Cool, I'll drop it. Trying to talk about sexism in male dominated venues usually gets a ton of resistance and I should have expected it.The problem is that your comments have been overtly sexist themselves. Let's treat sexes as equals? I know, it's crazy.
I'm sexist for thinking that the majority of perpetrators of sexual assault are men?
Why not the bar or a coffee shop instead?Believe it or not, there are places that don't have 24-hour coffee shops.
Like PaizoCon. *shakes head*
In that case, I'll totally come up to your room for a drink.
But it'll have to be something involving alcohol or an energy drink because I don't drink coffee.
You can sexually objectify me all you want, though.
Of course, if I had not spoken to you previously or simply had not known who you were, the lobby will have to make do. I hope the staff won't be too alarmed at your perverse intent though. It would be public and I've heard stories about those military grunts.
STORIES.
</deadpan>
I can see that would be an inconvenience in certain locations if the intent is genuine from the point to purely converse w/o any strings attached.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sexist for thinking that the majority of perpetrators of sexual assault are men?Cool, I'll drop it. Trying to talk about sexism in male dominated venues usually gets a ton of resistance and I should have expected it.The problem is that your comments have been overtly sexist themselves. Let's treat sexes as equals? I know, it's crazy.
Cool, I'll drop it. Trying to talk about sexism in male dominated venues usually gets a ton of resistance and I should have expected it.
Generalisation, bat and ball, pot and kettle and so on.
The problem is to sum it up from a mans perspective.
Statement:
Women see all men as threatening both physically and sexually.
Man's reaction - oh god every time a woman looks at me she sees a monster I am hurt, saddened, confused and upset by this. I dont want anybody to feel that way about me.
Man's solution well I prefer not to be thought of as a demon or criminal - Suggest that we dont approach women at all.
Statement: You are overreacting...
As for the suggestion of going to designated areas to attempt to initiate a relationship like a cub or a bar...
That is interesting because the number of times I hear my female friends complain that they are at the club to just dance and not be picked up..you cant assume or designate anywhere for the pickup.
As for the guy - yeh the elevator was a stupid place to ask, Yes she had just given a lecture about how shitty it is for men to be hitting on women at conferences.
He took no for an answer.....
He was stupid for trying to pick up a woman that had just given a lecture about the very thing he was doing.
He was ignorant about how threatening how those kinds of propositions seem in in-closed places.
He was then used as an example of "all men are potential rapists" "Women must fear men", "every man will do horrible things to you" fear mongering attitude that pervades the western world.
But it is a gender thing, because the potential threat is sexual.
No -- the potential threat is undefined. Robbery, kidnaping, murder, sex (consensual or otherwise), or just a cup of coffee and conversation are ALL possibilities, but she immediately picked one of those with no evidence whatsoever that it was the case. Being nervous about any or all of them is understandable. Immediately feeling worried about one of them, to the exclusion of others that are equally dire, isn't. She made it a gender thing, not him.
Add that to the fact that Ms. Watson was in this elevator at some godawful time in the morning when the crazies come out -- and I completely understand her reaction.Which reaction?
Feeling nervous and physically insecure?
Or feeling "sexualized," which she already felt before meeting the guy?One is reasonable, the other not so much. And they're not the same.
Feeling nervous. I don't remember reading in her blog where she said sexualized -- but a part of being nervous in these situations is feeling that the guy is treating you... and I'm not going to say this well I think... like an object, a thing to have. I don't know this guy and I don't know his intentions; he may very well have wanted to discuss her lecture further. But the *way* he approached her made her feel otherwise and reduced to that object.
I think -- my opinion only! -- that she's had previous experiences where someone asking her to share her ideas turned into something more that she didn't expect and she grafted those previous opinions onto this guy in the elevator.
Guys, I got mugged (and sprayed with mace in the eyes) walking back from the hotel at Dragon*Con over 10 years ago on a Sunday *morning* and I haven't been back. I imagine that Ms. Watson had something similar happen to her, not rape, but scary (again, my opinion) that led her to be more fearful in this kind of situation.
I'm sexist for thinking that the majority of perpetrators of sexual assault are men?Cool, I'll drop it. Trying to talk about sexism in male dominated venues usually gets a ton of resistance and I should have expected it.The problem is that your comments have been overtly sexist themselves. Let's treat sexes as equals? I know, it's crazy.Cool, I'll drop it. Trying to talk about sexism in male dominated venues usually gets a ton of resistance and I should have expected it.
