sigelphoenix

It's particularly timely that I found this article from a journal at Tufts called "A Dissenting Feminist." It's a critique of The Vagina Monologues, which, incidentally, ratzeo and I just went to see on campus last night. Also, the writer of the article is a fan of Christina Hoff Sommers (who is going to speak at the school on the same subject). Having just given the textual finger to Phyllis Schlafly, now I get to give one to Sommers and her ilk. This must be some kind of feminist rite of passage. XD



There isn't much in the way of introduction before we get to the main event:

The Vagina Monologues contradicts the very notions that build-up a respected and empowered female.

Actually, one of the very things the play does is redefine what builds up a "respected and empowered female." Women have been told for so long that in order to be a good person and deemed worthy (i.e., by men) they need to, basically, not bring attention to their vaginas. On the small scale, this means: don't talk about your period because it grosses guys out. On the larger scale, it can mean things like: don't make a big deal of the fact that you enjoy sex because that makes you slutty, or don't talk about how your vagina makes you unique (in terms of childbirth, monthly bodily changes, etc.) because that means you're asking for "special treatment."

In other words: be as close as you can to the default (male) identity. If that's not possible, at least don't draw attention to your differences, because they take time away from the default (male) identity.

The VMs are written by a woman, based on the stories of other women. It's a play that is about women, addresses questions women have, breaks the silence on things women (for any number of reasons) can't speak about, and - most importantly - makes women heard. You're going to have to give me some pretty hefty evidence that a play with all these qualities does not empower women.

Its blatant exploitation of women’s vaginas is repulsively self-defeating and embarrassing for women, cheapening their sexuality.

For me, "blatant exploitation" would involve using women's vaginas for some purpose other than women. Pornography that's all about getting the guy(s) off, women's comfort and/or pleasure be damned? That's exploiting vaginas. Using women as breeding vessels just so a man can feel virile and have herds of children (whom, incidentally, he doesn't need to take care of)? That's exploiting vaginas.

Letting women talk about how they think and feel in regards to their vaginas - oddly enough - doesn't strike me as bad in comparison. It doesn't strike me as bad at all.

"Embarassing for women"? Only if you're a woman who's been taught to be embarassed about her vagina. The writer ought to ask the more important question: Why are our vaginas supposed to be embarrassing?

[cut for irrelevant information about Sommers]

By making vulgar remarks about the vagina, this play claims to liberate women from the oppressive "patriarchal culture that is waging war on vaginas." Although it might enable women to talk more openly about rape and sexual assault, The Vagina Monologues mars the respect that society ought to have for women, much as when the entertainment industry, for example, uses nude women to generate profit, the result is not only an increasing acceptance of scandalous attire, but also an increasing trend of males using females only for sexual gratification.

Lots of ideas packed in there. Let's break it down.

The "respect that society ought to have for women" is precisely what Ensler tries to generate with the VMs. As it stands, society tells us to feel embarassed or dirty when it comes to our vaginas - their pleasure, pain, or capabilities. The kind of "respect" that we've had to settle for - presumably, the kind the writer thinks society "ought to have" - is a load of chivalrous bullshit. This "respect" is essentially a bunch of lip service about how women are pure and delicate and holy, but which also means that men get to cut off our freedoms and control our personal lives in the name of "protecting" us. And heaven help the woman who doesn't fit into the pure-delicate-holy mold, because she's a bitch/slut/butch/whatever who somehow loses the right to decent treatment.

Oh, yes, using nude women for profit - that's one I forgot under my list of exploitations. And we all know that Eve Ensler enabling women to talk openly about sexual assault is just as bad as making women lose their clothes so some TV executives can increase their ratings in the 18-34 male demographic, right?

Funny, but in my opinion, exploitation of women (the kind that reinforces the idea of "males using females only for sexual gratification") would attract men. If that's the case, why is it that most men are hesitant or contemptuous about the VMs? Why are the majority of audience members female? If this was a blatant and disrespectful use of women for the sake of (heterosexual) men, why are the VMs often dismissed as a "girl" thing?

Oh, and "an increasing acceptance of scandalous attire," huh? Well, we certainly can't have that. We need to make those dirty little whores who dare to show some skin continue to feel like the outcasts of society, right?

For example, lines like, "[My vagina] was better than the Grand Canyon, ancient and full of grace ..." do nothing but cheapen women and make them seem like whores in the eyes of the public.

I love that moment in the play. I love the idea that a woman can think of her body as something wondrous, because it is - yeah, our bodies are weird, but they're also pretty neat, when you think about the way they work and the things they can do. Pointing this out doesn't "cheapen" women or women's bodies - it gives them the credit they (damn well) deserve.

Does the writer take issue with the fact that the speaker enjoys her vagina? If so, I would ask: why? Why is the idea of taking pleasure in one's body so bad? Does every woman who feels respectful of her vagina, who maybe receives physical pleasure from it, have to be a "whore"? (Not that "whore" should even be a bad word. But you pick your battles.) Why are you so horrified at the idea of a woman enjoying her vagina?

Other segments glorifying graphic lesbian sex, prostitution, and child rape bring attention to, but do not solve the violence endured by women around the world. Ensler is simply "preaching to the choir."

Lesbian sex, prostitution, and child rape: the three greatest causes of the downfall of society, no doubt.

Okay, that was glib. Forced prostitution and child rape are horrible, horrible things. But why the hell is lesbian sex stuck in there? (I probably know the answer, but I don't want to think about it.)

