Schrödinger’s Rapist

Gentlemen. Thank you for reading.

Let me start out by assuring you that I understand you are a good sort of person. You are kind to children and animals. You respect the elderly. You donate to charity. You tell jokes without laughing at your own punchlines. You respect women. You like women. In fact, you would really like to have a mutually respectful and loving sexual relationship with a woman. Unfortunately, you don’t yet know that woman—she isn’t working with you, nor have you been introduced through mutual friends or drawn to the same activities. So you must look further afield to encounter her.

So far, so good. Miss LonelyHearts, your humble instructor, approves. Human connection, love, romance: there is nothing wrong with these yearnings.

Now, you want to become acquainted with a woman you see in public. 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. To begin with, we would rather not be killed or otherwise violently assaulted.

“But wait! I don’t want that, either!”

Well, no. But do you think about it all the time? 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. When I go on a date, I always leave the man’s full name and contact information written next to my computer monitor. This is so the cops can find my body if I go missing. My best friend will call or e-mail me the next morning, and I must answer that call or e-mail before noon-ish, or she begins to worry. If she doesn’t hear from me by three or so, she’ll call the police. My activities after dark are curtailed. Unless I am in a densely-occupied, well-lit space, I won’t go out alone. Even then, I prefer to have a friend or two, or my dogs, with me. Do you follow rules like these?

So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this man rape me?

Do you think I’m overreacting? One in every six American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. I bet you don’t 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, isn’t it?) then the concentration of rapists in the population is still a little over one in sixty. That means four in my graduating class in high school. One among my coworkers. One in the subway car at rush hour. Eleven who work out at my gym. How do I know that you, the nice guy who wants nothing more than companionship and True Love, are not this rapist?

I don’t.

When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist. You may or may not be a man who would commit rape. I won’t know for sure unless you start sexually assaulting me. I can’t see inside your head, and I don’t know your intentions. If you expect me to trust you—to accept you at face value as a nice sort of guy—you are not only failing to respect my reasonable caution, you are being cavalier about my personal safety.

Fortunately, you’re a good guy. We’ve already established that. Now that you’re aware that there’s a problem, you are going to go out of your way to fix it, and to make the women with whom you interact feel as safe as possible.

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. That possibility is never 0%. For some women, particularly women who have been victims of violent assaults, any level of risk is unacceptable. Those women do not want to be approached, no matter how nice you are or how much you’d like to date them. Okay? That’s their right. Don’t get pissy about it. Women are under no obligation to hear the sales pitch before deciding they are not in the market to buy.

The second important point: you must be aware of what signals you are sending by your appearance and the environment. We are going to be paying close attention to your appearance and behavior and matching those signs to our idea of a threat.

This means that some men should never approach strange women in public. Specifically, if you have truly unusual standards of personal cleanliness, if you are the prophet of your own religion, or if you have tattoos of gang symbols or Technicolor cockroaches all over your face and neck, you are just never going to get a good response approaching a woman cold. That doesn’t mean you’re doomed to a life of solitude, but I suggest you start with internet dating, where you can put your unusual traits out there and find a woman who will appreciate them.

Are you wearing a tee-shirt making a rape joke? NOT A GOOD CHOICE—not in general, and definitely not when approaching a strange woman.

Pay attention to the environment. Look around. Are you in a dark alley? Then probably you ought not approach a woman and try to strike up a conversation. The same applies if you are alone with a woman in most public places. If the public place is a closed area (a subway car, an elevator, a bus), even a crowded one, you may not realize that the woman’s ability to flee in case of threat is limited. Ask yourself, “If I were dangerous, would this woman be safe in this space with me?” If the answer is no, then it isn’t appropriate to approach her.

On the other hand, if you are both at church accompanied by your mothers, who are lifelong best friends, the woman is as close as it comes to safe. That is to say, still not 100% safe. But the odds are pretty good.

The third point: Women are communicating all the time. Learn to understand and respect women’s communication to you.

You want to say Hi to the cute girl on the subway. How will she react? Fortunately, I can tell you with some certainty, because she’s already sending messages to you. Looking out the window, reading a book, working on a computer, arms folded across chest, body away from you = do not disturb. So, y’know, don’t disturb her. Really. Even to say that you like her hair, shoes, or book. A compliment is not always a reason for women to smile and say thank you. You are a threat, remember? You are Schrödinger’s Rapist. Don’t assume that whatever you have to say will win her over with charm or flattery. Believe what she’s signaling, and back off.

If you speak, and she responds in a monosyllabic way without looking at you, she’s saying, “I don’t want to be rude, but please leave me alone.” You don’t know why. It could be “Please leave me alone because I am trying to memorize Beowulf.” It could be “Please leave me alone because you are a scary, scary man with breath like a water buffalo.” It could be “Please leave me alone because I am planning my assassination of a major geopolitical figure and I will have to kill you if you are able to recognize me and blow my cover.”

On the other hand, if she is turned towards you, making eye contact, and she responds in a friendly and talkative manner when you speak to her, you are getting a green light. You can continue the conversation until you start getting signals to back off.

The fourth point: If you fail to respect what women say, you label yourself a problem.

There’s a man with whom I went out on a single date—afternoon coffee, for one hour by the clock—on July 25th. In the two days after the date, he sent me about fifteen e-mails, scolding me for non-responsiveness. I e-mailed him back, saying, “Look, this is a disproportionate response to a single date. You are making me uncomfortable. Do not contact me again.” It is now October 7th. Does he still e-mail?

Yeah. He does. About every two weeks.

This man scores higher on the threat level scale than Man with the Cockroach Tattoos. (Who, after all, is guilty of nothing more than terrifying bad taste.) You see, Mr. E-mail has made it clear that he ignores what I say when he wants something from me. Now, I don’t know if he is an actual rapist, and I sincerely hope he’s not. But he is certainly Schrödinger’s Rapist, and this particular Schrödinger’s Rapist has a probability ratio greater than one in sixty. Because a man who ignores a woman’s NO in a non-sexual setting is more likely to ignore NO in a sexual setting, as well.

So if you speak to a woman who is otherwise occupied, you’re sending a subtle message. It is that your desire to interact trumps her right to be left alone. If you pursue a conversation when she’s tried to cut it off, you send a message. It is that your desire to speak trumps her right to be left alone. And each of those messages indicates that you believe your desires are a legitimate reason to override her rights.

For women, who are watching you very closely to determine how much of a threat you are, this is an important piece of data.

The fifth and last point: 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.

Shouldn’t this go without saying? Of course it should. Sadly, that’s not the world I live in. You may be beginning to realize that it’s not the world you live in, either.

Miss LonelyHearts wishes you happiness and success in your search for romantic companionship.

via kateharding.net

For more interesting reading, devote 1/2 hour to the comments.

ps: The title comes from the quantum mechanics theory of Schrödinger’s Cat, which very loosely paraphrased would mean “the stranger has the potential to be both a rapist and not a rapist depending on unknown factors, and you don’t get to know this until you interact”.

Posted via web from BlahBlohBlog

Remembering October 19th 1983

(Originally posted in 2005)
Today marks the 26th anniversary of the 1983 uprising in which Maurice Bishop, his companion and fellow minister Jacqueline Creft, other members of the cabinet and innocent civilians were killed by members of the People’s Revolutionary Army. The events of that fateful day would have profound social and political ramifications that resound in Grenada even now in 2009.

Maurice Bishop was the leader of the People’s Revolutionary Government (1979-1983). Whether you share his politics or not, one unmistakable fact remains – he was one of the most charismatic West Indian political personalities ever. He was much beloved by the Grenadian population, and his untimely death at a relatively young age has only added to his status as a people’s hero.

Just last night I caught a piece of Malcom X on TV. Bishop was quite a disciple of Malcolm, and I am always struck by the similarities in their oratory and their personal magnetism. Like Malcolm, Bishop had the power to move crowds to tears, or to anger, when necessary. Women flocked to him, men admired him, the elderly adored him. Their rhetoric was similar as well:

“The new society must not only speak of Democracy, but must practise it in all its aspects. We must stress the policy of “Self-Reliance” and “Self-Sufficiency” undertaken co-operatively, and reject the easy approaches offered by aid and foreign assistance. We will have to recognise that our most important resource is our people.” – Maurice Bishop.

You can read more about Bishop here.

