I don't think it's fair to lump Woody Allen, who has been charged with nothing, to Roman Polanski, who was actually convicted of sex crimes.

It was so annoying when Polanski got that standing ovation at the Oscars. The man is a rapist. Period.

Well, we all know that rape is just lurid tabloid trash, a tawdry, frivolous distraction from serious men and their serious art.

I'm not clear on what you're saying. If you're saying that it's disturbing that they're labeled as tragic and fascinating in some part because they're sex offenders, then sure, I'd agree with that. But if you're criticizing the fact that people pay tribute to them despite that they're sex offenders, then I'd have to disagree; committing a sex crime does not diminish a person's other achievements.

If he is an adult and she is 13, it is rape. Period. I have heard this argument over and over trying to give adult agency to children, but 13 year olds cannot consent to sexual activity with adults.

Polanski's a pedophile. end of discussion. He's been doing the jailbait dance overseas since the 1970s, as he's still a fugitive from the law.

However, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

When white female teachers rape, sexually assault and molest their 12-17 year old male students, no one uses the words "rape", "sexually assault" or "molest".

No one even refers to these women as pedophiles or predators.

No.

Instead we joke about how much these teen/preteen boys probably "wanted it", "had it coming" somehow or will chalk it up as some sort wondrous experience on par with a "Dear Playboy" letter that they'll relish from the day it happened until they're well in their 80s.

Lets be consistent in our criticisms.

I agree with you. I hate when the press uses phrases like "sex with a minor" instead of "raping a child". fuckin patriarchy at work, I tell ya.

A few years ago I saw an interview with the girl (now woman) in question, where she said that she just wished that she could have a voice in the proceedings, that she never wanted to charge him with anything and she just wanted everything dropped and it to be over. The charges against him were statutory, so she was given no choice in pressing them. She clearly felt very upset and powerless, blamed herself for ruining his great career, and wished he could just come back to the states as a free man and she wouldn't have to answer questions about it anymore.

Sometimes I really hate our justice system. While I think he should be punished for his actions, it seems like the whole process constantly re-victimizes her and enhanced his career with this lure of mystery from his life on the run. I wish we could just let her handle it the way she wants, even though I know that isn't really possible. Blarg.

Rusty, I definitely under what you're saying about Allen, but in my opinion, he is a sex offender as well.

Back to Polanski, Alice, I am saying the first thing you mentioned, as well as the second. I think there's something wrong with them being treated as some sort of victim (of tabloid attacks and public outrage) despite their offenses and martyred for it, and I do also think it's disturbing that they're continuously praised despite their offenses, like Rusty's example of Polanski's standing ovation.

This is absolutely horrendous. I think Feministing should use the somewhat name recognition ya'll have to write a letter to the editor that this is not acceptable.

So...because she'd been drunk before and was not a virgin... she wasn't really raped?

Also, the syntax the writer used in this article is disgusting. "There was champagne and a Quaalude for refreshments before a trip to the bedroom" sounds more like an upscale, romantic date than a heinous sexual assault against a child. SO gross.

I need to go take fifty showers now.

There's a rather large degree of tolerance in the media for the rape of children. When Bill Maher ridiculed the Pope for covering up the cases of pedophilia among priests, Maher was made out to be the bad guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsI5pSS_tuY

The media also glossed over the rape of children at Abu Ghraib, which was detailed in the Taguba Report:

“I saw [name of US interrogator blacked out ], who was wearing the military uniform, putting his dick in the little kid’s ass,”

So the fact that Newsweek would condone Roman Polanski's drugging and anal rape of a child is no suprise. The "journalists" who produced that pile of shit are scumbags who support the molestation of children.

Here's Slate's debunking of the idea that female teachers who molest boys are treated more leniently. And can you even name any male teachers who raped female students? I sure can't, but the list of female teacher sex offender household names goes on and on: Mary Kay LeTourneau, Debra LaFave, Pamela Turner...

"...I definitely under what you're saying about Allen, but in my opinion, he is a sex offender as well.'

And exactly why do you considered Allen a sex offender? Those are pretty nasty accusations you make.

Ah, I see. Drugging and giving alcohol to a minor is just like consensual sex! And because she'd had sex and drank before, that means she'd given carte blanche to all men forever! We'll I'll be dammed....

Black Canseco,

I'm not sure what your point is. No one on this thread, and certainly not feminists as a whole, excuse female pedophiles. I've also never heard that it's acceptable for women to sleep with children while it is not ok for men to do this. The problem lies with societal views on sexual roles. It's a problem that underage boys are lauded/encouraged/paid less mind for engaging in sexual relationships with older women. But that's a patriarchal reinforcement, not a feminist one.