I am not required to justify every post to you. Since you feel I have to, and your overreaction and oversimplification in this thread, I don't really feel the desire or need to interact with you any more. Feel free to interpret this as "winning" if you like. You won, you're the superior debater, smarter than me, all that. I'll put you on ignore, so I don't get in the way of any gloating you might wish to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We don't have to worry.
About strange dudes in elevators in the middle of the night? What planet are you from?
We need to worry less about rape from women specifically, but again, that says nothing of kidnaping, murder, robbery, or just really annoying conversation.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see that would be an inconvenience in certain locations if the intent is genuine from the point to purely converse w/o any strings attached.
Indeed, I would have been asking if her schedule was free in the morning, not asking for something then and there. But I have no idea if he was catching his flight the next day or what.
I've actually been in a similar situation as the poor guy was.
Guys, I got mugged (and sprayed with mace in the eyes) walking back from the hotel at Dragon*Con over 10 years ago on a Sunday *morning* and I haven't been back. I imagine that Ms. Watson had something similar happen to her, not rape, but scary (again, my opinion) that led her to be more fearful in this kind of situation.
And again, that's a public safety concern. It's 100% legitimate. She had every right to feel nervous. That was his fault.
She did not have the right to hijack this event as some kind of a monstrous example of his supposed sexism and male privilege.
Muggings can happen to anyone; they're not a feminist issue, they're a humanist one.
Well, coffee and conversation and having to turn down a pass are probably the most likely, but of the actual threats?
I don't know about Ireland. When I was in Jamaica, kidnaping for ransom would have been vastly more liklely than rape, based on the crime statistics.
The fact that her knee-jerk response was to "feel sexualized" by this is NOT his fault, though, as near as I can tell -- rather, that was a pre-existing condition, which she was expressly there to talk about women having at these conventions. It's a tragedy that women should be made to feel that way by men in the past, but it's not kosher to blame all future men for that as well, if they're in fact treating you with respect. "Please don't take this the wrong way," and "I understand" are not exactly hallmarks of unbridled lecherism being forced onto somone else.
My understanding of the Atheism+ movement is that it arose in part because women feel sexualized within the mainstream atheist movement. Women who present at conferences in particular have every right to be upset when they're being propositioned, seeing as that's their job. Those conferences are their workplaces. A woman should be able to make her living without getting hit on.
Considering the subject of Watson's talk, I think she has every right to feel upset at being sexualized. I mean, the fact that she was propositioned suggests that the guy wasn't paying attention. This- the fact that he propositioned Watson in spite of the subject of the talk she was at the conference to give- does, IMO, make it this guy's fault that she'd feel sexualized by his actions. I mean, how is a person supposed to feel after spending a good deal of time talking about how much she hates getting hit on... only to get hit on the moment she's alone?
Women don't always feel welcome within the mainstream atheist movement, and the treatment of Rebecca Watson (who, I might add, didn't start the Atheism+ movement, nor is she even involved with it, last I heard) is just one example of why. It's not just about getting hit on at conferences; it's also about receiving threats of violence (including threats of sexual violence) just for speaking out against the misogyny found within mainstream atheism. I, for one, have only been marginally interested in participating in the atheist movement until now, because as a woman and a feminist, I didn't feel welcome, and I know that there are some respected people within that movement who might even be hostile towards me. Atheism+, on the other hand, is a movement I would like to get involved with, since it has all the good things the atheism movement has to offer, without the misogyny.
I'd also like to point out, to all the men who hate how men are expected to behave, or how they're portrayed in the media... women and/or feminists are not the enemy. Feminists in particular are concerned with how the patriarchy (the real enemy here) portrays and treats men, and how hyper-masculinity is bad, and so on. Feminists are your allies, here.
I can see that would be an inconvenience in certain locations if the intent is genuine from the point to purely converse w/o any strings attached.Indeed, I would have been asking if her schedule was free in the morning, not asking for something then and there. But I have no idea if he was catching his flight the next day or what.
I've actually been in a similar situation as the poor guy was. ** spoiler omitted **
This- the fact that he propositioned Watson in spite of the subject of the talk she was at the conference to give- does, IMO, make it this guy's fault that she'd feel sexualized by his actions.
