Here in TN I'm asking -- What kind of Christians are these?

I'm sure most of you have heard of the Eve Ensler play, "The Vagina Monologues."  What you may not be aware of is that when this show is performed, the proceeds go to a local domestic violence shelter.  In my area, a community college will be performing this show for the 3rd year in a row.  OK, so what's the big deal?  More below the fold...

The college president has determined that the word "vagina" will be censored from the marquee.  

I sent the following email to a bunch of folks (but please read all the way to the end, because there is an interesting addendum to the story):

On Feb. 14 at 7:30 and Feb. 15 at 12:20, Volunteer State Community College will present Eve Ensler's, "The Vagina Monologues." The proceeds will go to a VERY worthy cause: Gallatin HomeSafe, which is a shelter for women and children victims of domestic violence. (More details here: http://www.vscc.cc.tn.us/...)

There is a bit of a controversy, up here in conservative Sumner County, about this show -- to the point that the word "Vagina" is not allowed to appear on the Vol State marquee, the implication of course being that it is somehow an obscene word (you know, like all those other obscene internal organs: heart, lungs, liver, spleen, etc).  

Whether or not you can see the show, please take a moment to email the president of Vol State at [e-mail], and commend him and the college for presenting such an important work -- maybe he'll get the idea that we are not as provincial as some closed minded, but open mouthed folks would have him believe!

OK, so I feel like I'm doing my part to to promote open-mindedness in my corner of the state, and I go on about my day.  

What I didn't realize was that one of the women to whom I'd sent the email is the Executive Director of HomeSafe of Sumner, Wilson and Robertson Counties.  She filled me in on a detail about the production of which I was not aware:

A little bit of trivia about the previous years presentations of the Vagina Monologues.  The Chair of the Benevolence Committee at First Baptist Church in Hendersonville refused to place HomeSafe on the list of non-profits in the County who they provide financial assistance to due to the sign last year.

So, let's get this straight:  a Christian church refused to give assistance to a shelter for women and children victims of domestic violence because some other local group raised money for them by putting on a play with the word "vagina" in the title.  Makes perfect sense -- if you're a repug!

I asked her if I could make that public.  Her response:

Sure, I don't mind telling the truth.  There are so many people who haven't heard about HomeSafe and don't know that there are services available for survivors of domestic violence here in Sumner County.  I have been with HomeSafe for 20 years this coming June 1st - nothing amazes me anymore!!! I think I have heard and seen about everything there is????

We really need financial support to keep the program running.  Any information that gets out will not only help survivors get to us but hopefully some money and support as well.

Very few "women's issues" diaries make it to recommended list here.  I know there are big political, hot button topics being discussed on this site.  But women, at 51% of the population, are the majority gender, folks.  What impacts us is important to the nation, and what is going on here at the local level, under the radar, is going on across the country.  

We know about the "glass ceiling," we know about federal budget cuts to programs that support women and children, we know about important votes on controversial judges, we know about efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade.  We're not always aware of the myriad of little things that go on daily across this country that suppress women and attempt to undermine the progress we've made in the last century.

Ladies, stay strong!  Gentlemen, support strong women!

UPDATE: Should have posted this sooner. Duh! My apologies. If anyone would like to make a contribution to HomeSafe, you can send it to:.

HomeSafe in Sumner Co..

P.O. Box 607.

Gallatin, TN 37066

•  Want to make women's issues more visible?

  Recommend!  (And, as always, your tips are gratefully appreciated.)

  by Yellow Dog Dem Woman on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 10:24:11 AM PDT

  •  Reproductive rights...

    Reproductive rights ( and women's rights ) are one of the featured focus areas over at Talk To Action :

    We've got Esther Kaplan, Cindy Cooper, moiv, Fred Clarkson regularly covering that beat, and occasionally Michelle Goldberg, Max Blumenthal, and Bruce Prescott  as well ( and others ).

    by Troutfishing on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 01:06:34 PM PDT

    •   "Pro Life" Lobby vs. healthy babies

      Cindy Cooper writes on how the "Pro-Life" lobby also has a track record of opposing legislation to cut pollution :

      One of the implications of the antagonism  - on the part of many leaders of the Christian right - to environmental legislation is that that antagonism translates into a powerful Congressional voting bloc opposed to almost all environmental legislation :  Only 9 Republican Senators in 2005, according to a scorecard of voting on environmental legislation compiled annually by the US Public Interest Research Group, supporter 20% or more of environmental bills before the Senate. Meanwhile, the average score for the remaining 46 GOP Senate members was 3.43! - not ZERO, yes, but close to it.

      This - in turn - leads to the point Cindy Cooper's post on Talk To Action : The knee-jerk opposition of the Christian right supported GOP prevents action to reduce emissions of Mercury, Dioxin, PCB's, and otber pollutants which exert a powerful impact on the development of embryos and infants in utero.

      "Pro Life" = "Anti-healthy baby" ?

      by Troutfishing on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 08:38:52 AM PDT

  •  I guess they find Latin offensive.

    sigh.

    Dawg, you have all of my sympathy because I have definitely been there and done that.

    by NCYellowDog on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 04:30:28 AM PDT

    •  It's a medical term! n/t

      by Kimball Cross on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 09:55:26 AM PDT

      •  Maybe,

        just for this little corner of Tennessee, we could call it 'The Birth Canal Monologues.' Do you think that would work?

        -5.88, -6.82

        by Debby on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 10:31:25 AM PDT

•  Women's vaginas

  make them hink of sex--and sex is sinful.

  Another classic example of how the fundies love and respect women.

  Of course, if it'd been The Penis Monologues, they'd have banned THAT word too.  These are the folks who got In the Night Kitchen place on the ALA's 100 most banned books list--because of Sendak's cartoonist drawing of a naked little boy, complete with penis.  Says a lot about the dirtiness of some people's minds.

  I also doubt many fundies back aid to battered women. I've actually read a couple of books on marriage written by rightwingers, and most of them tell wives of abusive or alcoholic spouses to stay with their husband despite the mistreatment to serve as a Christlike example to them. If they beat the kids, though, you can leave.  I don't think women's lives are valuable to them.  Those books appalled me.

  by irishwitch on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 10:33:19 AM PDT

  •  I read that book to my daughter all the time

    I read it to my son when he was her age. It's a great book.  It's a great book for teaching kids how to read. It has a variety of text that is easy to identify as text- word bubbles, big text...  

    It's unfortunate that In the Night Kitchen even gets a second glance.  

    What the hell did Adam and Eve have on under those things leaves?  I can't imagine they had clothes yet.  

    by otto on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 12:25:36 PM PDT

  •  We hear the Penis Monologue

    all the time.

