Women = Vagina ?
Published by Yazad Jal March 6th, 2004 in Culture and SocietyOne of the major events in Bombay this March is a staging of the Vagina Monologues on International Women’s Day. The play is not new to Bombay, it’s been running since last year. I saw it last year with friends and found it very funny. Somehow I missed the undertones that Cathy Young finds troubling.
The status of The Vagina Monologues as a feminist classic is somewhat mystifying. A major part of the play’s message is that, as a woman, you are your vagina. Call me naive, but I thought one of feminism’s basic ideas was that women are not defined by their anatomy. In a New York Times interview a few years ago, Ensler talked about women’s special “vagina intelligence” in which “understanding of the world comes through the body.” While it’s important for teenage girls to have a positive attitude toward their bodies, I would hope that our educational system would encourage them, first and foremost, to understand the world through their minds.The play’s focus on male violence and abuse toward women is even more troubling than its focus on female bodies.
…
Of course male abuse of women is a real and serious problem; but in modern-day America, relations between the sexes are far more complex and far more balanced than that. Studies on dating violence, for instance, show that it’s very much a two-way street. Aside from that, a play that purports to celebrate women and dwells so relentlessly on the evil that men do sends girls the wrong message. Betty Dodson, a feminist sex educator, has been harshly critical of The Vagina Monologues because “women end up celebrating sexual violence and not the creative or regenerative pleasures of erotic love.”
Well, I had missed these points when I first saw the play, so I went googling. And opened my eyes a bit.
For Ensler, International Women’s Day is now “V-Day” or “Vagina-Day.” The direct equivalance between women and vaginas seems strange. Do you want people (that includes men) to think of women just as a collection of body parts? And the sexual parts of the body, no less!
Update: Lynette Warren at No Treason gives Fonda-feminism a whack.
I wonder if it ever occured to the pampered feminists that the only gender-oriented oppression they experience originates internally, and thus, is not oppression, at all. The stumbling block to their success as whole human beings is, in fact, their own baggage, which they cling to like any air-headed diva would upon being informed that her 5-piece set of matching princess luggage does not meet carry-on criteria and must be checked at the gate.
I then noticed a subtle hypocrisy by women. After fighting to break so-called male barriers, women then erect barriers of their own.
[Take] the case of Bombay Gymkhana. In the 128 years of its history, it was only in 2003 that women members got the right to vote and contest for elections. This year it is having it first ever celebration of Women’s Day with a workshop featuring Shobhaa De with a party in the evening. The colour code is pink and purple and men will only be allowed if accompanied by a woman.This is also the rule at Dusk, the bar in Bandra, which has its No Stags Allowed Night on March 8. Datta, who has been organising Women’s Day parties for the last four years, explains its success, “It’s all women and there are no men around. The milieu has changed. Women actually go out on their own to party and it’s a lot of fun. Source [Emphasis mine]
Well, if men choose to restrict women from a private club, the women don’t like it. But they then feel it’s ok to restrict men. Aaah, that why they call it female logic.
I think everybody should be free to associate with whoever and restrict use of one’s own private property as one sees fit. So if men wish to run a club just for men, they should be free too. If women wish to run a club solely for women, more power to them. But don’t ask the men to open up, while keeping yourself closed.
The Bombay Gym issue is a cause celebre. But how many people know of PVM (Princess Victoria Memorial) Gymkhana in Cooperage — a few kilometres to the south? PVM restricts membership to women and men are allowed only as their guests. I see no campaign to change that.
29 Responses to “Women = Vagina ?”
- 1 Trackback on Mar 13th, 2004 at 2:16 am
- 2 Trackback on Mar 16th, 2004 at 10:08 pm
A few of my thoughts:
1. The main discussion of Cathy Young’s criticism is whether it was appropriate to stage the play at a high school. I’d say no. Teen-agers (girls) are only just learning about their bodies at the ages of 13-18. And although it’s true, that sex is not a taboo subject to adolescents in the US, the subject matter of Vagina Monologues, what Ensler is trying to say in the play, would not be comprehensible to the actors themselves.
2. That brings me to my second point - the play itself. Cathy Young says - “The Vagina Monologues actually promotes victimhood and hate, not empowerment”. From what I remember of the play, it does not. Of course, a lot depends on your interpretation of the play too. The play is a tongue in cheek representation of the male-dominated sexual lives of us all. Although some of the ideas expressed seem pretty outdated, and I think that these days, at least in cosmopolitan areas, even women enjoy sex and are aware of their sexuality. In one section of the play Ensler is trying to bring to the fore the repressed sexuality of women from third world countries. It is at times, as serious, as it is funny. At the end of it all, one has to take it with a pinch of salt. Learn and inculcate what is worth, and laugh the rest off.
