John Petrosky did not rape anyone.
He did not encourage or condone rape (if you think he did, you may have Asberger’s).
No one who read the article will rape anyone as a result.

1. Not that anyone knows of… but he did re-open the wounds of a LOT of victims. Including me. The last thing any victim needs to read is someone CONDONING (even satirically) what some monster did to us.

2. Pretending to condone or encourage rape will be condoning and encouraging rape to those looking for outside jusification of their evil desires and deeds. To pretend otherwise is NAIVE.

3. You are correct. It won’t be because of the article, the article may just be used as a justification in their already sick twisted little heads. Fuel to the fire so to speak, but not the fire itself.

It shouldn’t be a decision solely resting on the woman. Yes, it’s her body, but that child is his too. He has rights to his child. Saying that he is a misogynist or even an asshole for wanting to defend those rights is out of line.

Really? Even if that “he” is the man who raped her? If your answers yes, then at least you’re consistant. If you answer no, then your argument starts to fall apart. If there can be an exception to this “rule”… who decides that?

If a man can force a woman to bear a child, can he also force her to have an abortion? If you answer yes, again, at least you’re consistant, but if your answer is no… you’ve lost your argument.

Ok geniuses, I know that he is not dead serious. My point is that it’s shitty satire, and that it’s disturbingly reflective of his actual views.

Jill…regardless of whether or not you thought his satire was fair or foul, how do you know what his actual views are? The only opinion I can detect that doesn’t seem, to me, to be sarcastic in nature is the notion that the media loves nothing more than to present some good old-fashioned sensationalism.

While I’m “lightening up,” how about you guys learn basic English writing skills? Start with learning that when you mean “you are,” you should use “you’re,” not “your.”

On this, we agree. I’m tired of illiterate people clogging the Internet. I’m also tired of people who confuse opinions with people, and can’t argue the issue at hand without resorting to insults. Y’know, stuff like calling the editors “mouth-breathers”, and so on. You responded to the author’s “hateful” article with an equally hateful one, urging personal reprisal against the author instead of discussing the ideas he presented.

And a question: Where are you guys coming from? I can’t imagine that you’re all regular readers who just now decided to comment. Where did you find the link to this post?

People’ve presumably been posting links. I myself found the link at a minor message board which I frequent. If nothing else, your blog entry seems to have caused a fair bit of discussion, and discussion is always – always worth the trouble. Unless, of course, the intent behind your article in the first place was suppression, rather than discussion.

I never said that not a single person who contributes to this forum is actively participating in social welfare

You did toss around a rather broad accusation at the commenters here in general, based on very little information. Are you trying to pretend you didn’t?

Now we have two testaments – three, if you count me – out of 172 comments from people who are the exception to the rule I suggested.

It’s a bit of a double bind, you’ve set up, isn’t it? People who don’t provide their credibility resumes apparently validate your opinion that they’re not doing anything, and you use people who do to validate the idea that everyone else must fit the rule.

Not to mention the faulty logic of presenting 3 out of 172 comments as if it were reflective of the ratio of people who’ve done work on this issue to people who haven’t. Since you’ve made multiple comments yourself, that looks dishonest.

But Ako, some of your point is lost in sarcasm.

Funny, I think some of your point is lost in your self-righteousness and tendency to talk down to people. Especially since your entire claim to have done something on the issue hinges on assertions about your communication skills that you’ve completely failed to demonstrate. But I don’t imagine you’re going to stop envisioning yourself in a position so far above all these sarcastic, insulting, angry women, making unsupported assertions about what people really do and how they really feel, and insisting we’ve all failed the Progressive Litmus Test for not sharing your sense of priorities.

My point, which you seem to be having trouble processing, is that these incidents are occurring in different contexts and on different levels around the world, and that this instance is, given the attention we are giving it, something of a teacup tempest.

I doubt you see any of the “real” problems which you consider credible as consisting only of the major incidents. Otherwise you wouldn’t be worried about individual voters, only those with direct control over the specific incidents. Choosing to publically trivialize rape, and in Mark’s case, to paint himself as a victim of feminist persecution by using spurious free speech arguments (asserting that someone shouldn’t hold a job, and putting pressure on an organization you help fund to stop supporting him is not violating free speech), helps promote the idea that rape is trivial, entertaining, and perhaps even good, and women who argue against this are the real oppressors.

Having the sort of attitude that promotes and supports rape given a relatively public voice isn’t trivial or irrelevant in terms of the causes of rape. It doesn’t, by itself, cause rape, but it supports the sort of attitudes that make potential rapists feel less guilty and more comfortable with the crimes they contemplate. And putting public effort into showing how that attitude is unacceptable, opposing it isn’t censorship, and men who support it look weak and pathetic isn’t trivial or irrelevant either.

Like many of the breast-beating hand-wringers, your tales of woe have little bearing on the sitation at hand.

Okay, so when the guys writing and printing the editorial that trivializes rape and mocks rape victims complain about feeling bad, that’s proof to you that they’re good people, we should all stop being mean to them, and it’s unfair that some people (including the people who haven’t gotten to hear the apparently sincere apology that Mark Rowan gave you and you alone) don’t instantly and completely forgive him. But when I don’t want to weep buckets for the poor men who have mean things said about them on the internet, because I know that understanding how people suffer is harder than any amount of worrying about weither you’ve shot yourself in the foot career-wise, or being publically embaressed by your own words, I’m not just irrelevant, but a “breast-beating hand-wringer”.

If these are your much-vaunted skills at listening to and understanding people, I’m beginning to wonder how you manage to hear anything at all. You’re so willing to dismiss people for being angry outside of the carefully moderated range you consider acceptable, using sarcasm, talking about things that were difficult or painful, or not being wowed by your overwhelming rightness. Are you really just listening to the echoes in your own head?

But I actually support his opinion piece on abortion and fathers rights. It shouldn’t be a decision solely resting on the woman. Yes, it’s her body, but that child is his too. He has rights to his child. Saying that he is a misogynist or even an asshole for wanting to defend those rights is out of line.

While the man is clearly lacking in judgment, the only reason this article has become a big deal is because people are taking it too seriously. Give him the attention he deserves, which is *none at all.*

Kat (163) and Ako (172) — I never said that not a single person who contributes to this forum is actively participating in social welfare. Now we have two testaments – three, if you count me – out of 172 comments from people who are the exception to the rule I suggested. But Ako, some of your point is lost in sarcasm.

Chicklet and Jaime (164, 165): I see your points. I think the credibility of the paper has more elasticity, though. I’m glad someone here has the wherewithall to exchange ideas, and although we disagree, is able to express them eloquently and without unnecessary venom.

Jigga (167): Since you seem completely incapable of grasping concepts outside your small, sarcastic, and overly defensive mind, I suggest you direct your efforts here. As for emphasis added, I think the childish construction of “never ever” almost always implies emphasis on “ever,” not “never.” Try saying it out loud both ways and I think you’ll see I’m right. As for definitions, I’m a professional writer and editor, and I won’t resort to the corny vehicle of pasting them here, but you’re wrong. Finally, I never expressed or implied that community service was a prerequisite to dialogue. I only pointed out the empty hypocrisy of being an outspoken critic and not a dedicated servant.
Everything I pointed out has everything to do with what we’re talking about. My point, which you seem to be having trouble processing, is that these incidents are occurring in different contexts and on different levels around the world, and that this instance is, given the attention we are giving it, something of a teacup tempest.
Your parents voted for presidents who subsidized actual, large-scale rape around the globe – if they voted for anyone who ever won an election between 1950 and 1990. Maybe you did too.
But let’s focus on crucifying a guy for having a bad sense of humor and poor taste.

Jill: There’s a good chance many of these commenters are from CCSU. But as far as I can see, only Chicklet, myself, and way back around (50) Mark have identified as such. And we’re all quite literate. So quit hatin’ on your readers. Every school has idiots, even Yale. SO if some of our business students and basket-weaving majors combine their marginal literacy with the degradation that has become online communication, you see what ensues. No need to cast aspersions.

