The play was worse than this edit
So I just watched, for the first time, Mount Holyoke College’s production of The Vagina Monologues last night. (Find script here) I was expecting to feel encouraged and heartened by the play. But throughout the whole damn thing, I wanted to get up and leave. It was just awful. I hate this play. I’m feeling pretty angry right now, so the stuff I write is not gonna be eloquent or totally thought-out. All the fuck yous are directed towards the author and the characters (and sometimes, the actors who performed it) in the play, not to anyone on this blog (yet, unless someone says something that would make me say “fuck you” to them but I think I’d be more civil to you people because you’re my community). But here are some preliminary thoughts.
The Vagina Monologues are a huge step back for feminism. And here is why (not in order of levels of offensiveness):
1. It glorifies motherhood. One of the last scenes is about how it is so beautiful to watch a bruised vagina covered with shit and blood, giving birth, and being tired right after having given birth. Lady, stop staring at other people’s tired, oppressed vaginas. And stop telling women that having babies is wonderful. It is not. It fucking sucks. I wouldn’t know personally, but this is what every mother says to me, before feeling guilty and quickly saying how much they love their children. I know you love your children, mothers. But that is not the point. The point is that pushing their too-large heads through your too-small vaginas is a fucking sucky-ass way to do it, and it hurts, and what the fuck is this patriarchal glorification of women’s vaginas not only being beautiful (i.e. to be used for sex) but also useful (to give birth). How wonderful! Now you can have whatever you want, men, because women are in cahoots with you because of this stupid play.
2. It condones rape. A 24-year old woman molests a 16-year old girl, and the girl is all happy and loves it because she realizes that she doesn’t have to hate her vagina, that she can be a happy lesbian without depending on a man. Nice job. Now you have to depend on sketchy older women to show you how to really do it. I know how to do it myself, thank you. I have been molested, and I have been raped, but I know perfectly well how to pleasure myself. I learned it on my own, and I don’t like the message that other people have to validate my genitals for me. This is a mixed offense, because I do like the fact that the girl finally is over her past of being raped by a man, and over her past of a repressive mother telling her not to touch her “coochie snorcher.” But more often than not, if you are a sketch older women who molests a younger girl, it’s not going to turn out that way. She’s probably going to feel weird and guilty and molested. It is not a good message. There is also this other scene in which the woman is like this ditzy lady, and she’s talking about how this completely plain person “Bob” first made her see how her vagina is beautiful. Bob is a fucking asshole. He takes off her clothes, even though she says she doesn’t want that, and stares at her genitals for “almost an hour”. He says to her panting, “you’re so beautiful” while staring at her vagina. BOB YOU FUCKING SUCK AND I HOPE THAT YOU DIE. WHY ARE YOU EQUATING THIS PERSON’S BEAUTY WITH THE BEAUTY OF HER PUSSY? Why do you refuse to have sex with her without forcing off her clothes first? It’s not like she hasn’t already given you permission to have your way (see rape) with her. It ends up a happy story, with the woman finally loving herself and her genitals, all due to Bob. Again, I wouldn’t suggest this strategy. Bobs of the world, take warning: do not take off a woman’s clothes when she doesn’t want you to! I don’t care if you’re trying to show her how beautiful she (i.e. her vagina) is!!!!!! It is a form of sexual assault, and it’s more likely going to end up making her feel weird, guilty, and raped.
