In response D.J. Johnson’s editorial, I as a man find his comments the true vulgar and crude aspects of the vagina monologues. His accesses to power to determine what, when, and how women’s discourse concerning their bodies are enacted is what the monologues are meant to disrupt. As a man, I’m angry with men like Mr. Johnson who refuse to understand the nature of female oppression. I realize the extent of my involvement in the upholding the historical silence imposed upon women by men.
The monologues were never intended to eliminate rape as Mr. Johnson implies. They were meant to expose the destructive nature of rape. What better way to express this outrage than to address that part of the female body, which is both the central point of attack and the ultimate conquering goal of rape: a woman’s vagina
All the women I’ve known who attended the monologues came away feeling more valuable and precious than any compliment from a man could make them feel. Rather than promote continued silence, the monologues open a site where women feel as though, many the first time, to express how they feel about their bodies. For women to speak of their vagina remains a taboo subject and a taboo discourse. Unable to deal with women’s ownership over their bodies, Mr. Johnson sums up the significance of the monologues’ discourse as juvenile and show that all a man has to do is to infantilize women in order to invalidate them.
As was mentioned in the article on the monologues by Megan Schmidt, women need to drop the boyfriends who refuse to attend such an event.
Carlos Adams
Ethnic studies instructor
