Yes, it does seem that the meaning and purpose of Jennifer's article has been willfully skewed by ema and Suze.

Modern freedoms and choices carry with them extra responsibilities for self-regulation for both genders. Any social situation that includes the possibility of a deliberate impairment to one's ability to think clearly is bound to expose an individual to greater risk.

vanna,

What a strange little world it is that you inhabit. One full of vile crones who have nothing better to do than falsely accuse their men folk of heinous crimes - and all at the behest of that dreaded hybrid, the "university academic" whose evil mocking laugh can be heard ringing through the valleys on the nights of the full moon.
(Really, you're wasting your time on OLO. You could be making a profit from fictionalising your grievances)

As for runner, it's my opinion that he has been sent from God to assist all posters on OLO to learn the art of control and self-censorship. As RObert mentioned, it's rarely possible to pen a draft response to runner without infringing the rules on flaming.

paul walter,
I agree with your comments.
I've re-read the article and can understand Jennifer's frustration that more (or less) has been read into it than she wrote.
I suspect that on sensitive issues like this, which arouse strong feelings and are subject to the hypersensitivities (gendersensitivities?) of political correctness, we are all inclined to interpret the suspect text according to our particular biases.
This is actually fascinating and compounds, or makes hyperbolic, the already problematic aporia of language, or "social text". Language, that which Raymond Williams called "practical consciousness", Lacan called the "symbolic order", and feminists like Judith Butler treat as literally and comprehensively "constructive" of our whole social reality. If we throw Wittgenstein into the mix, this fatally indeterminate means of establishing anything definitively, also has no meaning outside human constructs. Thus, not only do our "language games" have no more extension or coherence than whale-song, but they are also fraught and shot-through with local prejudices, in fact are nothing more than that. Not only do we believe what we want to believe, we also think what we want to think; that is, our "thinking is not thought", it's merely an obsession peculiar to our socialised being, incurably derivative (thus rarely original) and logically in(de)terminable.
Maybe this is why we can't seem to fix anything; we talk too much?

Poirot,

I must admire your enthusiasm for cricket. It's a rare and exotic woman that can appreciate the game of cricket. In short, the game of cricket goes above most women's heads. I know many a man who sees the enjoyment of cricket by a woman as comprehensive credentials for a life partner, rendering any other criteria irrelevant.

LEGO,

Kurt Cobain conceived "Rape Me" as a life-affirming anti-rape song. He told Spin, "It's like she's saying, 'Rape me, go ahead, rape me, beat me. You'll never kill me. I'll survive this and I'm gonna f'ing rape you one of these days and you won't even know it.'"

Nirvana biographer Michael Azerrad stated that "Rape Me" seemed to deal with Cobain's distaste of the media's coverage on his personal life. While Cobain said the song was written long before his troubles with drug addiction became public, he agreed that the song could be viewed in that light.

Houellie,

"...I know many a man who sees the enjoyment of cricket by a woman as comprehensive credentials for a life partner, rendering any other criteria irrelevant."

LOL :)

Squeers,
For all your name dropping, find yourself on the end of a sexual harassment claim, and you will quickly learn about feminism.

Walking away from drunken women is simply street sense.

PS. Still not willing to give the name of the university you lecture in I see. Don’t say you are afraid of losing your taxpayer funded job.

You wouldn’t happen to be a coward in disguise searching for a “visionary” and “alternative agenda”?