O
ne
of
my
biggest
transitions from high
school
to
my
first
college experience at Boston
University was the change
from
a
small,
conservative
Midwestern town to a large,
liberal East Coast city. No
longer limited by small-town
resources or conventions, I felt
free to embrace progressive
ideas and discover ways to
express them. As a high school
theater kid, my expression often
came through performances
that
were
unfortunately
limited
to
ensemble
roles
in
family-friendly
musicals.
But in college, I had the
opportunity to tell stories far
outside the conventional realm
— for example, my chance
to share the importance of
perseverance against all odds
while playing a talking chicken
from Brooklyn. But throughout
my time onstage, I never took
on what I then considered to
be the pièce de résistance of
unconventional theater — The
Vagina Monologues.
Written
in
1996
by
feminist
Eve
Ensler,
The
Vagina
Monologues
(TVM)
is an episodic play based on
interviews with hundreds of
women about — you guessed it
— vaginas. The play has since
become a household name, and
performing it is an unofficial
right-of-passage for many college
feminists. Fittingly, there are
many opportunities to complete
this ritual. The play is performed
by
organizations
around
the world during the annual
V-Season, which is sponsored
by a global non-profit called
V-Day — founded by Ensler to
end violence against women and
girls. The University of Michigan
group
Students
for
Choice
performed TVM annually up
until 2018. U-M Dearborn staged
a performance in 2019 and both
Michigan State University and
Ohio State University’s College
of Medicine are participating
in the current V-Season. Our
neighbors in Ypsilanti, however,
will not be taking part anytime
soon.
The Women’s Resource Center
at Eastern Michigan University
announced in 2018 it will no
longer host productions of TVM,
citing the exclusive nature of the
play’s version of feminism: “Not
all women have vaginas.” Mount
Holyoke, an all-women’s college
in Massachusetts, made a similar
decision in 2015. After seeing the
play for the first time in 2019 —
at Boston University, my former
institution — I was equally
disappointed by the exclusive
nature of the play, along with
a litany of other issues. EMU
and Mount Holyoke have set
examples
other
college
and
community organizations should
consider following. While TVM
was a monumental step forward
in its time, its content is now
outdated, no longer matching
the messages or goals of modern
feminism
that
embraces
inclusion and intersectionality.
In many ways, TVM is actually
working against the modern
progressive
movement.
We
should focus on telling new
stories that empower all women
and reflect the ways class, race,
national origin, gender identity,
sexual
orientation,
disability
and
many
other
identities
intersect with womanhood. (It’s
important to note that Students
for Choice later preformed a
spin-off of TVM in the Rackham
Auditorium called Patchwork,
a version that improved the
representation
of
TVM’s
outdated and narrow definition
of womanhood.)
The issues with the script
are apparent. First, consider
the
title
of
the
play.
The
centering of womanhood on
vaginas
is
reductionist
and
minimizes women down to their
reproductive
organs.
Vagina-
essentialism is a major issue as
well — the centrality of vaginas is
exclusionary to women without
vaginas and inconsiderate of non-
women with vaginas. Within the
monologues, there are problems
as well. The play’s response to
the sexual repression of the
era tries to overcompensate
by
portraying
women
as
perpetually
hypersexualized.
And for a play supposedly about
vaginas, female desire within
the script is often phallocentric.
Moreover, with V-Day claiming
to fight against sexual violence,
it is absolutely hypocritical that
the play continues to include a
scene titled “The Little Coochi
Snorcher That Could” which
glorifies
the
grooming
and
rape of a 16-year-old girl by
a
24-year-old
woman.
This
is
even
more
reprehensible
when considering one of the
only mentions of a same-sex
relationship between women in
the entire play is predatory
and non-consensual. Finally,
while the play is lacking in
representation of race and
ethnicity,
any
scenes
that
do come from international
perspectives often pander to
racist American stereotypes.
The play and the organization,
V-Day, have been criticized for
colonialism, and the script’s
correlation
of
international
perspectives
with
violence
—
compared
to
the
U.S.
perspective with pleasure —
supports this criticism.
The play might be more of a
fit for modern feminism if this
content could be revised or cut
entirely at the discretion of the
performers. However, staging
a performance of TVM means
adhering to all of V-Day’s rules
and guidelines — one of which
is that no edits can be made
to either the monologues or
their introductions, “AT ALL.”