Hey Vanessa,

Roman Polanski is my favorite filmmaker and I am a hardcore feminist. His life and his perseverance are inspiring to me and I follow his life very closely. I’ve read his autobiography, Roman by Polanski, several times, have read the court transcripts of this particular case, and have kept in touch with all of the news regarding it for the past several years. I’m not trying to defend him in any way because, clearly, he is at fault, but not in as much fault as people tend to believe. I agree with you on the part that the news media shouldn’t be victimizing Roman, but I don’t think we should be victimizing Samantha Geimer, the gal in question, either. She and her mother concocted a plan for her to have sex with Roman during their photo shoot so she could become famous, which is why all but the statutory rape charges were dismissed from court. Roman served prison time for…I believe it was six months, but I could be mistaken, which was an agreed upon term by both the court, the Geimer family, and Roman himself. Roman had to flee the country and return to France (where he has dual citizenship with Poland) because a new judge had overturned the previous judge’s decision for the publicity. I don’t know if you’ve been following the documentary at all, but the director, Marina Zenovich, tried to get Roman to appear on camera to discuss the entire debacle. He refused because he just wants to make films and spend time with his family. Samantha Geimer wants the same thing for him and herself. If memory serves, she now has two children and lives in Hawaii.

BlackCanseco, who is this "us" in your "let's be consistent in our criticisms"? Because I have never, ever heard a feminist say, "Oh yeah, he was probably loving it! It's totally a fantasy come true!" about female teachers who have raped their students. No, those sort of statements are a product of patriachy that says men (and boys) must want sex at all time no matter the circumstances. Perhaps this was implicit in your comment, but you sure sound like you're criticizing feminists for cheering on female rapists, while condeming male rapists.

We (as opposed to many non- and anti-feminists) are opposed to rape of all people. It just so happens that men rape women and girls far, far more often than women rape men and boys. When that happens, we don't suggest he was "asking for it." No one, no matter their gender, is ever asking to be raped.

I'm not excused the intense immorality and insensitivity of what Woody Allen did, but Soon-Yi was 22 when they were discovered and I'm not under the impression that there are any claims that they were involved with eachother before she was of age or that he coerced her in any way. they didn't even live in the same home and while she had siblings that were Allen's, both adopted and biological, she was not his daughter. terrible? absolutely. heartless? no doubt. sex offender/predator/rapist/on par with drugging and raping a 13 year old? I really, very much do not think so. I think this is a moment where the difference is significant.

There's a rather large degree of tolerance in the media for the rape of children. When Bill Maher ridiculed the Pope for covering up the cases of pedophilia among priests, Maher was made out to be the bad guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsI5pSS_tuY

The media also glossed over the rape of children at Abu Ghraib, which was detailed in the Taguba Report:

“I saw [name of US interrogator blacked out ], who was wearing the military uniform, putting his dick in the little kid’s ass,”

So the fact that Newsweek would condone Roman Polanski's drugging and anal rape of a child is no suprise. The "journalists" who produced that pile of shit are scumbags who support the molestation of children.

Black Canseco, you're wrong. The female teachers you refer to are convicted of their crimes and sent to prison for them, as they should be. I find it curious that you included a reference to the race of the female sex offender in your post. Is there a specific reason for that?

You will not find ANY commentary by feminists that in any way, shape, or form claims that boys who are molested by women are asking for it. I believe you're thinking of tabloids.

I was appalled when People magazine had an article covering the marriage of Le Tourneau and her victim as if it were some sort of romantic story of love conquering all. As a survivor of sexual abuse (by a female daycare provider), it made me want to throw up.

Obviously you're trolling here.

I'm not sure it's exactly legal to call someone a 'sex offender' publicly if they haven't been convicted. On what grounds?

I looked up Woody Allen's relationship with Soon-Yi and I don't understand what you are criticizing him for. It's a consensual relationships between adults, as far as I can tell.

"...but I don’t think we should be victimizing Samantha Geimer, the gal in question, either. She and her mother concocted a plan for her to have sex with Roman during their photo shoot so she could become famous..."

How feasible is it for a 13-year-old to refuse when someone who has custody of her concocts a plan like that...?

Of course you can call someone a sex offender legally without their being convicted. I'm confused by the question. How many times has Michael Jackson been called a pedophile and rapist? He was never convicted either. The ethical nature of it, I suppose, could be debated. But of course it's legal.

’m not trying to defend him in any way because, clearly, he is at fault, but not in as much fault as people tend to believe. I agree with you on the part that the news media shouldn’t be victimizing Roman, but I don’t think we should be victimizing Samantha Geimer, the gal in question, either. She and her mother concocted a plan for her to have sex with Roman during their photo shoot so she could become famous, which is why all but the statutory rape charges were dismissed from court.

Sara, you are absolutely, in every way defending him. You're saying that a 13-year-old girl conspired to "have sex" with a much older man, and therefore it's her fault. You know what? I don't care if she did. (Though if it is, her mother should have been prosecuted as well.)IT DOESN'T MATTER. She was 13. He was a full grown adult. That makes it rape. Christ, if you're going to call yourself a feminist while defending a convicted sex offender and saying that we should hold the 13-year-old victim partially responsible, at least be honest about it. I'm really trying to not scream right now.

