The Hoohaa Monologues

[MadelynIris]

The beauty of "moral" arguments is that they don't have to be set in stone

Moral arguements - not to include the basic moral arguments like, don't murder or steal. Everything else is up for grabs.

Oh yeah, those were supposedly written in stone. lol.

 

[yolland]

So...80s or MadelynIris...you don't believe that it's intrinsically bad for your hypothetical 4-year-old daughter to know what and where her "vagina" is, then?

Because frankly I'm still unclear about that based on the responses.

 

[MadelynIris]

So...80s or MadelynIris...you don't believe that it's intrinsically bad for your hypothetical 4-year-old daughter to know what and where her "vagina" is, then?

Of course not. I'm all for the study of geomorphology. I guess describing what the Vagina Monologues is all about is where it would get tricky. And probably not suitable till much, much later in life. So, as impolite it might be for a 4 year to run around saying vagina, it's obviously much more impolite, and almost criminal for said 4 year old girl to discuss what the Vagina Monologues is all about.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomorphology

 

[80sU2isBest]

So...80s or MadelynIris...you don't believe that it's intrinsically bad for your hypothetical 4-year-old daughter to know what and where her "vagina" is, then?

Because frankly I'm still unclear about that based on the responses.

Frankly, I'm unclear what makes you or anyone think that I would think it is "bad". Is it because I said I don't want her running around in public saying the word? If that's it, what kind of correlation can you draw that would bind those two ideas together?

 

[maycocksean]

Of course not. I'm all for the study of geomorphology. I guess describing what the Vagina Monologues is all about is where it would get tricky. And probably not suitable till much, much later in life. So, as impolite it might be for a 4 year to run around saying vagina, it's obviously much more impolite, and almost criminal for said 4 year old girl to discuss what the Vagina Monologues is all about.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomorphology

I thought this was another subtext to the minority viewpoint on this issue as well.

Perhaps the issue isn't so much with the word vagina itself but with the play.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I'd love to go see the play. Why are you yelling at me to not go see the play?

Right, I'm just supporting the argument that it's ok to try and expose your children to things in their own good time. No big deal.

So, yeah, sometimes society throws stuff at you, and sometimes you wish they wouldn't. It's ok that you wish they wouldn't. It's ok that sometimes you feel they've gone too far. All you can do is state that fact and move on.

Thanks 80s.

The thanks goes to you, for stepping in in my defense.

 

[MadelynIris]

And as Mrs. Springsteen pointed out...

It's the name of the play, it's not any sort of titillating and/or gratuitous display of the word vagina for senseless purposes

But I say that is the whole point of naming the play by using the term "Vagina". The point is to make you say "Vawhata did that say"? It's not for senseless purpose, just promotional purposes.

Could the play been named something "more acceptable to society"? Yes, but wouldn't have the sensalitionism, nor the easy entry into the talk show circuit.

It's all about the O.

 

[MadelynIris]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkSSL3N305Y

(Every single Hooh-Haa from Scent of A Woman)

One more time, because I think this is awesome!

 

[BVS]

And as Mrs. Springsteen pointed out...



But I say that is the whole point of naming the play by using the term "Vagina". The point is to make you say "Vawhata did that say"? It's not for senseless purpose, just promotional purposes.

Could the play been named something "more acceptable to society"? Yes, but wouldn't have the sensalitionism, nor the easy entry into the talk show circuit.

It's all about the O.

Well if you've ever seen the play you would know how wrong your post is...

 

[MadelynIris]

Ok. Fair enough. I based it on what I read on the web site.

But using the word "Vagina" in the title definitely had that effect on me. I assume it had a similar effect on others. Definitely, caught my I. Help me understand how wrong I am.

BTW, the "It's all about the O" reference is not about the play, but the overstock.com commercial. Same thing... Using a phrase to sell the website that has nothing to do with the content.

 

[maycocksean]

So...80s or MadelynIris...you don't believe that it's intrinsically bad for your hypothetical 4-year-old daughter to know what and where her "vagina" is, then?

Because frankly I'm still unclear about that based on the responses.

Not to speak for 80's but since earlier he said I correctly captured what he was trying to say, I'll forge ahead.

I think for him it's the chewing analogy. Both chewing your food and the word vagina are normal natural things. Neither should be displayed in public.

I'm not saying I agree, but I see the point he's trying to make. I do think it fails to take into account the vagina does not have ONLY sexual connotations. Kind of like the breastfeeding thread from awhile back. Those that view the vagina and breasts as strictly sexual may be more inclined to feel that such words etc shouldn't be "put forth" in "polite company." Just as one doesn't chew their food in polite company (in many cultures its considered rude to eat in front of other people, unless of course they are eating too, so I think the analogy stands--sort of)

 

[MadelynIris]

Except the chewing has nothing to do with sex eh?

