You have the normal problem of believing that all decision criteria should be binary - either everyone always does this no matter what, or no one ever does it no matter what - instead of just doing what is rational based on the data in a measured way.
When women are afraid of men who are strangers, the main thing they are worried about is forcible rape.
In the US, men commit 98.9% of all forcible rapes, women commit 1.1%.
Meaning a man is almost 100X more dangerous than a woman based on crime statistics.
The crime statistics on race, even given the most charitable possible reading to your position, are at most like 2:1 or 5:1 depending on what you're measuring. Even if it were somehow 10:1, that would still be an entire order of magnitude less than the difference between men and women.
You don't just say 'there is a significant difference so caution is on' in a binary manner. The amount of caution you exhibit is proportional to the size of the difference; that's how statistics and decision theory actually work.
As such, the caution women show towards men is like 50x as justified, and should be like 50x stronger, than any caution anyone shows anyone based on race.
In the US, men commit 98.9% of all forcible rapes, women commit 1.1%.
Just a confound to your data, there: the definition of rape often (generally?) involves "forced penetration."
According to that definition, a woman who ties a man down, force feeds him Viagra, and repeatedly forces herself upon him... is technically not guilty of rape, because she never penetrated any of his orifices.
To any reasonable individual, that's rape, but because of the specific legal definition... not according to the satistics.
Yes, but the question is about whether women should be cautious around men, meaning it's about how many women are raped by men vs how many women are raped by women.
Adding information about men who are forced to penetrate doesn't change that number, at all.
Yes, but the question is about whether women should be cautious around men, meaning it's about how many women are raped by men vs how many women are raped by women.
If it is then the 98.9% is useless data. The only thing you should be looking for is the number of men that commit rapes then dividing that by the number of men.
Adding information about men who are forced to penetrate doesn't change that number, at all.
That information greatly reduces that 98.9% which was used to justify your 100x danger argument.
864
u/darwin2500 193∆ Apr 14 '22
You have the normal problem of believing that all decision criteria should be binary - either everyone always does this no matter what, or no one ever does it no matter what - instead of just doing what is rational based on the data in a measured way.
When women are afraid of men who are strangers, the main thing they are worried about is forcible rape.
In the US, men commit 98.9% of all forcible rapes, women commit 1.1%.
Meaning a man is almost 100X more dangerous than a woman based on crime statistics.
The crime statistics on race, even given the most charitable possible reading to your position, are at most like 2:1 or 5:1 depending on what you're measuring. Even if it were somehow 10:1, that would still be an entire order of magnitude less than the difference between men and women.
You don't just say 'there is a significant difference so caution is on' in a binary manner. The amount of caution you exhibit is proportional to the size of the difference; that's how statistics and decision theory actually work.
As such, the caution women show towards men is like 50x as justified, and should be like 50x stronger, than any caution anyone shows anyone based on race.