The Vagina Museum

[IcakethereforeIam]

thecritic.co.uk/a-controversial-opening/

A review of the Vagina Museum. Not to prejudice the thread but these are the people who posted a transwomen twitter thread on IWD....confirming the bias. Sorry if the link doesn't work. I found the article on the Critic website, it's by Laura Dodsworth.

Well that sounds about as shit as I was expecting. Can't believe they are still going tbh.

Women’s bodies are highly politicised but the political focus here is trained almost solely on transgender issues and, due to the current temporary exhibition, periods. Why does “queerphobia” merit an information board, but not sexism?

Gosh what a wasted opportunity.

Why does “queerphobia” merit an information board, but not sexism?

Surprised they didn't rename is the Front Hole museum.
More pandering to male feelings by denying female reality

was the visit free for the review because no woman should give them a penny they are gynaphobic

That's a wonderful blistering piece and the VM thoroughly deserve it for their obsession with queer / trans issues and failure to focus on women - the sole owners of vaginas.

There is a sense that the museum is psychologically stunted and yet to grow past its own political puberty

Is that blood glittery? I feel cheated.

It was an exercise in TQ ownership and forcible redefining of female biology from the start.

Hence the missing info re birth, period pain, puberty, 'menopause is lovely and like being a child again', gynecological issues and anything else relevant to female anatomy. Vaginas as resources repurposed to be more useful for political agendas.

I noticed the polite comment at the end that 'nearly all people with vaginas are women' - all of them are female. There really is no point trying to hide this fact, it's something we all have to face up to. Its hurling women's rights back into the dark ages to once again turn their biology into dirty words that nice people wouldn't say in public.

The museum’s insistence on eliminating the words “girls”, “women” and “female” and instead using people - most offensively, to explain FGM as “people” who have had their genitalia mutilated - is totally absurd given its focus. And, according to the writer, the museum has nothing to offer on the subject of birth

What a wasted opportunity. I won’t be visiting.

I looked at the website of the museum a couple of years ago. It gave the impression that vaginas are weird floating things in the air, apparently randomly attaching themselves to some bodies and not to other bodies, and nobody knows the reason for that.

It was someone from that website who on Twitter proposed the term 'vulva people', to denote individuals of the female sex.

I got the impression that people working there had not thought this through on any deeper level, and wanted to be very virtuous and kind, even if the cost of that was to flush most vulva people down the toilet.

This is the impression I get from lots of young feminists who tend to believe that all necessary sex-based rights have already been won.

As an aside, isn't it interesting how two trends are perceptible at the same time and pushed by the same groups: One is to erase all names of the female sex, the other is to encourage individuals of that sex to use their bodies for sex work, surrogacy and acting in porn?

Do they do this kind of thing at the penis museum? I only know of the one in Iceland (by the frozen sausages).

As an aside, isn't it interesting how two trends are perceptible at the same time and pushed by the same groups: One is to erase all names of the female sex, the other is to encourage individuals of that sex to use their bodies for sex work, surrogacy and acting in porn?

This.

Erasing the terms women and girls only makes it harder to fight for our rights. In fact, it obscures the fact we even have rights to the younger generation.

I hope all the woke cookies were worth it for the creators. I remember the website stating that the term "female reproductive system" was offensive. This whole museum is a cynical exercise in cornering a very niche market first and helping make sure younger women and girls don't get an opportunity understand feminism.

@Artichokeleaves

It was an exercise in TQ ownership and forcible redefining of female biology from the start.

Hence the missing info re birth, period pain, puberty, 'menopause is lovely and like being a child again', gynecological issues and anything else relevant to female anatomy. Vaginas as resources repurposed to be more useful for political agendas.

I noticed the polite comment at the end that 'nearly all people with vaginas are women' - all of them are female. There really is no point trying to hide this fact, it's something we all have to face up to. Its hurling women's rights back into the dark ages to once again turn their biology into dirty words that nice people wouldn't say in public.

I don't know what to make of the 'we are nearly all women' comment. The reviewer is otherwise obviously fully aware of what a woman is/what a vagina is/who has one. Does she mean some people with vaginas are girls?

The title of that review: "Controversial Opening" is so good I've had to change my user name.

ControvertialOpening
It didn't register with me at first, but it's brilliant, in so many ways.

I hear they went to Bethnal Green. Now it’s been a long time since I lived there - back when the schools and libraries were scrabbling for books and there was a lot of Somali and Bengali families… and the BNP would be out on the weekends fighting with the SWP on Brick Lane.

Can’t really see it taking off..

@KittenKong

I hear they went to Bethnal Green. Now it’s been a long time since I lived there - back when the schools and libraries were scrabbling for books and there was a lot of Somali and Bengali families… and the BNP would be out on the weekends fighting with the SWP on Brick Lane.

Can’t really see it taking off..

It’s all baristas and smashed avo these days

Just down the road for us is an area like that - it’s all surface. On a sunny Saturday afternoon you get the oligarchs and models sitting having coffee outside chichi coffee shops - but local community sites still report muggings, attacks, car thefts, attempted breaking…

isn't it interesting how two trends are perceptible at the same time and pushed by the same groups: One is to erase all names of the female sex, the other is to encourage individuals of that sex to use their bodies for sex work, surrogacy and acting in porn?

It is indeed. And neither one in the interests of vagina-people.

In a weird way this makes sense to me. There are a whole group of people, much larger than one might think, who believe the statement that sex (as in the act and also sexed bodies) exists for the purpose of reproduction is offensive.

They see it, instead, as essentially a kind of leisure activity, albeit one that is 100% necessary for mental and physical health (unless you are ace,) and identity characteristic.

Time for it to change its name to something more suitable.

I vote for "Cock Shop"

@FunnyTalks

As an aside, isn't it interesting how two trends are perceptible at the same time and pushed by the same groups: One is to erase all names of the female sex, the other is to encourage individuals of that sex to use their bodies for sex work, surrogacy and acting in porn?

This.

Erasing the terms women and girls only makes it harder to fight for our rights. In fact, it obscures the fact we even have rights to the younger generation.

I hope all the woke cookies were worth it for the creators. I remember the website stating that the term "female reproductive system" was offensive. This whole museum is a cynical exercise in cornering a very niche market first and helping make sure younger women and girls don't get an opportunity understand feminism.

"This is the impression I get from lots of young feminists who tend to believe that all necessary sex-based rights have already been won."

I need to make a thread on this separate point if that is ok!