Our Shared Shelf discussion

Hi all, I just posted this in the thread of questions for the interview with Eve Ensler but would love to hear your thoughts on this as well:

I was struck by how many of the women in the Monologues described a deep connection between their vaginas and their identify or sense of self. The vagina in these monologues is clearly so much more than just a piece of anatomy. For example:

- the woman in 'The Vagina Workshop' says 'I did not think of my vagina in practical or biological terms' and, over the course of the workshop, finds herself identifying in a fundamental way with her vagina/clitoris ('...my clitoris was not something I could lose. It was me, the essence of me')

- the woman in 'The Vulva Club', who names different parts of her body as a child, struggles to name her vagina because it is not just another body part to her

- the range of answers to questions like 'what would your vagina wear?' or 'what would your vagina say?' suggest that these women associate personality and agency with their vaginas

So I am wondering: what are people's thoughts on this connection between an individual's vagina and her sense of self? Is this so central because women are often defined (and oppressed) by society on the basis of their anatomy - and therefore reconnecting with that anatomy is a key step in reclaiming their autonomy and agency?

On a related note: given that people who identify as women may or may not identify in this way with their vaginas (and indeed may not have a vagina at all), how do we reclaim and celebrate vaginas without restricting the definition of womanhood by tying it too closely to this one aspect of being a woman?

I think both aspects of feminism - supporting diversity under the identity 'woman', and addressing the violence and censure directed specifically against female anatomy - are important, but I think it's tricky to combine both efforts within a feminist movement. You see that conflict, for example, in the discussion following the Women's March about whether the emphasis on the association between vaginas and womanhood (signs about vaginas, pussy hats, etc.) was exclusionary to trans women.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

Clio, I can't comment much on the border aspects of your question but to the specific reference to the March the pussy hats and vaginas they were primarily aimed at Trumps comment about grabbing women by there pussy.

There were other female organs; ovaries uterus used as symbols of female oppression also, in that displays of them are frowned upon. Most were very witty and effective.

Hm, vaginas and identity, interesting idea.

I, for myself, don't have a real connection to my private parts, for me, they just exist. But I can also understand how women who have vaginas have this strong connection to this specific sexual part. Some intersex individuals reclaim the word "hermaphrodite" or, this other German word "Zwitter", to rob the words of its hurting components. But only they are allowed to do so, and it is hurting if a unisex person uses these words. So, I understand how women with vaginas using these words to reclaim their autonomy and agency:)

To be honest, for me, woman and man are social constructs, and for me, gender is a spectrum instead of two opposing ideals. I don't have a solution for the vagina celebrating part, without being exclusionary to all the humans who identify as women and don't possess a vagina much. It's not just about trans* folks, but also intersex folks.

I think although we need to address the wrongdoings done to our anatomy, if we focus only on this, we actually forget that there is more that makes a woman than her anatomy.
I feel a bit at unease with the "pussy grabs back" signs, because it was, in my opinion, exclusionary to human beings without pussies, and there are many who are really worried because Trump is a real threat to them.
But then, if we make feminism only about women, I think we miss a chance to really be inclusive and also to really change issues.

I can understand that some women have this connection to their vaginas. I have never stopped to think about my vagina being a part of my identity. Curiously enough I have already thought about my breast being part of my identity. I wonder if it was, in fact, a way the author had to not expose the women she interviewed.

(I wrote something but it doesn't appear as posted for me, ao I'm sorry if it appears two times)

Well, when I read the book I noticed this relation with women and their vaginas as part of who they are. Your question made me think about it. I've never thought about my vagina being part of my identity. Curiously enough, I've already thought about my breast representing who I am (but I don't know if I have enough words to explain it).

But that does make me think if it wasn't something the author did in order to not expose the women she interviewed.

Clio wrote: "Hi all, I just posted this in the thread of questions for the interview with Eve Ensler but would love to hear your thoughts on this as well:

I was struck by how many of the women in the Monologue..."

For me, it's just a part of me, same as my legs, my stomach, my fingers. When I was reading I didn't understand how people answered the questions like "what would its name be" or "what would it wear". I wouldn't have an answer. I can't think of any part of me as of something independent. It didn't stop me from enjoying the book, though:)