3. Very few (I think there were two, out of a cast of about 25) women of color chose to participate in the play, which a friend pointed out could have just been coincidence. She said that there also weren’t very many blondes who were acting in the play either (actually there were, I checked). But I think that women of color are probably offended by the play, because a) it doesn’t reflect their concerns and b) because it contains terrible racist expressions. For example, during the dominatrix sex-worker’s monologue, she talks about how much she loves it when women moan. Then she proceeds to pornographically demonstrate the moans of those women she has pleasured throughout her career as a sex-worker. She does an impression of the “power moan”, the “clit moan”, “the vaginal moan”, the “combo clit-vaginal moan”. All fine and good (not really, she was objectifying herself and other women, in order to give the play a measure of commercial success. Nice job compromising yourself so that the play can sell. Really. I hate you, stupid person). BUT THEN, she does the “African American moan” during which she moans in a really deep voice and at the end of it, says something that I can’t quite catch, but that I’m sure plays off some racist stereotype about African Americans. Nice job. You fucking suck and I hate you. How dare you perform this shit? How dare you try to say that black women moan differently than white women? How dare you homogenize a race like that you racist assholes? The message was that black women moan this one specific way, when feeling sexual pleasure. While white women can choose between a vast array of moans. I wasn’t aware that they were reserved, lady. I can’t even go on, this is such bullshit, I’m not sure how to express the violent rage that I am feeling, not sure how to express what is wrong with this particular monologue apart from what I said above. (It is worth noting that in the version of the script that I have posted a link to above, there is no mention of this “African American” moan, so that is just Mount Holyoke actors finding their new unique own way to be racist. But there is one of a “semi-religious” moan during which the sex-worker is supposed to say “oy-oy-oy” like a Jewish person. At my school, the sex worker character said out loud “Jewish moan” and then she did the horrible “oy-oy” and I wanted to kill myself. Nice job being racist again, Vagina Monologues, you never fail to disappoint.)
4. It reduces women down to their genitals!!!!!! (see #2, the example of Bob and the ditzy lady). WOMEN ARE NOT THEIR GODDAMN GENITALS. There’s all this bullshit in this play about how you are your clitoris, how you are your vagina. Fucking bullshit. Shut the fuck up. This is what men say to me everyday of my life. That I am nothing more than my ability to give, and receive, sexual pleasure. I know that receiving sexual pleasure for women is this new thing that they’ve never been allowed to do before, and it’s this like revolution that should make all women happy and take advantage of it. But this tactic of “don’t worry, it will feel good” is bullshit. This is rapist rhetoric. How the fuck is this play being championed as the messenger for the women’s rights movement? This play oppresses women, and oppresses me. I’m fucking angry.
5. There is this overt sexualization of women the whole fucking time they’re talking about sexual pleasure. These women are slithering all over each other in this horrible commercialized way, to indicate how receptive they are to sex, and how their discoveries have brought them so much sexual joy, which they are expressing with promiscuity. The kind of promiscuity that turns on straight American men. IS THIS GIRLS GONE WILD THAT I AM WATCHING? Actors (and no I will not call them actresses even though they’re women) of Mount Holyoke, are you fucking kidding me? Why are you coming onto the damn stage wearing high heels, tight clothes, corsets and fishnets, and talking to me about how I’m supposed to relate to you, to be “liberated” and “sexual” like you? I don’t fucking wear fishnets. I wear men’s clothes and sneakers. I am not going to put on your ridiculous torture-get-up and go around championing women’s rights while simultaneously promoting the values of the patriarchy: i.e. the constant talk and constant use and constant display of the vagina. I don’t like to use my vagina. I don’t want things inside of it. It hurts. I don’t want babies coming out of it. That would also hurt. (I do like using my clitoris, just to let you know Lucie, because I know you don’t want women throwing out the clitoris with the push up bra, and obviously I don’t want that either because glorifying the clitoris is way more okay than glorifying the vagina, in my opinion). I don’t want TO HEAR A BUNCH OF APOLOGISTS FOR FEMININITY, for torturous push up bras and high heels. Femininity deserves no apology. It is horrible and it is a tool against women (see Irene’s post about what makes her heart sing).
