Opposing the presentation of the annually contentious The
Vagina Monologues, which will hit Saint Louis University’s
campus this month, becomes an increasingly sonorous act in
futility. To be sure, frequent and often justified criticism does
not necessarily make The Monologues invalid. However, in this case,
the criticisms point to one fact: The show is flawed.

During The Vagina Monologues, in its first run at Saint
Louis University two years ago, I attended the event out of general
curiosity and recognition of a worthy cause. While the merit in a
few of the monologues was hard to deny, what I was more
uncomfortably struck by were the tales of a homosexual encounter
between a young teenage girl and an acquaintance of her mother; or
a prostitute’s anecdotal descriptions of the various sounds made
during orgasm by her copious number of patrons. Apparently, some
view these as a very enriching experience that empower women.

Una, SLU’s feminist organization, declares that such overstated
exaggeration of the monologues’ overt sexuality is essential for
adequate effect. This is likely correct, as sexuality must be given
a brazen display to catch the attention in an increasingly
desensitized society. Yet, for the truly sexually oppressed, this
should not be necessary–for they, more than anyone, understand the
subtleties of sexuality far beyond sophomoric titillation and often
do not enjoy having wounds opened to the public.

Most of the mature viewing audience understands the healing that
is initiated through the monologues of trauma involving rape and
violence. If Una thinks the controversy lies in those particular
confessionals, they are not listening to their critics.

It would be simple and respectful to alter some of the content
out of consideration of the viewing audience here at SLU–for the
chosen venue of such a performance holds as much bearing as does
its content. Furthermore, such a censure would give the event
broader appeal, possibly permit a more prominent auditorium on
campus, and in turn, raise even more attention toward their
cause.

Yet, Una will not suffer the embarrassment of altering any
feminist sensibilities, even in spite of the fact that several
versions of The Monologues exist through various
off-Broadway performances. No unchangeable script exists.

Still, all of the controversy related to the content considered,
many fail to see a troublesome effect. A feminist, as defined by
Una, can be anyone that recognizes the equality of men and women.
What a feminist–by term or by definition–then fails to recognize
is the superiority of certain qualities possessed by a woman.

None of the monologues pay great attention to the idea of
pregnancy, none dwell on the actual miracle of birth or being a
mother. Regardless of what both men and women can concurrently
achieve, the greatest thing they can achieve together is to author
another human life–and the woman will always have the privilege of
bringing the child into the world. In the end, Eve Ensler’s
attention to this culmination of sexuality is fleeting, if nothing
else. And the gaps are, instead, filled with male-bashing
jokes.

Seeing as this is the actual, physiological intention of the
female organ, it seems odd that The Monologues would fail to even
make adequate reference to childbirth or, at least, present it with
a more considered importance.

Yet, Ensler, as is depressingly typical of the Gloria
Steinem-fueled post-modern brand of feminist, likely does not see
it this way and would have the idea of bearing and caring of a
child presented as a hindrance to ambition, or merely as an
opportunity to exercise ‘choice.’

Instead, most of the monologues view sexuality as a detached,
perfunctory act that goes on between a penis and a vagina or a hand
and a vagina, as opposed to love shared between a man and a woman
or even a woman and a woman.

Presenting The Monologues as no more than an agenda-free
“for-your-consideration” piece is a bit misleading as to its
intentions. The production has resulted in polarizing effects
wherever it is performed.

While the ultimate intention of the play may be to create
awareness of violence against women, it also claims to promote
healing, sexual acceptance and encouragement of sharing. This may
be how some women approach their sexuality; but the texts seem not
to be fully inclusive and are put forth selectively in Ensler’s
attempt to validate a greater thesis on women without regard for
women with noncompliant viewpoints.

As stated earlier, the cause and monetary benefits that will
come from Una’s production remain very worthy. The Vagina
Monologues will likely never be removed from our campus; so,
those who oppose simply should not attend. Contrarily, those who
defend the work as ‘artistic’ will subvert its validity by ignoring
constructive criticism. For all art is subject to both positive and
negative critique.

Finally, those who do attend should keep in mind the scope in
which the monologues are presented and realize that the likes of
Ensler are not the only women entitled to, or even most capable of,
presenting viable views concerning the healing and self-realization
that many women need.

Robert Seefeldt is a junior studying accounting and
English.