Ako: Like many of the breast-beating hand-wringers, your tales of woe have little bearing on the sitation at hand. SO once and for all, let me remind you:

John Petrosky did not rape anyone.
He did not encourage or condone rape (if you think he did, you may have Asberger’s).
No one who read the article will rape anyone as a result.
It’s just, as Jill points out, shitty satire and in bad taste. Much like “What do Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles have in common,” it’s not for everyone, not appropriate for a newspaper, and frankly, not this big of a deal.

Have fun with your sarcasm-laden retorts. I will come back to read them but I’m done wasting energy trying to help anyone here — I’ll be focusing my energy into the actual situation, with the actual people involved, and trying to make things better for everyone.

Everyone knows we’re all “against rape,” even though it seems that means making snarky comments on blogs, instead of volunteering at a crisis or abuse center, or taking pen to paper ourselves to bring light to the issue — perhaps even confronting the deeper societal ills that cause rape to be a perpetually prevalent crime.

I’m so impressed. You’ve demonstrated through your deep inner knowledge that I, and all the other bloggers here have never written anything serious about rape, worked at a crises or abuse center, or otherwise lifted a finger to combat rape in any way.

Well, except for how I spent years working with child and teenage rape victims in the developing world, helped educate police about domestic violence laws, and taught self-defense for teenage girls. Wait, that doesn’t support your self-righteous little thesis at all! Maybe you haven’t correctly seen into the minds of every other commenter here and divined how they failed to take any action of substance, unlike your glorious self. In which case you weren’t being wise, you were being presumptuous and condescending.

1. Examine what you can do in your own life to confront and prevent domestic violence and aggression in your own social sphere. It exists there.

Really? That never would have occurred to me. And all this time wasted on a feminist blog reading femininst views and comments would never have put that idea into my head. Lucky you showed up to enlighten me.

2. Consider the unseen and far-reaching pulse of mass media framing our lives, how we perceive ourselves, how we perceive women; how we perceive Iraqis, how we perceive a nine-year-old Indian prostitute; how we fail to perceive marginalized and downtrodden people upon whose misery our lives of luxury are built. Consider the socially accepted drone which tells us that the very basis of our lives is acceptable to the planet, that it is acceptable to our ecosystem, that it is a viable and sustainable way of life.

So first you rag on people for inaction, which you prove by the fact that they’re on here posting and commenting on issues, wasting precious seconds that could be used to save battered women (and wasn’t this originally about rape?). Then you tell us to follow the path to enlightenment, and achieve your own level of (self-)righteousness by sitting around contemplating lists of abstracts that you can tell with your mystic wisdom that none of us ever contemplate.

If you’re really talking to Mark the negligent, and Johnny the guy who thinks rape is funny, tell them to pursue your little agenda. Or better yet, tell them to sit with a twelve-year-old, day after day, while she had flashbacks about being raped, while she’s curled up in a ball of misery, while she’s unconcious from trying to hang herself and they have to put their hands over their mouth to see their still breathing. Tell them to help the girls with rope burns on their wrists from being tied up, scars on their ankles from where they were kept on a chain, or brain damage from having their head split open by their own father wielding an knife. Tell them to hold those girl’s hands, wipe away their tears, applaud their triumphs, visit them in the mental hospital after suicide attempts, and keep it up for year. Then tell me how sorry John and Mark really are, how much they’ve suffered for this, and how I haven’t done anything of use.

You attacking his views on abortion eliminates any credibility you might have… Nothing he said there was offensive.

Are you all students at Central Connecticut State University? Because if you are, then this is just sad, and that school really needs to re-evaluate its academic standards. On the other hand, if you’re approximately 12 and/or functionally illiterate and/or lack the capacity for logical reasoning, I will give you a pass.

While I’m “lightening up,” how about you guys learn basic English writing skills? Start with learning that when you mean “you are,” you should use “you’re,” not “your.”

And a question: Where are you guys coming from? I can’t imagine that you’re all regular readers who just now decided to comment. Where did you find the link to this post?