Protocol, politeness, etiquette (sp?), etc...

 

[yolland]

Frankly, I'm unclear what makes you or anyone think that I would think it is "bad". Is it because I said I don't want her running around in public saying the word? If that's it, what kind of correlation can you draw that would bind those two ideas together?

Yes, it's partly that, because the only other interpretation I could think of was that you believed a 4-year-old who knew the word as an unextraordinary body-part name might nonetheless start "going around saying it all over the place" (which to me read as 'saying it repeatedly,' not 'saying it publically') just because s/he saw it on a marquee. I guess maybe that really was more or less what you meant, but at the time that didn't seem plausible, so I went with the only other guess that made sense to me, which was that you simply felt "vagina" was not a suitable word for a 4-year-old to know. Then when you later raised the notion that seeing it on a marquee "causes me to have to confront the issue before I'm ready and before I feel my child is ready," that seemed to me to further confirm that the critical factor for you was age. I did of course notice that you repeatedly said you would talk to your children about body parts etc., but since you never specified age, I continued to figure that you saw that as the pivotal issue.

In short, I guess a connection that was crystal-clear to you between a child seeing the word in public and perhaps thus casually striking up a chat with the neighbors about 'my vagina' was simply not clear to me. Judging from several other posters' replies, I wasn't the only one who didn't see the connection. Now I'm not saying this to justify those responses which were taunting or baiting in tone, because that kind of thing is never justified (a point which I'm getting really tired of regularly making to no avail, but that's another topic). But, I do think several of us were simply genuinely, innocently confused as to what connection you were making, not imperiously "passing judgments" or anything of that sort. And I'm saying this as a parent who's giving their kids a traditional religious upbringing myself, so I don't think I'm tone-deaf to those kinds of concerns, 'social liberal' though I may be in the big picture. It just would never occur to me that because, say, my 8-year-old son (I'll use him as an example, since his siblings are too young to quickly recognize 'vagina' on a marquee) sees the word in print somewhere outside the house, he's suddenly going to lose all sense that you shouldn't go around talking about things like your genitals, nasal secretions, body odors or whatever.

I agree with MadelynIris about the play itself being a difficult one to explain to an older child (a younger child wouldn't even be interested, so that one's kinda moot, IMO), but that much I already stated in my first post in this thread. Children are always going to be coming to you with awkward questions about things they overheard, read in a novel or the newspaper--"Hey Dad, what's 'rape'?" and so forth. It's all just part of being a parent, for better and for worse.

I have seen the play, and even to another adult, it's difficult to describe. Yes, some of the skits are bawdy; some humorously play on the embarrassment many women feel in talking about their genitals and "female problems" (which several posters have alluded to); some are darkly tragic and focus on topics like gang rape during wartime, female genital mutilation, etc. My understanding is that she regularly creates new skits and cycles through old ones, so the version anyone else saw might not be the same one I did. Basically, it's about the particular kinds of vulnerabilities and humiliations that being a woman (and in particular, having a vagina, obviously) can entail, and the various ways that women transcend that (or don't). My words, not Eve Ensler's.

 

[BVS]

Ok. Fair enough. I based it on what I read on the web site.

But using the word "Vagina" in the title definitely had that effect on me. I assume it had a similar effect on others. Definitely, caught my I. Help me understand how wrong I am.

BTW, the "It's all about the O" reference is not about the play, but the overstock.com commercial. Same thing... Using a phrase to sell the website that has nothing to do with the content.

I realized the O comment

But using the word "Vagina" in the play is all about ownership. It's about not being ashamed, not having to whisper when using the word... This thread is actually a good peek into what this play is about.

Why is it so much easier for society to talk about penis issues than it is vagina issues?

 

[maycocksean]

Except the chewing has nothing to do with sex eh?

Protocol, politeness, etiquette (sp?), etc...

Yeah, but I think that was 80's point. It's not the sex per se.

It's the "what's appropriate for public consumption/display/discussion" etc. Yes, sex is the issue but he's saying sex is a private thing and thus things associated with sex shouldn't be "out in public."

Again the issue is viewing the vagina as strictly for sexual purposes, which perhaps, is a bit unfair to women to have their vaginas reduced to "just sex." Maybe that's what the play is about, it sounds like that might be part of it based on what Yolland said. I haven't seen it myself. They staged it hear in Saipan last February but I was off island when they did so I couldn't go see it (though I would have been interested to).

