Can people even think any more?
Another one of those “let’s decide to put on The Vagina Monologues so that we can then decide to cancel it and get into the news” situations.
Leaders at a college in Michigan decided to cancel its production of “The Vagina Monologues” because it’s discriminatory, given “not all women have vaginas.”
Right. By the same token, let’s cancel productions of “The Cherry Orchard” because not all orchards have cherry trees.
It’s not “discriminatory” for a play to be about some people as opposed to all people. A play about all people would be unwieldy and so long that it could never end, because new people keep getting born. Women who don’t have vaginas might like “The Vagina Monologues” despite its failure to be about them.
The women’s resource center at Eastern Michigan University put the kibosh on the famous production since it caters only to women who have the physical anatomy that accompanies the female sex, according to The Ann Arbor News.
Caters to? Since when are plays supposed to “cater to” anyone at all, let alone particular categories of people?
The decision came after the resource center conducted a survey, asking respondents about “The Vagina Monologues.” Those opposed to the drama said they were concerned about the fact that the production excludes some women, namely those who don’t have vaginas.
But, again – all plays exclude 99.99% of people, just as all novels do, all tv dramas do, all radio dramas do, and so on.
The resource center issued the following statement on the show’s cancelation:
We feel that making this decision is in line with the WRC mission of recognizing and celebrating the diverse representations of women on campus along with the overall mission of the Department of Diversity and Community Involvement, in which the WRC is housed, of supporting and empowering minoritized students and challenging systems and structures that perpetuate inequities.
We truly believe that it is important to center our minoritized students and this decision is in line with this mission driven value.
Some of the survey’s respondents said it’s just time to give up on “The Vagina Monologues,” written in 1994 by activist Eve Ensler, because the play can’t fit into today’s far-left feminist movement.
Oh but it’s not far-left (and it’s not feminist, either). This Mai IdenTitY shit is very right-wing and individualist, as well as very apolitically delusional and fantasy-based and fucking loony tunes.
Comments
26 responses to “Works of fiction must be inclusive of all people”
Speaking of looney forms of feminism, here’s Vice on why astrology is for women and gay men.
Empirically it seems to be true that women and LGBTQ people are more interested in astrology. The groan-inducing part is the explanations on offer:
Yeah, us straight men and our “evidence.” Michael Shermer would be proud of these astrologers and their women-don’t-do-thinky-stuff explanations. (I await word on whether an affinity for astrology will become an indicator of “gender identity.”)
To be fair, the article itself isn’t that bad, as it does question those essentialist explanations, and I think it comes close to a sensible explanation here:
I would say it’s not so much that “religion has taken a backseat” as it is that a lot of mainstream religious doctrine is not very appealing to women. It would make sense to me that women who are, ahem, open to nonsense, would prefer the relatively nonsexist touchy-feely nonsense of astrology to the often patriarchal nonsense of religion.
By the way, I was going to post this in the Miscellany Room, but it appears to be closed to comments now.
Right-wingers certainly embrace “gender identity,” even if they don’t all accept the rest of it. But god, “individualist, as well as very apolitically delusional and fantasy-based and fucking loony tunes” — A-feckin-men.
Works of fiction must be propaganda. And produced by approved people with approved backgrounds.
Nothing more progressive or feminist than erasing all mention of vaginas from the public sphere, is there?
“Minoritized”?
Let’s put on another play instead: “Women Who Hate Women (Because Basically They’re Men)”
I wonder if this college is interested in cancelling every production that does not ‘center minoritised’ demographics, or if it is just the women-centric ones that get the axe.
I have a hunch they don’t.
Imagine the shitstorm if the Monologues originally did have a trans character.
I seem to recall having attended plays that didn’t represent me in any way shape or form and still being variously entertained, enlightened, provoked and stimulated (along with occasionally bored out of tree – not all plays are good). Then again, that last point may be it. The women who were born without vaginas and have chosen to identify as women – because they are – might just need protection from being bored having to sit through a play that they feel has nothing to do with them.
Although, it does raise the question whether trans women who have undergone surgery to get something resembling a vagina may feel peeved that a play they might wish to identify with is now taken from them.
In connexion with Blood Knight’s suggestion for the title of a play, there is a play by Thomas Middleton, a younger contemporary of Shakespeare and a great playwright, called ‘Women Beware Women’. Perhaps that could be reworked for the modern age, and ‘(especially if they are men)’ added to the title. There are, as always in Middleton’s plays, some very nasty men about as well as the dangerous women.
If these foolish and dogmatic people want plays that recognize and celebrate ‘the diverse representations of women on campus’ and empower ‘minoritized students’ and challenge ‘systems and structures that perpetuate inequities’, then why do they not write such plays themselves, instead of abusing their power by banning a play that does not merely address important issues, but is well-written and holds the stage? But of course, their thoughtless susceptibility to jargon that they find noble and high-sounding demonstrates that they would be incapable of doing so.
Finally, is a value any the better for being ‘mission driven’? And, if so, why? There are missions and missions…
Just guessing, but I wonder if in the world of radical trans activism
are traitors because by choosing the surgical route, they deny the magical power of identity by sheer force of will. Don’t the proponents of “female by fiat” contend that surgery is completely unneccesary, and that state of mind trumps scalpel?
I have never knowingly waited for Godot or had dinner with Andre, so fuck that shit.
Well, those are white cis men waiting for that Godot guy, so obviously there’s no point even bothering.
Only slightly related, forgive me, but I seem to be unable to comment in Miscellany Room.
NPR had a piece on composer Missy Mazzoli and a new effort to highlight the work of “women and non-binary people” in classical music. The article asks the question “what is a woman?”, with no answer and no hint that asking the question is controversial. The list being compiled is called “200 Greatest Songs by Women+”; women don’t get their own list, I suppose. No mention is made of whether female people (that is, women) who identify as men are included in the “+”.
I don’t think any play ever has represented me. I mean, when was the last time you saw a play with an asthmatic, Little Feat-loving Red Sox fan as a character?
I wouldn’t be too sure about that. I was given a royal reaming out when a play of mine went to the regional Kennedy Center competition, a huge honor. The responder at the production was a white woman who spent the better part of a half hour letting me know that it was 100% unacceptable that my play “lacked diversity” (because I used masks of famous people that did not, in that particular production, include specifically non-white people, though it left the door open bigly for the inclusion of any non-white people a director/producer wanted to add). I discovered during that experience that a play written by a white woman must be maximally inclusive; the white man who had a play in the same competition received no similar reaming for the lack of diversity in his play, nor was he reamed for the fact that his play centered all the rare “humor” on alternately mocking and objectifying women.
I have been told that I must include people of color in my plays. I have included people of color in my plays and have been roundly scolded for “appropriation” and accused of doing it because, as a white woman, I am a Trump voter (never mind that only slightly over half of all white women voted for Trump, and that theatre people are nearly universally liberal minded, which makes them unlikely Trump voters).
The lesson I have learned is this: If you are a white woman, you must include people of color in your plays or you are a bigoted piece of shit that does not see outside your own face. If you are a white woman, and you include people of color in your plays, you are a bigoted piece of shit that is appropriating another culture. In other words, if you are a white woman, you are a piece of shit, and you have no right to be writing plays anyway. Time to make a sandwich for the white men, and STFU.
Iknklast, there is a strong streak of damned if you do around isn’t there. There is a startup in Auckland, our largest city, that aims to provide an uber-like service, but where all the drivers will be women and the primary customer must be a women. If the customer has a male travelling with them, that is fine, but they must sit in the back seat. They called it Driveher.
Some twerp (a man of course), has started a petition calling on our Human Rights Commission to investigate on the basis that the service is unfair and discriminatory towards men. A spokesman for the organisers actually said “If they’re afraid to go out, they should stay at home.” Oh FFS!
I wish students and activists would prevent the showing of artworks on the grounds that they are not very good. There is too much rubbish on stages, cinema screens and so on. Why are people so worried about whether they agree with fictional stories, songs and paintings? Why does nobody seem to worry that they’re wasting their lives listening to garbage and watching trash?
‘Imagine the shitstorm if the Monologues originally did have a trans character.’
I don’t know if this line implied that you did know this, but IIRC (I saw The Vagina Monologues decades ago) it does include at least one trans character.
Re magic: yes, magic is what one resorts to if one has no genuine power to affect events in the real world. It is a ‘tool’ of the marginalised.
I am so confused.
I thought not mentioning women but referring to body parts was the way to go. Like in talking about “uterus-havers” when talking about gynaecological exams. But now when a plays mentions a body-part that is suddenly a problem too.
Axxyaan – that is only for when ‘cis-women’ are talking about women. When ‘cis-women’ are talking about body parts, then it is unpermitted.
The real story is that cis-women are not to be allowed to speak. For any reason. About anything.
All works of the past must be purged. The young must never know that their received opinions have EVER not been compulsory for all.
J the D: not just works of the past, but works of the present, and the future, if not suitably woke. I had one of my works rejected by a bookstore because it was about women being penalized for menstruation, and did not address the issue that menstruation is not just an issue for women. Go figure…
I’m wondering how long the Handmaid’s Tale will be able to last against the onslaught of wokeness? I don’t recall any trans women in there, nor any recognition of the men that can get pregnant.
I wonder if They™ know about this.
That’s exactly the point I was making. “They” want to shut the play down for not being inclusive. But nothing short of complete centering of trans and trans experiences (which no “cis” is capable of writing about) will suffice.
Lady M @ 2 –
Eh? They do? Which right-wingers?