It's NOT a "fact" that she was propositioned for sex. In fact, the guy never mentioned it. (I don't know if he would have eventually gotten around to it or not, but neither do you, or anyone else.) The fact is that she was asked to have a cup of coffee and talk.
I myself have actually had coffee and talked with women without trying to pick them up -- without any interest in picking them up. On many occasions. Often it's work-related. Sometimes I'm just interested in what they have to say. It actually happens, despite the protestations to the contrary. I wouldn't approach a person that way in an elevator in the middle of the night, for all the reasons I've already outlined, but that has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with basic safety.
Men have certainly said and done mysogynistic things in the past, and at skeptic conferences too, I don't doubt. And those men should be ostracized by anyone with half a brain. But if every minor faux-pas, sexual or otherwise, is immediately touted as a horrendous example of sexism, it hurts everyone. Pretty soon no one can talk to anyone without being paranoid they'll be the subject of a podcast. Maybe they say something misguided, as elevator guy's approach was very misguided, but if misguided immediately becomes synonymous with sexist, then no one would feel comfortable at all. That would indeed be a kind of gender equality achieved, but not the kind we want, I think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd also like to point out, to all the men who hate how men are expected to behave, or how they're portrayed in the media... women and/or feminists are not the enemy. Feminists in particular are concerned with how the patriarchy (the real enemy here) portrays and treats men, and how hyper-masculinity is bad, and so on. Feminists are your allies, here.
The other disconnect is that the common stereotype that people are lead to believe about feminists are that they're prudes.
That would be erroneous.
I've come across those that are far from it. A lot of it has to do with self-empowerment and to be on a level playing field. Even when it comes to sexuality.
Frankly, some guys don't know how to respond and/or react with an empowered and/or dominating female. They feel emasculated.
|
No, I'm illustrating that even when we think we're being reasonable, other people might not interpret it that way. Be cognizant of what your doing and where you're doing it.
I don't have a good statistic, but I'm guessing the majority of us weren't born as a product of rape. Therefore, a significant number of relationships can be started without being creepy or putting the woman in a situation where she is afraid of rape.
The fact that it does occasionally happen (that women become afraid) is not a reason to end all contact with women. It is a reason to be aware of sometimes our behavior communicates intentions we don't have.
Would you tell minorities to look at the crime statistics and be more aware that they may seem like a criminal if they are not very careful in how they look and act?
Would you say it is fare for whites to look at crime state (as a woman looks at rape stats) and be suspicious of blacks committing crimes against them AND BE JUSTIFIED in that suspicion because the stats are accurate? Should I look at every black customer as a potential thief then if a woman should see every man as a potential rapist?THIS is what some of you are very much advocating, but would never DARE in a racial context...... but bashing men is a-ok
It has been my experience that if someone wants me to go back to his room at 4am, he's looking for sex (or something sexual in nature). Likewise, if I'm going to ask someone to go back to my room at 4am, it's because I'm looking for sex. It's not unreasonable to assume that was the case, here, and I think that most reasonable, sexual beings would assume that sex was the goal. It would have been very, very easy to make it not about sex. For starters, if the request was made at 4pm instead of 4am, or if he had suggested they go somewhere other than a hotel room for the conversation and the coffee, or if he had emphasized the fact that he wanted to talk, or flat out said that he wasn't looking for sex.
Or, you know, he could have had the conversation he wanted to have with Watson when she was at the bar, which would have been all too easy if he was genuinely interested in just a conversation.
If it looks like a proposition, and it smells like a proposition, it's probably a proposition. It's possible that it wasn't, but if that was the case, the guy could have and should have done more to make that clear.
|
|
Cool, I'll drop it. Trying to talk about sexism in male dominated venues usually gets a ton of resistance and I should have expected it.
Welcome to my world, try being conservative pro gun guy in this place. On a related note, women need to carry guns more. yeah they are smaller, Sam Colt fixed what god &^%$ed up. yep on an atheist thread
It has been my experience that if someone wants me to go back to his room at 4am, he's looking for sex (or something sexual in nature). If I'm going to ask someone to go back to my room at 4am, it's because I'm looking for sex.
My experience has been the exact opposite. Of women who have asked me to go back their rooms at 4 am, in 90% of the cases it's because they wanted to talk about their boyfriend and/or relationship and wanted a male perspective, and didn't want to have a public conversation about that kind of stuff. In 10% of the cases it's because they just wanted to talk in general. In 0% of the cases has it ever been about sex. I made the mistake the first time this happened, thinking it might have been about sex, and tried to kiss her, and got slapped. So I learned not to make that assuption, a caution that has served me well since then.
On a related note, women need to carry guns more. yeah they are smaller, Sam Colt fixed what god &^%$ed up. yep on an atheist thread
|
|
I'd also like to point out, to all the men who hate how men are expected to behave, or how they're portrayed in the media... women and/or feminists are not the enemy. Feminists in particular are concerned with how the patriarchy (the real enemy here) portrays and treats men, and how hyper-masculinity is bad, and so on. Feminists are your allies, here.The other disconnect is that the common stereotype that people are lead to believe about feminists are that they're prudes.
That would be erroneous.
I've come across those that are far from it. A lot of it has to do with self-empowerment and to be on a level playing field. Even when it comes to sexuality.
Frankly, some guys don't know how to respond and/or react with an empowered and/or dominating female. They feel emasculated.
Mostly thanks to gender roles we have foisted upon us, yes indeed the same gender roles feminists cry and fight on about. but you see in the fight for "equality" how men are treated and our roles were never part of the complaint and thus never looked at and "fixed" as women's roles have at least attempted to be. Both sides needed to shift in order to fix the gender issue and only one really has. Yes men feeling uncomfortable with dominating women is a fact but we live in a society that does not accept the existence of a submissive male. We need a mens equality movement, men deserve a choice in life not to follow the dominate alpha male career first stereotype, and not feel like crap for doing anything else.
My understanding of the Atheism+ movement is that it arose in part because women feel sexualized within the mainstream atheist movement. Women who present at conferences in particular have every right to be upset when they're being propositioned, seeing as that's their job. Those conferences are their workplaces. A woman should be able to make her living without getting hit on.
True but I have seen examples of women breaking the rules or not thinking the rules apply to them in the workplace or worse thinking the man can suffer his gender did it to us for 10 thousand years we can visit the sins of the father on the son.
Considering the subject of Watson's talk, I think she has every right to feel upset at being sexualized. I mean, the fact that she was propositioned suggests that the guy wasn't paying attention. This- the fact that he propositioned Watson in spite of the subject of the talk she was at the conference to give- does, IMO, make it this guy's fault that she'd feel sexualized by his actions. I mean, how is a person supposed to feel after spending a good deal of time talking about how much she hates getting hit on... only to get hit on the moment she's alone?
Everybody agrees with you its stupidity and insensitivity and bad judgement... But did the guy actually attend her lecture or even know she had given the lecture he could have been some travelling Guinness salesman staying at the hotel that heard a very interesting conversation found Rebecca's intelligence and personality attractive, I know I do I listen to SGU all the time and I find her fascinating funny and would love to have a conversation with her (Not at 4 in the morning and not in an elevator).
Women don't always feel welcome within the mainstream atheist movement, and the treatment of Rebecca Watson (who, I might add, didn't start the Atheism+ movement, nor is she even involved with it, last I heard) is just one example of why. It's not just about getting hit on at conferences; it's also about receiving threats of violence (including threats of sexual violence) just for speaking out against the misogyny found within mainstream atheism. I, for one, have only been marginally interested in participating in the atheist movement until now, because as a woman and a feminist, I didn't feel welcome, and I know that there are some respected people within that movement who might even be hostile towards me. Atheism+, on the other hand, is a movement I would like to get involved with, since it has all the good things the atheism movement has to offer, without the misogyny.
There are so many wonderful and brilliant female members of the Skeptic/Atheist community Dr Pamela Gay, Dr Karen Stollznow, Molly Bentley that attend meetings like TAM. Unfortunately because it was started mainly by men the modern Skeptic movement is male dominated but they are making efforts to be inclusive unfortunately it will take time. Rather than working with in it to change and sadly having to have to wait while some men with out dated ideas are educated or are moved on is annoying, but becoming combative makes it harder for the quite progressives to make changes.