If it makes you feel better, I changed the language to "accused Woody Allen." Sure, there's a difference between him and Polanski because he was convicted, but let's not forget Allen was accused of sexually Soon-Yi when she was 7 years old. I also recall there being press about them having them a "relationship" when she was as young as 15, but I can't be sure about that. She was 22 when they announced it publicly. My apologies if this offends anyone, but many still believe he abused her when she was a minor, as do I.

I say we focus our offense on the actual premise of the post, which is Newsweek using language to infer that a 13-year old was responsible for being raped.

Whether the victim or her mother had some kind of plot going is a red herring: Polanski put his dick in a child and deserves to spend the rest of his life locked up, just as other pedophiles do.

Bowleserised- Crimes still exist when someone hasn't been convicted of them yet or never get convicted. Rapists are still rapists when judges throw out all charges because they think that the girl was somehow "asking for it." Someone who fucks a drugged thirteen year old is a sex offender whether they have a criminal record or not.

Glad to clear that up for ya.

you've guys are right... i've only been reading feministing on a semi-daily basis for 4 years now. i refrain from posting consistently, because of the frequent condescension and myopia aimed at those who disagree. and if that makes me a troll--a name i get called almost monthly by people whose names i rarely see out here--then so be it.

regardless, there's a difference between sexism and double standards.

to claim that we laud young boys for having sex with older women is pretty absurd. anyone who's taught high school and college as i have/do hears young girls bragging about their older boyfriends and dates/trysts with older men and of course the older man is always dismissed as the predator while the woman/girl consistently being "manipulated"--true or not.

the polanski case isn't really up for debate. he's a pedophile. what spared him wasn't his gender, but his money and his celebrity.

the guys Stone Phillips catches should be so fortunate as to get a movie in their honor or discussions about their tortured souls...
As for the disparity in sentences--it's not even close. it's years versus decades, months versus years...

and let's be real: there's no movies of the week or talkshow slots for "harold" the 40-something potbellied gym teacher when he molests, but the media and way too many in the feminist community are set to defend or downplay women predators.

those are just facts.

And can you even name any male teachers who raped female students? I sure can't, but the list of female teacher sex offender household names goes on and on: Mary Kay LeTourneau, Debra LaFave, Pamela Turner...

I assume that's because it's pretty much "expected" or "normal" behavior for men, but utterly shocking and horrifying for women to behave that way towards students.

Definitely, Vanessa. The point of the post wasn't Roman Polanski (he is old news), the point was the victim-blaming language a fairly prominent publication used (which is not old news but constant, ever recurring news). Thanks for posting.

BC,

Please, let's be real. Cite me some feminists who downplay female sex offenders. This is discussion thread. If you post generalizations of the feminist community, which are wildly inaccurate, someone is going to disagree with you.

there's no movies of the week or talkshow slots for "harold" the 40-something potbellied gym teacher when he molests

Actually, that's what's going on with Polanski.

""...but I don’t think we should be victimizing Samantha Geimer, the gal in question, either. She and her mother concocted a plan for her to have sex with Roman during their photo shoot so she could become famous..."

How feasible is it for a 13-year-old to refuse when someone who has custody of her concocts a plan like that...?"

"Whether the victim or her mother had some kind of plot going is a red herring: Polanski put his dick in a child and deserves to spend the rest of his life locked up, just as other pedophiles do."

Exactly.

If anything, the girl had two rapists: Polanski, and her own mother. Her mother should have served jail time too.

Sarah,

I find your logic really disturbing. Even if they "created a plot for her to sleep with him," such a plot would not be feasible unless Polanski would do it. I recognize that this may not be your intent, but it sounds like a slightly more refined way of saying that she was asking for it. Thirteen year olds can't ask for sex. Period. Adults who have sex with them are rapists. Period.

On a related topic, a critic finally refuses to praise the Emperor's spiffy new duds...

Vanessa,

I'm not sure how Woody could've molested Soon-Yi at 7, when Mia Farrow didn't even adopt her until she was 8 and she was with Andre Previn at the time.

Also, no, they didn't go public with their relationship when she was 22. that's when they were caught by Mia Farrow, who found nude pictures of her daughter in Allen's possessions.

if there are sources to back up your claims that he molested her as a child, please share them. but what you're claiming runs counter to everything I've ever heard about the case and, in some places, reality. I think you have your facts wrong.

again, that's not to say that what did happen was acceptable, but theres a distinct difference between being a thoughtless, amoral pig and being a child molester/rapist.

Oh please. Criticize them all as much as you won't but don't draw some stupid bullshit connection between the value of their films and their personal behavior. What Polanski did was wrong and he should have gone to prison for it, but it makes me sick to my stomach to think that some of you might so fucking myopic that you can't appreciate Knife in the Water because of some externality relating to the director.

More specifically, it's definitely possible (and true) that regardless of the reality of Polanski's or Allen's sex offenses, they are still brilliant and fascinating men. You must not appreciate films very much.