Bernard Coard and Maurice Bishop

In the latter years of the Revolution (or the Revo as it is still called), Bishop and his political partner Bernard Coard began to drift apart ideologically. As one writer would put it “One current of Grenadian socialism was egalitarian, democratic, and Jamesian; the other was hierarchical, statist, command-oriented, placing power above the masses..”

I remember that day even now. October 19th 1983. I was 12, and my grandmother kept my brother and me home from school. Days before this, Maurice Bishop had been placed under house arrest by the Revolutionary Army, under the directive of Bernard Coard and Hudson Austin.The citizenry was worried, confused and agitated. There were rumours of impending student demonstrations and strike actions.

At about 1pm we could hear the sounds of gunfire coming from St George’s, the sounds of car horns blaring, the screams and shots of people running out of town. I remember my grandmother being terrified for the safety of my uncle who was working in the heart of St George’s; thankfully he showed up unhurt and full of news later on that afternoon.

This is a synopsis of the day’s events from
www.thegrenadarevolutiononline.com:

Maurice Bishop, as Prime Minister, began to be criticized for his under-performance and lack of administrative leadership in relation to the crisis of multiple problems facing the country, including the deteriorating state of the economy. The period of criticism and conflict between Maurice Bishop and his supporters, and Bernard Coard and those of what is called the ‘Coard faction’ went back as far as the early 1970s, according to some accounts. No report of strife within the Party was printed in the official People’s Revolutionary Government (PRG) newspaper, “The Free West Indian.”

Another interesting point is that the Central Committee was a collective body with consensus or near consensus decision-making. There is a concept that the needs of the collective soon supercede those of its members. The ‘Coard faction’ proposed that ‘joint leadership’ be shared between Bishop and Coard. They felt the marriage of the strengths of the two men would be beneficial for the country. The ‘joint leadership’ decision was unanimous. The decision was, according to some, a formalization of the responsibilities previously borne by Bishop and Coard. The consensus decision by this collective became the overriding factor which many concluded took precedence over Bishop’s decision change. Bishop had other ideas. The duties and responsibilities would leave, according to Bishop’s final feeling on the matter, Maurice Bishop only as a show piece, a front, a ceremonial functionary without real power. Bishop said needed time to think about how joint leadership would work itself out day-to-day.

When Bishop refused to accept the idea of ‘joint leadership’ as workable, and rumors and alleged threats seemed to throw the situation into a psychiatric state, the Prime Minister was placed under house arrest. The house arrest occurred the evening of 12 October 1983 by unanimous decision of the remaining Central Committee members. There were frantic efforts to resolve the situation. Mediators Michael Als and Rupert Roopnarine were called in. Michael  Als’ press statement Crisis in the NJM gives an overview of the situation.

Many Grenadians were alarmed by what was termed ‘Bishop’s house arrest.’ They demonstrated and marched to Bishop’s house to release him on 19 October, 1983. He was freed by a very large crowd with some reports at 4-5,000 people. Many supporters were waiting for a speech from Maurice Bishop in Market Square. For an uncertain reason, Bishop and a large group went to Fort Rupert, the headquarters of the People’s Revolutionary Army. The soldiers there were persuaded to disarm. The weapons were handed out from the armory to Bishop’s supporters.

A PRA assault unit in three BTR-60 armored personnel carriers headed on to Fort Rupert. An unidentified person, either on the Fort or off the Fort fired the first gunshot. There is controversy over who fired first. Many civilians died, either by bullet or by trying to get off the Fort. In the melee, people sought to escape from Fort Rupert by jumping off from its heights. Because of the elevated placement of Fort Rupert, citizens all over St. George’s stood on their balconies and viewed bodies falling to the ground. The photo below captures some of the horror.

Whatever opinion you have about what caused the internal power struggle within the Government of Grenada, here was a situation of the deepest national tragedy. The hard consequences of that conflict resulted in the deaths of the following eight people who were lined up facing a courtyard wall in Fort Rupert on 19 October 1983, in the following order from left to right:

1. Keith ‘Pumphead’ Hayling from the Marketing & Import Board
2. Evelyn ‘Brat’ Bullen, a pro-Bishop business supporter
3. Foreign Minister Unison Whiteman
4. Prime Minister Maurice Bishop
5. Minister of Education Jacqueline Creft (pregnant at the time)
6. Evelyn Maitland of Maitland’s Garage
7. Minister of Housing, Norris Bain
8. Fitzroy Bain, President of the Agricultural and General Workers Union

This is the wall that they were lined up against and executed.

