Feminists Respond, I Respond to Feminists
I apologize for the horrid lack of updating - midterms and spring break snuck up on me. I guess I don't have this blogging thing down yet. Fear not, however, I return much tanned and ready do continue battle with the forces of liberalism across the virtual globe.
On March 2nd, the WFU student director of the Monologues responded to my critical analysis of the play (see previous post). I say she "responded" and not "she addressed the relevant questions that I raised" because the latter would give credit to her response that is not due. You can find her, in her own words, in the OGB Online. I would like to take this opportunity, (naturally, since this is the prerogative of the blogger) to address her concerns systematically. It is my hope that you will see, as I do, how ludicrous her response is. It's actually quite amusing.
Argument #1 - I missed the point.
She argues that I miss "the point of The Vagina Monologues - women shouldn't be embarrassed or ashamed to speak freely about their bodies, regardless of their experiences with or reactions to them." Ah, yes, and speak freely those actors did! Imagine the intelligent commentary that arose from such riveting acts as "Smell," "My Short Skirt," "My Angry Vagina," "Hair" and "The Little Coochie Snorcher That Could." I don't contend that these actors, all women, spoke freely.
In fact, I acknowledge their speaking freely, and it is this irreverent, disgusting, un-funny free speaking that so disgusted me. Just because the play "speaks freely" does not mean that the resulting dialogue is not marred with sexual objectification. The way in which these women speak about themselves and their bodies is the very objectification which I find so repugnant. I'll present an alternate scenario: Ann Coulter speaks freely on what she believes is a predilection for violence in Islam. I posit that this would be a type of "speaking freely" that perhaps the advocates of the Monologues might consider repugnant (gee, now you know how I feel about your little orgasm scene!)
Argument #2 - The VM do NOT Objectify Women
She argues that the play does not objectify women, because "There is no more obvious way to claim power over a situation than to tell your own version of it, and women's perspectives of their own bodies and their sexual encounters have long been unspoken. "
My favorite line in the column comes shortly after: "Rather than portraying themselves as sexual objects, as Smith asserts, the characters in the play speak frankly about a myriad of topics including gang rape, the inconveniences of gynecological visits and tampons and the celebration of the function of the clitoris."
Recall: my point is that women are more than the sum of their physical parts, and that we should be appreciated for our intellect and character. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not), but I believe the entire point in the fight for gender equality was to allow women to be seen as more than sexual objects. (READ: more than clitoris-loving, tampon-using, gynecologist-visiting, helpless rape victims). And while we are on the topic of rape, let's not forget that the Monologues includes its very own rape scene!
"Rather than ignoring women and their bodies, as mainstream culture has done for hundreds of years, I believe it is a step in the right direction that women can openly acknowledge and discuss their vaginas both in and as a result of this play." Of course women are free to discuss their vaginas (impolite, crude, and off-putting as this act of free speech may be). But a two hour play that does nothing BUT discuss vaginas is a step in the right direction on the path to gender equality, because it takes the emphasis off of what is really important in women's lives. I'll give you a hint: the most important things in women's lives are not sexual bliss or vaginal wonder.
Argument #3 - The VM DO Objectify Women by Focusing on Sex and Sexuality, but that's Okay.
Yes, yes - arguments 2 and 3 seem incompatible. They are. Let's ignore this fact and treat them both as valid points. "This play does not claim to represent the voices of all women. It does, however, expose the complex, funny and disturbing accounts of real women concerning their bodies, their sexuality and sometimes even their vaginas. Women infrequently speak candidly about sex, menstruation or their physical experiences, even with one another. This is why the content of The Vagina Monologues is often so shocking or foreign even to female audience members."
In the above passage, the author admits to BOTH of my arguments - that the play objectifies women (see the key terms she uses to describe the content of the play - "bodies...sexuality...vaginas.") and that this is offensive to most people (see "shocking" and "foreign" as code words for vulgar and outlandish). At last we admit the truth! This is a play that focuses on the physical which, I argue, neglects the most important part of a women! It only took our author eight lonely paragraphs to get here. Sheesh. She goes on to say, "Women have the opportunity to prove their intellectual capabilities and strong characters elsewhere in society."
Again, this is an admission that this particular play does NOT emphasize the intellectual capabilities or strength of character that define real women.
Argument #4 - The Money raised from the Play goes to a Good Cause, so leave us Alone!
On this point I will say just one thing - The College Republicans have raised money for the American Red Cross through a September 11th memorial fundraiser. This is a good cause. This does not, however, put the political agenda of the College Republicans above criticism. In the same way, the radical sexual agenda of the Monologues is not lessened by a gesture of good will. Additionally, I find it ironic (as I imagine you do too, dear reader) that the money raised from this play (that includes a scene depicting the abduction and rape or a young girl) raises money for BATTERED WOMEN'S SHELTERS. That's like Saddam Hussein charging an admittance fee to one of his infamous rape rooms and then handing the money over to build a rape trauma center. Okay, so maybe that analogy is a little extreme, but I would consider watching the Monologues to be somewhat damaging to your psyche.