    It's called war.

    and capitalism.

    and "he who has the most toys, wins".

    but, ultimately, "my dick's bigger than yours" or, conversely "I'm afraid my dick is not bigger than yours".

    by Frankenoid on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 12:59:58 PM PDT

    •  nonsense

      this is the kind of hostility towards men that makes many well intentioned people (of both sexes) loathe to associate themselves with feminism.

      by onanyes on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 01:46:58 PM PDT

      •  Whaaa-aaa?

        This is truly a head-scratcher.

        by Blue Intrigue on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 02:30:08 PM PDT

        •  not really

          the commenter was associating bad imagry with the penis; e. g., males can be characterized by being violent, concerned with "one-upsmanship", power, etc.

          by onanyes on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 02:34:37 PM PDT

          •  I understand...

            ...that the description is a bit of a charicature, but, having been a male for my entire life, I can understand the sentiment expressed. Unfortunately, there are far too many males that don't seem uncomfortable with those characteristics, and some seem downright proud of them.

            by strangely enough on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 04:21:51 PM PDT

            •  go beneath the surface

              One useful resource is Farrell's "The Myth of Male Power".  Ok, some of the research in the book is sloppy and he says some demonstrably false things.

              But his general thesis (that both sexes are unfairly constrained by set roles) is right on.

              Think about it:  here are two guys.

              One guy is a nice guy, but has a non-descript job that doesn't pay all that well and he has little power.  Maybe he even has a good command of grammar and diction! ;-)

              On the other hand, the other guy is a complete @sshole but has money and a high powered job.

              Guess which one will draw more attention from females? (assuming they are both straight)

              So I think many men feel pressured to confrom to a role that they are not always comfortable with; my guess is that there are lots of guys working 60-70-80 hour weeks that would rather work less and spend more time with the family, but they feel pressured to provide the big $$$.

              by onanyes on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 04:49:55 PM PDT

              •  oh come on

                cry me a river already.  I love men.  The two people I love most in the world are men.  But I don't buy this men are also opressed by sexism nonsense.  Tell me when we have half the senate.  

                by TeresaInPa on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 05:20:07 PM PDT

                •  Come on, yourself.

                  Talk to some of those men you love about whether sex-role stereotyping damages and oppresses men.

                  Ask some of the men around these precincts, even. You might be a little surprised.

                  Just sayin.

                  by perro amarillo on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 06:26:03 PM PDT

                •  Its a disappointment to

                  hear claims there's no sex stereotyping of men. I want everyone to realize stereotyping hurts us all.

                  by Agent of Fortune on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 06:36:37 PM PDT

                •  You tell me...

                  when women have caught men in the number of heart attacks, deaths from industrial accidents and when men have caught women in lifespans.

                  by onanyes on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 07:10:29 PM PDT

                  •  Younger women are more likely to die

                    of heart attacks than men--because ER doctors don't even consider the diagnosis.  And women are catching up with men with stress-related women.  

                    And men STILL do less than half the housework and childcare even when both parties have demanding jobs.  Sometimes it's because the men don't do it to the wife's satisfaction (and sometimes they do it incorrectly on purpose to get out of it--seen it happen).

                    by irishwitch on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 08:25:33 PM PDT

                    •  housework..

                      and lots of what one person considers "housework" is wholly unnecessary by the other.

                      For example, there is nothing wrong with using the dryer to store the clean undergarments. ;-)

                      by onanyes on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 05:29:14 AM PDT

                      •  Ok,

                        you're right about the dryer.

                        by legadillo on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 06:13:06 AM PDT

                    •  lol

                      and women STILL do less than half the yardwork and bill payments even when both parties have demanding jobs (and sometimes its because they fake mechanical or math inaptitude on purpose to get out of it -- seen it happen).

                      by Agent of Fortune on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 09:01:12 AM PDT

                      •  I'd say yardwork and housework

                        are the same thing. I can produce stts on the hsouework issue. Can YOU produce stats ont he yardwrok?

                        A lto of women I know adore gardenign,. Certainly that coutns as yardwork.  Or does it only extend to trimming bushes and trees and mowing the lawn?

                        by irishwitch on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 09:59:52 AM PDT

                        •  and a lot of men love taking their kids

                          to the zoo or movies after completing the yardwork. Or does that not count as parenting?

                          by Agent of Fortune on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 11:10:07 AM PDT

                          •  You mean they like PLAYING with the kids?

                            it coutns if they also change diapers and do the non-fun parts of child-rearing.  Parentign is WORK, nto jsut the fun stuff.

                            by irishwitch on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 09:21:14 AM PDT

                •  Thank you!

                  Thank you!!

                  by Yellow Dog Dem Woman on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 08:45:54 PM PDT

              •  Have to agree.

                Sad but very, very true in my experience.

                by Agent of Fortune on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 06:38:53 PM PDT

              •  Statistics and stereotyping

                that is what we live by these days. No one knows me and no one knows anybody else except what's inside of themselves. Where do people get these ideas to analyze bullshit like this? An asshole gets more women because maybe women who fall for that asshole are assholes themselves. Or, do you believe only men are born assholes and force women to become assholes. Please, everyone is an individual. You insult the rest of humanity by stereotyping. I don't feel pressured to confrom to any role. You speak only for yourself, not for anyone else. I maybe railed against mercilessly for opining these words, but by dealing with Men are Mars, Women are from Venus bullshit, you are trying to define everything similar to a scientist trying to find the Unified Field Theory. It's like pissing in the wind, it's all bullshit and intellectual masterbation. Most people have not read The Myth of Male Power, and many who do have asked the question "why bother?" There is more power in the individual not to conform to stereotypes than there is for all the intellectual answers defining roles for men and women.

                by tazz on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 07:36:46 AM PDT

      •  On this comment

        Onan, yes.

        (& loathe/loath, BTW)

        by RickE on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 02:34:54 PM PDT

        •  thanks

          But cut me some slack, will ya?  I am a guy and therefore can't get the hang of things like the finer points of grammar and diction.  ;-)

          by onanyes on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 02:43:16 PM PDT

      •  Nonsense

        I did not say all men.

        I made a statement about the structure of our society, based on showing power and sucess, in ways is defined societally as "masculine" -- hence, the Penis Monologues.

        by Frankenoid on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 02:37:04 PM PDT

        •  Hence,

          the Washington Monument.

          by Lying eyes on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 06:17:30 PM PDT

          •  Hence, ALL obelisks. n/t

            by Donna in Rome on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 07:17:06 PM PDT

      •  Yes there is nothing sadder

        then men who are oppressed by language.  

        by TeresaInPa on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 05:16:41 PM PDT

    •  not cool

      Plenty of women out there are engaging in some serious materialsm, jingoism, and Bush votin'.  Meanwhile plenty of men, including this one, are not.

