Delayed reaction to the Vagina Monologues
Written by Katie on April 17, 2007 – 12:01 am - Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!
After Marquette University rejected a proposal to bring the Vagina Monologues to campus last year, they reversed their position to allow a performance this spring under the condition that the reading was presented in an academic context.
After attending that reading on Saturday, my gut feeling was to be totally unimpressed. The play was not moving; it was not thoughtful. It makes me even less likely to reclaim vulgar words for my anatomy.
In the opening remarks, justification was given for the reading. It was noted that we must present such issues, supposedly relevant to the college-aged adult, in order to aid in the discussion of sex-related violence.
Come on, Marquette. This is a gross underestimation of the level of intellect of the Marquette undergraduate student. If the administration feels our student body cannot have better fodder for an “academic conversation,” their judgment or our admissions standards are to be called under severe questioning.
The bigger disappointment, though, was the “conversation” used to leverage the case for bringing the presentation to campus. “An Academic Conversation on Catholicism, Sexuality, and Human Right featuring a reading of The Vagina Monologues” exposed itself as a sham in its severe neglect of the Catholic viewpoint here at a Catholic institution.
Dr. Rosalind Hinton of the Depaul University Religious Studies Department began her presentation of the Catholic perspective:
I’m supposed to give a Catholic viewpoint… (Short pause marked by sarcastic grin.) the Catholic Viewpoint. (Visibly rolls eyes.)
She went to discuss her conviction that the acceptability of masturbation shouldn’t even be disputed and her theory on the legitimacy of dispute over the Church’s stance on homosexuality, contraception, and consensual, responsible premarital sex. She asserted that Church authorities are merely trying to control people’s lives and that there is a context for every truth (a good way of getting around endorsing relative truth).
It would have been unacceptable to present the Vagina Monologues at Marquette without giving a Catholic response. To instead present an outright attack on Church teaching and then label it as the Catholic position is downright damaging.
Those truly concerned with putting together an academic forum would have done better to see that Catholicism, the root of our purpose and mission, was a foremost concern in the panel discussion. This benign neglect exposes the academic program for what it truly was — a front used to bring the Vagina Monologues to our campus.
On a more lighthearted, final note, Dr. Hinton unknowingly and innocently managed to offer my hands-down favorite portion of the program. She posed a grave challenge to the entire Marquette community. Fellow Marquette students and faculty, we are all called to do what the monologues are begging of us:
“Become Warriors for Vaginas!”
Last 5 posts by Katie- Marquette Must Prosecute - Fully and Publicly - March 5th, 2008
- ¿Por qué no te callas?: Hugo Chavez Still Won´t Shut It - November 18th, 2007
- Tribune Preoccupation Wows Me - September 19th, 2007
- "Clout" Proves Easy to Come by at Black Journalists' Convention - August 12th, 2007
- License Plate Splicer on Campus - July 18th, 2007
Posted in Beyond the Facade |
April 17th, 2007 at 1:26 am
This was the Catholic response? After the Bishop’s recent smackdown of a well known dissident at Marquette you think these people would have a little more restraint. I don’t understand why Catholic universities pay thousands of dollars to populate their staffs with moral realitiivsts who seem to have declared war on truth.
April 17th, 2007 at 5:34 am
Did the Vagina Monologues advance “social justice” on Saturday?
April 17th, 2007 at 8:00 am
You did neglect to mention Dr. Hathaway’s opening remarks where she noted her objections to the play: including that it’s just not that good a work of art (true), it’s Western-centric (the VM only has stories about non-Western women as being victims), etc.
Her reason for the importance of the VM to be put on was it’s obvious cultural capital with current college students–Hathaway mentioned more “Catholic” lectures, followed by discussions we’ve had in the past that didn’t come anywhere close to selling-out the Helfaer (if you’re cynical towards the VM, you can take that as a pun). Cultural capital, it put bodies in the chairs.
A jesuit point of view (I assume you mean conservative Catholic position) on the panel may have added something to the discussion, perhaps not, but I think that the conservative Catholic position, which gives more power to the Vatican as far as what is “right” than I personally like, is one that we all know fairly well and have heard many times.
And James Flaherty did help in making the VM happen.
As for Dr. Hinton’s sarcasm–how can any one person give “the” Catholic view point in 10 minutes, or in 60? Catholic view points vary. If they didn’t, and it was what the pope says is the end-all be-all, you’d have a pretty boring, thoughtless religion–or a personality cult. Something that I would never characterize Catholicism as, especially since coming to Marquette.
April 17th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Let’s not forget that our friend that gave a lengthy speech about what the Pope says about sex and how it should be for the purpose of giving of the other person, not for selfish reasons, etc, and how her very religious rationale actually justified the same-sex activity between the 24 year-old and 16 year-old women in “The Little Coochie Snorcher That Could.” I found her inadvertant Catholic defense of that piece to be remarkable (especially since she was trying to prove we were all whores and sexual heathens and ended up giving the Papal stamp of approval on our production.)
