An odd text, which exercises totalitarian control over its direction, disallowing amendments to the script if the monologues are to be performed. Perhaps there is something to the live performance that is lacking in the cold transcript. Author is fortunately unable to exercise the same level of control over the reading of the text. I skip over what I want, muthafucka!Some have suggested that this is trans-exclusionary or essentialist. Not sure that I’m seeing that. The text does not obviously reduce women to vaginas. That may be a fair reading of the implication of some of the materials, such as the opening methodological disclosure that “there were vagina interviews, which became vagina monologues. Over two hundred women were interviewed.” It does not state that any men who happened to be in possession of a vagina were interviewed, though it also does not state that only women-with-vaginas were interviewed or that “you’re a woman only if you have a vagina.” Perhaps it’s a failure to assume that the writers worked in good faith. (If, on the other hand, these defects were brought to the attention of author, and author declined to supplement with further interviews, as this text is constantly revised and updated each year for performances, then perhaps the trans-exclusionary charge might have teeth.) If there is no reduction or equation, then it’s difficult to say that this is trans-exclusionary or essentialist. The concern, I think, is less about what it is to be female but rather what the vagina signifies. The first monologue re-urges as many coarse euphemisms as it can recall, i.e., it lists out many signifiers that attempt to get at the overlapping set of underlying signifieds. All that said, the version that I read is very likely cis-gender privileged; it certainly fails to problematize gender identity, and all reasonable inferences tend toward reducing the definition of woman to the presence of a vagina. I would prefer to maintain a distinction between cis-gender privilege and trans-exclusionary; as a cis-gender person, the privilege arises automatically, without any effort; this is likely a necessary condition for trans-exclusion, but hardly a sufficient one. The notion that there’s a ‘lesbian bias’ or an ‘anti-male bias’ is not persuasive; the charges seem to be based on the fact that there are factual allegations contained herein regarding violence against persons with vaginas, mostly committed by male persons (which I guess is a cipher for persons without vaginas?). That in itself is not anti-male, unless reality is anti-male. Similarly, it is not ‘bias’ for someone to come to a reasonable, substantiated conclusion after deliberating on the facts at issue, even if that conclusion disagrees with the contentions of the person charging ‘bias.’ Were this the case, then every legal decision would involve bias against the loser. (In fact, when I see the term ‘bias’ used in any way other than the legal term of art (regarding judge or juror preconceptions), am immediately assuming that the user of the term is trifling and shiftless.) By the same rationale, it is not a ‘lesbian bias’ if the text presents lesbian relations as positive, or indeed presents them at all. (I suppose the far right position here is that no one should be talking about lesbians, except when quoting St. Paul on how hot they are.)Bizarre prosopopeia insofar as one of the monologues list out what some vaginas might wear and say. Not very engaging, to be honest, and probably somewhat juvenile and philistine. The last thing we need is to grant anatomical parcels some sort of personality (and I mean that in both the lay and legal senses).Interesting perspectives on the politics of hygiene (“Hair,” “I was 12,” “My Angry Vagina,” “I was there in the Room”), which as a person-without-a-vagina-currently-attached-to-my-person-as-a-permanent-anatomical-parcel (fuck y’all, but that’s as correct as I could conceive it), am deferring to these propositions.Martin Jay’s Downcast Eyes makes a decent case for the development of ‘phallogoculocentrism,’ the discourse of phallogocentrism crossed with the dominant rhetoric of the visual that runs through western ideas. In the VM, though, we get several monologues that develop an inverse discourse of vulvoculogocentrism, or so (see “The Vagina Workshop” and “Because He Liked to Look at it”). A number of the monologues concern violence against persons-with-vaginas. Hard to argue against their inclusion. The text that received the most controversion has been “The Little Coochi Snorcher that Could,” which presents positively a lesbian relation that amounts to carnal knowledge of a juvenile, as it would be charged down my way—though some other jurisdictions might charge it as aggravated rape of a juvenile. It was objected that this is a double standard &c. Considering that this is a monologue based on an interview with an actual person, presumably the notorious (and subjunctive) line “If it was rape, it was a good rape” is based on an actual statement of the actual victim. The double