The Vagina Monologues 'excludes some women'

[Juells]

www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2018/11/emu_group_ends_the_vagina_mono.html

The WRC announced its decision in an email, which came after the center evaluated responses from a survey. Survey respondents opposing the production consistently indicated they were concerned that the play centers on cisgender women, that the play's version of feminism excludes some women, including trans women, and that overall, "The Vagina Monologue" lacks diversity and inclusion.

maybe they're worried about excluding women who've lost their vagina in an accident...

I did think I had lost my vagina once but it turned out I had put my pants on back to front.

(that'll confuse the fuckers).

Upstart

Coming soon to a university campus near you, a brave, stunning production of The Front Hole Monologues.

The tempest is out. Massively unfair to clement conditions...

Threewheeler1

You deserve it!

Winter, spring, summer autumn’s tale.

The merry cohabitees of Windsor

The taming of the shrew, weasel, gannet... hauls out taxonomy textbook.

ThreeWheeler Do I get a prize, I really need a prize because right now, if my vagina could talk, it would say "if you ever make me watch that again, I'm leaving you"
Whoa, enough of this genital-based centering. I bet you think that The Vagina Monologues is about... vaginas?

I can't get over the sheer fucking wokeness of thinking that there was a reason to hold a survey in the first place! Who did they think was going to respond?

Please ban The Postman Always Rings Twice because my postman never rings at all and I feel really hurt by that. Why is my postman excluding me? I bet he rings all the neighbours, the assbut.

"American University's Women's Initiative chose to change the event to the "Breaking Ground Monologues" in an effort to "broaden the focus from specifically female genitalia to multiple identities and bodies.""

That seems exclusionary of women who have a vagina but do not have a "breaking ground" (whatever body part that is supposed to be).

Well, this dates back to 2013. Also the playwright herself says that she isn’t saying all women have vaginas, even wrote an additional trans piece for the play. Bit of a shame, but she makes good points about the need to show how women’s biology is used against them, hence play is still relevant. www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/16/vagina-monologues-eve-ensler-rejects-mount-holyoke-college-claims-reductionist-exclusive

Can anyone tell me how 'minoritized' scores on the oppression scale? Is it higher than 'marginalized', or lower, or exactly the same?
I'd hate to use the word wrongly and discover that I'd accidentally erased someone. (Or should that be 'annihilated' ? ... )

This pretty much sums up so much of the problem with misogyny in the trans movement.
Even something where the subject is all about vaginas isn't allowed because it doesn't include people with penises.

Ffs can we have nothing for ourselves?

Haven’t seen it, but am I very naive to think it’s not about women anyway? (unless you are entirely bigoted and believe that the two groups “people with vaginas” and “women” are synonymous - of course nobody here thinks that ).

Surely it’s about vagina havers. It’s in the title isn’t it? Which doesn’t make it trans exclusive at all. Or did I miss something?

For non vaginas? Missing vaginas? Vagina idenitarians?

Threewheeler and Popchyc I was very confused and upset for a while, but my therapist told me that it’s not my feelings that matter here, and that I should be respecting DS’s new identity as a parrot, so I’m making him find all his own food, and last night when he was asleep I took a chainsaw into his room and chopped the legs off his bed.

That’ll teach him to exterminate me.

Outrage at the article.

Followed by outrageous laughter at this comment;

There are only slightly more trans people in the world than there are unicorns, so it's good and worthwhile for society at large that we spend so much energy creating, arguing about and protecting their rights.

And the brass-necked front of this quote:

"It is important to note that due to copyright laws, we are unable to change the script," the WRC's email said."

Because clearly anybody should be able to rewrite other people's work.

Would have loved to see the script if they had rewritten it, though. Because it would have given us a right old laugh.

Hmm. It "excludes" (in the sense that it's not directly about them) people with penises. In the same way that Strictly "excludes" people like me who have two left feet. Of course it doesn't exclude them in the sense that they can't get anything out of it (unless of course they're raging narcissists who refuse to get anything out of stuff that doesn't "centre" them).

Ah...

Of course...

The real problem is that the people objecting to this are raging narcissists.

If I was a theatre director my response would be "not everything is about you - jog on."

Badstyley

I feel I have missed out on puppetry of the penis

Blardy - I saw it many years ago (I loved it but it certainly wasn't all laughs, the section put together from interviews with Bosnian women who were raped during the war has stayed with me, it was incredibly moving) and I definitely got the impression that it was about us vagina-havers and our experiences of our vaginas, menstruation, masturbation, giving birth, etc. etc. - there was a section about pubic hair, FFS!

So yes, it was vagina-centric, but that's the point (the clue is indeed in the title). Changing it so that it's no longer about "women who have vaginas" is vandalism. What is it with the professionally offended, why can't they do their own thing instead of cannibalising someone else's work?!
The comparisons to Cultural Revolution are so apt, it's scary.

‘lacks diversity’

You’ve either got a vagina or you haven’t. I’m not sure how much more diverse it could be when there are only 2 groups of people. Vaginaed and non vaginaed!