6. The play’s whole shtick is about how women shouldn’t be scared to look at their vaginas, and shouldn’t have hatred for it. This is a good point. But you know what? Although women’s self-hatred of their bodies does have to do with men making them feel bad about themselves, I think probably a good reason for women not looking at their vaginas is because THEY ARE MOSTLY IRRELEVANT TO OUR LIVES. All my vagina is good for is having sex with men, and giving birth, and providing an outlet for menstrual blood. THAT IS ALL IT DOES FOLKS. THAT IS NOT WHERE I FEEL MOST OF MY SEXUAL PLEASURE. THIS IS A MYTH FORMED AND PERPETUATED BY THE PATRIARCHY, men, who want you to use their vaginas to have sex with them. Why did this stupid author not name this thing the “Clitoris Monologues”? Though there is some mention of clitoral pleasure here and there, it is hardly the centerpiece of the play. I don’t fucking want to use my vagina. A vagina isn’t even like a thing, it is a space, it is a potential space, which can be opened when it is forced open by a penis or a baby. And I’m not fucking interested in fucking men or giving birth to babies. Fuck you.
7. It is steeped in materialism. Example of the girl who wants comfortable, luxurious consumer products for her vagina, like cotton panties built in with a French tickler, or fur-covered stirrups to put her feet inside when she is having a gyno exam. SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU STUPID IDIOT. I HATE YOU AND I HATE PEOPLE LIKE YOU. Do you know who is weaving the cotton for your damn cotton panties??? IT IS WOMEN IN SWEATSHOPS. Do you know where the fuck fur comes from? FROM CLUBBING SEALS TO DEATH. You are probably not even a vegetarian!!!!! I don’t even understand what the fuck this stupid fucking asshole is talking about. She wants to perpetuate the oppression on minority groups such as sweatshop workers and animals, so that she can fulfill her glorious American-style consumerist attitude towards her beloved vagina. Nice job white American feminist imperialist. No, actually, I was kidding, you didn’t do a nice job. I loathe you.
8. It makes fun of women!!!!!!!!! Feminism is about how women want to be taken seriously, you assholes!!! There are these insane monologues, by characters that are oblivious of their comedic value. There is a character who gets really upset because she thinks she’s “lost” her clitoris. She’s a full-grown woman, might I add. I think its worth noting that the patriarchy does make some women go crazy, and have crazy fears like this. But most women know perfectly well that they can’t lose their clitoris. It doesn’t fly away if you’ve done something bad. Of course, the whole audience erupts with laughter when she is expressing her fear (I can’t find this part on the script either, but I know I heard it last night). How silly, insane, and hysterical this woman is. Let’s laugh at her, and her concerns. And she isn’t the only silly, insane, hysterical woman on the play. There are a number of them, who all say ridiculous things to be funny, so that the play can be commercially successful. I’m incredibly unhappy with this. Enough laughing at women!!!!! Enough using them to make profits at their expense! Enough using feminism for monetary gain! ENOUGH. Just stop it. Don’t laugh at me. Don’t make me sound funny, and insane, and flighty, and womanly. We already have to fight that reputation. Don’t trivialize my concerns, sexist assholes.
9. At the end, there was this really upsetting slideshow about women who have been systematically raped in the Congo as a war tactic. And I suppose maybe it is good for us all to be aware of this happening. Every year, the people who do V-Day pick a different cause, apparently. But then, it ends, leaving us nothing but the assumption that “this needs to stop.” I distinctly felt that “these men are barbaric” but I don’t want to have to be made to feel like that. This stupid slideshow made these women seem like victims who couldn’t do anything in their lives, and the men seem like horrible barbarians. “Dark hordes,” to use the words of Bq. Homogenization. It didn’t say so explicitly, but that was the message. Is looking at this slideshow, and being made to homogenize the men (as nothing but barbarians) and women (as nothing but victims) of other cultures, and then forgetting all about, at all a good thing? NO it is not. It’s bad. (um not really expressing things well here, I have to go do hw real quick) If you want to help women in the Congo, you have to help men too. You have to learn a shitload about it, read and write and talk, and go there and be there. Don’t donate $3 and hope that it helps. Maybe the money is going to go towards the elites with power, who may choose to hurt the victims even more. Do you really know where your donation is going? Have you looked it up? Have you done so much as a cursory internet search? This message of throwing some money at a situation and hoping that it helps to make it better is a terrible message. There should be people at this play who know a lot about it, who give a speech, who lead workshops, who discuss books, on the topic. At any of these ridiculous plays, atleast there should be that measure of follow-up to atleast partially redeem the imperialist know-it-all attitude. (I would like to thank Bq for her dialogue with me, which shed light on all that I discuss in #9, which I was previously almost completely unaware of.)