      War, materialism, and greed are not the province of either gender.

      by fizziks on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 02:34:13 PM PDT

      •  That remains to be seen

        since men have been at the throttle in the countries that have gone to war.

        But let's not be so PC or soon we will be saying "oh those poor discriminated-against Republicans".

        by Little Red Hen on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 05:36:12 AM PDT

        •  with the occasional exception:

          Margaret Thatcher, The Falklands War (or "War").

          by vome minnesota on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 07:09:21 AM PDT

    •  I think a good solution for the marquee would be

      to put up "The Volgina Monologues."

      Its perfect because:

      1. "Volgina" is not the word "Vagina," obviously.

      2. It celebrates the school by including "Vol" (singlar form of "Vols," which is short for "Volunteers," the name of the school's sports teams, as we all know.)

      3. "Volgina" is not a real word (until now - definition, anyone?)

      Problem solved.  No need to thank me. I will be around till Tuesday. Try the vole!

      by Stoy on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 09:21:20 PM PDT

  •  It's because, to fundies, women are inferior.

    I also doubt many fundies back aid to battered women.

    You're right; they don't.

    I've actually read a couple of books on marriage written by rightwingers, and most of them tell wives of abusive or alcoholic spouses to stay with their husband despite the mistreatment to serve as a Christlike example to them. If they beat the kids, though, you can leave. I don't think women's lives are valuable to them.

    You're right; they aren't, to these right-wing fundie "Christians." I just got finished reading Our Endangered Values, Jimmy Carter's new book, and he discusses the inferiority of women in the eyes of fundamentalist "Christians." He used to be a Southern Baptist and watched, in horror, as the faith to which he adhered and still does adhere--in what he calls the traditional evangelical sense--morphed into something hateful, demeaning, and decidedly UNChristian, especially in its treatment of women as being subservient to men.

    His accounts reminded me of going to Catholic parochial grammar school in the late Seventies and early Eighties. Even then, one of my mildly-progressive lay teachers had a poster on her classroom wall that read: "God created women from men's ribs to be equal to them--NOT from men's feet to be stepped on!"

    by boofdah on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 01:01:38 PM PDT

    •  Return of "The Feminine Mystique"

      Esther Kaplan comments on the recrudescence of the cult of femininity:

      "the "mystique of feminine fulfillment" Friedan blasted apart 43 years ago is now being resurrected by the Christian right....."

      by Troutfishing on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 01:09:25 PM PDT

      •  We can see that in our pop culture post-Nineties.

        Is it just me, or does everything since the year 2000 seem grossly "hyper-feminized"? Everything from wardrobe to makeup to high-pitched chick singers--in the Nineties, we had Jodie Foster, P.J. Harvey, and Thelma and Louise; now, we're treated to the Olson Twins, Britney Spears, and (ulgh) Elizabethtown. Even the "strong female characters" in movies are skinny, big-boobed Barbie dolls like Angelina Jolie and Kate Beckinsale. When will the madness stop???

        by boofdah on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 01:18:50 PM PDT

        •  I remember in the early nineties and even late

          eighties that women were applauded for looking "lush" again, with collagened lips and breast implants.  And infantile at the same time, with excessively depilated pubes.  Just flip open any skin mag from the 1970s and you'll see acres of meager, sometimes sagging breasts and frank thatches of pubic hair.  My impression was that the backlash came in with Reaganism.

          by rhubarb on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 01:51:59 PM PDT

          •  Go on ...

            You have my attention.  Just kidding.

            ...

            Seriously, though, I have a daughter, age 4.  I just can't imagine what expectations she will have, or her future boyfriends and husband (hopefully singular!), given the barrage of media images they face.

            My three young children are pretty well-centered, confident as you can hope for kids to be, and kind.  I gotta build it up before they hit 'the real world' and they'll need ALL of that inner strength.

             - ThiRoy

            by thiroy on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 03:21:05 PM PDT

          •  This year there were four women on TV

            with actual curves, starring on TV shows. One was cancelled. I expect Bones to be cancelled too--and maybe Surface.

            Women who look like women are scary to men who have serious lack of confidence in their masculinity ( my nickname is "dinky dinky syndrome or DDS" because they seem to be afraid they won't measure up where it counts, even if they are 13 inches.)  

            I am not big on silicon anything, but I am equally tired of seeing teenage boys with a plum in each shirt pocket (to steal a line from Spider Robinson) being lauded as  sexy women. They aren't. They look prepubescent.  I can't hjelp but wonder if the entertainment industry is made up of pedophiles.

            I am not calling for a return to the 1950s--but it would be lovely if there was a greater variety of body types considered beautiful. The Dove ads were a nice start--but I read a number of columns by men calling the women ugly and ond dogs and fat ,etc.

            by irishwitch on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 08:38:52 PM PDT

            •  Spider Robinson!

              I like a few things he wrote :-)

              Have you ever read Germaine Greer's classic, The Female Eunuch?  Now there's a book.  Essentially it points out the purdah American women are under to look like girls.  Even nipples are supposed to be as tiny and pale as possible, and as for body hair and female pubes . . . let's not even go there.

              by rhubarb on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 05:11:58 AM PDT

              •  Read it when it first came out

                by irishwitch on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 09:06:37 AM PDT

        •  Once liberated from

          those high heels it never occurred to me women would go back to them.  What next, girdles?

          by Lying eyes on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 06:21:07 PM PDT

          •  Well, this feminist

            loves garter belts and stockings and high heels at the proper time.  Wearing sexy clothes and make-up is NOT an indication that you are  feminist.

            I put in my time on the barricades fighting for my rights.  I've earned the right to wear corsets and lace (I'm a Seriously Elder Goth). And I have put several men in their place for assuming that wearing black stocking with seams means I've shed 50 I.Q. points to come down to their extremely average level I'm Phi Beta Kappa).

            I would also point out that my husband wears poet's shirts and velvet coats when we go out to clubs--he's happy, very masculine peacock who has seen combat in the 23 years he spent in the Navy. He also wore tights in the SCA for years.

            Clothes don't say a lot about someone's intelligence or political persuasion (well, I admit that when I see a wom,an in a ghastly floral print elstaicized waist dress with poufy sleeves and a lace collar, it SCREAMS "Brainwashed Republican Wife" to me...)

            On the other hand, I agree that trading Jodie Foster for Britney is a comedown.
            

            by irishwitch on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 08:33:36 PM PDT

            •  LOL.......

              sounds like you have a great life!

              by Lying eyes on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 10:11:14 PM PDT

        •  Angelina Jolie

          is NOT a Barbie doll in any sense of the word. She is a UN Ambassador: she lobbies Congress for money for some of the poorest countries in the world.  She is a terrific actress. Girl, Interrupted is one of my favorite films, mostly because of her performance.