This rule, along with the fact
that the script has scarcely
changed since 1996, reflects
a stubbornness on the part of
Ensler and the organization.
While another guideline states
the
importance
of
striving
for
diversity,
it’s
impossible
to praise this effort when the
organization refuses to redress
issues within the play itself. If
V-Day were truly committed to
diversity
and
representation,
they would alter the script to
reduce exclusivity, colonialism
and vagina-essentialism. Better
yet, they would sponsor the
performance
of
new
plays
from new perspectives every
year. They have already taken
a step in the right direction by
offering other event options —
unfortunately, TVM continues to
be the primary production.
Although
Ensler
acknowledges the play’s original
message
does
not
reflect
modern feminism, she defends
the continued performance of
the play, claiming, “one play
can’t be everything.” Ensler
is
right:
It’s
impossible
to
expect any one piece of media
to encompass the whole of the
human experience. But if one
play can’t be everything, then
one play shouldn’t be allowed
to take up so much space. We
need to make room for a greater
variety of perspectives, ensuring
no one perspective overpowers
the others — especially not an
exclusive one.
TVM is a relic of a former
era. It debuted at a time when
it was nearly impossible to
talk about vaginas publicly,
and for that, it deserves its due
credit. But today, its prevalence
occupies space that could be
better served sharing stories
of those who have long been
underrepresented. We can still
be inspired by TVM to create
and
perform
artwork
that
flies in the face of convention
and allows for genuine self-
expression. But V-Day should
use its platform to give a voice to
the voiceless, rather than telling
the same outdated story again
and again. It’s time to nix the
monologues — womanhood is a
story worth being told in stereo.
T
he rat race continues. The
Democratic primaries are
as chaotic as when they
started, despite candidates like
Andrew Yang and Deval Patrick
dropping out and congealing the vote.
Michael Bloomberg, despite missing
the deadline for the first four states,
has paid his way into double digit
polls and is determined to unseat
his longtime friend and golf partner,
Donald Trump. Understandably,
there’s a lot of buzz surrounding this
election cycle. It’s almost excessive,
with the divide between moderates
and progressives of the Democratic
Party and its rabid infighting causing
even more coverage. But I think
much of the media, especially those
who lean left, are focusing too much
on the wrong election.
Of
course,
the
Democratic
nominee is an important aspect of
the 2020 race, but many people are
forgetting the bigger picture amid
the selection process. People seem
to think that running against the
orange man will be a cakewalk.
After all, he’s an incredibly flawed
candidate with plenty of skeletons
in his closet. But don’t be too sure.
Winning against Trump will not be
easy, as much as you may want it to
be.
The
Republican
primaries
are looking to be an easy sweep
for
Trump,
despite
former
Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld
vying for the nomination as well. It’s
not too common for an incumbent
president to be challenged within
their own party, but don’t let a small
wing of dissidents persuade you that
they’ll vote blue instead.
Trump’s
turnout
in
New
Hampshire was at an astounding
129,696
votes,
nearly
doubling
Obama and Bush’s numbers as
incumbents. Trump manages to stir
up an energetic base that’s unrivaled
by many candidates across the
aisle. Joe Biden, who was thought
to be the frontrunner for the first
months of the primary race, pales
in comparison when it comes to
passionate voters. It’s utterly pathetic.
Rising star Pete Buttigieg, who
shocked the nation with his turnout
in Iowa and New Hampshire, can’t
meet the numbers the incumbent
has. His 4,500 attendees in Utah
doesn’t
match
Trump’s
11,000
attendees (not 50,000 like he
claims) in New Hampshire. Amy
Klobuchar’s
campaign,
despite
its growing momentum, only has
crowds that number about 1,000
people. The only candidate to truly
have the energy to rival Trump
seems to be Bernie Sanders, with
over 17,000 people showing up at
his rally in Washington state. It’s not
entirely fair to compare crowd sizes
from states with vastly different
demographics, but 11,000 in a state
as small as New Hampshire should
set off alarms for the Democrats.
In the 2016 primary, Sanders drew
larger crowds than former Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton, but she still
won the nomination. Rallies can be
misleading. But, one can still evaluate
the enthusiasm and energy behind a
candidate’s campaign, and many of
the competitive Democrats simply
can’t gather crowds.
The impression that the election
will be easy is an intuition formed
by unfavorable polls and nonstop
criticisms of him and his policies.
