Letter: Mamet's crazed woman

Ms Natalia Schiffrin
Friday 02 July 1993 18:02 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: David Mamet's Oleanna caused controversy in New York because it took the sexual harassment debate out of its proper context. It was not because of any 'ambiguity' over whether the male professor was indeed guilty of sexually harassing his female student accuser, or whether the student's accusation was '100 per cent legitimate', as you report the actress Lia Williams as saying (1 July).

Mamet's play, focusing on an innocent man and a politically correct, crazed woman, incorrectly suggests that this scenario is one worth concerning ourselves about. All a woman need do is make up a lie, snap her fingers and her victim's life is ruined. As anyone who has dealt with sexual harassment and abuse claims knows, the far greater problem is getting a female accuser's account believed and having her allegations heard without her own sexual history brought out and used against her.

The interesting part of he said/she said situations is not where one person is clearly wrong, as in Oleanna, but where differences in perspective genuinely lead to disagreement. Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas - was one of them lying? Or did they really disagree over what was appropriate office banter? Do men and women live in such different worlds?

Instead, Mamet constructs a tale crying out for the audience to applaud when the irritating, unstable woman (finally) gets hit in the face. In so doing, he takes the problem out of context and encourages an audience response that many have found deeply disturbing. The real issue is how few women dare come forward with these accusations, not that some woman may make one up.

Yours faithfully,

NATALIA SCHIFFRIN

London, NW5

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in