Why "The Vagina Monologues" Matters

Posted by Amanda Marcotte, Pandagon at 10:22 AM on April 17, 2008.

Rebecca Traister has a great article about the 10th anniversary of "The Vagina Monologues" in New Orleans, and ends up having the same reaction that a lot of what you might call advanced patriarchy-blamers have when seeing this play: a reluctant appreciation for how fun it is to see it, after a period of intense irritation at the hoopla around it. I'm definitely in the rationalist category of feminism, as it were, and have little to no patience with the Earth Mother feminism that tries to make a big deal out of the feminine essence. It's true that we are awash in a culture where anxious men have a submissive relationship to The Phallus, but seriously, the way to correct that is not to make a great emblem out of vulvic energy or whatever you want to call it. There are some men who have a healthy relationship with the penis---they like it, but see it as a tool that belongs to them. I think that route out of shame over having ladyparts is to take that pathway. But, as Traister notes, Ensler surrounds the play itself with this Earth Mother goddess stuff that makes me squirmy.

In Ensler's megalomaniacal V-universe, everything from voter registration to the Iraq war is seen through the speculum, er, spectrum, of the vagina, and moist metaphor and love for Eve (and beav) rule the day. It often seems, in fact, that Ensler has taken her laudable grass-roots success and turned it into a celebrity-centric, glitzy franchise -- one that has, in its unrelenting and patronizing focus on women-as-cootches, often felt as reductive and objectifying as the language Ensler originally set out to fight.

All that is true, but at the end of the day, the "Monologues" continue to draw huge audiences because the play itself is so good. You don't have to love Ensler's approach to love the play, because what makes the play awesome is that the monologues are all built from the direct words of a bunch of ordinary women. The factors that were in play 10 years ago when the play made its debut---shame about sexuality, the belief that women are inferior and that control of the ladyparts belongs to men, because women can't be trusted with it---are only more pronounced now than they were then, and have been enshrined into the law. I think women flock to the play, because it's refreshing to hear other women talk about their vaginas.....much in the way that men with healthy masculine identities see their penises. It's mine, but it does not own me. Ensler may skirt the edge of "women as cootches", but the play itself sends home the all-too-uncommon message that women own their cootches. And because of its emphasis on personal narrative, it does this without being preachy or driven by ideology, and it's really funny and entertaining.

Which is why the play makes right wingers apeshit, and for that, I will always love it. In this piece, Kasic tries to equate "admitting you have a vagina" with "embracing a status as a sex object", but of course, that doesn't follow. Looking at men---which is what Kasic really wants us to do, anyway---shows how there's no need to be secretive about your genitals in order to avoid being reduced to your genitals. A dude making a dick joke doesn't relinquish his right to full admission into the human race, and in some quarters, handiness with a dick joke is required, because it's a way to keep the ladies out.

What's really funny about Kasic's piece is that she's reporting to an audience scared to death to see the "Monologues", so she can say whatever she wants about it without running into reality-based facts. She could say they sacrifice a chicken on stage, and I doubt anyone would correct her. Instead, she claims that the play stereotypes men as all bad guys, except the guy who enjoys staring at vaginas, which Kasic finds disgusting: "It’s difficult to see how that is a redeeming quality, but in the context of the play he stands out as the most worthy male."

Statements like that make it hard for me to hate Kasic, because I just feel so sorry for her. Knowing why that's a redeeming quality in a man makes life a lot sunnier, I'll tell you what.

Anyway, she's pulling a bait and switch of sorts. The accusation is that the play stereotypes men, but the evidence is that there's only one male character with any redeeming qualities. But actually, that's more evidence that men aren't a gigantic presence in the play, which makes sense, because the play is about women. I'm sure Kasic sits through many TV shows and movies and plays where women only play small parts, and certainly are more stereotyped than in the "Monologues", but somehow that fails to raise her ire, which means that she's relinquished her moral right to bitch about the one instance where men are sideline characters.

The play popularizes a feminist message, and I suspect sometimes that feminist desires to stick pins in it comes from the wrong place, this desire to keep feminism as a "cool kids club" and hostility towards anyone who has managed to find a way to mainstream our ideas so that we who have them aren't so special anymore. Too bad for us who feel that way, though. Say what you will, but this play has managed to help mainstream the idea that violence against women is wrong, to the point where even a reactionary like Kasic has to say, through the lemon she's sucking, that it's a good thing to raise money to help women that have been on the pummeling end of our patriarchy. Since this change in attitudes has a direct effect on the lives of victims of domestic violence, the cool kids club needs to suck it up and realize that reality is more important than our egotistical need to feel special.

All this said, I do have to say that I want to crawl under my bed and suck my thumb in frustration when I see feminists play up to the stereotype that women are irrational ninnies. From Traister's piece:

Fonda -- who had drummed up publicity for this event back in February by uttering the word "cunt" on morning television -- began her speech with some copious crying. "I am so proud to be a woman!" she'd said, sniffing mightily as she took the stage. It ended with some Eckhart Tolle-influenced wavy-gravy about how we're all fields of energy. "This is not just new-age hogwash," she said, "It is actually how reality works

Every time a feminist starts talking in woo, they discredit feminism. We don't need to lean on bullshit to justify ourselves, because the rational case for feminism is far stronger.

Amanda Marcotte co-writes the popular blog Pandagon. She is the author of It's a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments.