Writing for The Guardian on the occasion of Oleanna's upcoming premier at London's Garrick Theatre, David Mamet recalls the reception his play received when it was first staged--as a dress rehearsal at Brown University:

When it opened in 1992, my play Oleanna was a succËs de scandal, a handy French phrase meaning everyone was so enraged by it that everyone had to see it. What was it about this play, a rather straightforward classical tragedy, that drove people berserk? It asserted that a person could make an accusation, the truth or supportability of which was open to debate. One would not think this enraging - but the accusation was made by a young female student against a male professor, and the accusation was of rape.

The play's first audience was a group of undergraduates from Brown University. They came to a dress rehearsal. The play ended and I asked the folks what they thought. "Don't you think it's politically questionable," one said, "to have the girl make a false accusation of rape?"

I, in my ignorance, was stunned. I didn't realise it was my job to be politically acceptable. I'd always thought society employed me to be dramatic; further, I wondered what force had so perverted the young that they would think that increasing political enfranchisement of a group rendered a member of that group incapable of error - in effect, rendered her other-than-human. For if the subject of art is not our maculate, fragile and often pathetic humanity, what is the point of the exercise? And if the writer is capable, why enquire, let alone obsess about his sex? No one ever said of a comedy, "I laughed myself sick until I discovered the sex of the writer."

Another creepily prescient play: Rebecca Gilman's Spinning into Butter (2000), which eerily anticipates the recent spate of fake hate crimes on campus.

I have not read Gilman's play (it's in the To Read stack, along with some Eudora Welty, some Louis Menand, and some John Knowles). But Mamet's play is creepy in the extreme for the way it captures the moment of profound misunderstanding between (preoccupied, condescending, narcissistic) male professor and (confused, ill-prepared, hyper-literalist, shoulder-chipped, paradigm-seeking) female student. Read it, if you haven't. And then rent the movie. William H. Macy is terrifying. And if you are in London, get thee to the Garrick.

This touches slightly on another topic, but there is a man serving 20 years in a U.S. prison for rape even though no one ever accused him of using force or the threat of force against his victims.

Name the case and the prison and you win a prize. (Not really)

Erin:

Get thee to the reading pile, then, ASAP, and locate Spinning into Butter. It's a play, so you can get through it in one sitting pretty easily. I liked it better than Oleanna, actually, which I saw at the Hasty Pudding back around the time it came out.

Mamet is right that his play has the contour of a plain ol' tragedy, and the political issues are secondary to the dramatic construct. Gilman seems to want to wrestle more explicity with the tangle of academic multiculturalism: white guilt fueling good intentions fueling bad effects fueling confusion fueling misunderstandings.

Farce is typically composed of equal parts slamming bedroom doors and mistaken identities. No slamming bedroom doors to speak of in Spinning, but plenty of mistaken identity.

The guiding principle of the left for the past 50 years has been that masculinity is the source of all evil. My daughters came home from college in the mid-1990s to inform me that their professors had told them that normal penetration in sexual intercourse was painful and "oppressive" to women, whatever in the world that is supposed to mean.

Accusations of rape cannot be false because what is being punished is group, not individual, guilt.

I try to avoid this idiocy like the plague, but often it cannot be avoided. The art and music world is particularly infested with this vile notion that masculinity is evil, and I work in those fields. People in these fields commonly refer to overtly masculine man as "stupid" without ever considering that they are talking about me, and are often talking to my face when they do it. This, I usually ignore.

What is more difficult to ignore are the men who engage in public self-flaggelation and self-hatred over their degraded status as white straight men. Usually, they believe it is my obligation to join them in this ugly festival. Refusal to do so is met with anger, accusations usually of "racism, sexism and homophobia", as well as accusations of my propensity to domestic violence and rape.

I thoroughly resent having to live out my life in this wretched atmosphere of hatred toward men. It costs me endlessly in my professional and personal life, but I don't care. I fight back, I don't put up with it, and I am not above telling them to shove it, or taking administrative or legal actions against them. Tit for tat.