There’s probably a lot more that I’ve totally forgotten to mention. As I said, I hate this play. It is a step backwards for feminism, and for humanity. And worst, it is considered one of the biggest progresses that the women’s rights movement has produced, which is obviously a really dangerous misunderstanding.
Orkinson, you’re making me question everything!! …hooray
So. Here’s my perspective. I do theatre. Like I act in plays and set design them and such. Vagina Monologues is one of the few beacons of women-identified women hope in the theatre world because most plays are written by men and for men to be in lead roles. At Vassar, “Vaginas”, as we call it, is arguably the most popular theatrical event all year. Tickets sell out for all three performances in a day. I have performed in Vaginas. Even though I had the smallest part, (I don’t think it’s even in the show anymore, actually, according to your script) I thoroughly enjoyed the community of women it fostered for the weeks we rehearsed for the play. Amazing actors have been a part of this play here, and I think that’s really what makes or breaks the play. If you have a bunch of air-heads who have no thought for the implications of the play beyond GIRL POWER! then I can see the play being outrageously offensive. That said, I understand a lot of your arguments.
The play really should be called the Vulva Monologues. Eve Ensler’s writing is also pretty poor. I have also been offended by what women choose to wear during the show. Our dress code was “all black with one red item”: I wore black cargo pants, boots, tank top, and a red and black baseball cap, for example. But I was a little upset to notice that every woman in our production of Vaginas, save me and one other, was wearing some form of tight-fitting dress or skirt. As if the show would only be effective if they looked pretty and feminine. NOTLESBIANORFEMINISTOHMYGOD.
Anywho, thanks Orkinson (a) for making me feel better about missing the play here this weekend, and (b) clearing up some delusions most people (including myself) seem to have about this play.
I’m a man, and I came upon this post by accident, so maybe that disqualifies me from commenting.
But I consider myself a feminist and I think your post is ignorant and lacks context.
Traditional feminism, second wave, or whatever you want to call it before it imploded, was all about rebelling against the historical patriarchy and establishing women as equal to men, putting them on the same playing field and giving equal importance to their needs, or conditions, or whatnot. So on this basis, I think your critiques are horrible.
I had written a bunch of shit addressing every single point in your post, but it got deleted when my browser crashed.
So I’ll just address where I think you’re most wrong, and that’s on sexuality. Female sexuality is defined in terms of what men want. That’s how biology works. It’s OK if you don’t want to have sex with men, but the human race is built for males and females to have sex together and reproduce. And that’s not necessarily (though it can be…) oppressive or patriartical.
Just as the male sexuality is defined in terms of what gives females pleasure, female sexuality is what gives males pleasure. Why are men so obsessed about penis size? Because they know that’s what women want. Why the vagina? Why the corsets and the fishnets? Because those are the symbols of sexuality for men. Men and women are in a symbotic relationship, and it’s right for men to want to please women and vice versa. Remember that we live in a community and a society, and do not confuse feminism with narcissism.
Are bras and highheels oppressive? Yes, I think so. But in context they make sense. Take those out and the message of vm will be diluted. Nobody will get that they are talking about ‘female sexuality’.