          You can say a lot of things about her, but she ain't no Barbie doll.

          by Mary Julia on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 08:29:02 PM PDT

        •  didn't you see Tomb Raider?

          Jolie is a role model.

          by ginnungagapet on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 07:56:39 AM PDT

  •  Oh for Pete's sake...

    make them hink of sex

    Please be more careful. If Mrs. Dink gets wind of this, you'll all see the wrath of a very strong, very powerful woman.

    hink

    by MrHinkyDink on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 01:06:13 PM PDT

    •  ASK me if iI care

      about a typo.

      But as far as I can see, that can be the only reason they could possibly object to a simple medical term.

      AMericans are such prudes.

      by irishwitch on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 08:27:00 PM PDT

  •  Sex is not sinful to the religious

    but if you enjoy it it is... or outside 'holy matrimony.'  I am not trying to simply split hairs here. While I am not of that faith, I have lived in the culture-- sex in marriage is not 'sinful.'

    I am not a Baptist, but I am from alabama, and still live here. I am not defendind certain ideologies, but I will say that there's a certaininternal consistency, regardless of agreement or disagreement.

    also, those who believe, they believe COMPLETELY. there is reinforcement, both in society and church.

    Anyone who automatically makes this a gender/power issue forgets the culture and the support within the culture, for these beliefs.  

    Oftentimes people thin that folks in the south simply drink pop-skull whiskey, go to church, and have teeth pulled...there's a bit more here than the simplissm with which southerners are often portrayed.

    Fundamentalists live everywhere--  around these parts they are open...

    by jeffinalabama on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 02:26:55 PM PDT

    •  and no, I didn't spell check...

      how embarassing!

      by jeffinalabama on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 02:29:52 PM PDT

    •  Dis I say "sex in marriage?"

      No. I said SEX. Period.  Most Christian sects view sex outside marriage (and in some cases WITHIN marriage if you use birth control--esp. if you re Catholic, but I've run into some fundamentalist Christians with the same ideal) as sinful.  

      The attitude is pretty damned negative.  THINKIGN about sex is  sinful--remember Jimmy Carter saying he lusted in his heart? In Catholicism it's called a near occasion of sin-and it becomes actively sinful if you give into the temptations nd fantasize.

      Judaism at least sees making love to your wife Ont he Sabbath as a mitzvah--and Mohammed told hsi follwoers that a husband should not fall upon his wife like a ravening beast, but there should be messengers betweent hem, kisses and sweet words (he sounds rather like Doctor Phil tellinghsibands that love-making begins the night before by helping your wife with the chores and being sweet to her during the day).  

      Compare that to Pass "It is better to marry than to burn."  I'd call it pretty darned negative.

      A lot of religious people see through this idiocy--but a lot have sexual problems as a result. It's hard to go from "if you teach me there I'm committing a sin" to "Whoo BABY!" the minute the ring goes on your finger.  Losing one's virginity can be pretty unpleasant if your partner is equally clueless. I suspect a lot of those kids with silver rings have terrible wedding nights.

      by irishwitch on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 08:22:22 PM PDT

  •  Answer: They're NOT Christians

    They're FUNDIES.

    There IS a difference between the two, in case you haven't yet figured that out:

    by SpermDonor on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 03:55:53 PM PDT

    •  Okay,So you can read minds.

      I am impressed by your intolerance. what;s next, grand inquisitor? Do you even understand what you say?

      by jeffinalabama on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 04:11:23 PM PDT

    •  Okay, you have upset me.

      who made you the grand inquisitor, spermdonor? Who are you to question the faith of people? Who decides that 'fundies' are inferior?

      You are showing the same intolerance that the Bush administration does, and your attitude is why progressives lose elections. I would say you should be ashamed of yourself, but it would make no difference. Substute "negores" or "Jews"  for your "FUNDIES," and you have a certain fascist worldview...
      Fuck you. Learn something. you are ignorant and bigoted.

      by jeffinalabama on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 04:24:39 PM PDT

      •  FUCK OFF, fundie scum.

        
        You and your ilk are poisoning this country . . . and the rest of the globe as well.

        And, ironically, you and your ilk give Christianity a bad name.

        See what St. Paul says in his letter to the Roman churches:

        "Becuase of you [legalistic hypocrites], my name is blasphemed among the nations."

        Substitute "fundie" for the word "Pharisee" in the New Testament and you'll have a good idea of the kinds of people who killed Jesus.  The fundies of Jesus' day had him crucified.  

        Fundies come in all stripes:  Evangelical fundies, Catholic fundies, Jewish fundies, and Moslem fundies.

        A fundy, in his insistence upon intolerant, black-and-white, legalism, a narrowly "moralistic" morality, an insistence upon an unquestioning submission to authority, and an unwillingness to tolerate, much less encourage, independent thought, is about as far from the God spoken of in the Bible (especially in the New Testament) as you can get.

        by SpermDonor on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 10:30:32 PM PDT

    •  Actually they are fundamentalist

      CHRISTIANS--at least technically. You may not like having them int hat category but they do claim to believe in Christ and the Bible, which last time I looked, fit the definition of Christian.

      I admit I wouldn't want them in my religion either.

      But MANY strains of Christianity, not jsut the fundamentalsit variety, have a negative attitude towards both sexuality and women.  It's why I left Catholicism--then left Christianity  completely (well, I had REAL issues with YHWH ordering genocide and enslavement in the OT, among other issues). Sex is for married peopel making babies; anything else is at elast marginally sinful.

      by irishwitch on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 08:14:00 PM PDT

      •  European Christianity...

        Irishwich, we are in agreeement over the horrible nature and infulence of european christianity and worldview.  My big complaint was in the categorical classification... if, for example FUNDIES fall in this category, ans we even say Christain fundamentalists, does thos mean that muslims or animists who do the same or worse are okay, because suddenly they aren't CHRISTIAN fundies?

        I fear we are making big ascribed categories to ignore, because 'we' think 'they' are ignorant... and this is not the way to either change minds or win elections...

        by jeffinalabama on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 08:21:56 PM PDT

        •  This is happening in AMERICA

          where the vast majority of fundies are CHRISTIAN. Stop changing the subject to one you prefer.

          And European Christians don't have NEARLY the problems with sex that we do.  Look at the countries which allow civil unions or gay marriage--Holland, Belgium, Germany,e tc.  WE keep banning it, along iwth trying to ban abortion, birth control and Plan B.

          No, I am no happier with the African animsits who use that religion as an excuse to oppress women--and the Taliban and their many coutnerparts who force women into buqas or chadors don't make me happy wither.

          But look at the story.  It sure wasn'tMUSLIMS or ANIMISTS who were insisting on the omission of the word "vagina."