More specifically, it's definitely possible (and true) that regardless of the reality of Polanski's or Allen's sex offenses, they are still brilliant and fascinating men. You must not appreciate films very much.

Um, the post and discussion have been about the rape, not his value as an artist, tofu.

More specifically, it's definitely possible (and true) that regardless of the reality of Polanski's or Allen's sex offenses, they are still brilliant and fascinating men. You must not appreciate films very much.

Fuck, sorry for the triple post - this comment system has always been completely broken on my computer.

Well, maybe I could appreciate Polanski's films (never been a fan of Allen's humor anyway), except I will NEVER give ONE THIN DIME of MY money to a RAPIST by paying to buy or rent his movie.

I am not positive that this is correct, but according to Wikipedia, during the custody battle over Farrow and Allen's children (Soon-Yi was Farrow's adoptive daughter, not Allen's, and much older) Farrow accused Allen of molesting their seven year-old daughter. The judge ruled that the investigation into the abuse was inconclusive, but Allen was denied visitation of the child.

Anyway, while I agree that it is possible to view a person's art as distinct from their life, and I guess I can enjoy Polanski's work despite finding him absolutely disgusting, I feel that Woody Allen films reflect a very questionable perspective of sex and women. They make me uncomfortable by themselves, and his grossness just adds to it.

"More specifically, it's definitely possible (and true) that regardless of the reality of Polanski's or Allen's sex offenses, they are still brilliant and fascinating men."

Agreed. It's not as simple as "good people make good art, bad people make bad art", and we would be blinkering ourselves to say so. Humans are complicated creatures.

"...way too many in the feminist community are set to defend or downplay women predators."

Who? Really, I need names. Who exactly in the feminist community defends female predators? Give me links, names, citations. WHO?

It would be interesting if the sentence for Polanski's crime was of more mythic proportions. His works should now be cited as anonymous. Whatever merit they have can be appreciated, but he can do without the credit.

"...they are still brilliant and fascinating men."

See, while I can appreciate Polanski's work, this is where I have a bit of difficulty with your assessment (by the way, who said anything about their private lives negating the value of their work, assuming by 'value' you mean quality?). Polanski is very talented, yes, but people in possession of 'brilliant' minds don't rape children.

While it is not true that "good people make good art, bad people make bad art", the truth also is not as simple as to say that people can make good art regardless of being good or bad. The ideas that individuals possess that enable them to do things like rape thirteen-year old girls do affect the art they create. Perhaps the art may be in some way "good" or "great", but it would be a mistake to think that these attitudes and notions do not infiltrate and limit the work. Moreover, the identity of the author does alter the context around the art and thus such actions necessarily affect the meaning of the art.

Ezra Pound's fascistic obsessions led to the disintegration of the Cantos. When the man who raped me writes poems about how much he loves his daughter, that act has a significantly different meaning from a man who is not a rapist writing about the same thing, even if he wrote the exact same words in the exact same order with the exact same line breaks. Borges would agree.

This kind of thing is so disgusting. It reminds me of when I read about the standing ovation Kobe Bryant got after he was accused with raping a Colorado woman... IN Colorado. Someone can be an awful person and be good at what they do, but that doesn't mean that the horrible things they do should be brushed aside or talked about as some kind of trial they have to go through.

Regardless of Polanski's talent in filmmaking, I will never purchase or pay to watch any movie he has any part of. I do not want even one penny of my money finding its way into his pocket. He IS his actions, and these include preying on a 13-year-old girl, with her mother's consent and encouragement, (and who knows how many others?) and fleeing from prosecution when he would be made to face the consequences of his behaviors.

Horrible, creepy people are STILL horrible, creepy people, even if they have a penchant for filmmaking. And that includes Woody Allen.

Does the press defend the amazing talents of great preachers or brilliant businessmen whose prurient behaviors land them in trouble? It seems that only artists receive this "get out of public condemnation free" card.

Yeah, and there's plenty of film and literature by brilliant artists/writers that I don't have to support these scummy excuses for human beings.

You're right. I don't actually care about film much. I care about people who are raped, including young girls. I'm glad to forsake missing out on these assholes' "brilliance."

They're just not that important.

There seem to be several discussions going on here. I had a couple of questions that I thought to throw out there.

First, we've (as a society) agreed that 13-year-olds can't consent to sex with adults. But is Polanski (or any other person) still a rapist is a person under age asks them? I'm not saying that the girl in question was "asking for it" in this case. Polanski is not a nice guy, he has a stack of issues, et cetera. But I am seriously asking if people would look at it any differently if Geiman had, for instance, dressed up as an older woman to fool someone.

i thought of this when I was (in my own head) comparing it to the case brought against Jeff Francis -- another pretty loathsome person- w/r/t Ashley Dupre, who may have showed him a fake ID, got naked for Girls Gone Wild before midnight on her 18th birthday and so now Francis is accused of filming someone underage.

Francis asked for ID for a reason -- not a great reason, but a reason nonetheless.

Again, I am not saying the girl with Polanski tried to do that, but I am asking about a feminist take on something like that, and how they might differ (or not).