standard is not, as douchebag Swope alleged, that rape is wrong only when a man, and not when a woman, commits it; rather, we note that the reaction generally is the same when an adult woman is guilty of carnal knowledge of a male juvenile. These things aren’t taken very seriously, because of the paternalist assumption that the vagina is not dangerous. I suspect that one of these kids who managed an affair with his high school teacher might say the same thing: if rape, it was good, &c. This particular text does not opine as to whether the carnal knowledge of the juvenile is ‘wrong’ or not. The text’s notorious line seems to not dispute that it was a ‘rape,’ which is of course wrongful by definition. That said, the nastiness here is not the failure of ethical condemnation (fairly sure that the text speaks for itself in identifying a series of sexual encounters between the narrator and other persons while narrator is a juvenile, and they’re all fucking gross; the only difference is that the lesbian one proceeds in the presence of actual consent; whether that consent is legally meaningful is a separate question upon which the text has no opinion other than the partial admission that it is in fact a rape.) Readings that construe all of this as approval of rape-by-vagina seem completely blinkered. Rather, the nastiness is in the proposition that rape can be aesthetic for the victim. As these appear to be the words of the victim in the case, it’s not for me to mansplain to the victim that her rape-by-vagina was actually unaesthetic and that she needs to conform her aesthetic experience to the legal presumptions that attach to her age. (But it’s still fucking gross. Call me a bigot against carnal knowledge of juveniles; I can live with that.)Recommended for those who create a map of all the vagina-friendly cities, readers whose vaginas became wide operatic mouths, and persons who tell you it smells like rose petals when it’s supposed to smell like pussy.
When I was in eighth grade health class, the teacher handed out diagrams of male and female genitalia with lines pointing to the different parts and told us to memorize the names of the parts for a test at the end of the week. After our tests had been graded, the teacher admitted that she’d analyzed the results for boys vs. girls and found some interesting discrepancies. Not terribly surprising, most boys and girls scored the highest when identifying the parts of their own respective genitals. But the girls who achieved the highest scores on the female diagram had a nearly equal success in identifying all the different parts on the male diagram as well. However, even the boys who achieved the highest scores on the male diagram scored very low on identifying the parts on the female diagram (with 1 or 2 exceptions). After explaining these findings the teacher asked for responses from the class. Some of the more vocal boys complained that it “wasn’t fair” because girls had “more parts” and it wasn’t like they “got to see it all the time.” The teacher said that wasn’t an excuse and she made everyone who scored less than 70% retake the test. Good for her!Frankly, I wish more health teachers had been like mine. Over the course of my adult, dating life, I met a surprising handful of fully grown men who had no idea where to find the clitoris. And no, they weren’t virgins and hadn’t been for years. In fact, one of them had been sexually active for nearly 10 years. I was surprised by that but glad he’d finally asked such an important question because honestly, there is no reason why a heterosexual man not know where to find it.Reading this book made me think about these things. It also made me think about a recent conversation I’ve had with another mom about teaching the appropriate names for body parts and how the mantra you teach toddlers goes something like this, “Boys have a penis. Girls have a…a vagina.” And even though we’re too modern to do something embarrassing like whisper the word vagina, or give it a stupid, cutesie name like coochi snorcher or itsy bitsy, we still find ourselves hesitating before we actually say it, almost like you have to first think, “quick, wait, is this the right time to say vagina or…????” I hate that I do that. It makes me angry that I often feel a need to pause before saying the word and to worry that maybe the other person will have an embarrassing reaction to my saying the word. Whatever I do, I don’t ever want my daughter to think that I’m embarrassed to say the word vagina. It bothers me that she could potentially develop some hang ups with the word in life from other sources, like other family members or friends or boyfriends but Lord help me that it doesn’t come from me. That is one of the things I really loved about this book. There was no need to feel embarrassed even though I was reading about messy things like pubic hair and menstruation and odor and rape and lesbian sex. And birth. The V-Day edition I read had an amazing piece on birth that gave me chills. Thanks to the internet, I’ve met a number of moms