I'd also like to point out, to all the men who hate how men are expected to behave, or how they're portrayed in the media... women and/or feminists are not the enemy. Feminists in particular are concerned with how the patriarchy (the real enemy here) portrays and treats men, and how hyper-masculinity is bad, and so on. Feminists are your allies, here....
There is no patriarchy because if you replace those patriarchs with matriarchs there will be no change Madam Mao, Margaret Thatcher and so on - it is the hyper rich/politically powerful both male and female that control and set the expectations of everyday people. It is about class and wealth not gender.
|
|
On a related note, women need to carry guns more. yeah they are smaller, Sam Colt fixed what god &^%$ed up. yep on an atheist thread
The Judge is an awesome gun, not practical to carry concealed often though. I advocate the small framed hammerless .38 revolver. great with smaller hands, reliable as hell and concealable.
Hmmm, my friend The Black Goblin carries one concealed to our game all the time.
But, to be truthful, the post was more for the video than the gun.
It is about class and wealth not gender.
Vive le Galt!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It has been my experience that if someone wants me to go back to his room at 4am, he's looking for sex (or something sexual in nature). Likewise, if I'm going to ask someone to go back to my room at 4am, it's because I'm looking for sex. It's not unreasonable to assume that was the case, here, and I think that most reasonable, sexual beings would assume that sex was the goal. It would have been very, very easy to make it not about sex. For starters, if the request was made at 4pm instead of 4am, or if he had suggested they go somewhere other than a hotel room for the conversation and the coffee, or if he had emphasized the fact that he wanted to talk, or flat out said that he wasn't looking for sex.
Or, you know, he could have had the conversation he wanted to have with Watson when she was at the bar, which would have been all too easy if he was genuinely interested in just a conversation.
If it looks like a proposition, and it smells like a proposition, it's probably a proposition. It's possible that it wasn't, but if that was the case, the guy could have and should have done more to make that clear.
The guy did nothing wrong in my opinion, if the proposition was clear all the better, he put it fairly polite and accepted no for an answer.
Do people have to seek flaws in every little thing, I am not saying it was a perfect performance, but hell at some point you have to say kudos for trying to be decent, that is about all you can expect really.
It is about class and wealth not gender.Vive le Galt!
Crap my closet leftist leanings are out....
Out of the closet and into the streets!
Where the goblins do it!
|
|
Yes men feeling uncomfortable with dominating women is a fact but we live in a society that does not accept the existence of a submissive male. We need a mens equality movement, men deserve a choice in life not to follow the dominate alpha male career first stereotype, and not feel like crap for doing anything else.Sure do! In fact, it's called third-wave feminism. It's pretty awesome.
We need to at least label is apart from feminism and get more men interested in and at least aware of the notion that they also have choices in how they can be seen. Also we need to get past our society as a whole ridiculing the idea
Sure do! In fact, it's called third-wave feminism. It's pretty awesome.
Hey 8th dwarf, don't you know any time you get one too many men the feminazi think it is male "dominated". yes there is a sad nutty branch to feminism that thinks either they dominate (a good thing they think) or it is evil corrupt male dominated.
Parity is preferable but sometimes interests and social factors will skew the gender population of a group of like-minded individuals...
Unfortunately aspects of the organisation make it unattractive for people to get behind.
I support the vast majority of the principles of mainstream feminism but I would never call my self a feminist.
1. I am not a woman I have not experienced a woman's life and thus it is disingenuous to give my self the same standing as a feminist.
2. I do not feel welcomed by the feminist community and feel my motives for being supportive constantly questioned.
3. I disagree with certain aspects of feminism and with a lot of isms questioning the ism is unwelcome.
4. The name it is exclusive of 49% of the population
I call my self an equalitarian somebody that seeks equality and parity for all.
Oh!
Look what came in the mail today!
I haven't read it yet, but, Vive le Galt!
|
|
Hey 8th dwarf, don't you know any time you get one too many men the feminazi think it is male "dominated". yes there is a sad nutty branch to feminism that thinks either they dominate (a good thing they think) or it is evil corrupt male dominated.Parity is preferable but sometimes interests and social factors will skew the gender population of a group of like-minded individuals...
Unfortunately aspects of the organisation make it unattractive for people to get behind.
I support the vast majority of the principles of mainstream feminism but I would never call my self a feminist.
