to the end. And as any good educator knows, what you do at the end of a long tutorial such as this is sum up, succinctly and clearly, the main themes you've covered. Phil Mason does this in four sentences:
For comparison, when I go into the wilderness, I know there are predators there. It's just an inherent risk that I incur when I enter that environment. But for the wonders that I have seen, the joys that I have experienced, it's a gamble that I happily accept.
Having said that, it would just be stupid of me, in the extreme, knowing that there are such predators in this environment to not minimise my chances of becoming a victim.
Or, maybe a more simple analogy. I lock my windows for security, but to brick them up for complete security would be dumb, as it would just rob me of the pleasure of living in this place.
Got it?

"There is danger out there, so a person should take steps to minimise their risk - but not to the extent that they deny themselves the enjoyment that life can bring."

Aren't you glad Thunderf00t was willing to spend at least an hour of his time making a video to tell you that? That he didn't just tweet it?

I'm going to do one more post on this, collecting some of the responses people have left in an attempt to leave the whole affair on a positive note. For now, this might be interesting -- I ran a word check on the entire transcript. These are the numbers of times each of the following words appear:

Women: 10

Victim: 9 

Lock: 6

Door: 5 

Analogy: 4


Wasp: 3

 
Mountain lions: 2

Men: 2

Consensual: 2

Rapist: [Search key not found] 

Consent: [Search key not found]

Last part

24 comments:

Nathaniel said...

"For comparison, when I go into the wilderness, I know there are predators there. It's just an inherent risk that I incur when I enter that environment."

I would love to know if thunderf00t thinks meat-eating animals have the capability to deliberately and knowingly become vegetarians. Either he does, or by that analogy he's arguing that men just can't help themselves from raping women. He honestly seems to be arguing, without stopping for even a second to evaluate how stupid it sounds, that rape is to men as feeding on hapless wanderers is to wild animals. Men rape women because otherwise we suffer sexual starvation, or we rape women to protect out children, or...

No. Just... no.

DEEN said...

"For comparison, when I go into the wilderness, I know there are predators there. It's just an inherent risk that I incur when I enter that environment."

Of course, entering the wilderness is entirely optional, your risks are minimized by only spending limited amounts of time there, and you can simply leave when you feel like you'd want to let your guard down a bit. None of this applies to the environment that women have to deal with.

Ben P said...

"Please listen to the man, ladies. He's only trying to help YOU."

Yees, yes, very much. It's really a video for women, rather than for an anti-feminist predominantly male audience. He's open for constructive criticism from all sides and he wouldn't dismiss anyone as "idiot feminists", because all he really cares about is giving important advice to women!
He will probably make a follow up video, answering every point you raised here, rather than mocking feminists he pissed off with the video. Because he's just that mature to deal with such a sensitive topic appropriately. Don't forget, Thunderf00t is an adult and a role model for 200.000 subscribers.... oh god why

Giliell said...

Well, yes, it's hard to decide whom TF hates more, men (rapists who can't control themselves) or women. But sine women are getting the short end of the stick, I'll go with women.
But it's such a nice catch-22: If you take one more precaution than TF deems reasonable you're a paranoid bitch who thinks all men are rapists. If something happens to you, well, you obviously didn't take enough steps to protect yourself, stupid bitch.
And it should also be noted that the steps we take to minimise risk already greatly diminish our joy in life.
Tonight, I'll work at a location quite near. The job will finish somewhere around midnight with a drink. Now, I will not drink. I will not drink because my car will be parked quite near in the light where there are many people and I will drive the mile home. If I were my husband, or if my husband were with me, I'd simly enjoy a glass of free champaign and walk. And I'm fortunate: I have a car I can use.

Aunty Vlad said...

When I "go into the wilderness", how do I tell which lions to avoid, and which lions to 'ride into the sunset' with?

Amber Adams said...

Not all men are rapists, but I think there's an argument to be made that many of those men who are rapists "just can't help themselves from raping women." In that sense they are closer to mountain lions than human beings, and ought to be hunted and killed as beasts who prey upon women for no legitimate purpose, such as hunger or protection of young, etc. Not that such a legitimate purpose would ever negate a woman's right to hunt and kill rapists. This is one way in which rape apologists masquerading as evolutionary biologists go wrong. If she is the more deadly predator and he attacks her, then according to the law of the jungle he shall justifiably die. Of course, in order to be a predator, you must be willing and able to fight, to risk getting hurt in that fight perhaps even more than if you'd stayed out of it, to be scary, to even regard some other humans as prey. I would like to see more women do this, if for no other reason than rape apologists who claim this should be our response to rape don't really believe we're capable of it. They're not helpfully suggesting an adequate coping mechanism. They are taunting us, and they know they're taunting us, and responses that assume the taunters are simply misguided or ill-informed don't grasp seem to grasp the trolling. Rapists and rape apologists know we are smaller and weaker, they know we are less willing and capable of fighting, they know everything we will have to sacrifice socially in order to live a lifestyle adequate to hunting and killing men, and they know that mounting that sort of defense (much less the appropriate offense) will never be practical for us. What would happen, then, if a generation or two of women took one for the team and organized a Militant Feminist Liberation Army who could turn the balance of power on these guys by doing the job our justice system fails to do? I'm not proposing what we should do, or what we must do, but what we could do. What would happen if rapists were made to understand in the only language they understand that there will be consequences for their actions? Would that be enough for them to chose not to rape? As I said initially, I don't think it's really a choice for most of them, so I don't believe making examples out of other rapists is really that great of a deterrence factor, but certainly the number of rapes would fall as we eliminated more and more rapists, and those young men who perhaps are capable of being taught would then consider rape as dangerous as attacking any of their fellow men, which of course, happens a lot less often. Perhaps that is because men don't have vaginas moreso than because men are better at physically defending themselves, I don't know. My point is this: if you're going to brag about your survival skills, why not lend the members of your own species a hand and hunt rapists instead of mountain lions?

noelplum99 said...