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Why is it so much easier for society to talk about penis issues than it is vagina issues?

Because we're all supposed to shout from every rooftop how great the penis and everything associated with it it-the vagina, not so much. That double standard still exists, and is what I was trying to get to with this thread-not a constant back and forth over one person's view or "liberal" vs "conservative" . I know you know all this btw and that I am preaching to the choir and obviously that's why you made that statement-first and only male to do so in this thread that I can recall. That's basically why we have no penis monologues-unless you count the puppetry one, which is something different as I understand it. Once I watched a show about it in a hotel room (well that sounds a little "inappropriate"-it was a late night cable documentary on a non porn channel ), it was interesting to say the least... But the point is that men don't need a monologue about that, because there's no shaming involved in their sexuality. It is celebrated. Unless you want to say that making various shapes and things with your penis is freeing in some way from shame about it. I dunno. It all seemed strange to me, but it is still just a body part and all that.

Honestly I can't believe anyone would make the leap in logic from a 4 or whatever year old seeing the marquee to having to explain to them what the play is about. But I do feel when your daughter is a teenager it is appropriate and NECESSARY, because it's all part of healthy self esteem. That seems to be ignored by many people in this thread-and from what I understand is a major theme of the play. Thus the irony. I certainly hope it is realized how important that all is for girls-and like it or not it is tied in to body image and sexuality. I personally feel that any parent is doing a major disservice to a daughter if they don't realize that and act accordingly.

Vaginas aren't just about sex, in so many ways though it is all about accepting and loving and respecting ourselves and our bodies and our sexuality and that there is nothing inherently shameful about vaginas or any issue related to them. So as hard as I try to understand, I just can't understand having a problem with the word on a marquee from that point of view and from the others that I have pointed out. Doesn't mean I endorse the Britney style PDV, I just don't think that is ultimately empowering for women-especially someone in her situation. I don't want to see PDP either however. Not outraged by either, but still my personal preference.

 

[BonosSaint]

Nicely put.

 

[maycocksean]

How about a PICTURE of the vagina?

Today one of our teachers was wearing (NOT in the classroom, after school) a Vagina Monologues t-shirt with a stylized drawing (though not so stylized that it wasn't very obvious what it was) of a vagina on the back with a "The Vagina Monologues" slogan.

Of course I immediately thought of this thread and wondered what your thoughts might be.

If the word is okay, what about a picture?

For me, I draw the line at a picture (same as I would draw the line at having a picture of a penis on a t-shirt). I think genitalia should be covered in public places and while of course I'd make exception to certain tastefully done art exhibits and what not, in general putting a vagina on a t-shirt is perhaps a little much. I mean I didn't think it was the end of the world or anything, but the more I thought about it, the more I felt it was perhaps a bit out of place.

After all, if we can put it on a t-shirt, what exactly is wrong with Britney's PDV?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Well how appropriate that this is still going for vday

As for a picture, well I wouldn't freak out over it or anything since I still maintain that there is no shame about it-but as I said when I mentioned a picture before that's where my personal standards of modesty come in. There is certainly also beautiful artistry that is not offensive, like you said. Since that t-shirt was involved with the play, I really don't have an issue with it. If it was an actual photo of a vagina, well it's not something I care to look at or ever wear.

The difference between a picture and Britney's PDV for me is that, well-a picture isn't the real thing and not connected to a real person and/or reflective of them. My real problem with PDV and these Hollywood girls is that what is truly empowering and sexy is what is left to the imagination and not publicly revealed for all to see, and what is between your ears and not your legs. Not to say of course that they have no brain because they show all in public. But I want these girls to focus on their careers, their kids, their business ventures,whatever-that is where their real power is. If they think that PDV is ever going to truly empower them as young women, they are misguided in my personal opinion.

 

[BVS]

How about a PICTURE of the vagina?

For me, I draw the line at a picture (same as I would draw the line at having a picture of a penis on a t-shirt).

I can't imagine a stylized drawing being offensive. In fact I'd venture to say that even if it was a picture from a biology book that most men wouldn't know what they are looking at.

What about all the phallic skyscrapers out there, are they any better than a stylized drawing?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

A Catholic nun writes about the Vagina Monologues. And what she says applies to more than just the views of Catholicism.