          I am SOOOO tired of Christians refusing to see the problems with some of their fundamentalist brethren. The ONLY thign we agree about, Jeff, is probably (and I'm iffy about your agreeing with this) that their attitudes aren't all that Christlike.

          Down here in GA, I LEFT the fetish community completely after a heated exchange with several kinky Christians who ere offended when, in the course of explaining that a local adult store was under threat by the Christian Coalition,t hester mentioned that the demo was being organized by several pastors and the CC.  They immediately launched into the "Everybody hates Christians" whine. I got nuked by too many people, and decided it was better for us to play at home--besides, it is a VERY unfriendly scene down here.

          I pointed out that the people organizing the march and the ones who had Ben trying to shut down he store for YEARS (despite it having no windows the public could see in AND checking ages BEFORE you got inside to actually SE anything) were Christians. Not Buddhists. Not WIccans. Not Jews. Not Muslims. CHRISTIANS. Most of the prudery in our culture is the direct result of the legacy of the puritans.  In the Middle East, you can blame  bad interpretations of the Q'oran, which actually gave Muslim women rights to own proeprty that European women didnt' get until the mid 19th century.

          Thank you, John Calvin and Cotton Mather.

          by irishwitch on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 08:48:29 PM PDT

      •  the difference is

        Fundies are not Christians. Their claiming of Christ's name for their warped views is what makes them inferior- just like all liars are inferior. Fundies are Biblicans- they use the OT to support their dogma, and you will note the order- conclusion  first. And they will pick which verses to believe and others to ignore, often from week to week, and usually just for Sunday.
        Their trademark is always this: they will ignore & refute the teachings of Christ, yet call themselves Christians. By definition, a Christian follows the teachings of Christ, but this has been coopted by fundies for so long, that people forget this.

        by azureblue on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 09:46:07 PM PDT

        •   I am sorry

          but they are Christians--their churches are considered to be Christian by most other groups.  I am SICK of liberal Christians playing this game.

          I don't consider them true followers of Christ's teachings, but they acknowledged eh Bible as the word of God, believe Jesus is the Son of God, died on the cross to save human from damnation, rose again Ont he third day.  You may disagree drastically with their interpretation of the Bible, but to claim they arent members of the Christian community is just factually incorrect. n It's like saying the Taliban aren't Muslims.  Theya re ahte-filled, women-hating fantaics whose itnerpreation of the Bible/Q'oran differ greatly from those of the more mdoerate members of their religion--but they are still members of that religion.

          I DO agree that Yeshua bar Yosef, the carpenter from Nazareth, would Abe appalled at some of thing things done in his name.   I suspect he'd look at some of the Religious Reich and call them whited sepulchers.  

          But, note, he did not say that the hypocritical Pharisees weren't Jews.

          I DO know a bit about Christianity. I had 16 years of Catholic education and a minor in theology.
          

          by irishwitch on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 09:59:55 PM PDT

          •  It's clear to me you've got your own issues.

            Fine.  Call them what you want, if it makes you feel better, and salves your persecution wounds.

            by SpermDonor on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 10:32:59 PM PDT

            •  you went from being simply cranky and irritating

              to being a pure troll with this comment.

              And so, I'd like to give you this recipe, courtesy of kossack Andrew C White as found in the dKos Trollhouse Cookbook.

              Intelligence
              1 teaspoon clue
              1 Volvo
              1/2 teaspoon open eyes
              3 to 4 books in progress at all times
              1/2 teaspoon unplugged ears
              1 constant question
              1 cup open mind
              1 heaping tablespoon of concern for your fellow human
              1 liberal cup of latté

              Mix gently, sometimes vigorously, let bake for 20 to 30 years. Season to taste.

              by Timroff on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 07:39:29 AM PDT

          •  what you call yourself versus what you really are

            I understand that fundamentalists still call themselves Christians and other fundies accept them as such.  But there is a disconnect between the way they label themselves and the message of the man they purport to follow.

            One political parallel would be the way that Zell Miller and Joementum call themselves Democrats while working against Democratic ideals.

            Conservative fundamentalists may call themselves Christians from now until the cows come home, but whether or not they are actually following Christ is questionable in my book.

            I really liked your point that Jesus never said the Pharisees weren't Jews.  But he did openly question whether they were really doing God's will, and he did call them fools and hypocrites, and if Jesus were here today I suspect he'd say the same about a lot of conservative evangelical pretenders to Christianity.  They may cry "Lord, Lord," as much as they like, but he will say "I never knew you."

            Meanwhile I'll go back to doing my "liberal" Matthew 25 thing--feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, visiting those in prison, etc.

            And respecting the full personhood and dignity of people with vaginas, just as Jesus did.

            by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 05:07:36 AM PDT

            •  The problem here is that your e

              splitting hairs--just as the fundies do.  You disagree with th their interpretation of the NT (and Paul has plenty of unpleasant things to say about women, gays, etc.) and you say they are not Christians.  They do the same with liberal Christians.

              But the FACT is, they meet the normal definition of Christians: someone who aceepts Jesus as lord and Savior, believes he is the Son of God, died Ont he cross for humanity's sins, rose again on the third day, and ascended into heaven. They follow Christ's teachings as they interpret them.

              You're saying because you have issues with doctrine, they can't be Christian.

              By that definition most people during the history of Christianity probably don't meet your definition.

              And, bluntly, I think you're doing the same thingmoderate Muslims do when mortified by the people burning the Danish embassy. You don't want to be associated with these folks, so you say they aren't REAL members of your faith.

              But other Christians DO recognize them as fellow Christians. Lookat the membership roster of the National Council of churches. Southern Baptists aren't members but other Baptists groups are

              http://www.ncccusa.org/...

              I think msot theologians and students of religion would agree theya re Christians.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/...

              http://www.religioustolerance.org/...
              We do agree that their interpretation of the nT is vastly different from ours.  But I think you can't get away with saying they're not Christians for that reason.

              by irishwitch on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 09:04:57 AM PDT

      •  My responses

        CHRISTIANS--at least technically. You may not like having them int hat category but they do claim to believe in Christ and the Bible, which last time I looked, fit the definition of Christian.

        --Claiming to believe in Christ, and actually believing in Christ are two different things.  And the word "Christian" comes from the book of Acts, wherein the early "disciples" or "followers of the teachings of" Christ, were called "Christians."  Now, honestly, look at these people whom I have been refering to as "fundies" and tell me that they are following the teachings of Christ when it comes to the way the treat their fellow human beings, especially the ones they disagree with.

        I admit I wouldn't want them in my religion either.
        But MANY strains of Christianity, not jsut the fundamentalsit variety, have a negative attitude towards both sexuality and women.  It's why I left Catholicism--then left Christianity  completely (well, I had REAL issues with YHWH ordering genocide and enslavement in the OT, among other issues).