I saw Olenna in New York in 1993, off-Broadway, starring William Macy (if I remember correctly)and Mamet's wife. I attended with a woman friend who was sexy, liberated, intellegent and loved men. Afterward I said, how could any woman claim that an encounter with a professor, even one that included shouting and physical contact, was a sexual attack rather than simply one human-being forcefully confronting another? Her response surprised me greatly. She said, how could any confrontation between an older man, in a superior position, and a young woman in an inferior position be other than sexual? She said such a confrontation would always result in the woman feeling sexually threatened, as well as otherwise threatened. She said it's the nature of confrontations between men and women. She said when a woman is alone with a man, especially one who is older and more powerful, and he shouts at her and even grabs her, she know that submission is being forced on her, and that if she doesn't submit, she's likely to get hurt. This doesn't mean submit to rape, but it does mean submit to whatever arguments the man is making.
Is it possible that all confrontations between older, more-poweful men and young, less-powereful women are sexual in nature, if the man would not confront a male his own age in the same manner? In the play, it seems very unlikely indeed that the professor would confront a man his own age in the same manner he confronted a young female student. It seems the only reason he confronted the student the way he did was because she was a young, dumb female. And, further, he seemed unaware that this had anything to do with how he treated her.

doro doss,

What is surprising about that response? It is the standard party line. It is also a lie.

Younger women are attracted to older men. It's a fact. And the issue is seldom, as feminists like to say, power. This is the garbage heap of Marxism. Women are attracted to older men because they find older men sexier. What a load of crap feminists have dumped here.

The notion of submission obsesses feminists because they are obsessed with dominance and submission. The fetish is their own. I encounter this obsession on an almost daily basis because I am a white man married to an Asian woman. Feminists justify and advocate the intrusion of police and administrative authority especially into relationships between white men and Asian women, in a way that they would not dare to interfere in the relationships between black men and white women. Feminists have decreed that they have the right to concern themselves if they deem a woman to be "submissive."

As closely as I can deciper, here is what "submissive" means. It means that a woman is schooled in the feminine arts. This statement will be absolutely meaningless and incomprehensible to you because of your indoctrination in feminism. A woman who wants to please a man, find harmony instead of disagreement, create a relationship of understanding and compassion is... submissive. The feminist ideal is to complain, find fault, seek aggravation and keep everybody unhappy.

Men take the lead in establishing romantic relationships. Women expect us to do it just right. Women should give it a try and see just how difficult that is. And your woman friend doesn't sound "liberated", whatever that is. She sounds like a member of the herd. Nor does she sound as if she "loves men." Does shes love men for what they would be in the ideal if only they would kowtow to her? That's an odd concept of love. What is she "liberated" from?

I live in the most liberal communities in America. Sex and love are failing miserably in these communities. And "liberation" is precisely what is causing sex and love to fail. Your "friend" is one very confused woman. Run the other way as fast as you can.

Read this article:
http://www.fathersforlife.org/advice.htm#Introduction

Excellent link from bonker.

And the corollary from my previous post. More than one feminist woman has had this to say to me. (1) Relationships between older men and younger women are by definition abusive and oppressive. (2) Relationships between older women and younger men are inspiring examples of rebellion against the patriarchy.

I note these comments. I observe that the woman is justifying behavior in herself that she would like to criminalize in me, and I think what an odd concept of "equality" feminism inspires. And I make a mental note to never allow myself to be engaged in conversation with that woman again.

Let me try to clarify. I did not say: relationships between older, more-powerful men and younger less-powerful women are by their nature oppressive and abusive. I did (try to) say: in such relationships, if and when a man engages in violence, the violence is usually seen as sexual by the woman. My "liberated" friend does not believe that most men are violent and oppressive, far from it, but she does believe, that if and when violence does come from a more-powerful male, it's sexual, (unless, as I said before, the male would treat an equal male colleague the same way). Otherwise, how would you account for the fact that most powerful men who use violence against women, like the professor in Oleanna, rarely use it against men who are their equal?

"Otherwise, how would you account for the fact that most powerful men who use violence against women, like the professor in Oleanna, rarely use it against men who are their equal?"

I've been married several times and I've raised two daughters. No woman I've been intimately involved with ever related your proposition to me. None of them ever told me that "powerful men" use violence against women. Probably happens, but not with any frequency. My experience with woman is pretty broad (pardon the pun).