And "graphic"? There are some euphemistic descriptions and ravings about sex toys, sure, but how is that any more graphic than the talk of heterosexual sex that was in the play? (Hint: it isn't.)

The rest of the sentence isn't even worth critiquing. Of course the play doesn't solve violence - it's a play! That's why Eve Ensler created V-Day, so the awareness raised by the VMs could translate into practical activism.

You can't criticize Ensler for not addressing these issues, so you criticize her for addressing them? Was the writer just that desperate?

There is a fundamental difference between the inspiring heroines like Sommers—

I am quite heroically stifling the desire to say anything here. Because this isn't a personal attack, but one based on ideology. And I'm more mature than that. Really.

women who fight to gain the right to be judged by their achievements and not their genitalia—and radical feminists. Ensler misses the whole point of fighting for equal rights. She says her vagina is "the essence of me ... It was both the doorbell to my house and the house itself."

I, in fact, do believe that treatment of women should be different based on their genitalia - for instance, if I got pregnant, as my non-male genitalia allow me to do, I would want the option of going on maternity leave. But that's just not fair to the poor widdle mens, now is it?

It's important to remember, of course, that my genitalia should not be the only basis of judgments about me. Pretty simple, really. Remember what the differences do mean - I can get pregnant, I bleed every month, I've been historically treated as property or otherwise less than a man. Don't, of course, try to cheat me by relying on what the differences don't mean - I'm not an unreasoning emotional creature, I'm not unable to withstand the rigors of higher education, I'm not a passive object for use according to your sexual desires.

That's not asking for too much or special treatment - that's asking you to treat me like a human being.

One of her most shocking presumptions is that by making the word vagina an increasing part of a woman’s vocabulary, abusive men will suddenly change their behavior. Domestic violence cannot be stopped by alienating men with men-hating harangues and by venerating vulgarity. The truth is that the message of The Vagina Monologues does not prepare a woman to deal with serious abuse, violence or discrimination. Women are entitled to know practical strategies that can save their lives: self-defense, easier access to counseling, and the safety of shelters for battered women.

Wrong. V-Day is about fighting violence against women - by raising money and political awareness, encouraging activism, etc. The play is about the women themselves - letting their voices be heard (which is particularly useful for people who blithely go through their lives without a thought as to the difficulties women face, though of course I'm not pointing any fingers).

Vagina Monologues =/= V-Day
play =/= political activity

Oh, and "alienating men with men-hating harangues"? Funny, but I don't think my heterosexual male boyfriend felt alienated, or hated. If the writer thinks that man-hating is constituted by criticism of men who commit violence on women, then yes, the play criticizes these men. It also, implicitly, criticizes the men who enable the violence by participating in the sexism that treats women as less valuable than men.

Both sides of the debate on The Vagina Monologues do not doubt that domestic violence is a problem faced by millions of women. Christina Hoff Sommers explained that she is not "against the good works of the play’s author ... but the play itself—about its intrinsic merit and its effect on college women who take it seriously."

They might, like, learn to talk about their periods, and stuff! And ... *gasp* enjoy sex!!

Okay, that wasn't mature. Give me credit, though - this is a pretty trying endeavor.

Valentine’s Day is an excellent opportunity to raise awareness and promote an appropriate dialogue instead of letting The Vagina Monologues do all the talking.

Cue word play for a snappy final line aaaaand ... cut!

Look, here's what I like about The Vagina Monologues: it's funny and innovative, and Eve Ensler is an engaging actress (though I haven't seen her perform this specific play). It gives voice to opinions and issues that need to be talked about - body issues, sexual violence, and, yes, the pleasure that women get out of their vaginas. It breaks through the stifling silence that makes us ashamed or uncomfortable about talking about these basic, vital, and often common experiences. (Seriously - when was the last time you heard a woman talk about her period in a mixed-gender group? I can count the number of times on one hand. Yet, at least in my social group, people will casually announce, "I have to pee!" when they leave for the bathroom.)

The play isn't perfect. For one thing, it doesn't solve violence against women - but, again, that's because it's art and doesn't descend into propaganda. (Ensler actually backs up her words with action, though, and that's what V-Day is about.) Also, there is a fairly limited set of voices in the play - older and asexual women or women of color are somewhat marginalized.

But the criticisms that decry the lack of modesty in the play are missing the point. Modesty and chastity and, most of all, silence, are concepts that are obsessively enforced by society, and that is what harms women. The rigid ideals that women are held to in terms of their bodies - both sexual and non-sexual aspects - keep us from actually talking to each other and sharing our common experiences. My first viewing of the play (a few years ago) was the first time I'd ever heard women speaking publically and unashamedly about things like their first period, the unique qualities of the clitoris, shaving pubic hair ... I didn't think women did that. In a way, I was correct - not nearly enough women do. There's constant pressure against it, as if women who are familiar with their own vaginas are loose, immoral, or otherwise dangerous.

People like this writer, like Christina Hoff Sommers, are blind to the fact that being taught that your body is shameful hurts us - and being taught that your uniquely female genitalia are shameful hurts women. They couch these ideas in deceptively flattering talk about respecting or revering women's bodies - but the unspoken consequence of this ideology is that breaking the code of silence is cause for punishment. Being curious or comfortable or proud of your sexual organs is some kind of offense. To this writer, that means praising your vagina makes you a whore. What else does it mean, I wonder?

What kind of "respect" would have you keep your damn mouth shut, or else?



The play itself, by the way, was fabulous.