Then there's the issue of Woody Allen and Polanski's work. It's easy to click on the outrage machine and say "I'll never see any of their films" but I bet I could show you a Polanski film, have you say "Wow, that's pretty good" without telling you who directed it. Would your opinion change because of what you know about the man? The film would be the same one you saw a few minutes earlier.

There are loads of creative people out there that nobody would argue with as being great, but who were pretty awful people in many ways.

I mean, Shakespeare screwed his wife out of his estate (such as it was). Francis Ford Coppola was a famously difficult man. Hemingway was a tool all around (I mean, really, he treated everyone pretty badly). Ted Williams was a lousy father. Ezra Pound was a fascist. Elizabeth Blackwell refused to buy into the germ theory of disease and hated the idea of birth control. The Bronte sisters' view of women would be considered awfully limited these days, I think. And Albert Einstein was a womanizing jerk too, so I guess we can dismiss every other part of his life, right?

If these folks were perfect they wouldn't be nearly as interesting. (That is, after all, the definition of tragedy, is it not?)

Hmmm...

I submitted a comment around midnight or 1 AM and it's not here. Did it get eaten?

I agree that the language in this piece is apalling.

I think that it reflects an ambivalence that general culture is feeling toward pubescent children and sex.

For example, we say that a 13 yo can not consent to sex.... but is that only with adults, or can sex between two 13year-olds be consensual? If not, why do school clinics and PP give out birth control to kids that age, instead of calling the police, or their parents?

BC, name names. Also, if you look at the press, you'll find that the coverage of male rape victims doesn't mention what they wore, what they were doing in an accusatory kind of way, is more likely to use the word 'rape', and the victims are taken way more seriously.

Catholic priests abused a whole lot of girls and nobody gave a shit. Suddenly when it's boys, it's a serious matter and must be stopped and prosecuted. It's supposed to happen to girls, you know. Not boys.

"First, we've (as a society) agreed that 13-year-olds can't consent to sex with adults. But is Polanski (or any other person) still a rapist is a person under age asks them?"

That reminds me, how legal would it have been for her mother to use corporal punishment on her for refusing to ask? If it would have been illegal, how many juries in the area would still excuse it with attitudes like "we shouldn't tell other mothers how to raise their children"?

BTW, this is also why allowing parental permission waivers for age of consent and minimum age for marriage laws is so wrong.

"-Does the press defend the amazing talents of great preachers or brilliant businessmen whose prurient behaviors land them in trouble? It seems that only artists receive this 'get out of public condemnation free' card."

I guess it's just yet another case of "guys in my scene can do no wrong," a la "but he's a good kid" when a rich fratboy rapes, "but we'll transfer him to another parish" when a priest rapes, "but we can't afford to lose any male role models" when a man in a low-income neighborhood rapes, "but it's part of our culture" when a fundamentalist rapes, "but he's a pillar of the community" when a very priviledged man rapes, etc.

"

Yeah, and there's plenty of film and literature by brilliant artists/writers that I don't have to support these scummy excuses for human beings.

You're right. I don't actually care about film much. I care about people who are raped, including young girls. I'm glad to forsake missing out on these assholes' "brilliance."

They're just not that important."

If you generalize a statement like this out to be "I don't care at all about anything to do with X because I am completely consumed with Y issue!", a lot of people would probably call you an idiot. It's the same statement that every person who's ever been so consumed within an activist movement that they couldn't see the forest for the trees has made. Do you want to know why people will cough politely and turn around when you make a comment like that? It's because the world, especially the SERIOUS REALM OF ART, and yes, even how you want to define rape (I don't buy some of the rhetoric) is a whole lot more fucking complicated than saying, "eww, Roman Polanski. He might have directed some of the finest films ever made BUT since he raped a 13-year-old (the context of which has been highly challeneged even within this thread) HIS ART IS OBVIOUSLY THROWAWAY!"

And, of course, saying that someone can't be brilliant because they've raped someone or committed any other kind of normative transgression is just a bunch of foghattery.

And to the person who asked who exactly in this thread is suggesting that we shouldn't value Allen's or Polanski's work because of their sex offense allegations, it's clear to me at least that it's the subtext of almost every comment on this thread that isn't calling bullshit on the entire idea.

t.m.a.

You just classified rape as a "normative transgression."

Get. The. Fuck. Out.

"eww, Roman Polanski. He might have directed some of the finest films ever made BUT since he raped a 13-year-old (the context of which has been highly challeneged even within this thread) HIS ART IS OBVIOUSLY THROWAWAY!"

What context has been highly challenged in this thread? I haven't heard anyone say that Polanski had a gun to his head or was otherwise coerced. It appears that the only person subjected to any form of coercion (though the number of people involved in the coercion is apparently up for discussion) is the girl he raped.

Even if the girl's mother did somehow conspire to have him rape her daughter, that doesn't change the fact that he went along with it, even to the extent of providing "refreshments".