But last word on that topic. In this culture, female sexuality has historically been ignored, vm is in the tradition of trying to oppose that. Has it gone too far? Next paragraph… But this type of message is still needed. There are places in the country, much less around the world, where female sexuality being under lock and key is the norm. This message is the symbol of western feminism and is worth promoting as part of a multi-front battle against sexism.
Has it gone too far? I don’t think so. Does it reduce females to their genitals? Yes. Is that bad? No. There are plenty of media that reduces men to just their genitals. If you don’t think so, you’re not watching enough mainstream media. But you raise this point in #9.
You might be tempted to say, well it’s bad for both men and women, nobody should be reduced to just their genitals. I disagree. Art exaggerates, art caricatures, art reflects both our cultural fears, cultural sins, and amplifies them. I don’t know where you’re coming from, and so arguing this point here might be pointless, hence I’m not going to bother. But my view on this is, ridiculing or insulting people is ok, so long as it is in the name of art.
I can also give a 2 hour long lecture on the biological and sociological history of this type of ‘reductionism’, but suffice it to say that this type of thinking has always been part of us, and always will be. It is integral to how we think as human beings, and when used by educated people will not be taken as more important than it actually is. That is, people do not actually think women are just vaginas despite what vm says.
Though you seem to be the perfect fit for me. I’m OK with having sex with just your clitoris if you’re ok with my micropenis.
#7: I agree, materialism has nothing to do with vaginas. I don’t know why vm has so much of that shit.
#9: You’re a huge hypocrite aren’t you.
“Dark hordes,” to use the words of Bq. Homogenization.”
Uh huh.
“Now you can have whatever you want, men, because women are in cahoots with you because of this stupid play.”
This whole post really made me think, although I’ve never seen the play so I should probably watch it. reason # 7 really hit me hard. It doesn’t just make me think about “sexy” clothes like corsets and high heels. I makes me think about all the clothes I wear. And how I’m so hypocritical for being a vegetarian and not scrutinizing where my clothes are coming from. Like I don’t even know what lines are bad and what lines aren’t bad. I know nike and the gap are bad, but that’s all and I know there are so many more. I want it to be an offense punishable by execution for people to exploit sweat shop labor to chew down the prices on their clothing lines. Actually, I don’t want anyone to be executed, but if I did believe in execution these people would be the first on my list. But getting back to the point, its fucked up that women, and men for that matter, are made to think that they have to spend and consume to perfect their image. I went to a Model UN conference in Boston this weekend and the dress requirement was “western business attire.” I appreciated that they were trying to create a sense of realism, but it really made me cringe, especially since there were people from all over the world at this conference. This was advertised as preparation for the world’s future leaders. what the fuck?
One more thing, in defense of the Vagina Monologues. Wasn’t there a monologue about a woman who didn’t want things in her vagina? Like the whole monologue was about how she was tired of people trying to put things up her vagina? Maybe this is from a different play but I remember a girl in my acting class doing it and I thought she said it was from the Vagina Monologues.
“Wasn’t there a monologue about a woman who didn’t want things in her vagina? Like the whole monologue was about how she was tired of people trying to put things up her vagina?” yep. same monologue as the girl who wanted luxurious things for her vagina like fur covered stirrups and panties with a french tickler.
the WHOLE play wasnt terrible. though most of it was. there was one monologue about this woman who hates her husband for making her shave her pubic hair, and how she hates being denuded by him. i liked that one. though it wasnt clear if she left him or not? but she did stop shaving herself.
Miraploy, you said, “Are bras and highheels oppressive? Yes, I think so. But in context they make sense. Take those out and the message of vm will be diluted. Nobody will get that they are talking about ‘female sexuality’.”
The play is called THE VAGINA MONOLOGUES. How is it unclear that they’re talking about female sexuality?