To conclude, I would like nothing more than for you to re-read my original thoughts on the Monologues in the OGB Online. Also, I would love for you to never, ever, waste your 12 dollars on this drivel.
On March 2nd, the WFU student director of the Monologues responded to my critical analysis of the play (see previous post). I say she "responded" and not "she addressed the relevant questions that I raised" because the latter would give credit to her response that is not due. You can find her, in her own words, in the OGB Online. I would like to take this opportunity, (naturally, since this is the prerogative of the blogger) to address her concerns systematically. It is my hope that you will see, as I do, how ludicrous her response is. It's actually quite amusing.
Argument #1 - I missed the point.
She argues that I miss "the point of The Vagina Monologues - women shouldn't be embarrassed or ashamed to speak freely about their bodies, regardless of their experiences with or reactions to them." Ah, yes, and speak freely those actors did! Imagine the intelligent commentary that arose from such riveting acts as "Smell," "My Short Skirt," "My Angry Vagina," "Hair" and "The Little Coochie Snorcher That Could." I don't contend that these actors, all women, spoke freely.
In fact, I acknowledge their speaking freely, and it is this irreverent, disgusting, un-funny free speaking that so disgusted me. Just because the play "speaks freely" does not mean that the resulting dialogue is not marred with sexual objectification. The way in which these women speak about themselves and their bodies is the very objectification which I find so repugnant. I'll present an alternate scenario: Ann Coulter speaks freely on what she believes is a predilection for violence in Islam. I posit that this would be a type of "speaking freely" that perhaps the advocates of the Monologues might consider repugnant (gee, now you know how I feel about your little orgasm scene!)
Argument #2 - The VM do NOT Objectify Women
She argues that the play does not objectify women, because "There is no more obvious way to claim power over a situation than to tell your own version of it, and women's perspectives of their own bodies and their sexual encounters have long been unspoken. "
My favorite line in the column comes shortly after: "Rather than portraying themselves as sexual objects, as Smith asserts, the characters in the play speak frankly about a myriad of topics including gang rape, the inconveniences of gynecological visits and tampons and the celebration of the function of the clitoris."
Recall: my point is that women are more than the sum of their physical parts, and that we should be appreciated for our intellect and character. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not), but I believe the entire point in the fight for gender equality was to allow women to be seen as more than sexual objects. (READ: more than clitoris-loving, tampon-using, gynecologist-visiting, helpless rape victims). And while we are on the topic of rape, let's not forget that the Monologues includes its very own rape scene!
"Rather than ignoring women and their bodies, as mainstream culture has done for hundreds of years, I believe it is a step in the right direction that women can openly acknowledge and discuss their vaginas both in and as a result of this play." Of course women are free to discuss their vaginas (impolite, crude, and off-putting as this act of free speech may be). But a two hour play that does nothing BUT discuss vaginas is a step in the right direction on the path to gender equality, because it takes the emphasis off of what is really important in women's lives. I'll give you a hint: the most important things in women's lives are not sexual bliss or vaginal wonder.
Argument #3 - The VM DO Objectify Women by Focusing on Sex and Sexuality, but that's Okay.
Yes, yes - arguments 2 and 3 seem incompatible. They are. Let's ignore this fact and treat them both as valid points. "This play does not claim to represent the voices of all women. It does, however, expose the complex, funny and disturbing accounts of real women concerning their bodies, their sexuality and sometimes even their vaginas. Women infrequently speak candidly about sex, menstruation or their physical experiences, even with one another. This is why the content of The Vagina Monologues is often so shocking or foreign even to female audience members."
In the above passage, the author admits to BOTH of my arguments - that the play objectifies women (see the key terms she uses to describe the content of the play - "bodies...sexuality...vaginas.") and that this is offensive to most people (see "shocking" and "foreign" as code words for vulgar and outlandish). At last we admit the truth! This is a play that focuses on the physical which, I argue, neglects the most important part of a women! It only took our author eight lonely paragraphs to get here. Sheesh. She goes on to say, "Women have the opportunity to prove their intellectual capabilities and strong characters elsewhere in society."
Again, this is an admission that this particular play does NOT emphasize the intellectual capabilities or strength of character that define real women.
Argument #4 - The Money raised from the Play goes to a Good Cause, so leave us Alone!
On this point I will say just one thing - The College Republicans have raised money for the American Red Cross through a September 11th memorial fundraiser. This is a good cause. This does not, however, put the political agenda of the College Republicans above criticism. In the same way, the radical sexual agenda of the Monologues is not lessened by a gesture of good will. Additionally, I find it ironic (as I imagine you do too, dear reader) that the money raised from this play (that includes a scene depicting the abduction and rape or a young girl) raises money for BATTERED WOMEN'S SHELTERS. That's like Saddam Hussein charging an admittance fee to one of his infamous rape rooms and then handing the money over to build a rape trauma center. Okay, so maybe that analogy is a little extreme, but I would consider watching the Monologues to be somewhat damaging to your psyche.
To conclude, I would like nothing more than for you to re-read my original thoughts on the Monologues in the OGB Online. Also, I would love for you to never, ever, waste your 12 dollars on this drivel.
posted by b.a. at 5:18 PM
1 comments