So if you have an issue with the word being in public on a marquee, I just don't see how you aren't perpetuating some of the very things she is talking about. Sorry, I just don't.

http://www.bustedhalo.com/features/RememberingV-DayDefendingtheVaginaMonologues.htm

"If the vagina’s pop culture debut came in the late 90s, it seems to me that its male sexual counterpart had center stage all to itself for quite a long while. Having grown up with several brothers I practically needed a penis dictionary to translate the endless double entendres that poured out of them at such a rapid rate. At first I remember being grossed out. But then I gradually began to realize that that was their way of processing that part of their reality. They could talk about it and joke about it just like anything else. There’s something very healthy about that.

I, however, was not afforded the same luxury. My girlfriends and I generally didn’t talk about what our vaginas felt like, what it felt like to have our period, etc. Perhaps because our experience is a lot more internal than external, hidden even on a physical level, it remained an issue that we kept to ourselves and didn’t discuss. And when we did try to talk about it we learned that it was just not appropriate for women to discuss the functions of their reproductive system. This tendency is extremely detrimental to girls and women because it leads to keeping anything connected with our vaginas a secret—sexual abuse being the best kept secret among them.

The Vagina Monologues instead celebrates the beauty of the vagina, in direct contrast to the message that women have often had to internalize— that it is dirty and not to be touched. For the first time, women have a public forum in which to process their experience in a mature way. So, I am left with the question: Why has The Vagina Monologues—which isn’t intended to be sexually arousing or gratuitously vulgar—been protested by a vocal minority of Catholics when it has been offered on Catholic campuses? I wonder if the fully-cassocked seminarians who often participate in these protests understand the pain that many women carry because their sexuality is often denigrated, abused, and defiled? Do they have any sense of the experiences of women that brought the Monologues into existence?"



Since that first show, the Monologues has been performed at hundreds of colleges and other venues. All proceeds from these performances go to local groups working to stop violence against women—the raison d’être of V-Day—as Ensler so eloquently explained in her introduction to the 2003 edition:

"Slowly, it dawned on me that nothing was more important than stopping violence toward women—that the desecration of women indicated the failure of human beings to honor and protect life and that this failing would, if we did not correct it, be the end of us all. I do not think I am being extreme. When you rape, beat, maim, mutilate, burn, bury, and terrorize women, you destroy the essential life energy on the planet. You force what is meant to be open, trusting, nurturing, creative, and alive to be bent, infertile, and broken. "

 

[maycocksean]

I can't imagine a stylized drawing being offensive.

Well, when I say it was stylized, I meant that it was in bright, non-natural colors, but the drawing itself seemed to be very detailed and anatomically correct. In any case, I wasn't saying I found it "offensive." Just perhaps a little too explicit for the back of a t-shirt. But again, I understood the context and what the people who made the t-shirt were trying to say, and the goal removing shame about the vagina and all that, so it wasn't like I was all mortified or anything. It just made me think is all.

 

[maycocksean]

Well how appropriate that this is still going for vday


The difference between a picture and Britney's PDV for me is that, well-a picture isn't the real thing and not connected to a real person and/or reflective of them. My real problem with PDV and these Hollywood girls is that what is truly empowering and sexy is what is left to the imagination and not publicly revealed for all to see, and what is between your ears and not your legs. Not to say of course that they have no brain because they show all in public. But I want these girls to focus on their careers, their kids, their business ventures,whatever-that is where their real power is. If they think that PDV is ever going to truly empower them as young women, they are misguided in my personal opinion.

Good point.

 

[indra]

I realise most of us were hoping this thread had died off, but I saw this story just now and I wondered if this word would draw the same type of furor.

SEATTLE - A newly opened store catering to very pampered dogs, especially female dogs, is getting more than questioning looks for its name, High Maintenance Bitch.

The third word in the sign is widely visible at North 45th Street and Wallingford Avenue North, one of the main intersections in the Wallingford neighborhood business west of Interstate 5 and north of the Lake Washington Ship Canal.

"I am probably the most progressive liberal person in the world and I am personally offended by the sign," said Janet Stillman, executive director of the Wallingford Neighborhood Office. "It's so blatant and so in your face."

The sign is the issue more than products such as Gel-ous Bitch bath gel and Street Walker paw cleanser, said Kara Ceriello, co-president of the Wallingford Chamber of Commerce.

Ceriello said she supports the store but has heard complaints from about a dozen people.

"It is going to be a hot issue again when we get to our Wallingford Kiddie Parade and Street Fair," she said.

Stillman said the sign could wreck family photographs of the parade, scheduled for July 7.

"Walk by there with your 5-year-old and try to explain why that sign is there. Half of the sign is made up of the word 'bitch.'"