Are you saying that women need to dress by patriarchal standards of beauty to convey female sexuality in this play? What makes you say that this play needs these women to be catered to the male sexuality? Multiple characters in the play are lesbian-identified. Is there an outfit you have in mind for them? I’m confused about your justification for the women’s attire…
ben, i am surprised that all you could see in this post was all caps sentences ending in twenty-plus exclamation points. it is interesting that you were not able to find any concrete critiques, though i made an effort to clearly outline them in 9 discrete steps, despite the swearing and overpunctuation. of course, i dont have many hours to re-read everything i write. but i did re-read this post. what makes you think i didnt? i re-read it, and decided not to diffuse my anger. it was an informed decision. “so the stuff I write is not gonna be eloquent or totally thought-out.” not being eloquent does not mean not being comprehensive, or not making sense. actually, i was pretty comprehensive and pretty sensible.
i suppose you are advocating that a very, very busy student forgo enlightenment, rather than try to fit as much as she can in the few minutes of free time that she has. obviously, we disagree on this point. id rather learn some stuff than sit down quiet scared that i said something wrong. and you know what? no one has given me a compelling enough reason to even think i said something wrong…except for miraploy, who’s comment i will eventually respond to because it deserves an essay
“I really don’t even see the point in responding.” why not? if you see problems in my post, why not respond? i dont really understand your tactic here, ben. you are effectively calling me lazy by saying that i dont re-read my posts. even though i do. (and im not lazy so i dont appreciate you implying that about me. would a lazy person write a super long feminist critique of the vagina monologues? when did you make *your* last post?) while you refuse to respond to my post other than saying that there are problems in it. atleast i attempted to say exactly what my problems were with the play. your non-response is looking pretty bad, in comparison.
Ben,
I think you’re being extremely unfair.
I don’t understand why we find the need to personally attack each other on this blog. We’re the fucking authors.
The point wasn’t to accuse other feminists. It’s to make sense of our own lives, to share our thoughts with others. Not get ripped to shreds, accused of laziness, accused of a lot of things. Ork saw a play. She was offended. She wrote about it.
You may have saw the play and had a completely different experience. This is completely reasonable considering you saw completely different productions, in different spaces, with different scripts, and are completely different people.
Honestly, I’m starting to wonder what’s the point of this blog if all it’s doing is apparently encourage hate between ourselves and others?
Munzi, you are forever a peacemaker!
here are two of my many cents:
I think the thing about blogs in general is that they operate on a level that’s uniquely personal and uniquely impersonal. A bunch of the authors don’t know each other and at the same time we’re writing posts about how our experiences affected us personally (“this made me feel so angry,” “that made me so happy”). Authors writing about academic stuffs are usually careful to not be too explicit with their raw feelings. We generally don’t tell strangers our raw feelings. We generally don’t want to hear strangers’ raw feelings. I guess there’s a lack of professionalism that isn’t replaced by at deep knowledge of the other authors’ situations. Hence, you’ll see this stuff even on big name blogs.
I would hate for you to give up hope though, Munzi. I really like this blog. I’m really glad you guys made it. Like, even the more nasty exchanges that I’ve been a part of definitely could have sunk a lot lower. I think in general this blog has a higher level of discourse than a lot of shows on major news networks….not that that’s saying much, I guess.
hi munzby, i love you, you should check your email, i wrote you something super long and hopefully something that will make you reconsider your opinion on what this blog has become?
and as to what lucie said, i agree.
Thanks for putting words to everything that was bothering me about the Vagina Monologues. #1 in particular stood out to me; I am so tired of hearing about the beauty of birth. It reminds me of that part in the Bell Jar where they talk about the drugs the doctors gave women so that they wouldn’t remember the horrible pain they went through and would continue to have children. #2 was quite disturbing as well–equating women with their genitals, even in the context of a genital-themed play, struck me as terribly antifeminist.
@ Miraploy…that’s pretty heteronormative, and I think the bit about your micropenis is a little weird, if not inappropriate.
[…] more on criticisms of the Vagina Monologues, check this blog out and read Kim Hall’s “Queerness, Disability and The Vagina […]