I do agree though Katie that Catholicism didn’t come up particularly often, and I think had it been talked about more, we would have seen a lot more proof that these monologues aren’t as offensive as people try to make them out to be. Care for the whole person means care for women and their sexual health and freedom as well. I also think that the entire discussion of sex trafficing was important, but totally irrelevant to the context of the discussion. The panelists should have been using the individual monologues themselves to raise specific questions about sexual violence and a Catholic perspective. Why would reclaiming the word “cunt” offend a Catholic? Shouldn’t Catholics support activities that make women feel comfortable in their own skin and less like sexual objects? There was obviously a lot more that could be done as far as discussion is concerned. Actually, last year when the production was performed by MU students off campus, the discussion following was infinitely more productive. Perhaps in the future the discussion can be more student-led. I somehow feel like the bigger questions would have been answered had we not wasted an hour on being lectured by the panelists.
I would like to say though that I am so proud to have been a part of that production. I’m so proud to have been able to fuel discussion on the issue in any way, even though there really is no controvery surrounding my particular monologue. I am disappointed that this particular piece of theatre has to come under fire so often simply for being edgy and threatening the patriarchy, but we have to keep pushing the envelope and threatening the white, heterosexual, upper class, male domination of everything we say and do, otherwise there will never be true equality for women, and we will continue to be brought up in a culture that teaches us to hate our bodies and use them simply as vessels for our husband’s penis.
And let’s be realistic here. If masturbation really was a sin, there would be an awfully short line waiting to get into Heaven.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Shouldn’t Catholics support activities that make women feel comfortable in their own skin and less like sexual objects?
Doesn’t the VM move women more toward being sex objects?
Plus, feeling comfortable in your skin was not one of the ten commandments. “Thou shalt feel comfortable in your skin.” If anything, I think the gospel probably calls people to become “uncomfortable in their skin” insofar as it that Christians take flack for sticking up for what they believe in.
and we will continue to be brought up in a culture that teaches us to hate our bodies
??? Unless there was a special on the 700 Club that I missed, I’m not sure if I was raised in the same culture as the one you describe. Then again, I am a white heterosexual male (only middle class, however).
April 17th, 2007 at 9:12 am
*insofar as Christians
April 17th, 2007 at 9:20 am
We don’t necessarily need to get into a scripture debate:
“If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.” –Luke 9:23
I’m certainly not a theology major but I think that verse is a serviceable one sentence synopsis of Christianity. What it means to take up your cross is up for question.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:22 am
heh, sorry these two follow-up comments were just in response to the “Shouldn’t Catholics support activities that make women feel comfortable in their own skin”
April 17th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
“Doesn’t the VM move women more toward being sex objects?”
This is a question brought up by someone who has not witnessed a performance, or perhaps done so with a very closed mind. There were particular monologues in which the pleasure of sex was extolled, when learning to masturbate and orgasm were glorified. But if I recall correctly, you could say that about 2 of the…8, or 9, or however many. I should say at this point there is nothing inherently un-Catholic about sex being unpleasureable or orgasming, and as Katie noted, there is some dispute about masturbation.
My friend and I had a discussion very much in this vein after the performance - it was our first time seeing the production. He could not get over the line during one of the monologues in which the woman teaching the vagina workshop says, “Your clitoris, your vagina, is your essence.” He applied this broadly to the whole production, as to say that was what its overall theme was. I noted that there was the obvious fact that a vagina is the essence of a woman in the anatomical sense, but clutching to this one line of one vignette means you are missing the overall theme of the monologues. I think the recurring theme is the alienation of women from their natural bodies and appetites in favor of soem constructed, harmful substitute.
And Katie, I am not an easily moved person, but I cannot listen to the monologue of the Bosnian woman gang raped with a rifle without feeling some piece of my humanity is being torn at. Let’s give credit where credit is due, even if you want to criticize.
April 17th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
This is a question brought up by someone who has not witnessed a performance, or perhaps done so with a very closed mind.
Let’s not explain away reality, the VM offers multiple scenes that depict women as sex objects.
Link: http://www.randomhouse.com/features/ensler/vm/qna.html
Women.com: Do you think all women’s power is rooted in their sexuality?
Ensler (author of the VM): Absolutely.
Women.com: In the past four years that you’ve been performing, have you noticed a change in women taking back their vaginas?
Ensler: Oh absolutely. One of the reasons I do this is that every night women leave that theater changed. I’ve had so many women come up to me after the show and say, “I am so happy to have a vagina. I did not feel this way when I came into the theater.” And look at how often the word “vagina” is used now. And how easily it’s used. I think things have changed a lot.