@Giliell
But it's such a nice catch-22: If you take one more precaution than TF deems reasonable you're a paranoid bitch who thinks all men are rapists. If something happens to you, well, you obviously didn't take enough steps to protect yourself, stupid bitch.

Whilst I think your language is a little OTT (for my money Tf00t is more of a gray intellectual-disdain type, i don't think the 'stipid bitch' line is accurate or warranted) I thought the thrust of this comment was absolutely spot on and almost of the 'damned if you do, damned if you don't variety'. If someone behaves reasonably (not gross recklessness or risk aversion out of all proportion to the risk) then it makes absolute sense to cut them some slack in terms of their choices - just as we would in any other sphere of life.

If I were my husband, or if my husband were with me, I'd simly enjoy a glass of free champaign and walk.
If I were your husband I'd drive. His chances of being sexually assaulted may be small enough for him to ignore but the chances of a lone man taking a severe good hiding at that time of night, walking home alone, are considerable. Imo men tend often not to take these risks seriously enough and, however big and strong your fella is, if three or four youths decide he needs a kicking to boost their sense of manliness a good kicking is what he will take.

ou812 said...

"Is preventing violent assault or murder part of your daily routine, rather than merely something you do when you venture into war zones? Because, for women, it is."

http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2009/05/who-is-most-likely-to-be-a-crime-victim.html

Read #4.

Jody said...

So, what OU812 is saying is that since more men get mugged, those silly wimmins should just shut the hell up.

I mean, never mind it's the men doing the attacking. And COMPLETELY ignore the fact that the post specifically states "with the exception of rape".

Which was literally the entire point.

Yessir. Let's all bow to his wisdom.

ou812 said...

[So, what OU812 is saying is that since more men get mugged, those silly wimmins should just shut the hell up.]

Mugging is the least of it. And please show me where I told anyone to shut up.

[I mean, never mind it's the men doing the attacking.]

What does it matter? Should we pay less attention to prison rape because hey, men are just doing it to themselves?

[And COMPLETELY ignore the fact that the post specifically states "with the exception of rape".]

The "Schrodinger's Rapist" passage I quoted mentioned violent assault and murder, not rape.

[Yessir. Let's all bow to his wisdom.]

I would be honored.

Jody said...

Shoulda seen this coming. Thunderf00t rants about rape, Graham responds, MRA in the comments changes the subject.

And, of course, when called out on it, continues to do so.

Graham put it best in his latest: "Why are so many people (mostly men) so very resistant to the idea of talking about rape prevention (as opposed to rape avoidance)?"

It's baffling.

ou812 said...

Oh no, I got called an MRA (shudder)!

Jody said...

...who still insists on trying to change the subject, no less. ;)

ou812 said...

I responded to a quote in the blog post. That's not exactly changing the subject.

Now I'm just waiting for the accusations of "mansplaining."

Jody said...

Yes, you responded to a quote about rape by linking a statistic that specifically excluded rape.

Fun fact, "responding" and "changing the subject" are not mutually exclusive.

If you like, I can just skip the MRA bit and just call you stupid.

ou812 said...

"Is preventing violent assault or murder part of your daily routine, rather than merely something you do when you venture into war zones? Because, for women, it is."

Where does the quote mention rape?

Jody said...

Thunderf00t's entire piece is specifically about rape, and the stat you link to specifically does not include it.

I get it. You're proud of the fact that you refuse to understand that.

ou812 said...

I wasn't referring to Thunderf00t's piece. I was referring to a quote that was used in the blog post.

I get it. You're proud of the fact that you refuse to understand that.

Jody said...

A quote in another blog post also about rape. Which, again, your link specifically leaves out.

Because for some reason you don't seem to want to count rape among violent crime.

Let's all wonder why.

ou812 said...

[A quote in another blog post also about rape. Which, again, your link specifically leaves out.]

Had the quote said "sexual assault" instead of "murder and violent assault", it would have been accurate. But it didn't. Show me where it does, and I'll rest my case.

Out of curiosity, are you among those who would rather see women killed than raped?

Jody said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jody said...

Out of curiosity, why don't you consider rape to be a violent assault?

ou812 said...

Of course it is a violent assault. But when people use that term, they usually mean beatings or stabbings. Sexual violence is almost always called "rape" or "sexual assault".

Jody said...

If it's violent then why are you so eager to ignore it?

You very specifically were talking about preventing violent assaults, and your link goes out of its way to not include rape.

Why the hell don't you consider rape to be worth including?