Monday, January 23, 2006

Status of the "Vile"logues at ND

Fr. Jenkins met with the faculty today to discuss academic freedom and Catholic character. I've been informed that he told the faculty that anything that takes place at ND is perceived as being sponsored or endorsed by ND and that events that are antithetical to Church teaching should not be presented. He also said that the Monologues make sexual objects out of women.

This is looking really good. And boy will I celebrate if cancellation actually takes place.

5 Comments:

At 9:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here you call them the "Vile"loges, and in an earlier post, you refer to the play as the V-logues. I know you don't like the play (I'm not its biggest fan, either), but why can't you use the word "vagina" in the title? It's not a bad word, and you can still express your distate for them. But there's nothing shameful at all about the word "vagina."

 
At 4:08 PM, Anonymous Becky said...

There isn't anything shameful about using the word "vagina." You're perfectly correct. I just prefer to use the term appropriately. I refuse to make the word obscene by associating it with an obscene play. Words like "vagina" are not obscene in themselves, but can be made obscene by the context in which they're put. The Monologues makes a mockery of female anatomy, sexuality, and intimacy. I refuse to do so by consistently using the phrase the "Vagina Monologues."

Also, the use of "Vile"logues has little to do with refusing to say "vagina" in an obscene context. It has more to do with my wanting to stress that the play is vile, disgusting, offensive, disempowering, pornographic, abusive to women, and the like.

 
At 7:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, that makes sense, but since you hadn't explained that previously, I didn't know. I am curious - have you ever seen the play? I don't mean read it, I mean viewed a performance of it. I did. Parts of it could be considered "obscene," but some parts of it are funny or poignant. I just think generalizing about the whole play under the umbrella "obscene" is a bit of an exaggeration. Again, I'm not defending the play; it's just important to be precise with our words.

 
At 8:12 PM, Anonymous Becky said...

I have not viewed the actual play because I think that it would be a violation of purity for me, and maybe of innocence too. Reading the play was far more than enough, but I felt I had to so that I could comment intelligently on the content. When reading it I was embarrassed, and felt that I was participating in something pornographic. The abuse of female sexuality and the degredation of women was so real to me that it was difficult to get through. Parts of it made me sick to my stomach.

In short, I really don't think that the umbrella of obscenity is to far off. Even the parts that were supposed to be humorous were were degrading to me as a woman.

I think it is safe to say that after I read the play, I knew that this was something that I had to speak out against, especially the presence of it as a production at a Catholic university.

 
At 9:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, fair enough. I respect your choice not to watch it if you couldn't do so in good conscience. I wouldn't want you to do something that you were that uncomfortable with.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home