A few things to consider as you respond

Hi all,

I originally posted this in response to something Lisa wrote but thought I would share it here as it might spark some interesting debate.


Lisa,

"You make a good point about both of them returning to the "site" of their first interaction to face each other alone. This is not a realistic scenario, I wouldn't imagine, as I cannot fathom, as a professor, meeting with a student alone, in a secluded space, after sexual harassment charges had been filed against me.

That said, the fact that John chooses to do so could speak to that sense of elitism that Carol points out -- it is likely he believes he can coerce her into changing her mind when they meet the second time, and it appears he STILL thinks this might be possible the third time -- he doesn't identify Carol as powerful, intelligent, or capable enough to do what she does.

As for Carol? Why does she return two more times? An obvious question, of course, is whether she REALLY feels violated, REALLY feels that she is in danger of physical or other forms of violence (if she did, would she really have chosen to meet?) The answer, possibly, is that Carol always MEANT for things to turn out this way, that she was writing down things John said in their first encounter with the sole intent of transcribing them in a way that would render him inappropriate. We hear little about this "Group", but it has often been identified in various analyses as some sort of militant feminist group intent on taking down/displacing white males whom they feel misuse power and believe they are entitled to it (unfortunately, the play does lead to a distrust of feminist ideals on some readers' parts, and many forms of feminism do not at all have these kinds of goals).

If this is the case, it is possible Carol is trying to get John to cross that threshold so as to nail him to a wall -- once he attacks her, it's over. And, of course, she looks like the helpless victim rather than the instigator. We might be on dangerous ground by considering the possibility that a woman might, literally, be "asking for it" and perhaps forgiving a man for "giving it to her" in a well-deserved moment. This line of thinking is troublesome to many, and it raises serious questions. Do we default to the standard "It is never acceptable for a man to hit a woman, under any circumstances"? Many readers sympathize with John and say they would have "done the same thing" at that point. What do you make of these reactions? IF Carol did indeed set out to ruin John, and her concern was not her grade but making an example of him by way of her group's methodology and encouragement, is John to be forgiven entirely? Should he be punished because he harbors elitist values and doesn't seem even to notice that he does? What do you think?"