        --It depends upon what you call a "negative veiw toward sexuality."  As I've read the Christian scriptures, I don't see a negative veiw toward sexuality per se, as much as I see a negative view toward CERTAIN KINDS of sexuality.  In fact, one of the books of the Old Testament, Song of Songs, is nothing but an extended erotic love poem between lovers.  So, I think that you have spoken too broadly here.

        Sex is for married peopel making babies; anything else is at elast marginally sinful.

        --Well, that's the Catholic view of things.  That isn't the classic Protestant view of it at all.  

        --Sorry that your Catholic upbringing riddled you with sexual shame and guilt.  I understand how certain religious upbringings can screw people up.  But I'd say that you were probably a victim of a Catholic fundamentalism.  I've known quite a few practicing Catholics, and I can assure you that they didn't all have a negative view toward sexuality.  It's the Catholic fundies that tend to be so fucked up when it comes to sex.

        by SpermDonor on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 10:48:56 PM PDT

        •  Hair splitting

          that makes a Jesuit squirm seems to be your forte--but you aren't very good at it.

          It depends upon what you call a "negative view toward sexuality."  As I've read the Christian scriptures, I don't see a negative view toward sexuality per se, as much as I see a negative view toward CERTAIN KINDS of sexuality.  In fact, one of the books of the Old Testament, Song of Songs, is nothing but an extended erotic love poem between lovers.  So, I think that you have spoken too broadly here.
           

          Song of Songs is usually interpreted as description of the relationship between Christ and his Church.  

          Have a look at this:
          http://www.religioustolerance.org/...

          Baptists, Mormons, Methodists all agree that  teen sex, and premarital sex are objectionable in most cases.  Last time looked, sex between unmarried people is still SEX.

          Read these articles:

          http://www.christiananswers.net/...

          objectihttp://www.christianitytoday.com/...

          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          Last time I looked premarital sex wa also sex.

          As for birth control, I grant yout hat  Catholicism has the strictest rules--but I've run into conservative Christians who also view birth control as immoral.  LIBERAL Christianity  has no issues with it, I grant you. But conservative Christianity

          Sorry that your Catholic upbringing riddled you with sexual shame and guilt.  I understand how certain religious upbringings can screw people up.  But I'd say that you were probably a victim of a Catholic fundamentalism.  I've known quite a few practicing Catholics, and I can assure you that they didn't all have a negative view toward sexuality.  It's the Catholic fundies that tend to be so fucked up when it comes to sex.

          Who died and made you a psychiatrist?

          How DARE a complete stranger who doesn't know DIDDLY about me conclude I am "fucked up" about sex?  Darlin', I have NO sexual issues. Never have, Realized at age 14 that the church was wrong about sex, and tossed everything the nuns ad priests had to say about it .  I've done things you've probably never even DREAMED about.

          But this crossed a line, You went from a  general discussion of sexuality to a personal attack  on me and my supposed sexual neuroticism.

          Let me quote you something from your NT" Judge not lest ye be judged."

          You owe me an apology--and you should be charged with  practicing medicine without a license, because that is precisely what you are doing.

          My info on Protestants having some negative attitudes on sex came from 56 years of living and talking to other women--most of whom were Pots. A LOT Of Baptists have sexual issues, as do  many conservative Christians.  The emphasis on premarital chastity and the notion that even masturbation is a sin can't help but color your attitude towards sex.

          I grant you Catholicism is the most anti-birth control--but,a gain, IU have run across many conservative Christians who i feel the same way--hence the tendency toward large families.

          Of course, you refuse to recognize anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the bible as a Christian, which makes you about as intolerant as the fundies you so despise.

          The usual definition of Christian is someone who accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior and follows his teachings.  The problem is there are many different interpretations of those teachings, all of which claim Tobe the One True Way. Conservative fundamentalist Christians think liberals are wrong--and liberal Christians like you think they are wrong.  You read the sme passages and come up with entirely different ideas.

          But to claim that conservative Christians aren't Christians is absurd. And it is just as wrong for you to stand up and declare that people who patently accept JC and his teachings but who differ with you in itnerpretation    aren't Christians as it is for Robertson to say that liberals aren't Christians If you consider being compared to Pat R an insult--feel free to feel insulted. Because I See little difference in attitude.

          by irishwitch on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 09:57:02 AM PDT

          •  Forgive me if I was judgmental

            but you said in another thread that you are into the "fetish community."

            Now, from what I know about the fetish community, I find it hard to believe that people who are involved in it don't have serious issues concerning their sexuality, which are really just tips of the ice berg when it comes to fundamental issues they have with their personalities--fundamental issues involved with childhood trauma, neglect, abuse, and shame.

            I mean, come on . . . having to dress up in get-ups that suggest or simulate pain, torture, and/or humiliation to get off.  To get turned on by this?  

            Tell me that isn't some fucked up shit.

            And you have the nerve to tell me that people like this don't have "issues" when it comes to sex?

            Puh . . . . lease!!!!

            Look, whatever you're into.  If that's what gets you off, I fully support your right to do it, consistent with my ideas of individual freedom.  Just like I fully support an alcoholic's right to drink himself to death and fuck up his life, if he so chooses.

            But don't expect me to view this stuff as normal or healthy, or to say that a person involved in this stuff doesn't have serious issues concerning their sexuality and their psyches.

            I think they do.  

            No doubt, you will disagree with me and call me "judgmental."  That's your prerogative.

            But I still hold to my opinion.

            by SpermDonor on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 03:22:29 PM PDT

•  Updated information...

  I received this email from a male friend who works at the college:

  I could go on and on forever about how we have been waging the "Vagina War" up here at Vol State.  (I have been made an "honorary vagina" by the cast and crew of the show, and am quite proud!)  The first year we did the show, we had no problems with the word "Vagina" on the marquee.  The second year it was changed mid-week (article in Nashville Scene last year by John Spragens -you can search www.nashvillescene.com by author to find it), this year we were told we could not use the marquee to promote the show or the other activities (there is a whole week of speakers, forums, etc to celebrate "V-Week"), but then mid-week the marquee suddenly had the "V-Monolgues" on it.  The director of the production (Dr. Dawn Larsen) has many concerns as you might imagine.  A cast-constructed sign was even stolen from private property -later determined to have been removed by a Gallatin PD officer who argued that the sign was on the city-owned right-of-way. Many of the faculty here are angry over this issue -and we have made our concerns known to the president to no avail.  Outside community pressure is supposedly driving his decisions.  Some opposite pressure would be welcome. . . .lend some support to our students and our message!

  Thanks for sharing your message and feel free to pass this one along as well.

  
  (emphasis added)

  Good grief!
  

  by Yellow Dog Dem Woman on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 10:33:33 AM PDT

  •  Do what Gore Vidal did.