3. As far as the celebration of Vagina Day is concerned, I think it’s absolutely foolish. If there’s no “Men’s Day” celebrated, then why should we celebrate “Women’s Day”? Those who take it up as an opportunity to listen to a pseudo writer and drink and party, well, let them. I celebrate my womanhood every single day of the year. Period.(No pun intended) :-)
Another point of criticism about the play is the part where an adult woman seduces an underage girl after plying her with alcohol - if it were an adult man instead of a woman, this scene is actually statutary rape and would be condemned by women all over the world. I guess it is only OK for women to rape women(?).
Shanti, I don’t remember that part at all. The version shown in Bombay was adapted with an Indian audience in mind. That may explain it. Sampada, do you remember this rape sequence?
Cathy Young too talks about this rape sequence and it fits with my hypocrisy hypothesis about the mainstream feminist movement.
No, I think they edited that out taking into consideration the Indian audience. Thats the reason I left it out of my comment. Can’t say anything much unless I see the play. In fact, my above comment would have several changes if I see the play again.
BTW, there is an alternative to the leftie, bra-burning, “mainstream” feminism. It’s called i-feminism or individual feminism.
I have problems with the word “feminism”. I remember you introducing me to this site long ago.
Sampada, I agree with you on points 1 and 3.
Regarding #2, the main theme of the play and Young’s criticism, I was laughing too hard to notice. But of what I recollect, men were there largely as caricatures (e.g. the husband who wanted his wife to shave her pubic hair). It was very funny when it dealt with women and their experiences alone (flooding, even the moans and repetitions of vagina / cunt / chooth). But add the men in the picture and it kinda was one-tracked.
Yes, the pinch of salt is quite necessary!
Hey, we seem to be comment-chatting! :-D
Yes, thats the best way to see it - men as caricatures. All of them with strange eccentricities - shaving pubic hair, or funny types like the guy who liked staring at the woman’s vagina. I think Young leaps a little, from staging The Monologues in a highschool, to it being a statement of womanhood, which I don’t think it is. It may be said that hundreds of women were interviewed before the play was written, but still those hundred women can’t possibly be speaking for the rest of the billions of women all around the world. Hundred is a tiny percentage. The problem of the play, if I may say so, lies in making men the punching bag as far as women’s sexual problems are concerned.
hi ..what a coincidence that i came reading when you were discussing vagina monologues.
actually…the supposed rape scene was there. and the rape once again is a matter of perspective for the simple reason that this person did not consider herself raped, and had infact been quite in love with the woman. and the little girl had quite a mind and strength of her own if you remember the part abt the woman not wanting her to drink cos ‘your mother will not approve’ and the little girl pouted and cockily said ‘ well she would not approve of you kissing me either’ . i remember the scene clearly. and i do think it needs us to open our mind to what is really that made us uncomfy. could it be the homosexual tone?
lolita as a book talks about a man in love with a 14 yrd old or smtg. and that book is literature quite comfortably. we even have stories of older women in love with little boys ( the reader by berhard schlink) but what was it abt this scene in this play that made us uncomfy ?
secondly…the v day thing comes from the movement towards making women’s sexuality more visible. talking about our bodies with greater pride…and like most passionate movements, it has become an all or none thing - all women, all vagina. but then again…matter of perspective..maybe she wants us to think about vaginas more often. so that we do not relegate them to ‘that’ or ‘down there’
also, betty dodson has seen and concentrated on one aspect of the monologues. besides violence, ensler has spoken immensely abt loving the vagina. i have the entire script with me, so i know for a fact that the violence( which i think is important to discuss) is not the main thrust of the play anyway.
and ensler has shown the deepest regard for dodson and the work she has done. and that comes through. it would not have if the play was just about violence.
about the caricatured men. yes, i think there was something to be desired in that dept. infact i dunno whether the actors made a hash of it or was it the design.
vagina monologues for school girls ? ooh. will need adaptation. will need ‘love and respect for body’ lessons before lessons on what body can be used for.
Gitika, I have absolutely no problem with the homosexual angle to anything. I really don’t see gays as people different from me. Regardless of the independence and maturity of mind of a young girl, an adult woman/man sleeping with an underage girl is legally rape and pedophilia. Lolita might be considered literature, but the behavior (adult man sleeping with underage girl) is not condoned, by the society in general. In the play though, the rape is passed off not only as a good thing but something not abnormal at all - that is what I have a problem with. Just because the sex is homosexual doesn’t excuse behavior that would have people rise up in arms if it were heterosexual.
