Thursday, August 18, 2011

My thoughts on Schrodinger's Rapist, now with clarity

So last night I did a post on a Schrodinger's Rapist thread over at No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz. If you tried to read it I'm sorry for the pain I put you through. Well I had some time today and I refined it a bit. While I still have a problem with the application of such assessments (more accurately I have a problem with the way people are selective about when such assessments are okay and when they are not) my main problem is with the naming of the theory. Here goes (but bear in mind I'm posting this under the presumption you tried valiantly to read that post from last night).

(On a quick side note I'm finding it interesting that for as long and as rigoroustly Schrodinger's Rapist was defended all of a sudden there are people over at NAWATM asking, "okay someone's critiqued it, can we just please move on now?".)

My problem with SR isn't that women don't have a right to assess risk. That's not fair. No my problem is the naming of the theory (on a small note the fairness behind the application of the theory.)

As for the naming as Xakudo has said the original Schrodinger's Cat was about starting off with what we know to be a cat and then assessing if the cat was dead/alive. By simply swapping a cat for rapist that means we are starting off with what we know to be a rapist. If this is an assessment that women use about men doesn't that mean the assessment is starting off calling that man a rapist and then assessing the risk of that rapist attacking you? AB has said its assessment of all risk and that sexual risk is the greatest risk of all. Okay if that's the case then how are you assessing other risks if you start off with a rapist and then assess if that rapist will attack you? (I highly doubt that once rapist pops into your mind you're going to be thinking about getting mugged.) If this is supposed to be an assessment of if a man is dangerous then it would seem to me that the true analog to the original cat would man. As in the only true way to make "is this man safe/dangerous?" analagous to "is this cat alive/dead?" is to name the theory Schroginger's Man.

Well because I'm a bit of a skeptic I have to wonder if this came up when the person who came up with SR (wasn't it Kate Harding?). If so did they change it from Man to Rapist out of fear of it coming off as generalizing of men, ultimately inadvertenly doing just that by naming it in a manner that starts the assessment off with the man being a rapist. Or did they know all this from the start and knowingly named it SR?

With the application there still seems to be a double standard being practiced by some of the defenders of this theory about who is making the assessment of who for what reasons.