Making no apologies, co-founder Lori Pacchiano, 36, said she planned to meet with the chamber Thursday. Meanwhile, she and her brother, Ryan Pacchiano, 27, hope to made the business name as commonplace in shopping areas as Victoria's Secret.

Over the next three years they hope to open 10 stores at a cost of about $200,000 each.

"Our company is probably the most high-end pet brand in the world," Pacchiano said. "We want to be known for growing from Seattle."

In the process, she said, one of her goals is to reclaim the word in its original meaning, a female dog, as opposed to a derogatory term for a woman.

"Our store is a dog store, but the concept and philosophy is directed specifically toward women," she said.

link here

 

[Anu]

This is a still fabulous and enlightening thread.

Sadly, I don't think that's it is 'okay' to talk about the penis in any real or meaningful way that's as enlightened as what V-day does.

The vernacular associated with the penis is still viciously negative. And I think that to use these words as insults is much more socially acceptable in liberal contexts than to use their feminizeed counterparts.

 

[BoMac]

V----a Monologues earns suspension

Cross River,New York—A high school has suspended three students who disobeyed officials by saying the word "vagina" during a reading from the feminist play The Vagina Monologues. The honour students, Megan Reback, Elan Stahl and Hannah Levinson,included the word during their reading Friday because "it wasn't crude and it wasn't inappropriate and it was very real and pure," Reback said.

 

[martha]

Suspended for naming a body part?! What would have happened if they'd said "arm"????


I sure hope there's more to the story.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Oh my God, how ridiculous

Way to empower young women!

http://www.nbc5.com/education/11187138/detail.html?rss=chi&psp=nationalnews

The excerpt from "Monologues" was read Friday night, among various readings at an event sponsored by the literary magazine at John Jay High School in Cross River, a New York City suburb. Among the other readings was a student's original work and the football coach quoting Shakespeare.

The girls took turns reading the excerpt until they came to the word, then said it together.

"My short skirt is a liberation flag in the women's army," they read. "I declare these streets, any streets, my vagina's country."

The suspension has prompted allegations of censorship. But Principal Richard Leprine said Tuesday that the girls were punished not because of what they said but because they disobeyed orders not to say it.

In a statement, Leprine said that because the event was open to the community, including children, the word "vagina" was not appropriate. He said the girls had been told when they auditioned that they could not use the word.

Reback said Tuesday that no one in the audience was younger than high school age. "What did we do that was so wrong?" she asked. "We were insubordinate, but the reason we were insubordinate was that we talked about our body."

The principal said that the school respects students' right to freedom of expression. "That right, however, is not unfettered.

"When a student is told by faculty members not to present specified material because of the composition of the audience and they agree to do so, it is expected that the commitment will be honored and the directive will be followed," Leprine said. "When a student chooses not to follow the directive, consequences follow."

Bob Lichtenfeld, superintendent of the Katonah-Lewisboro school district, which includes John Jay, said, "If the high school students wanted to put on a production of 'The Vagina Monologues,' they probably wouldn't have had any opposition. As long as the intended audience knows what to expect, we don't have a problem with it."

Ensler said the girls were right for "standing up for art and against censorship."


"The school's position is absurd, a throwback to the Dark Ages," she said. "So what, if children were to hear the word? Would that be terrible? We're not talking about plutonium here, or acid rain, a word that destroys lives. It's a body part!"

She said she called the girls to support them because "the school put them in an impossible position."

 

[martha]

http://www.nbc5.com/education/11187138/detail.html?rss=chi&psp=nationalnews
He said the girls had been told when they auditioned that they could not use the word....

"When a student is told by faculty members not to present specified material because of the composition of the audience and they agree to do so, it is expected that the commitment will be honored and the directive will be followed," Leprine said. "When a student chooses not to follow the directive, consequences follow."

Bob Lichtenfeld, superintendent of the Katonah-Lewisboro school district, which includes John Jay, said, "If the high school students wanted to put on a production of 'The Vagina Monologues,' they probably wouldn't have had any opposition. As long as the intended audience knows what to expect, we don't have a problem with it."

I had a hunch there was more to the story. It's too bad the girls did it this way.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

The irony is that any children in the audience have most likely heard words in school that are far more offensive (and I don't find the word vagina offensive at all). But they are really catering to the parents, not the kids. Parents who probably use swear words in front of their kids. Who is that perfect that they don't? My mother wouldn't say vagina, but she swore around me like a drunken sailor.

I admire what those girls did, sometimes you have to defy authority for a higher purpose. I know kids are supposed to be taught to obey authority, and I agree with that. But I still support what they did.