Show me one time he ever has .

Thanks for the thread, demgurl.

I often wondered this long before his comments on rape. What does he bring to any discussion? The WP should drop him and as well as ABC.

He is not intelligent. He is merely articulate. The two are often mistaken for each other.

That's it. George Will has been a sanctimonious ass since the 70s, I know that for sure. He was probably a sanctimonious ass before then but I haven't checked.

Even more so, I really, really want to hug you...

I sent my first one to him with no response and that one was a very personal very detailed letter about my rape. (it was posted here) If he ignored that one, not sure why he would pay attention to this one. Just hoping other people may see the light.

A hug would be ever so nice. Thank you.

I read your first letter too. i just didn't have enough time to do it justice.

Today I do.

I will keep that in mind if I ever make it to the windy city. Not sure I ever will but it is nice to know. I am in NC.

he is trying to justify.

Trying to justify something that happened in his past.

One where a beautiful woman kisses his ass so much that he ends up with hickeys all over it. Unfortunately for him he is singularly unattractive. Both outside and inside.

His profound misogyny is showing.

His column is so obviously mind-numbingly stupid and incorrect that it's causing a backlash that represents just how wrong he is.

Granted that's not his intent, nor am I giving him credit for it, but I think that much like with Stubenville, or with the horrific bus gang rape in India, it can be leveraged to demonstrate how unfortunately frequent sexual violence is.

Yes, he is doing damage. Nevertheless, he has prompted demgurl and many others to speak up and explain the problem. My guess is that the long-term net effect of his columns on public attitudes will be positive. That he himself would deplore this effect is just icing on the cake.

So, demgurl, I join the others in offering you a hug, but I'll add this:

I believe you are right. Maybe it is not showing him as who he really is to his followers but it has a lot of people talking about the subject and perhaps it is changing some minds. If that is the case then he definitely is doing good in spite of himself.

The other side of the coin is whether he is also doing harm despite the fact that he feels his column is doing good by exposing certain wrongs. By doing this is he helping create a society where it is even more acceptable to blame the victim and disbelieve them?

Will the good outweigh the bad? I hope so. (((hugs)))

My only guess (and this is not meant to excuse this fool, or his creepy opinions) is George Will has not had many deep relationships with women over his lifetime.

Throughout my life I've discovered, in the close personal relationships I've had with women (friends, relatives, partners) that ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of them have at least one story about being the victim of a sexual assault. I don't know how any man lives in America (especially for 73 years, as George Will has) and doesn't have many of these same types of conversations with women, unless he rarely makes close personal connections with them.

Unless his mind is beginning to dabble in senility, which would be another explanation - or he's a liar, which also makes sense.

I am a member of a private group of 16 women and almost every one of us has encountered a sexual assault as well. The numbers are staggering and you are right that he must have at least heard mumblings in this regard. This means the real numbers could be mind blowing and staggering and we are not making it up because of some imagined coveted status. That is sick.

I forgot to add: not one of them ever stated they reported the assaults. Some of the assaults were rapes, others were less extreme, but they were all assaults and all went unreported.

Attitudes like those exhibited in Will's piece hurt people who have survived rape and make them not want to come forward.

Most if all he seems to lack any compassion for anyone not as lucky in life as he is.

Isn't this one of the defining characteristics of the modern American right?

I really despise the man.

Hopefully only the cards.....

Will's obsession with old-timey baseball just fits so perfectly into his "out-of-touch old conservative guy" persona.

if it were me, I'd written a slap-down at him so hard he wouldn't know what hit him.. As an example, the term Lying Misogynist would replace your very very kind, but a complete misnomer : "Doubter".

Accusing him of being a "Doubter" gives him lots of room to suggest that rape isn't an act of violence, as if it were something to debate and "differ" as if it were simply a matter of opinion. Distinguishing Fact of Violence from something that's a matter of opinion is essentially at the root of the matter, apart from an egregiously open misogynistic attitude that really needs to be openly and vehemently challenged, imo.

That said, I want to commend you for responding at all to that despicable cretin ass-hat.

I honestly had some very nasty things to say and some of them were quite creative but then I felt it would bring me down to his level. I don't think he will ever listen but I hope there are people out there who may listen and might change their attitude. The people may not be as willing to listen to my side if I am aggressive and call names. It is important to me that I do everything possible to change people's attitudes so I can help create an environment of safety for survivors.

Most people would agree and commend you on your approach. Catch more flies with honey, that sort of thing. And again, I respect that. There are times, when I wish I could "respond" thusly, but it just ain't in me. I have to shoot straight from the hip, and get as much skin as I can from scumbags like him.

you know, draw a little blood metaphorically speaking, so he's forced to "get" that he stepped over the line in a big way.

When you approach it from a common sense viewpoint, and the fact that with all of this backlash he has decided to double down, we must conclude he will never comprehend just how awful what he said was and how much damage he is doing. This means you are just spitting in the wind if you are truly addressing him. We know where he stands - he is never wrong. What we do not know is how many people are on the edge out there and they are not sure what to think. Do people come forward and fake rapes? Is it the woman's fault? Are the stats really too high? If we address those people then maybe we can make a difference. That is what I have to believe, anyway.

When Will's OP Ed was first reported, my initial thoughts (as I posted then) was that his piece read as if he were a rapist himself. I wrote something to the effect of "Spoken like a True Serial Rapist" ..

Rapist have this notion, that the victim actually enjoys being raped. They want it, so the rapist is only too happy to oblige, so naturally it shouldn't be considered "rape" because, after all, she wanted it doncha see?

The denial runs deep and is connected to a deep misogynist attitude conditioned by early twisted religious teachings or other cultural conditionings/attitudes. What George Will did was attempt to vindicate serial rapists and as you pointed out, put the blame squarely on the victim.

It would not surprise me in the least to learn (eventually) if it turns out that the reason why WaPo severed their contract with his column was based on women coming forward with charges of Rape by George Will. Perhaps civil suits, or threats to go public, behind the scenes financial settlements or such. I'm just speculating of course simply based on that OP and subsequent writings on the subject, I personally have absolutely no evidence.

The questions I would have posed to George Will, was something to the effect: "What makes you the expert on the subject Georgie? Have you been raped yourself, and did you kind of like it? Or are you a rapist, and believe that the women you raped liked it?

Otherwise, he has no business writing such assertions as if he were personally knowledgeable on the subject of Rape. And the paper's editors should have taken measures before going to print.