Ugh, someone on LiveJournal flipped out at me because I was offended when she referred to the Polansky rape as "robbing the cradle" and couldn't understand why that was misleading and offensive.

Normative statements are those that relate to how things ought to be, as opposed to descriptive or positive statements that relate to how things are. Statements or systems that relate to morality, what is desirable and undesirable, and so forth are classified as normative.

Rape is therefore a normative transgression because it goes against the way things ought to be, by the assumed moral standards of a feminist community such as this. t.m.a. used the term correctly.

"If you generalize a statement like this out to be "I don't care at all about anything to do with X because I am completely consumed with Y issue!", a lot of people would probably call you an idiot."

Yes, of course, which is why most intelligent, learned people frequently cite Hitler's *good ideas*. /sarcasm/ And yes, I did just invoke Godwin's law.

"...especially the SERIOUS REALM OF ART"

Make a bigger ass of yourself, why don't you? What are you, some emo poseur who defines themselves by their impressive CD collection and owning all the "right" books and films? Yeah, I know people like that. And I know they are primarily compensating for a serious void of meaning in their lives, which--astoundingly--can be satisfied through working for meaningful things such as social justice and human rights. Of course, you can pursue both, but elevating "the serious realm of art" above human rights? Pathetic. Also, let's not get hyperbolic about Polanski's brilliance. There are plenty of other films to enjoy and be inspired and moved by in this world.

"...and yes, even how you want to define rape (I don't buy some of the rhetoric)"

By this, do you mean the idea that a 13-year-old cannot consent to sex? Is that "rhetoric" in your view? I think you need professional help.

"(the context of which has been highly challeneged even within this thread)"

Yes, by rape apologists. Highly compelling argument you've got there!

"because they've raped someone or committed any other kind of normative transgression"

What Commodore said.

Seriously, tofu needs banning, not because he is a troll (sadly), but because he is seriously depraved. That's not the kind of person I want to encounter on a feminist site.

TMA

Bit mad are you? No one understands true art, I suppose? Think about your forest/tree analogy for a moment.

You're in the thick of it.

Alright, this thread is getting way out of hand. Please cut the abusive language and the dismissive attitude about rape or I'll start deleting and banning. Let's keep this civil and respectful, folks.

It's true, I pretty much do troll the site just for the excitement everyone provides like a shaken anthill. I might feel worse about assuming such hyperbolic levels of dickheadedness on the interbutts, but really, since I've never heard any woman in real life have these kinds of discussions/debates I can't shake the feeling that this insular blogger culture is a little niche unto itself. Besides, after a brief spell of enchantment I've been so horribly alienated by this and every other activist movement (especially the tofu-loving one) that I can't help but step on a few toes... for the lulz. Good day folks!

PS: while most of you are responding to my suppositions with even grosser suppositions about my life, I always get a chuckle out of the *serious* excesses like "he's depraved!" "he needs mental help!" where a simple "this is the internet!" would work just as well.

...and this is why prisons will always be necessary. True, working within society to discourage rape in the first place is very important, and at the same time making rape less acceptable to the mainstream will make it more acceptable to the people out there who have knee-jerk anti-mainstream attitudes. Since there will always be someone who approves of rape, I doubt there will ever be a would free of rape.

responding to the last half of the commentary, because it seems that "the media portrays the victim as a culprit" and "he is a tragic, brilliant man" as two separate ideas-

I would say that someone who was in a Nazi prison camp and had his pregnant wife and friends murdered by the Manson family- tragic. As for the line, "labeled as these brilliant, tragic and fascinating men" I think a good argument could be made for every adjective regarding Polanski. All adjectives/ideas are completely independent, however. The line "This deft and subtle film is a fitting tribute to a man—like him or not—whose life deserves more than tabloid headlines." is proven pretty well by the comments to this article. A great number of posters are ready to completely ignore(, devalue, and decry) the rest of his life in favor of the "tabloid headline." Ignoring the rest of the documentary (which I have not seen yet) I don't see how that isn't a pretty good point. In fact, I gotta say that the commenters have even proven the line EXACTLY true.

Everything sensational is interesting to the public. Be it rape, violence, extreme charity, etc, it makes "good news." Add in "already famous" person and you've got a story that will occupy public fascination for decades. I've got to say that in the end, I can't see at all why anyone can't understand why he would be an interesting topic of a documentary or why he might be "tragic" "brilliant" and/or "fascinating" (with the rape completely ignored!) It even could be because he's despicable in [at least] one way that makes him interesting with the afore mentioned points ignored. But I don't see how this man/documentary makes any strong case for "sex offenders are lauded." When the parts are added together, they make an impressive whole- but there is no way in my mind that this case in isolation proves anything.

Oops, typo. That should be "I doubt there will ever be a world free of rape."