Trump
has
been
consistently
unpopular for most of his four
years, but things are starting to
shift. Against all odds, even through
his impeachment in the House,
the president’s approval is at the
highest it’s been since his election.
His approval is now in the margin
of many other two-term presidents
before their re-election. One of
the “strengths” of his campaign
is economic growth. Even if the
economic voter is becoming less of
a factor, I’d imagine many people
still weigh their vote heavily on how
they think the economy is doing. The
stock market has been on a perpetual
rise since 2013, hitting all-time highs
consistently. Trump loves to take
credit for a better economy, citing the
stock market and job creation. The
validity of his claims is, of course,
questionable. A similar period of 30
months under Obama’s presidency
actually saw more jobs created than
Trump, 6.5 million compared to 5.8
million. The stock market is doing
well, yes, but it’s almost delusional
to believe that it has any real impact
on working people. The stock market
has seen a growth of 42 percent
under Trump’s presidency, but
wages have only increased by
9 percent. But despite the facts,
Trump has seen increased support
due to his trickle-down policies.
In a recent poll conducted by
The Washington Post and ABC
News, 56 percent of people looked
favorably upon his economy. It’s a
tall order convincing people to vote
for limits on an economy they think
is doing well, and Democrats need
to find a way to combat his claims.
Trump
is
still
viewed
as
unfavorable by women and people
of color, just like in 2016. But it
would be a foolish assumption to
think their votes are guaranteed.
Despite his egregious sexism, he
managed to receive 52 percent of
white women’s votes in 2016. Only
white women, mind you, but that’s
higher than one would expect. The
same goes for Latinos, surprisingly.
Black voters consistently dislike
Trump, but Latino voters have
been polling at 30 percent favorable
for
the
incumbent
president.
It doesn’t sound like much — a
majority still unwilling to vote for
him — but the Democrats should
be more concerned. It’s a bad
habit for the Democrats to take
the votes of women and people of
color for granted. Despite their
claims to represent the interests of
marginalized groups, there is an
element of racism that lets people
believe the voting bloc is just a
homogenous and guaranteed vote.
But with the margins of victory
for presidential elections in recent
years getting smaller and smaller,
every vote counts. Some of the
frontrunners in the 2020 primaries
are not doing well with people of
color, specifically Buttigieg and
Klobuchar. If the nomination goes
to a candidate that can’t inspire
non-whites to come out and vote, it
could prove to be an Achilles heel
for Democrats.
It worries me that so many
people are taking this election
for granted. It’s not hard to
imagine Trump losing, but we
said the same thing in 2016.
Contemporary
politics
has
proven to be the era of political
upsets. Polls can be egregiously
misleading and predictions can
be horribly incorrect. Even within
this election cycle, we’ve seen
Biden slide from the frontrunner
to a position in which his odds
now seem insurmountable. This
election needs to be taken
seriously, and Trump needs
to be taken seriously. Even
though Trump may be playing
tic-tac-toe rather than 4-D
chess, even if he seems like an
incompetent fool, even in the
likelihood that his win was a
fluke — a demagogue is still a
demagogue. And if there’s one
thing fearmongers do best, it’s
persisting in the face of reality.
Take at least this with you:
Don’t get comfortable.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, February 27, 2020
Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Brittany Bowman
Emily Considine
Cheryn Hong
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Zoe Phillips
Mary Rolfes
Michael Russo
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Joel Weiner
Erin White
Lola Yang
ERIN WHITE
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ELIZABETH LAWRENCE
Editor in Chief
EMILY CONSIDINE AND
MILES STEPHENSON
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
SAM FOGEL | COLUMN
One half of a two-leg race
KIANNA MARQUEZ | COLUMN
Ann Arbor should prioritize its transit development
Examining the monopoly of The Vagina Monologues
MARY ROLFES | COLUMN
Mary Rolfes can be reached at
morolfes@umich.edu.
L
ast
fall,
Ann
Arbor’s
Planning Commission was
met with enthusiasm from
residents to establish
more
high-density
zoning
outside
the
downtown
area.
In
essence, this ordinance
would
enable
more
infrastructure
to
be
constructed
both
inside
and
outside
the downtown area.
In
particular,
the
commission expressed
its intention to increase
density along Ann Arbor’s transit
corridors. Community members
have approved of this for the
environmental benefits of public
transportation. Others have also felt
reluctant to proceed with the city’s
desultory transit system, advocating
for the improvement of Ann Arbor’s
current
transit
system
before
building infrastructure tailored to it.