I cannot read the interview (see link) and conclude that the author of the Vagina Monologues believes that performances of the VM will save a single life or prevent even one tragedy from occurring. I think the author is interested in changing the way the world thinks and talks about sex/sexuality.
We can discuss how the world should view sex/sexuality and never agree but it is pretty clear that the Vagina Monologues are not intended to prevent tragedies/rape from occurring. Of course, I understand the objection of “well, Chuck, it is just meant to build dialogue…”
And Katie, I am not an easily moved person, but I cannot listen to the monologue of the Bosnian woman gang raped with a rifle without feeling some piece of my humanity is being torn at. Let’s give credit where credit is due, even if you want to criticize.
We could all watch detailed videos of car crashes to “build awareness” and “raise discussion” about drunk driving. It would certainly cause me to feel pieces of my humanity being torn at.
April 17th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Final note, I fully appreciate the value of a “free marketplace of ideas,” academic freedom and the power of exchanging information.
April 17th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Logan,
I can’t disagree with your “cultural capital” analysis. The show sold out and a respectable portion of the audience stayed for the discussion.
But popularity of any presentation of any viewpoint or issue should never be a justification for bringing it to campus. We are much better off truthfully and responsibly instructing a group of ten people than severely misleading 226. Most disappointingly, Marquette finally got those 226 people in place for the discussion and failed miserably in the delivery. It was a good opportunity, and it slipped away.
Greg,
It’s backwards to criticize those who broadly apply one scene to the whole production and then turn around and select a scene or two as evidence that it is moving.
Those scenes in themselves may have been moving. To place them in between scenes of prolonged mocking of various persons’ orgasmic moans and flippant conversation of a small girl about her vagina effectively left me feeling dead rather than moved. Logan is right, Dr. Hathaway duly noted this before the show began.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
“Academic setting…” Just what is that?
Surprisingly, I agree with Mu Socialist that the Vagina Monologues does serve certain purposes, particularly with regard to violence against women. Unfortunately, the actual effect of VM has served only to instigate controversy and an out-of-the-mainstream agenda.
On the fortunate side, however, no one pays any attention to VM outside of college campuses and ultra-liberal neighborhoods such as South Minneapolis (Uptown).
Hate to say it, but if it weren’t for collegiate/academic subsidies, VM would be extinct.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:47 am
Perhaps, James, they would. But someone else would likely come along and write something much like it. And it would likely be written with the same type of language and with the same in-your-face style, because let’s face it, women aren’t spoken ABOUT with any sort of decency, so how can we expect to be heard if we don’t speak in the language of our oppressors? How often are women referred to as “bitches” or “hoes” in modern music? How often is someone called a “pussy” when they’re reluctant to do or say something? We need to have the discussion about sexual violence using these terms because words are violent too, and we need to reclaim ownership of the words and phrases that have for so long been used to denigrate women. It’s exactly the same as African-Americans reclaiming the “n” word. If they use it amongst themselves, it takes the power out of it for their oppressors. If I decide that the word “cunt” is funny sounding and I can bring it back down to the realm of woman to woman interaction, it won’t get a rise out of women anymore and those that oppress us won’t feel the need to use it.
Basically the point of that tirade was that if the monologues weren’t presented in the academic context at universities and the like, something else like it would be. Might as well embrace the monologues for what they do and don’t do, and study them both as a piece of theatre (because, honestly, that’s all it is), and as a commentary on the social-sexual position of women as told by a small group of women. In no way are these monologues intended to market themselves as “universal.” Obviously no one woman is going to identify with every story in the show. But chances are that most women in that audience Saturday night identitified with at least one of those stories, and knowing you’re not alone in many situations can do a great deal to help your emotional and psychological health.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
I was thinking the other day: donkey punch, dirty sanchez, cleveland steamer, texas chili dog, san diego surprise, rawdoggin it, etc. Now, it is a possibility that I just hang with an unusually deviant crowd of males, but in my experience these are all commonly joked about things amongst men, and they all involve denigration and abuse of women. I know a lot of women who joke about these things too. Why is that? Why do we find these things funny?
And here’s my second question: do women who are opposed to these kinds of terms and jokes need to try educating the people who use them in order to get them to stop, or do they have to expropriate the ideas and make them female-dominant? Say, for example, a woman punching a man in the back of the neck during sex?
April 18th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
A+ for effectively introducing donkey punching into an intellectual discussion. Something tells me I won’t see that again for a while…
To add to the question: why do we find dumb blonde jokes funny? Why are Helen Keller jokes funny? Are we simply a culture in which degradation (sp?) is considered hilarious?
April 21st, 2007 at 1:25 am
“women aren’t spoken ABOUT with any sort of decency”
Anyone who believes this is simply a prisoner of their own mind. VM is merely an exxaggeration of irregular and infrequent aspects of the human condition.
All things being equal, how many women, based upon the behavior of one man, make the comment, “Men suck.”?