Ever see that movie Hard Candy with Ellen Paige. I love that movie.
"It is so easy to blame a kid"
She even references Roman Polanski. At the end of the day when all sides are considered no matter how much sex the young girl had, no matter what her mother was planning for her she was 13 and he passed her a qualeud.
What ever happened to the responsible adult?

a simple "this is the internet!" would work

Is this the old "I'm losing the debate so I'll just imply that people who argue on the internet are stoopid" gambit?

tinfoil hattie, I don't agree that Shakespeare screwed his wife over in his will. By common law, she owned everything. The "second best bed" he left her was the marital bed - the best one being the one for visitors. There's a lovely book by Germaine Greer on Ann Hathaway. Lots of speculation, of course, but she's very interesting on how literary critics over the years have been so keen to paint Shakespeare as a man who hated his wife, when there's no evidence that he did.

On the wider issue, it's so difficult to know what to do when there's art you appreciate but it's by someone as sleazy as Polanski. Particularly as there's a lot in Polanski's life that would make him seem sympathetic (unbelievably tragic childhood etc.). But there's something really unpleasant about seeing someone who can't enter the US because of rape charges being lauded by film-makers. Whatever we might say in mitigation, the fact is that this man saw a 13-year-old girl under the influence of drink and quaaludes and it seemed to him like a good idea to have sex with her.

There are a lot of people out there who do brilliant work but are complete asshats in real life.

Someone already made a long list, so I'll spare doing the same thing, but it is the case. But in most cases people CAN separate someone's art from their personal life, and personally I feel that we shouldn't deny ourselves amazing works of any medium just because the author of said work was in some way a dipshit.

I now remember what my eaten comment said. Basically, I searched high and low and couldn't find any evidence that Soon-Yi and Woody Allen were together at any time when she was underage. Without evidence to the contrary, I think it's a safe assumption that they weren't. I've done some research in the past about infidelity and came up with the fact that most affairs are a one-time tryst, many last a few months to a year, very few last 1 or 2 years, and very very few last longer than that. It's highly unlikely that they were together for 4+ years before being found out.

So the affair may be creepy but it's not illegal. No illegal action has been proven or even strongly supported against Allen. There were allegations, but they were brought forth during a break-up without evidence, which to me doesn't exactly scream of credibility.

@ Black Canseco:

The problem with your comment(s) is your vague use of pronouns such as "we" and "us." In your first comment when you say "let's be consistent in our criticisms," you imply that the criticism made here by a feminist would not be made by feminists regarding the teacher example you gave. As several have said already, this is blatantly untrue.

But your second comment (though still vague) sounded like you are more talking about social representations.

I tend to agree with the spirit of what you're saying if you are talking about how the social construction of masculinity under patriarchy makes affects the way that your teacher example is taken up in popular discourse and maybe in the media also. I think there's a lot of merit to discussing (in an appropriate thread) how patriarchy produces hegemonic masculinity in a way that elides male agency in saying "no."

But it is different to say that there is a discrepancy in cultural representation than to say that feminists call one situation rape and the other not. Your comments seemed to be accusing feminists of being inconsistent on rape and that is why offense is taken at your suggestion since it is just plain inaccurate.

In the future, you should identify who "we" is more clearly to make what you're saying come across correctly. Because the way it was phrased, you do in fact sound like an anti-feminist troll.

There's good reasons to make a strong distinction between statutory rape and rape (and some good reasons to claim they are similar, to be sure) and while I think one can fairly call into questions someone's sincerity as a feminist if they act as an apologist for rape, I don't think it's fair to do so if they fail to take an absolutist stand on statutory rape. Rape is always and inherently violent. Statutory rape can be pretty much exactly like rape, but it also can be pretty much exactly like two adults making love.

The statuatory rape case in question involved a man in his forties and a thirteen year old. I don't think it needs to be said that there are many such rape cases that don't need to be pointed out to feminists, nor do feminists need to be reminded of the facts of the offense---or the definition of it.

Mina, are you actually saying the rape of a thirteen year old girl is just merely senational?

I don't give a fuck what he's gone through. Does he get a free pass to rape kids now? Poor baby.

Good thing it only "turned into" statutory rape on the plea bargain, then, isn't it Keith, and that the original charge was rape, given that the victim reports she said no repeatedly.

"Mina, are you actually saying the rape of a thirteen year old girl is just merely senational?"

No way! Which statement of mine made you think I was? I'd like to know so I can see where I wasn't clear enough and do better next time.

Question.

Did the young girl in questions mother ever serve jail time, was convicted, or brought up on charges?

No doubt he did a disgusting thing, and being in the position of power he is I would imagine this wasn't the first or last time. Brilliant director and also a pervert in my eyes who should have his day in court.

BUt as a parent/mother I can't imagine what kind of crime it would be for me to lead my children down a path that it is said her mother did. If I was in charge for the day they would be serving identical sentences.

To add to my earlier response to Ginmar:

"'Mina, are you actually saying the rape of a thirteen year old girl is just merely senational?'

"No way! Which statement of mine made you think I was? I'd like to know so I can see where I wasn't clear enough and do better next time."