    When Vidal was writing novels in 1975, the US courts had ruled that "obscene" words could be censored according to community standards.  So -- as payback -- Vidal replaced the most explicit obscenities in his novel with the names of the Supreme Court justices who were responsible for the decision.

    As I recall, Rehnquist was the stand-in for cock-sucker and White became vagina.
    As in "Get your filthy Rehnquist-ing hands off me, you Rehnquist!"

    The play producers should follow suit and replace 'vagina' with the name of the Baptist preacher.  

    by KathleenM1 on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 07:19:56 PM PDT

    •  ha ha

      I forgot about that... classic.

      4 for you, for the trip down memory lane!

      by EconAtheist on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 09:14:35 PM PDT

    •  Imagining

      AL Swearingen being forced to call everyone a Rehnquist...wellm I admit, Rehnquist was pretty damned obscene in my book.

      by irishwitch on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 09:54:54 PM PDT

•  Cancelled in PIttsburgh.

  The Cardinal Newman Society may or may not be behind it.

  Pgh. Post-Gazette.

  The reporter's name is at the end of the article.  Perhaps he can do a follow-up on whether the local money raised went to woman's shelters.

  Here is a link from the Cardinal Newman Society home page:
  HELP STOP THE V-MONOLOGUES

  by Yellow Canary on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 10:35:22 AM PDT

  •  I emailed the Cardinal Newman society

    Listing all their "actions" -- including one involving "heresy"! -- and titled the email: Some of the Reasons I'm No Longer a Practicing Catholic.

    And couldn't resist adding: You nutjobs, you.

    by judybrowni on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 12:48:19 PM PDT

    •  LMAO! A 4 for you!

      from a fellow "No Longer a Practicing Catholic"--for many reasons! :)

      by boofdah on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 01:03:09 PM PDT

      •  Email ddress of Newman Society

        [e-mail]

        Tell them that their nutball actions are a few of the reasons why you're no longer a practicing Catholic.

        by judybrowni on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 01:31:42 PM PDT

    •  "non-practicing" doesn't go...

      ...far enough for me

      I completely and utterly reject the Catholic Church.  I consider myself an EX-Catholic.

      by asskicking annie on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 06:55:40 AM PDT

•  re

  I absolutely side with you but I just want to point out one of my pet peeves: it's disingenuousness.

  The title of the play is meant to provoke.   I roll my eyes at arguments like: "What's the difference between vagina and liver?"  Everybody who reads the title of the play has a reaction--which is exactly what Ensler intended.    

  by SFOrange on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 10:37:44 AM PDT

  •  Thought provoking --

    is what I believe it was intended to be.  Somehow I don't think "The Down There Monologues" would have been any better received.  

    I also believe it intends to make the point that the word is not obscene.  It is the name of a body part -- if someone has trouble with the word, if the word has become loaded it is because the value of the word has been hijacked -- kind of like the word "choice."

    by Yellow Dog Dem Woman on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 10:48:40 AM PDT

    •  I wholeheartedly agree.

      I believe the title is meant to be provocative not in that it is a "dirty" word but that there is a shameful double standard.

      People who are offended by it I'm sure would find a hard time even saying it to their doctors! And it's a clinical term!

      "The Down There Monologues" - That cracked me up. I actually imagined it as "The Area Monologues"

      by april5k on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 11:48:40 AM PDT

      •  my grandfather

        used to refer to it as "the front"...

        for both sexes.

        by clammyc on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 12:43:31 PM PDT

      •  I have known grown women

        who are absolutely horrified that other mothers teach their daughters the correct name for their vaginas.  Instead they teach them cutesy little names.  Just WTF?

        by furryjester on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 12:55:28 PM PDT

        •  No shit.

          I never understood this myself. Even now, with her daughters being in their early 30s, my mom still whispers "vagina" even when we're talking privately.

          It's just another body part, y'all. People need to get over it already. Hello, we all have either a penis or a vagina.

          by boofdah on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 01:05:21 PM PDT

          •  Vagina?

            I never heard my mother say that word, or reference any other body part between the legs.  

            by Cecile on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 02:17:43 PM PDT

            •  Mary or Ruby

              I have an English Aunt that taught us to call it "mary" as in bloody mary ha. She also said about sex that you just closed your eyes and thought of the queen. haaaa I don't remember my mother calling it anything.  

              by ricochet on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 05:00:14 PM PDT

            •  It's a fun game to play...

              ...to get your parents to say one of the words that they shy away from. I got my mom to say 'masturbate' the last time she was visiting. It took 4 days of baiting her into it, but she finally said it. I think she figured out my game as she found a way to get me to disclose if I've ever been in jail or not (not).

              I think it's an important part of putting aside the parent/child relationship to work through the things that were uncomfortable when you were a kid that shouldn't be as an adult. And, face it, it's fun.

              by johnsonwax on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 05:03:56 PM PDT

          •  not really

            But it's a nice fantasy.

            by tvb on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 02:31:36 PM PDT

        •  Speaking of this

          why in hell are we talking about vaginas?  It's a vulva.  The vagina is to the vulva as the utility room is to the house.

          And for what itis worth, my 2-year-old once said, as his great-aunt declared that she had to visit the bathroom, "Does Mona have a vulva, too?"  

          by rhubarb on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 01:46:38 PM PDT

          •  A Damn Good Southern Liberal

            My son at three followed me into the bathroom wanting to know why daddy had a big nose on the end of his penis and that he wanted to see my big penis vagina. I never laughed so hard and still tell this story. (28 years ago he used these words and my parents were livid that I would teach him such)

            This same child years later when the Southern Baptist came to call (with their list (to go into their computer database) of who was going to heaven and hell) gave them our names for the hell list.

            I'd say I've raised a damn good southern liberal!

            by ricochet on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 04:53:35 PM PDT

      •  How to wash yourself

        Start at the top of your head and wash down as far as possible.

        Start at the bottom of your feet and wash as far up as possible.

        Then, wash possible.

        by True Blue Texan on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 02:02:36 PM PDT

        •  OMG!

          My dad used to say that all the time! In jest, at his uptight, Texas Southern Baptist upbringing that he thankfully shed before he had kids. He taught me to cuss like the sailor he once was. I guess that's another Texasism.

          A 4 for the memories.

          by Brooke In Seattle on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 02:12:48 PM PDT

        •  Hahah!

          I was setting up a bath for an old country lady here in Ohio, and she said the same thing. "I'll wash Possible." We laughed, I'd never heard it before.

          by Margot on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 07:07:52 PM PDT

  •  But...

