Ok, fine but she should have picked a different analogy because in the experiment, there is no room to question whether the cat may or may not live or die. It's either or.

"You're under no obligation to support your assertions with, you know, actual evidence … make grossly exaggerated claims and fail to admit being wrong when someone else takes the time to do the research you didn't and point out your mistake."

What research have you done other than take issue with my general impression of McCreight, Watson, etc.? It is interesting that you call me out for not providing any quotes to support an opinion when you are trying to show me the wisdom of the Schrodinger's Rapist piece, which doesn't provide a single reference for its claims (stats or otherwise) and is written anonymously. I'll happily dig out the posts and quotes that led me to my interpretation, but I don't see how this will be constructive since presumably, you will just disagree. For the record, I have already written about A+ and/or feminism some half dozen times since this summer.

She's quite clear that what she means by that is that any particular either A is someone who would rape or B is not and that she has no way of knowing which it is short of being assaulted. Nothing about that suggests that it's a 50/50 chance. Especially when she's specific about see the odds of any particular man as being a rapist being around 1 in 60.

"Again, that is my perception. Why should I take my time to dredge back through all of their posts and comments through the summer to prove something to you? "

You're under no obligation to support your assertions with, you know, actual evidence in your rant against atheists who blog on feminist issues. And we who are reading your post are under no obligation to take you seriously when you not only don't do so but make grossly exaggerated claims and fail to admit being wrong when someone else takes the time to do the research you didn't and point out your mistake.

Which is about as much time as I intend to ever waste on you or your blog.

You have been commenting on my opinion of the A+ feminists and of my perception of them. I have followed this issue since the early summer and before A+, I had no preconceived notions against McCreight, Watson and the like, but after seeing how they have carried the banner of A+, I'm not impressed. In fact, I used to like reading McCreight's blog, but lost respect for her, Watson, Miller, PZ Myers and others in this fiasco. Again, that is my perception. Why should I take my time to dredge back through all of their posts and comments through the summer to prove something to you?

I have yet to see you quote anything from either of them providing anything like a reasonable basis for this perception.

" One in every six American women will be sexually
assaulted in her lifetime. I bet you dont think you know any rapists, but
consider the sheer number of rapes that must occur. These rapes are not all
committed by Phillip Garrido, Brian David Mitchell, or other members of the
Brotherhood of Scary Hair and Homemade Religion. While you may assume that none
of the men you know are rapists, I can assure you that at least one is.
Consider: if every rapist commits an average of ten rapes (a horrifying number,
isnt it?) then the concentration of rapists in the population is still a little
over one in sixty."

What annoys me most about what you and others are saying is the blatant mischaracterization and exaggeration being used.

Anyway, the question is about perceived safety. I realize that I am ill-equipped to speak about a how a woman might feel about such and such scenario, but I was merely pointing out that if we want to meet new people or even go out in public, certain risks are involved for everyone. The thing that I find most unreasonable about the whole Schrodinger's Rapist post is that throughout it, she admits to be addressing a "good guy" but at the very end, still feels the need to tell him "don't rape:"

"… Nor should you commit these similar but less severe offenses: don’t assault. Don’t grope. Don’t constrain. Don’t brandish. Don’t expose yourself. Don’t threaten with physical violence. Don’t threaten with sexual violence."

So, I don't believe her when she says she is addressing a "good guy" at all; sounds to me like that is just paying lip-service whereas, in reality, she thinks nothing of the sort since a truly "good guy" would not need to be told not to do these things. Thus, this common sense advice does paint men, all men, as potential rapists since, again using the Schrodinger's analogy, there exists a 50 percent chance the "cat" (or the inner rapist) is alive in the box and a 50 percent chance the cat is dead (not a rapist). So, if we play the analogy out, she seems to think that every man she meets actually has a 50 percent chance of turning out to be a rapist, and not the more realistic 1 in 6 figure (And actually going on a date, in essence, forces the issue). The scenario is further skewed because she is apparently living in New York; a woman's experience in New York is obviously not the same as a woman's experience in rural South Carolina, Vermont or Denmark.

I just referenced the Schrodinger column; I was not speaking to it directly. In any case, while I already admitted that I have not feared that I would be raped by a girl that I approached, the perception here, among many of McCreight and Watson's readers (or former readers) was that they were purporting a type of hypersensitive feminism that many people, women included, want no part of because it makes women look weak and seems to set feminism back for decades. Reality of not, that's the perception.

I can't speak for Belief Blower, Wooly Bumblebee, etc., but calling Christina, McCreight, Watson and others hypersensitive and reactionary is not something I'm gleeful about; I used to read their blogs frequently, but like others, this was my perception based on how they reacted in post, to criticism and how they acted in that initial A video conference.

http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/shuffl…

Neither Watson nor McCreight display such an attitude. I can't think of any feminist in the atheist or skeptic community who does. Nor have I yet read a quote of them displaying any such attitude.

Most violent crimes against men are perpetrated by men—the ones that aren't are generally domestic violence situations. Not particularly relevant to the question of whether a man should fear that a woman hitting on him at Subway will assault him. The discussion was, after all, not about violence in general but the possibility of sexual assault. It does not "work both ways" in this respect. Men are not in the same situation with respect to being approached by women that women are when approached by men. All the writer of the essay does is discuss the reasonable precautions women take—there's nothing in the essay that fits your description of "overemotional, reactionary whiners."

Have you even read the essay which discusses this topic?

"You have, almost certainly and quite sensibly, never feared that a woman you approached might rape you. "

No, but it's because I don't think in those terms or approach the world in that way. She could, for instance, just as well wish me some kind of mental harm. Again, not likely, but there are some nuts out there and not all of them are male.

While I, like any sensible person, don't visit a rest area on the interstate at 3 a.m. or walk down back alleys alone at night, I don't view other people, male or female, as potential threats, although the stats say that I could just as well be the victim of some type of assault as a female:

"For the first time, males (15.7 per 1,000) and females (14.2 per 1,000) had similar rates of violent crime victimization in 2010. Historically, males have had higher rates of violent victimization compared to females. Males and females were equally likely to report violent victimizations to the police." — http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/press/cv10pr…

I assume upon meeting a person or passing them on the street that they are generally sensible and don't wish me harm. My chances of being wrong in that regard are just as likely as a female's, even if the nature of the assault may be different.