In the past several months, the
Regional Transit Authority (RTA)
of Southeast Michigan and other
municipal organizations involved
in Detroit have been pushing for
the city of Ann Arbor to upgrade
its transit. Ann Arbor has been
asked to join them in pursuing a
regional mobility testing corridor
that runs along Michigan Avenue
from Washtenaw County to Wayne
County. However, the Ann Arbor
City Council has avoided addressing
the topic and removed it from the
agenda for their January meeting.
In an effort to gather feedback on the
RTA’s ideas for transit development
from Ann Arbor to Detroit, regional
transit leaders even outlined the $10
billion plan to Ann Arbor community
members this past summer — a plan
that the council appears to have
ignored.
Given the council’s reluctance to
consider the development of new
mass public transit systems, it’s
necessary to consider the benefits
and consequences of introducing
them. More importantly, we must
reach a consensus about what to do.
There are numerous advantages and
disadvantages to pursuing transit
development in these proposed
ways. We need to recognize how
advantageous
pursuing
these
developments could be
for the overall future of
Ann Arbor.
In
general,
the
integration of public
transportation into a
city’s infrastructure is
beneficial to the city’s
environmental quality.
In improving air quality,
reducing
greenhouse
gas
emissions
and
saving energy, the use
of public transportation causes less
damage to the environment than
individual transportation methods.
Simultaneously,
constructing
various types of public transportation
promotes more compact urban
development, decreasing the overall
demand for individual travel and
promoting
green
development.
Considering that Ann Arbor has
contributed more than 2.21 metric
tons of carbon emissions since 2010,
the city should consider reforming
infrastructure around mobility and
mass transit for the environmental
compensation it owes.
By designing and constructing
accessible transit corridors, the
city government could promote the
development of more affordable
housing in Ann Arbor. In making
transit corridors accessible to
more portions of Washtenaw
County, the city could encourage
widespread
usage
of
public
transportation
and
ultimately
connect
a
greater
proportion
of residential communities. At
the same time, residential areas
may see an increase in housing
opportunities as the city expands
high-density zoning in anticipation
of attracting a large number
of residents to our city and the
Detroit Metropolitan Area. The
act of constructing reliable and
extensive
transit
corridors
in
Ann Arbor seems to mirror the
massive
cultural
development
of the modern community here.
Thus, the city government could
ultimately improve its population’s
overall satisfaction by installing
these developments in Ann Arbor
and Metro Detroit.
Despite the advantages of transit
developments and the subsequent
infrastructural developments that
could follow, it’s critical to question
if this type of urban development
is even capable of benefitting
Ann Arbor and Metro Detroit as
these regions stand today. Given
the history of Detroit’s public
transportation
shortcomings,
many seem reluctant to skip fixing
the public transportation system
before beginning to implement
it throughout the region. Others
feel
that
developing
public
transportation in Ann Arbor and
Metro Detroit is not the solution
that our communities need to
make these cities better. Instead,
people are prioritizing their focus
on more pressing issues, such
as education and public safety.
In the same way, some lament
that the scope of public transit
developments is counterintuitive
to the preservation of Ann Arbor’s
integrity, a small city whose
connection to homegrown culture
and local history could take
priority over developments for the
future.
Even
considering
some
of
these drawbacks, it’s important to
understand that times are changing
and the way the Ann Arbor
community could put our city in
a position to withstand the test of
time is to invest in its future, which
comes with plans on how to improve
and develop its infrastructure. It’s
important to reminisce on the past
to understand how we got to where
we are today, but it’s altogether
more realistic that we facilitate Ann
Arbor’s transition toward being a
city of the future. Thus, with the
proper considerations and projected
outcomes, we should be working to
establish and normalize these modes
of mass transportation that have
been an object of advancement by
city and regional leaders for years.
Kianna Marquez can be reached at
kmarquez@umich.edu.
Sam Fogel can be reached at
samfogel@umich.edu.
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor
and op-eds. Letters should be fewer than 300 words
while op-eds should be 550 to 850 words. Send the
writer’s full name and University affiliation to tothedaily@
michigandaily.com.
KIANNA
MARQUEZ
JOIN EDITBOARD
Interested in sharing your opinion on current events and
University affairs? Come to our Editorial Board meetings
from 7:15 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. each Monday and Wednesday
in the newsroom (420 Maynard St).