Why in the world should or would a man treat a woman precisely the same as a woman outside of the enforced PC environment of the workplace? Neither women or men want this. That women or men would want this is entirely a fiction of feminism. The vast majority of woman want to be treated with romantic chivalry by men. Good thing, too. It's beautiful.

The violence against women hysteria is an outright lie. Sure, domestic violence happens. Women commit it as often as men. No crisis of domestic violence exists, except in the minds of looney feminists who want to justify the intrusion of the police and courts into our homes and bedrooms. They are motivated by hatred of love, family and marriage. Usually they are people who have failed at love, family and marriage and want to be sure that nobody else succeeds. It's envy.

"Younger women are attracted to older men."

For the record, I've never been attracted to older men. When I was young, I was attracted to guys my own age. Now that I am older, I am attracted to younger men. I also know - from personal experience and asking about how policies were formulated - that singles groups routinely limit their age groupings specifically because the younger women DON'T want to be hit on by older men.

Your other statements are equally sweeping generalizations, and inaccurate to the extent that they are sweeping generalizations. They are true for some people, and not for others. You are guilty of forcing as many individuals into boxes into which they do not fit, as PC feminists are of forcing many individuals into boxes into which they do not fit.

I am of the "individuals vary much more than gender stereotypes" persuasion of feminism, and I have found it most true to life over the course of 50 years. Therefore I dislike PC feminism as much as you do, and as much as I dislike your retro sexism.

"I encounter this obsession on an almost daily basis because I am a white man married to an Asian woman. Feminists justify and advocate the intrusion of police and administrative authority especially into relationships between white men and Asian women, in a way that they would not dare to interfere in the relationships between black men and white women."

Are you saying that the cops have been called because of your treatment of your wife? I don't think I want to know.....

I'm going to be heading off to college in a few months and one of the things my parents warn me about is to be careful about sex because if the girl screams "rape", whether it be a day later or two years later, whether or not it is true whether i am convicted or not, i will still get screwed by the college.
I've read horror stories about guys who are wrongfully accused of rape, proven innocent in court, and still expelled from their university.
It really scares me.

That sounds like a good argument for celibacy, bonder. Young males would be well advised to keep their pants zipped until they're in a serious relationship.

The days of the "free love" movement are long over, thank the Goddess. And I don't think it was ever really very 'free' at the time, just tremendously irresponsible - on both sides.

Yehudit:

I did not say that the cops were called in regard to my wife.

I said this:

The term "submissive" as feminists apply it to Asian women, means the point at which they believe that they are allowed to interfere in my marriage. They are the people who are empowered to do that, in their imaginations.

My wife and I own a home in Woodstock, NY. Here's where the cops come in. The anger among feminist women in Woodstock at my marriage to an Asian woman was so fierce that my wife routinely had food and liquor dumped on her by waitresses, received unsolicited advice from strangers about the danger of her situation, etc. When we complained publicly about this treatment, the community, police, etc., replied as one that they had a right to interfere in our relationship.

Such a right is never inferred in the relationship between a black man and a white women, particularly in communities like Woodstock. In fact, such an assertion would be seen as an admission of the most overt and damnable kind of racism.

For 25 years, I listened to feminist white women scream in public that they had the right to sleep with anybody they chose, and that it was nobody's business but their own. That right was not returned in relationship to me, and in some braindead way, those very same women thought they had the right to interfere in my marriage because they disapproved of "submissive" Asian women.

My wife, by the way, is a professional woman who earns more than 95% of the women in Woodstock, travels nationally in her work, and works with me as a professional musician.

To this day, feminist white women tell men and my wife that our relationship is subject to their inspection, particularly if they deem my wife to be "submissive."

This is racism, pure and simply, Yehudit.

Yehudit,

The truth about older men and younger women is somewhere in the middle. There are an awful lot of younger women who love older men. This is particularly true of Latin and Asian women, who come from cultures that respect age.

I am a professional musician. Although I am in my mid-50s and married, I am continually approached by women younger than 30, and often little more than 20. I often socialize with these women, and discover that they are very angry at the societal animus against relationships between older men and younger women.