1. I am not a woman I have not experienced a woman's life and thus it is disingenuous to give my self the same standing as a feminist.
2. I do not feel welcomed by the feminist community and feel my motives for being supportive constantly questioned.
3. I disagree with certain aspects of feminism and with a lot of isms questioning the ism is unwelcome.
4. The name it is exclusive of 49% of the population
I call my self an equalitarian somebody that seeks equality and parity for all.
I'm a guy. I call myself a feminist. I don't particularly seek out the feminist community, but none of the feminist women I've known have given me any s$$$ about it.
Feminism: The radical notion that women are people.
And so are men. The "equality" part is a myth though. you can make an effort to be fair as you can to both, but they are not the same.
|
|
I got one of these in the mail yesterday.Oh!
Look what came in the mail today!
I haven't read it yet, but, Vive le Galt!
the crystal type material hurts my eyes. Bronies might have a part in leading the charge in acceptance of kind nurturing males if they keep their act straight.
Out of the closet and into the streets!
Where the goblins do it!
You might say I lean towards the Fabian form of socialism. I get my leftism and my middle class paternalistic guilt from my Chardonnay socialist father and my male guilt fear and respect for the feminist movement from my Germaine Greer following all men are oppressors mother.
My fathers happiest day was my graduation not because I was graduating but because Gough Whitlam was there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And these were women you didn't already know well?
Correct. Amazingly, most women do not assume that I'm a rapist. And they're right!
Then again, an awful lot of women are physically taller than I am, too. Maybe that has something to do with (a) why they don't worry too much about me raping them, and (b) why none of them have ever wanted to have casual sex with me.
No, I'm illustrating that even when we think we're being reasonable, other people might not interpret it that way. Be cognizant of what your doing and where you're doing it.
I don't have a good statistic, but I'm guessing the majority of us weren't born as a product of rape. Therefore, a significant number of relationships can be started without being creepy or putting the woman in a situation where she is afraid of rape.
The fact that it does occasionally happen (that women become afraid) is not a reason to end all contact with women. It is a reason to be aware of sometimes our behavior communicates intentions we don't have.
Would you tell minorities to look at the crime statistics and be more aware that they may seem like a criminal if they are not very careful in how they look and act?
Would you say it is fare for whites to look at crime state (as a woman looks at rape stats) and be suspicious of blacks committing crimes against them AND BE JUSTIFIED in that suspicion because the stats are accurate? Should I look at every black customer as a potential thief then if a woman should see every man as a potential rapist?
THIS is what some of you are very much advocating, but would never DARE in a racial context...... but bashing men is a-ok
Except your statistics are misleading, for every black person who steals $108, there are 6 white people stealing $100.
|
|
Except your statistics are misleading, for every black person who steals $108, there are 6 white people stealing $100.No, I'm illustrating that even when we think we're being reasonable, other people might not interpret it that way. Be cognizant of what your doing and where you're doing it.
I don't have a good statistic, but I'm guessing the majority of us weren't born as a product of rape. Therefore, a significant number of relationships can be started without being creepy or putting the woman in a situation where she is afraid of rape.
The fact that it does occasionally happen (that women become afraid) is not a reason to end all contact with women. It is a reason to be aware of sometimes our behavior communicates intentions we don't have.
Would you tell minorities to look at the crime statistics and be more aware that they may seem like a criminal if they are not very careful in how they look and act?
Would you say it is fare for whites to look at crime state (as a woman looks at rape stats) and be suspicious of blacks committing crimes against them AND BE JUSTIFIED in that suspicion because the stats are accurate? Should I look at every black customer as a potential thief then if a woman should see every man as a potential rapist?
THIS is what some of you are very much advocating, but would never DARE in a racial context...... but bashing men is a-ok
For every rapist there are thousands of people that never would, but scary numbers!!!!
]For every rapist there are thousands of people that never would, but scary numbers!!!!
Citation needed.
In South Africa, more than one in three men admit to being rapists. Then there's this, 6% of the men surveyed freely admitted to acts of rape; I suspect there are other men who participated in the study who have committed acts of rape, but didn't admit it.
So, no, it's not "thousands" of non-rapists out there for every rapist; it's not "hundreds" of non-rapists for every rapist. In fact, it's not even "dozens" of non-rapists for every rapist. A man who is also a rapist is, sadly, quite common.