Es interesante como la mentalidad del ser humano ha variado su óptica de respeto a las partes intimas del hombre y la mujer. Se que en la antiguedad existían rituales de veneración como un símbolo de reproducción. Actualmente todo se a perdido y desvíado solo al plano sexual. Por ello la vagina de la mujer ya no es tan respetada como antiguamente se observaba con valor de la vida. Incluso la autonomía económica a dado más independencia y personalidad a las mujeres aumentando su caracter en la sociedad, con mucho mas valor humano, pero olvidando y desplazando costumbres sumamente intimas. Hoy podemos ver en la tv públicidad cada vez menos escrupulosa del cuerpo humano en general, lo cuái no se daba 50 años atras. Todo eso influye en ver la vagina con ópticas mas materiales. Sin embargo, la censura a pronunciar ciertas palabras depende del país donde se pronunce, en el mío (Perú) decir: "Vagina", "Homosexual", "Divorciada", y otras más, tienen su sombra de complejo entre la gente que se escandalisa, prefieren reemplazarla con otras como: "Vagina=Pulpita", "Homosexual=Gay", "Divorciada=Soltera", son reacciones modernas, que les satisfacen como estilos nuevos y frescos de pronunciar.
Personalmente creo que no es estigma sentir ese misticismo de respeto a la vagina, ya que lo veo como el bien que nos trae a la vida. Y posee la fuerza y la energía suficiente para comprender a todo aquello de incomprensible para el ser humano.
Es importante se retorne a conceptos de antaño como cuando el respeto de la virginidad en la mujer era tan profundo y perfecto para llegar al matrimonio. No lo considero arcaico, las consecuencias de la perdida de esta costumbre a originado que actualmente no exista mucha confianza en la mujer de parte de los hombres. La confianza esta amañada y se pierde ante cualquier minimo error y todo encanto desaparece.
Sin embargo, una mujer con su vagina virgen jamás puede ser de desconfianza pués no se le puede señalar ningún acto anterior.
Parece arcaico pensar así, es dificil entenderlo en tiempos actuales de tanta libertad de costumbres. Pero veamos como esta hoy la sociedad galopante en degeneración y podremos captar que algo falló, y este puede ser uno de los origenes.
Me pregunto ¿Qué pasaría si no se le puede señalar de ninguna culpa a la vagina de la mujer intacta?
Pienso que entonces estaríamos entonces ante un inmaculado ser.
He investigado por años, lo que a pasado en la sociedad para que se este faltando tanto el respeto a la vagina actualmente.
No soy conservador, he ido al ritmo de la vida, con gran escuela y respeto. Trato de ser actual y trato de ser a la antigua, sin perder vigencia.
Muchos hemos aprendido que el primer ser sobre la tierra fue el "Varón", pero yo no lo creo así, pues un varón no tiene vagina. Pienso y soy convencido que el primer ser sobre la Tierra fupe mujer, pues tiene vagina para procrear. Ya el machismo, la ambición y la política varió esta óptica para dominar al mundo.
Por ello tal vez el ser humano necesita limpiarse los ojos, para ver con más claridad y naturalidad a lo más bello y perfecto que tenemos: La Vagina (de la mujer).

To help with the Spanish to English Translation (through google translate) of Domingo's excellent post:

It is interesting how the mentality of the human being has varied its view of respect to the intimate parts of men and women. I know that in antiquity there were rituals of veneration as a symbol of reproduction. Currently everything is lost and diverted only to the sexual plane. For this reason the woman's vagina is no longer as respected as it was formerly seen with the value of life. Even economic autonomy gave more independence and personality to women by increasing their character in society, with much more human value, but forgetting and displacing extremely intimate customs. Today we can see on TV the public less and less scrupulous of the human body in general, what was not 50 years ago. All this influences seeing the vagina with more material optics. However, the censorship to pronounce certain words depends on the country where it is pronounced, in mine (Peru) to say: "Vagina", "Homosexual", "Divorced", and others, they have their shadow of complex among the people who are Scandalisa, prefer to replace it with others such as: "Vagina = Pulpita", "Homosexual = Gay", "Divorced = Single", are modern reactions, which satisfy them as new and fresh styles to pronounce.

Personally I think it is not stigma to feel that mysticism of respect to the vagina, since I see it as the good that brings us to life. And it has enough strength and energy to understand everything that is incomprehensible to the human being.

It is important to return to old concepts such as when respect for virginity in women was so deep and perfect to reach marriage. I do not consider it archaic, the consequences of the loss of this custom to originated that at the moment does not exist much confidence in the woman on the part of the men. Trust is rigged and lost to any error and all charm disappears.

However, a woman with her virgin vagina can never be distrustful since no previous act can be pointed out to her. It seems archaic to think like this, it is difficult to understand it in current times of so much freedom of customs. But let us see how the galloping society is degenerating today and we can see that something failed, and this may be one of the origins.

I wonder what would happen if you can not point out any guilt to the woman's vagina intact ?

I think then we would be before an immaculate being. I have researched for years, what has happened in society so that it is missing so much respect to the vagina these days.

I am not conservative, I have gone to the rhythm of life, with great school and respect. I try to be current and try to be old-fashioned, without losing validity.

Many of us have learned that the first being on earth was the "Man", but I do not think so, because a man does not have a vagina. I think and I am convinced that the first being on Earth was a woman, because she has a vagina to procreate. Already the machismo, the ambition and the policy varied this optic to dominate to the world.

So perhaps the human being needs to wipe his eyes, to see with more clarity and naturalness the most beautiful and perfect we have: The Vagina (the woman).

Domingo wrote: "Muchos hemos aprendido que el primer ser sobre la tierra fue el "Varón", pero yo no lo creo así, pues un varón no tiene vagina. Pienso y soy convencido que el primer ser sobre la Tierra fupe mujer, pues tiene vagina para procrear. Ya el machismo, la ambición y la política varió esta óptica para dominar al mundo.."

Historia fue escrito el vencedor. Ahora es el momento de compartir la pluma.

Gracias por sus ideas