You accusation of sexism is nonsense, and your accusations about domestic violence are pretty rancid. There really is no such thing as sexism.

What you really sound like is a confused kid trying to toe the line of fashion. Talk to me when you know who you are.

Bonker - what Claire said.

This whole scenario of false rape accusations is as easy for a man to avoid as acquaintance rape is for a girl. Pretend it's the year 1910 and behave accordingly. I'm not kidding. I related the Kobe Bryant story as far as it's played out to my daughter, and this is what I told her: It's supposed to be back in the bad old days that a "good" girl didn't go to a man's hotel room. We're past all that now. We're free of all those stupid old rules now. But let something happen, and immediately it's "What was she doing in his room?" So the rules aren't gone, they're only hiding to get suckers in trouble. Smart people follow them anyway.

When I wore a younger girl's clothes, and was a student, I confess I had crushes on several male professors. I was too inhibited to act on the attraction, but it was undeniably present, and sometimes uncomfortably distracting.
There is something undeniably magnetic about all that intelligence, that worldly knowledge. Nevermind.
My advice to younger women these days: even if you really like the older man, if he is seen as an authority figure--a teacher, a supervisor, so on--leave him alone. You could cost him his job and a lot more, for no justifiable reason.

Erin, I have seen Wm. H Macy's performance in the film and agree that his controlled descent into 'madness' (for want of a better term) was as good a piece of acting as I have seen in a long time. I agree with your suggestion that anyone who has not seen it should rent it. As it happens, I turned to the film (on cable) about a third of the way in and never saw the encounter around which the film was centered. Interestingly, my lack of information about the veracity of the accusation enhanced the viewing. Ambiguity is not necessarily good for the soul - but it certainly added something to my appreciation of the film.

Laura, you are absolutely right about Kobe Bryant. He'd better change his ways. Even if he is acquitted in the current case, he will find a way to destroy himself if he doesn't change. The accuser seems to be one of those loony groupies who you can rely on finding outside the stage door, or in the parking lot of the stadium, waiting for the performer to step out. Such women are trouble, and only the very foolish (or compulsive) don't recognize this.

When I said that younger woman constantly display an interest in me, you'll notice that I didn't say that I was dumb enough to take them up on it. That's suicide.

Kobe had better learn to get it under control or he will find a way to land in prison, whether or not he is found guilty of the current charge.

doro doss,

"Otherwise, how would you account for the fact that most powerful men who use violence against women, like the professor in Oleanna, rarely use it against men who are their equal?"

This analogy doesn't quite fit for me. Though I haven't seen the play the characterization of the male seems to be one of competence and authority while the female is incompetent or lacking. The appropriate question isn't to ask if the professor would behave the same way with an equal male since obviously the play depicts the female as unequal. A more telling question would be to ask whether the professor would behave the same way with a male who was lacking in the same areas as the female was (and therefore wasn't an equal to the professor).

Can we assume Naomi Wolf reads Mamet?

Pardon me, but it seems doro dross is missing the point here. The play strongly implies that the woman had an agenda from the start. Far from being traumatized or feeling sexually threatened she methodically set out to trigger the response in her professor that she got. She seemed to do this to further the cause of her "group". This was as cold blooded as it gets. She goes into histrionics, and then when he actually touches her in an attempt to calm her down it becomes sexual harrasment. Notice the note taking from the beginning which we believe is about the course, but is really about recording accusations. In the end the teachers violence in response to the wrongs done him simply solidify her postition of power, and he realizes it too late. It really quite nicely points out the farcical nature of the supposed "power" wielded by the "dominant white male culture". It seems quite a fragile thing, despite pomo feminist claims.

The one thing that troubled me most in the movie was the sheer ignorance of the Oleana chartacter. Her lack of vocabulary was reminicent of "Jay's All-Stars". How did she get accepted to the university in the first place?

"I am a professional musician. Although I am in my mid-50s and married, I am continually approached by women younger than 30, and often little more than 20."

That has more to do with you being a musician than your age. Anyone on stage - actors, musicians, politicians - has a lot of charisma.

I certainly don't condone the treatment of your wife by your community. Your comment was very ambiguous.

I stand by everything else I wrote, and I won't dignify your insults with a response.