As an example, if someone wrote a play about how much the sexually abused boys enjoyed the advances of the Catholic priests, would people still talk about it approvingly?
but that is my point exactly. how does one decide something is rape on the basis on just one’s own norms. This girl in the play harked back to that time with immense joy. and she seemed to have had a good time. and for the first time she felt confident about herself. i don’t see how it ought to be a problem. i do not condone it because it is homosexual but because it was remembered without any resentment or even pain. instead it was remembered as something joyful.
would i say the same if a man was involved ? i dont know, for the simple reason that the equation between men and women has been warped for ages. it is not the same with women. though lesbian rapes are not rare, the equation i.e. the sexual imbalance does not seem to match the sexual imbalance that has existed between men and women.
so ..once again i would have to look closer at the particular incident before putting it under the blanket term of rape.
just read your first comment about the rape, again.
and one major thing that i needed to point out was that she was not seduced after plying her with alcohol, she was only seduced. yes she was given alcohol, but it was not - if you see the play or read the script again - you will notice it was not designed to drug her to make the seducation easier or anything of the sort. it is a very subtle thing, and it changes a lot in meaning when you look at that aspect.
Gitika, that it is rape to have sex with an underage is not my personal norm - it is the legal norm. Legally, if an adult person sleeps with an underage person regardless of the gender, it is called rape. Yes, some people might like it and not be affected, but we have the laws written so that people who are not old enough to make tough decisions can be protected from manipulation and abuse by adults. In general, I and the law consider it wrong for an adult to seduce a teenager whether the teenager supposedly enjoyed it or not. This is pedophilia and cannot be condoned whether it is hypothetical or not.
Gitika, About the underage girl enjoying it and thinking about it without pain or resentment, does not make it admissable (admissable by law). Law has been against consensual sex between an adult and underage people, because underage people are immatured and will not be able to take decisions by themselves on matters that might change their lives forever. These are some reasons why teenagers are forbidden against many normal activities of adults.
I have seen a HBO version of the play and felt that it was more to reduce the resentment women have for their bodies and not about being treated equal or otherwise. I agree with Yazad in that feminism does have lots of hypocrisy added to it. Some feminists and feministic organizations tend to widen the gap between the sexes rather than briding it.
i insisted on referring to personal norms for the simple reason that legal norms leave a lot to be desired …for example homosexuality is outlawed in india. you are free to say you are gay but you dare not say you engage in homosexual intercourse. hence the legal norm is pretty much out of the window.
as for social and individually held social norms and the play itself, well i guess i still insist on not seeing that incident as rape or abuse, but you do, so that is fine. maybe i shall be openminded about that.
So are you saying that you don’t consider sex between a 25 year old man and a 13 year old girl to be rape regardless of what the law says if the girl is okay with it?
For the sake of argument, forget the law Gitika. Are you comfortable with two individals, one aged 40 and the other 14 making love, if both consent to it? The gender is immaterial. I’d like to know why yes or why no. And if your answer is conditional (depends on the situation), do tell us what the conditions / situations are that make this ok.
I am not being sarcastic. I would really like to know your opinions on this.
Haw ji, Haw ji, he said “vagina”.
well. one cannot make it a norm and one cannot say it will always be okay..and at the same time one cannot always say that it will Always be wrong.
i already mentioned earlier, the reservations i have against men having sex with women much younger to them, because the sexual balance has been so warped for so long. you cannot say gender is immaterial for the simple reason that it is not.
and the thing with the specific situation in VM is that it, as i see it, is connected to the whole process of coming out for the young girl - coming out to her body and her sexuality. i have worked a bit on issues connected to homosexuality for a short while. and have been reading a lot about the process of coming out. and many people do refer to instances of going to bed with someone much older, and how such instances made them realise that being homosexual and sexual at all was not a bad thing in the way they had been taught for so long. another homosexual person of their age might have been going thru the same identity crisis that they are going thru themselves, hence the mentoring in a world that seems alien ( being homosexual in a heterosexist world can be an alien feeling) can best be provided by someone who has been ‘out’ for a while.
maybe that other woman in VM was not lesbian, but only liked having sex with other women (there is a difference) , yet she played a role in the life of this young girl. hence , purely because she played a role that this girl considered joyful, i feel as though we are in no position to judge. we do not know anything about their interaction- save their sexual one- hence we cannot judge them purely on the basis of that act.
maybe, i could extend this to all sexaul interactions - that till you do not know the entire deal, you cannnot have a blanket rule about them. if all i knew was that a girl went to bed with a 40 yr old man and landed in therapy becaue of it years later, i would not judge the case in a positive light at all.
look, yazad, i am not campaigning for sexual offenders i am just wondering whether it could be as easy as that - that all minor - major relations are headed in just one direction - therapy for the minor. i am wondering whether there could be more to it that we might not understand, and hence to relegate it to ‘wrong’ , are we actually in some sense forcing some experiences into invisibility?
also, i might get a terrible backlash for this but i please understand i am just troubleshooting here - a while ago i read about therapists who go to bed with their clients and how since this is against ethical stds, their license should have been revoked. and onetherapist cited research findings that showed the level of despair clients had shown after a sexual cum romantic relationship with the therapists. another therapist brought up the point of basic research sampling - that most people in the sample were women who had suffered due to such a relationship. they had not tapped into the sample of women who had slept with their therapists and had never had a problem with it. so the findings were skewed!! ( i wonder, could he have had a point there ?)