I took another look at the rest of the comments, trying to figure out where I screwed up, and re-read this comment from mina_prefect: http://feministing.com/archives/009339.html#comment-157505 (not me, and I can't claim a monopoly on usernames with "mina" somewhere in them). Ginmar, was this the comment you had in mind?

What offended me most about the Newsweek article was the sub-header to the article: "In 1977, Roman Polanski Had Sex with a 13 Year Old Girl." No, he RAPED a 13 year old girl, you idiots! I encourage everyone to write to Newsweek, as I did, to shame them for such irresponsible journalism.

Letters (at) Newsweek.com.

"...way too many in the feminist community are set to defend or downplay women predators."

Who? Really, I need names. Who exactly in the feminist community defends female predators? Give me links, names, citations. WHO?

Eve Ensler

"Mina, are you actually saying the rape of a thirteen year old girl is just merely senational?

I don't give a fuck what he's gone through. Does he get a free pass to rape kids now? Poor baby."
Please point out to me where I used a qualifier such as "just." I would in fact, say that "sensational- 2. arousing or tending to arouse (as by lurid details) a quick, intense, and usually superficial interest, curiosity, or emotional reaction " is apt for the rape of a 13 year old girl. I think the outcome of the trial shows how superficial the interest was in defending a raped minor. There is nothing in my post to condone or condemn his actions. (If anyone even cares: I do not have sympathy for his problems which were entirely brought on by himself by doing something that seriously hurt another human being. But that's not why I posted.) That wasn't the point of my post, and it was never meant to be.

The whole point of my post was intended to ignore the point of the rape and how it was covered to point out that the rape ENTIRELY aside, Polanski is an interesting topic/news subject. It appears when I wrote "A great number of posters are ready to completely ignore(, devalue, and decry) the rest of his life in favor of the "tabloid headline."" I was pretty spot-on- very few people here are paying attention to anything but the rape. I'm not defending what he did. I'm not defending the documentary. I was defending the position he is a good documentary/article subject- famous or infamous- and that he is "tragic" "brilliant" and/or "fascinating."

But there's not really much point in arguing with a group of people who use such classy rhetoric tactics as "G.T.F.O" and are unwilling to even try to understand anyone else's point of view. Let's just say I'm pretty disappointed and leave it at that.

"Mina, are you actually saying the rape of a thirteen year old girl is just merely senational?

I don't give a fuck what he's gone through. Does he get a free pass to rape kids now? Poor baby."
Please point out to me where I used a qualifier such as "just." I would in fact, say that "sensational- 2. arousing or tending to arouse (as by lurid details) a quick, intense, and usually superficial interest, curiosity, or emotional reaction " is apt for the rape of a 13 year old girl. I think the outcome of the trial shows how superficial the interest was in defending a raped minor. There is nothing in my post to condone or condemn his actions. (If anyone even cares: I do not have sympathy for his problems which were entirely brought on by himself by doing something that seriously hurt another human being. But that's not why I posted.) That wasn't the point of my post, and it was never meant to be.

The whole point of my post was intended to ignore the point of the rape and how it was covered to point out that the rape ENTIRELY aside, Polanski is an interesting topic/news subject. It appears when I wrote "A great number of posters are ready to completely ignore(, devalue, and decry) the rest of his life in favor of the "tabloid headline."" I was pretty spot-on- very few people here are paying attention to anything but the rape. I'm not defending what he did. I'm not defending the documentary. I was defending the position he is a good documentary/article subject- famous or infamous- and that he is "tragic" "brilliant" and/or "fascinating."

But there's not really much point in arguing with a group of people who use such classy rhetoric tactics as "G.T.F.O" and are unwilling to even try to understand anyone else's point of view. Let's just say I'm pretty disappointed and leave it at that.

"Mina, are you actually saying the rape of a thirteen year old girl is just merely senational?

I don't give a fuck what he's gone through. Does he get a free pass to rape kids now? Poor baby."
Please point out to me where I used a qualifier such as "just." I don't feel the need to mention that the sky is not always just blue, but sometimes has white clouds in it, or is tinted red from atmospheric dust during sunset. "Blue" serves fairly well as a lone adjective- just as "sensational" did. I would in fact, say that "sensational- 2. arousing or tending to arouse (as by lurid details) a quick, intense, and usually superficial interest, curiosity, or emotional reaction " is apt for the rape of a 13 year old girl. I think the outcome of the trial shows how superficial the interest was in defending a raped minor. There is nothing in my post to condone or condemn his actions. That wasn't the point of my post, and it was never meant to be.

The whole point of my post was intended to ignore the point of the rape and how it was covered to point out that the rape ENTIRELY aside, Polanski is an interesting topic/news subject. It appears when I wrote "A great number of posters are ready to completely ignore(, devalue, and decry) the rest of his life in favor of the "tabloid headline."" I was pretty spot-on- very few people here are paying attention to anything but the rape. I'm not defending what he did. I'm not defending the documentary. I was defending the position he is a good documentary/article subject- famous or infamous- and that he is "tragic" "brilliant" and/or "fascinating."