who’ve had all sorts of different experiences with birth, specifically cesarean birth vs. vaginal birth. I’ve observed that many of the women who had c-sections, especially unplanned, were left feeling distraught and like something had been stolen from them. To some extent, I imagine this can in part be attributed to longer recovery times, scarring, being cut open, etc. But there’s always been some other emotional component that I’ve never fully understood. As someone who experienced a vaginal birth, I’ve looked at some of the c-section mothers and felt those emotions pouring off them and never understood where they were coming from. I’ve heard them say things like, “just because I didn’t give birth doesn’t mean I didn’t give birth.” And I’ve thought, “well, of course” and didn’t understand why the other person felt the need to validate her experience. Reading the birth piece in this book gives me further insight by putting into words the sheer power of my own experience with giving birth and how close it comes to capturing the symbiotic relationship that can exist between woman and vagina. Feeling like the experience has been taken from you might require time to come to terms with. I feel better equipped to respond sensitively having read this.Intense. All that said, I can’t rate the book higher than three stars. I usually have a hard time getting on board with in your face “shock politics” and I can’t help but think this book falls under that category. It tries to shock regular people into thinking about things they perhaps never would have thought about otherwise by using socially shocking words like cunt and vagina. For the record, I had a near perfect score on my eighth grade male and female genital exam. So this means I know when the word vagina is being used properly and when it is being improperly used as a synonym for vulva. I think it’s disappointing the Vagina Monologues barely acknowledges this. This just further convinces me that the primary purpose of this book is shock value rather than to effect actual change.
What do You think about The Vagina Monologues (2001)?
I don't really see the need for the stances of overwhelming crassness many of the reviews take against this book here on the GR. Is Ensler's collection of performance pieces the final word on feminist ideology? No, not at all. But is it a sincere work that approaches with humor and gravity the notion that especially men and especially women should view the female body outside of the bullshit male-centric, patriarchal perception that many people seem utterly oblivious to their own culpability in helping perpetuate? And by breaking out of this narrow longview of gender identity, help the reader - the female and, by extension, the male reader - learn to appreciate their own owness that is neither defined by societal expectations nor cultural pressures? Emphatically yes and yes. Besides, how can you not find joy in a work that has a section entitled "My Vagina is Angry"? The Vagina Monologues is another welcome bit of social upheaval in the never-ending, variegated discussion of gender identity.
—Anthony Vacca
***revised***2 days after watching the monologueMy favorite monologue is "the little coochi snorcher that could" followed by "when I was 12 my mother slapped me". But, I don't know if they translate well into reading...I can see where the power lies in being performed. When all this started I was off the radar so to speak, I missed this boat. I was on another boat. But I was on that boat because I was empowered. I believed/believe that I can do what I want with my vagina. Live where I want, have the career that I want, the husband I want, all that jazz. And Yes I know I am lucky.I have seen women with no empowerment,abused,undermined, etc. It is heart breaking. I am not sure if The Vagina Monologues would make a difference, they need something more. I decided that I should watch this performed. It was much more powerful. The last monologue the one about child birth made be burst into tears. Touched a nerve. Thus I added another star to the book. I think they should be paired, read the book, then watch.
—Jennifer
Throughout reading this, I was bothered repeatedly by one major error: she frequently uses vagina when she means VULVA! It makes me cringe that a play dedicated to freeing women from shame about this most intimate of body parts can't even name it correctly.I also didn't really connect with the monologues and no doubt that's because they were meant to be seen performed, not read. I would probably only buy this if I had already seen and enjoyed a performance.So why 3 stars and not fewer? It's an acknowledgment of the positive impact Eve Ensler's play has had worldwide bringing women's experiences (some funny, some horrific) out into the open. She has also used the Monologues' huge success to initiate campaigns against violence towards women. Which is a good thing. (I'm aware that this means that I'm bringing in factors other than the text for my rating - just call it female solidarity).
—Bunnyhugger1
