Posted: 7/25/15 at 1:04am
Mount Holyoke has decided to end its annual Valentine's Day production of The Vagina Monologues so that women who don't have one won't be offended. Women who have penises have feelings too, you know.
Link goes to the Washington Post if you think I'm making this up.
Posted: 7/25/15 at 1:07am
"transgenders"??? you are an idiot.
Posted: 7/25/15 at 1:10am
why would trans people be offended
Posted: 7/25/15 at 1:23am
I shortened The Washington Post's language "transgender people" to "transgenders" to keep the post title within character limitations. What's the matter, mattywhits, are you posting while drunk again?
Updated On: 7/25/15 at 01:23 AM
Posted: 7/25/15 at 1:23am
This happened again or a while ago?
Posted: 7/25/15 at 1:24am
This news was hot off the presses back in January.
Posted: 7/25/15 at 1:34am
As a dues-paying member of the PC Police, I'm empowered to speak on their behalf and we condemned this in January. There was the trans girl on Big Brother. I think she has a vagina.
Posted: 7/25/15 at 1:42am
Posted: 7/25/15 at 1:43am
I saw a production at University of Michigan in 2013, and there is a transgender character in the Monologues. I thought it was terrific. I'm not a transgender individual so I don't know specifically what would offend someone who is, but thinking about the play I don't know why it would.
Updated On: 7/25/15 at 01:43 AM
Posted: 7/25/15 at 1:55am
"Women who have penises have feelings too, you know."
This comment is extremely unnecessary. It's dripping with a sarcastic and condescending tone. You don't need to have a vagina to identify as a woman. I'm not a trans person but I'm going to advise you not to go around posting mean spirited comments about something you clearly haven't read about. Open your damn mind.
Posted: 7/25/15 at 2:47am
Posted: 7/25/15 at 3:20am
I'd rather not stir up trouble, but I am trans and I felt uncomfortable not pointing out that "transvestite" and "transsexual" are both quite offensive terms nowadays, as is the concept of categorizing trans folk by their operation status (even disregarding the fact that there are plenty of trans people who do not intend to transition). That's all, I guess, and I think I'll duck out of this thread now.
Posted: 7/25/15 at 3:52am
Updated On: 7/25/15 at 03:52 AM
Posted: 7/25/15 at 6:43am
I honestly don't understand why this is considered news--then or now. Who cares?! It's the blogosphere!
It reads like Ms. Svrluga is thumbing her Brown University nose at Mount Holyoke College--the 7th of the seven sister schools--and at Ensler's latest effort, O.P.C., which was positively, mind-numbingly, dull.
Posted: 7/26/15 at 2:44am
Oh, ok. I appreciate your apology, NoName.
Posted: 7/26/15 at 12:19pm
"These strong people" don't need you speaking on their behalf either. Who do you think led the uproar?
Posted: 7/26/15 at 12:25pm
"The point was to show my age. "
I think you've done that quite well.
Posted: 7/26/15 at 12:34pm
Oh, Jesus. Anyone else want to take offense to NoName's completely innocuous remarks for no reason? Step right up!
Posted: 7/26/15 at 12:44pm
Count me in. I'd hardly call this "Women who have penises have feelings too, you know," innocuous. Unnecessary, yes. Ignorant, definitely. Innocuous? Far from it.
Posted: 7/26/15 at 1:36pm
Two of my current pet peeves are SJWs and millennials with inept reading comprehension skills.
Interesting to see how many people here think Ms. Ensler's play needs to be banned so that no one's feelings are hurt.
Posted: 7/26/15 at 2:06pm
My biggest pet peeve is the vague definition of "SJW" (that was created as a reaction from mens rights advocates to fight against what they perceive to be threats to their normative understanding of the world and because they have benefitted from it thus far) and misapply it in situations just because mere disagreements. I'm also irked about how people think complicated topics about race, gender identity/expression, sexual orientation, and sex that rely on people's personal experiences and have been written about extensively by academics who are still trying to wade through it are simply withered down on Internet discussions in a glib manner. I also hate it when people try to talk about such things, but don't like the responses, so they use their age as an excuse for ignorance. I know there are people older than you who actually research and study up on these things before they speak about it.
Speaking of reading comprehension, it seems age doesn't matter, because we have a self-identified older person who has trouble understanding that most of the discussion here wasn't even about Ensler's play and whether it should be banned. Most of it was due to the self-identified older person's language use because it reveals a true lack of understanding about the issue.
Updated On: 7/26/15 at 02:06 PM
Posted: 7/26/15 at 2:17pm
My initial post reeks with sarcasm and not a single word of it is directed at transgendered people.
Now, since you know me so well, tell us all about my background, my experiences, my lack of understanding and empathy and don't skimp on your personal fantasies of who and what I must be. I love a good story.
Posted: 7/26/15 at 2:26pm
What I wrote that was specifically directed at your character was the way you used your age as some sort of defense, how the sarcastic tone of your original and follow-up message reveals a subtext of not understanding trans issues, and your crack about reading comprehension. Those are the things you opened yourself up to, so I felt I could respond with what I had. Everything else I wrote was about people who use the term "SJW" generally speaking.
Posted: 7/26/15 at 2:37pm
I never used my age as a defense. I mentioned my age explaining to someone who was offended that I used the obsolete terms transexual and transvestite and had to point out that when I used those terms I specifically put them in parentheses with the comment we don't use those terms anymore. A perfect example of your lack of reading comprehension and fantasizing about me.
Posted: 7/26/15 at 3:02pm
You mentioning that you were "old" came before the other post with those terms in parenthesis and as a response to a post that reacted negatively to your original post. Even so, it still reads somewhat as an excuse as to you not being as with it with the terminology, even if you gave us a short explanation of past terms used. I admit it's hard for me to assume best intentions considering how your original post came off, and your reactions since then.