An overhead shot of Fort Rupert (now known as Fort George, it’s original name)

The total civilian casualties from that day have never been accurately assessed. What had become apparent is that there were definitely some young people who were never seen again, but whose families have NEVER reported them missing, for reasons I don’t know.

American visitor: Why did Grenadians, who are friendly, courteous,gentle, fun loving and proud people, end up jailing and shooting each other?
Unidentified Grenadian: I don’t know. We ask ourselves that question all the time.
- from an introductory page of Frederic L. Pryor’s book “Revolutionary Grenada”

Despite the best, and often grossly misguided, efforts at delving into the truth about what really happened that day, who was to blame, etc., the events of October 1983 have left a brutal, sad and violent scar on the psyches of Grenadians. This is still evident in 2009, when the last of the Grenada 17, which included Bernard Coard and Hudson Austin, were recently released from Richmond Hill Prison, a sensitive topic for Grenadians on either side of the issue. There are too many wounds, hurts and grievances have been left unattended, paramount among which is the question of the whereabouts of the remains of Bishop, Creft and the others who were executed. Additionally, because of the poignant silence from the families of the others who died or disappeared on that day, it is still unknown if there are other bodies as yet un-recovered or accounted for. There is so much about that day we don’t know; a lot we probably don’t want to know.

Bishop’s daughter Nadia issued this statement in 2008, formally “forgiving” the Grenada 17; as with most things pertaining to that period, her statement ironically served to further salt the wound, deepening the wedge between those who can’t forgive and those who would prefer to close the book on this period. For, as it is rumoured, even though Nadia Bishop has forgiven, her grand-mother Alimenta Bishop,  has not.  This is a link to an interview Bernard Coard gave to the Trinidad Express on his release; just reading the interview fills me with fury, and I lost no friends or family on that day. I can barely imagine what some other Grenadians must be feeling, my heart aches for them.

As we continue to struggle with the repercussions of one of the darkest moments in our nation’s history, the words of the rallying cry of the Revolution come to mind – Forward Ever, Backward Never.

May the fallen rest in peace. May their families and their countrymen someday find peace.

________

Some additional photos of Maurice Bishop.

The back of Fort George where many jumped, fell or were pushed to their death. In ‘83, there were bamboo stools and huge boulders all around here. Click for the large version.

Blog Action Day 2009

Blog Action Day is an annual event that unites the world’s bloggers in posting about the same issue on the same day on their own blogs with the aim of sparking discussion around an issue of global importance. Blog Action Day 2009 will be the largest-ever social change event on the web. One day. One issue. Thousands of voices.

Just a reminder that the annual Blog Action Day is October 15th, 2009 – this year’s topic is Climate Change. Last year’s Blog Action Day topic was Poverty, which I blogged here.

The concept is simple:

Climate change affects us all and it threatens more than the environment. It threatens to cause famine, flooding, war, and millions of refugees. Given the urgency of the issue of climate change and the upcoming international climate negotiations in Copenhagen this December, we think the blogosphere has the unique opportunity to mobilize millions of people around expressing support for finding a sustainable solution to the climate crisis.

We encourage you to write about climate change in the context of how it relates to the topic of your blog. To help you start thinking, here are a few ideas about how you might connect climate change to things that you might already write about:

• A Technology or Business blog might write about emerging clean tech and how innovative companies might be able to help address the problem of climate change.
• A Health or Lifestyle blog might write about how climate change will affect our children’s health and daily living.
• A Nonprofit or Political blog might write about how climate change is deeply connected to many other issues – such as poverty and conflict.
• A Design blog might write about new trends in eco-friendly or sustainable design.
• A Travel blog might write about the places you want to see now before climate change makes them difficult to access or, well, under the sea.

Testing a Posterous post from Google Wave

Testing a Posterous post from Google Wave
Hoping this works

via google-wave-robot

Posted via web from BlahBlohBlog

Riding the Google Wave (in a life preserver)

A snapshot of my experimental WordPress post via Google Wave

This is what the post looks like when you are in the wave