I wondered about this for a long time, and i am very very very undecided about it. and the same goes for the VM incident, cos somewhere it comes from the same trend( clients in a therapy setting are respected as equals and yet therapists acknoweldge that they hold certain power over them cos they clients are so wrapped in their problem and are slgihtly dependant. so whether therapists use the power or not is a different matter - quite like an adult -child relationship in that sense ) and hence the VM incident brought a rise out of me, for the simple reason that i am so undecided about it. i don’t know whether blanket rules can apply.
Major-minor relationships can never fall into a category, regardless of the kind of sexes involved in it. I think the girl in VM was a rare case. Maybe I am wrong, but in all the comments made above, I see a type-casting. A sort of “putting in the box and closing it” trend.
I think there are equal chances of a minor(girl) going into therapy if she has slept with a man or a woman. No, being with a woman does not definitely make her more comfortable about her sexuality or help her “come out”. In fact, if a girl has grown up believing it is normal to get physically intimate with a man, she will be shattered if a woman makes advances at her.
Similarly, a young girl, grown up for her age, just might enjoy an unexpected sexual experience with an elder man.
In either case, I agree with Shanti, it is pedophilia. But the outcome(that of therapy) could vary depending on the mentality of the minor.
*Waits to be bombarded*
I think we cannot judge the severity of an action just by seeing if the minor (or the victim) went to therapy or not. There have been a lot of cases where the victim is in a state of denial (which is also a serious side-effect of harassment). Gitika, I have personally known cases where elderly women have taken advantage of young girls because (i) their actions cannot be sited as rape or harassment and can be labelled as pure intimacy or care for the victim when brought out in the open (ii) a girl (especially in India) is used to being close to other women than men and it usually takes more time for the girl to realize she is being taken advantage of. This can be the case with boys too with either of the sexes.
okay. extremely valid point that. No sampada, no bombarding.
But still, i insist that my points were not to put everything into a ‘type’ and say that when women do it to other women , its not rape. i am not saying that. i am referring pointedly to this one incident in VM to stand for other incidents like these that ( according to me) come in another category, that is not paedophilia.
Ripples : valid point about denial and therapy not being the right barometer. I tend to use therapy as a metaphor for ’serious pain and damage’.
yes, valid point about same sex abuse. though i can see now where we are all at different paradigms - i insist on seeing the VM incident in a micro scale , look at the incident for just itself. and my pro argument comes from seeing the woman looking back at that incident as a 14 yr old , with some excitement and not pain. the fact that VM is based on true stories makes that incident more poignant in terms of understanding sexuality.
but most arguments that are being hurled this way are trying to look at the bigger picture. but the problem with looking purely at the bigger picture is that there are alternatives to what is common, most treasured and most ‘normal’ and in the desire to keep the bigger picture cohesive , many things are forced into invisibility.
i have really just been defending that one woman who supposedly raped a 14 yr old who eventually grew up and did not describe the incident as rape. in abuse Denial is ‘ it did not happen’ and ‘it was nothing’ . denial does not allow for joy.
keep the laws in place but do not make the laws decide in every situation what is right and what is wrong.
Maybe Gitika there is some sense in what you’re typing. But I’m afraid I’ve missed it. Completely.
And I must add that Sampada was referring to Shanti and me regarding the bombarding bit. ;-)
I am sorry Gitika, but I refuse to buy your argument that this should be looked at as an isolated case in which the teenager seduced did not face any bad repercussions at all. VM is not meant to be entertainment - this play was meant to be advocacy in the form of a play, which is obvious in the creator’s insistence on calling Valentine’s Day V-Day and so on.
When an advocacy group that supposedly preaches against domestic violence (by men only), they lose they lose credibility when they portray obvious pedophilia and not make it appear bad in the play - they infact seem to be condoning and encouraging it, just because it was woman-on-woman. Rape on a woman is rape and wrong regardless of the perpetrator’s gender, which should have been the play’s message if they really were into true woman-advocacy and not just plain male-bashing.
i agree with the fact that Vagina Monologues was about advocacy and that is precisely why that supposedly isolated incident needs to be looked at more clearly for it to represent things that we have only one word for - paedophilia, when there is more to it.
well thats my last word on this entire argument cos everything seems to be quite repetitive, my arguments as well as others.
and well if you have missed the point completely, that is a forewarning that this argument is likely to continue being repetitive.
Women shaving vaginas is for hygiene and health. It is not a decision taken for sexual reasons.