2008 Woodie Awards
Open attitudes not welcome at "Monologues"
Issue date: 2/4/05 Section: Rocket Letters
To the Editor:
Once again we are approaching an annual February rite involving the restaging of a play, largely for and about wealthy, white women, called "The Vagina Monologues." It is altogether fitting and proper that an open dialogue exist in regard to the many political vagaries that surround this play, both in general and on this campus. While some high schools, with underage children within their purview, have prevented stagings of the play because of its occasional vulgarities, there should be no such censorship here. Every encouragement should be given to those who want to see the play as well as to those who want to take part in its presentation. However, there should also be an equally open attitude toward those who express sentiments that do not conform to the political climate and dictates of those who lead the play's production. Unfortunately, some of SRU's thespian/producers have steadily displayed anything but nobility in regard to civil liberties.
While righteously demanding their own free speech, SRU feminists have taken many steps to prevent airings of views besides their own. An obvious hypocrisy exists here, and it deserves to be exposed, both for its inherent absurdity as well as for the sake of students who may find themselves uncomfortable with the repressive, conformist climate in which they find themselves while thinking that participation in such a production as the VM would somehow feel liberating. A few exemplary points to keep in mind as well:
-- When a Monologue declaims the discomfort of cold gynecological instruments, think of the greater horror of the millions who cannot afford to see a gynecologist, and usually have none available.
-- While parts of the VM rightfully underscore the horrors of spousal abuse, consider the decided commitment to a certain narrowness here: one can acceptably monologue about male abuses of females, but discussions of gays or lesbians abusing their partners or of heterosexual woman abusing men are all off limits. The point here is that the important matter of spousal abuse is and should be regarded as a human problem, but the peculiar strain of politically correct feminism we have on this and many campuses cannot acknowledge that.
Once again we are approaching an annual February rite involving the restaging of a play, largely for and about wealthy, white women, called "The Vagina Monologues." It is altogether fitting and proper that an open dialogue exist in regard to the many political vagaries that surround this play, both in general and on this campus. While some high schools, with underage children within their purview, have prevented stagings of the play because of its occasional vulgarities, there should be no such censorship here. Every encouragement should be given to those who want to see the play as well as to those who want to take part in its presentation. However, there should also be an equally open attitude toward those who express sentiments that do not conform to the political climate and dictates of those who lead the play's production. Unfortunately, some of SRU's thespian/producers have steadily displayed anything but nobility in regard to civil liberties.
While righteously demanding their own free speech, SRU feminists have taken many steps to prevent airings of views besides their own. An obvious hypocrisy exists here, and it deserves to be exposed, both for its inherent absurdity as well as for the sake of students who may find themselves uncomfortable with the repressive, conformist climate in which they find themselves while thinking that participation in such a production as the VM would somehow feel liberating. A few exemplary points to keep in mind as well:
-- When a Monologue declaims the discomfort of cold gynecological instruments, think of the greater horror of the millions who cannot afford to see a gynecologist, and usually have none available.
-- While parts of the VM rightfully underscore the horrors of spousal abuse, consider the decided commitment to a certain narrowness here: one can acceptably monologue about male abuses of females, but discussions of gays or lesbians abusing their partners or of heterosexual woman abusing men are all off limits. The point here is that the important matter of spousal abuse is and should be regarded as a human problem, but the peculiar strain of politically correct feminism we have on this and many campuses cannot acknowledge that.