    While you may roll your eyes at arguments like, "What's the difference between vagina and liver?", the argument is absolutely sound.  Amongst mature adults, none of the following words should stand out or cause offense:  head, eye, clitoris, foot, ankle, penis, arm, scrotum, elbow, toe, knee, liver, intestine, heart, labia, lung, vagina, gall bladder, etc.  They are all appropriate for mixed company, and they are all appropriate for individuals of any age -- from children to the elderly.  Likewise they are words that, in the appropriate context, should cause nary a ripple if uttered from a pulpit in a church.

    That they do provoke a reaction is simply evidence that we are not all mature adults, and that this society has hangups about totally unimportant things, while ignoring (and tacitly allowing) very important things to proceed.

    The REAL issue documented here (if all is as described) is that a church refuses to support a women and children's shelter because some other group supports them with "The Vagina Monologues".   It's as though they believe that somehow by association they are guilty of whatever the display of the word "Vagina" means in their little heads.  A word cannot be sinful, and so they have placed an illogical sense of self perception above doing the work of the church.  THAT is sinful.

    by frankNcleve on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 12:46:45 PM PDT

    •  i beg to differ...

      i'm not saying the church is right, not in any way, but i think you're being a little disingenuous here.

      amongst mature adults, many of whom i know, the word clitoris is not often used.  because it has to do with sex, which is usually something that most people don't talk about except with highly-trusted friends.  sex is personal.  i don't think eve ensler named her play 'the vagina monologues' because it was just like any other organ.  it's provocative.  how many other non-pornographic films or plays use the word vagina in the title?  or penis?  very few, if any.  it's not a judgement on the worth of a vagina or penis to say that they are of a different nature than other organs.  to put it simply, the reason that vagina and penis are words that are a little taboo is the same reason we aren't all nudists.  not because vaginas are dirty, but because they're something that most people keep out of the public domain.

      by lightlytoasted on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 01:47:24 PM PDT

      •  The word is harmless

        I'm not intending to be disingenuous at all.  Admittedly, as you described it, some of the words I used are considered "a little taboo".  In my own personal experience there are occassions when I might hesitate to use such words, but it would only be because I am unsure of how the words might be received.  Surely some people might gasp and fall out with the vapors upon hearing these words.  But the truth is they are technical names of body parts and not their vulgar counterparts.  The vulgar counterparts are used with the explicit intent of having them heard in a "sexual" context.  The "Vagina" in "The Vagina Monologues"  was no doubt chosen to be a bit shocking, but it was no doubt also chosen precisely because it should NOT be shocking.  When deciding on the appropriateness of a word in a sign, I had rather not appeal to people's flaws, illogical taboos, and weakness's, but rather aspire to meet those issues headon with a dose of reasonableness.  If nothing else, the provocative title (though unfortunately provocative) has provoked a discussion about why harmless words can be viewed as harmful, taboo, etc.  Vagina is a technical name for a part of the female human anatomy.  If it is difficult for us (and me) to say, then we should practice saying it.  I'm sure we'll find it's not as bad as it seems, and the world will continue to turn.  Ultimately I'll have to admit to being a bit idealistic.  I'll never apologize for that.  If people have hangups, they should work to overcome them rather than be empowered by them.  Now, I shall attempt to go take my own advice and have a conversation involving the word Vagina.

        by frankNcleve on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 02:16:22 PM PDT

      •  I know one

        how many other non-pornographic films or plays use the word vagina in the title?  or penis?

        What about that movie that Adrian Brodie won the best actor Oscar for?

        Joke.

        A man goes to a psychiatrist because he is having trouble with women.
        The doctor decides to do a word association.

        Doctor: Eyes
        Man: Liz Taylor
        Doctor: Breasts
        Man: Sophia Loren
        Doctor: Vagina
        Man: Saskatchewan

        by Bionic on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 02:21:22 PM PDT

        •  i love it

          A joke about my home province.
          Do you think anyone gets it ??

          by willy be frantic on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 07:25:42 PM PDT

          •  Given the mojo I 've been showered

            with, it doesn't look like it.  lol
            I know this joke because years ago my dear departed sister made my dad a card with it.

            BTW Can you spell Saskatchewan without starting to stutter?

            BTW2 My husband moved from Essex England to Yorkton back in the early 60s so he's an honourary Saskatchewanean.

            by Bionic on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 08:27:45 PM PDT

      •  lol

        Remind me never to join you for dinner when the conversation is as likely to be about clitorises as the weather.  And yes, that included with my mother when she was alive.  It's a body part.

        by tvb on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 02:33:47 PM PDT

  •  I may be off subject, but

    It's not liver vs. vagina, but a vagina that can actually talk that grabs my attention -

    by Patrizio on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 01:51:09 PM PDT

    •  Considering that it's the vulva that has the lips,

      it is sort of funny.

      Of course, everyone knows that men fear that a vagina can have teeth (at least according to Freud)! ;-)

      by Donna in Rome on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 07:42:03 PM PDT

  •  The difference

    between vagina and liver is....I don't eat liv----Sorry folks. I know this is a serious thread but I simply could not resist on that one.

    Feel free to troll rate me if you feel you must.

    by drewfromct on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 05:01:33 PM PDT

    •  Cheers for having the . . .

      gonads to make that joke.

      by Tuffy on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 09:54:20 AM PDT

•  So, did they want to substitute...

  ...some other word, or just leave it "The V___
  Monologues"?

  What do republicans say to each other when they want to talk about matters vaginal?  What do republican women say to their gynecologists?

  "Doctor, I think I have an infection in my...uhh....thing."
  

  by Vagabond57 on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 10:42:42 AM PDT

  •  The correct word

    is "hoo-hoo".

    by felagund on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 11:32:53 AM PDT

    •  It's

      a "kootchie" here and when you visit the pediatrician your kids are asked to "tee-tee" in the cup.  South Carolina.

      Unfukingbelieveable!

      by PsychoSavannah on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 12:30:17 PM PDT

      •  Friend of a friend

        yes yes I know but really... her kid calls it her "coochie-snorcher."

        by furryjester on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 12:56:38 PM PDT

        •  pootie

          n/t

          by Patrizio on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 01:52:25 PM PDT

      •  Ugh

        My doc asked me to "tinkle" in the cup for him when I was about 10.

        "Do you mean 'urinate'?" I asked, already learning to be pissed off by cutsie names for parts and processes.  

        If we were made in god's image, why are some Christians so afraid of the parts god gave them?

        by nephthys on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 01:03:06 PM PDT

        •  Making a fundie's head explode

          I often like to think up ways that might make a fundie's head explode, and I think you've hit on one here.

          Start a discussion about God's penis (or God's vagina).  "The Holy Penis"

          by evil twin on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 01:29:57 PM PDT

          •  Ewww... I just got a flash image of something

            resembling the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendage.

            by Donna in Rome on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 07:46:44 PM PDT

            •  would that be more of a penne?