By Allan Weisbecker, as part of an email exchange with one of the actresses in a recent TVM production

---

Doris,

I’m in more trouble than I thought with this.

Last night Eve Ensler was on C-span’s Book TV, talking about her new book, A Memory, A Monologue, A Rant, And A Prayer. Also on the show – doing readings from the book – were such luminaries as Jane Fonda, Valerie Plame Wilson, her husband Joe Wilson, Val Kilmer, Ali McGraw, and others; all unimpeachable elites from the arts and/or correct politics. Packed auditorium somewhere out west. Ensler’s “goddess” intro from some guy who could have been Howard Zinn (but wasn’t) garnered a standing O; there were screams of approval when Ensler asked if there were any vaginas in the house.

Oh, boy, I was thinking.

I’ve already written what follows, minus a little summation at the end that I will write today and which I slept on last night, fearing it would lapse into an apology for speaking my mind about dishonesty, The Vagina Monologues, and the dark side of “True Believership.”

From the readings, A Memory, A Monologue, A Rant, And A Prayer, is a passionate plea for the cessation of violence against women and girls. Eve Ensler has become quite the sensation as an activist on this, mostly based on The Vagina Monologues. I also had not realized what a phenomenon the play itself had become; I did some googling.

Eve Ensler and The Vagina Monologues may be the wrong subject to go off on, Allan, I was thinking -- if I want to sell books.

But I woke up this morning thinking, Don’t worry about it, just be who you are, dude, and all will be well.

See, the irony is that in my own way I’m a True Believer too. In this:

The belief in untruths is the primary reason the world is so fucked up.

This is the point of view from which I wrote what follows.

---

The Vagina Monologues finally arrived -- in its bright red cover, like an inflamed one. As with the play, I found it entertaining in its own way. Having the time to sit and read and concentrate without distractions (like being surrounded by women, as I was at the play), I also found it enlightening, if indirectly.

As with the play version, the relentless negative stereotyping of men at some point broke on through into humor, if unintentional on the author’s part. I’ve said this to you before, but now – with the book in front of me -- I can back it up.

I’ll work my way through chronologically, but first:

It appears that Eve Ensler doesn’t know what a vagina actually is. On page xxii she correctly points out that it’s a medical word for a body part, like “elbow.”

According to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged) a vagina is “a canal that leads from the uterus of a female mammal to the external orifice of the genital canal.”

Notice “to the external orifice of the genital canal.” So the vagina is an internal body part. A canal. A passageway. None of the following is part of the vagina: Labia, vulva (I admit I’m not sure of the difference), clitoris, pubis mons, urethra (there are probably more anatomical terms – lotta female stuff “down there”!)

So the “vagina” is on the inside.

Early on, an interviewee says her husband made her “shave (her) vagina.” I’d like to have seen that – how she got the razor in there. (On second thought, spare me the image.)

Ensler tells us (p. 7) that the vagina shaving monologue is “pretty much” verbatim. I don’t believe her: she may be the only woman on the planet who would talk about shaving a vagina. Also, she starts the monologue with this: “You cannot love a vagina unless you love hair.” Pure Ensler. She came up with that. In fact, the whole monologue is in the Ensler voice and is packed with Enslerisms; there is nothing “verbatim” about it. (She also writes that vagina shaving was a subject that came up in every one of her hundreds of interviews. I don’t believe her on this either, unless by “came up” she meant she brought it up; in which case it’s a misleading statement.)

Ensler claims we “haven’t come up with word that describes the entire area and all it’s parts.” Yes we have: “Pussy.” “Vagina,” as noted, is an internal body part, which even I (a dumb ass male) knew before looking it up.

In fact, Ensler admits on page xx that “’pussy’ is probably a better word” but, she says, “it has so much baggage.” So much baggage? Half the narrative is about all the “baggage” that comes with the word “vagina.” The whole narrative is about baggage – clearly, more hers, however, than her gender’s; TVM is much more a revelation about Eve Ensler than women in general. But I get ahead of myself…

Ensler doesn’t use “pussy” because the word would not buttress her dubious (at best) central conceit: That women are “ashamed” of their vaginas (I’ll accede and call what is clearly a pussy a vagina), have been convinced (by men) that vaginas are “dirty;” and that women need to be able to talk about their vaginas without “fear of punishment or retribution.” She claims that upon saying the word “vagina,” “(y)ou feel guilty and wrong, as if someone is going to strike you down.”

Punishment or retribution? Strike you down? What world does Ensler live in? Do this: Take a survey amongst your women friends, ask them if they feel fear of punishment or retribution or of being struck down for talking about their vaginas, or their pussies, crotches, twats (my favorite), whatever. (Wait. I admit it: 'Cum dumpster' is my favorite, but I heard it from a woman. I swear!) Ask them if they feel shame, or believe it’s dirty “down there.” I’ve been a bachelor most of my life, been with all sorts of women, and do not believe I’ve ever witnessed even an inkling of vaginal shame. (If there was shame, why did so many encourage me to “go down there” and have some fun?)

I suspect that women don’t talk much about their vaginas for the same reason guys don’t talk much about their dicks; it’s not that interesting a subject. When the nether body parts come up in conversation, it’s usually something like this:

“Whoa, dude, my dick sure shriveled up from surfing that cold water!”

“Shit, my pussy sure is itchy after running that marathon!” (How many women would refer to it as their “vagina” in a situation like this, unless the itching was actually inside them?)

A question: Since guys rarely talk about their dicks, does this mean they have a fear and loathing problem too? Should we worry about them? (Speaking of worries: Regarding men and their penises, you want to talk about “baggage” and “issues”? Whoa! Why else would there be a multi-billion dollar industry built around “erectile disfunction”? How about the relentless penile implant spamming? When it comes to “down there issues” I would submit that women have it easy compared to men. DGMS. Don’t get me started.)

Ensler claims that if women stop repeating “vagina” over and over (with “passion” and “urgency”), “the fear will overcome you again…” So she recommends “you say it everywhere you can, bring it up in every conversation.”

An image: Ensler is trapped in a stalled elevator with a man who feels about his dick the way Ensler feels about her vagina – it must be talked about everywhere, brought up in every conversation. How would that go?

But back on point:

Even though “pussy” is the word most women use – a soft and feminine and pretty sound, somehow almost onomonopoetic – it would not suit Ensler’s purposes; she needed a harsher sonant. So she claims that “pussy” has too much “baggage.” (The “baggage” is actually that it’s more of a pet name, indicating affection – clearly the opposite of what Ensler needed to hold up her premise. Inconvenient that most women use the affectionate pet name, isn’t it? No, not really. As with perception management of any sort, just repeat your talking point over and over. It will become truth.)

The Pussy Monologues?

How about Pussy Palaver? More accurate and honest and sounds like fun, but women might say stuff like, “I love my pussy,” which would be a disaster, being counterpoint to Ensler’s fear and loathing premise. (In the hundreds of interviews Ensler cherry-picked from, I can picture her eyes glazing over every time a woman started off with, “I love my pussy and I love it that men love it.”)

If Eve Ensler is going to redefine a word to make her (dubitable) point (over and over), she ought to tell us she’s doing that. Tell us what a vagina is, by accepted definition, then explain she’s redefining it. Writers ought to have respect for what words mean.

That poor woman shaved her vagina?

---

An observation on Gloria Steinem’s Foreword. At the end she “was listening to” a group of 9 – 16 year old girls come up with a “collective word” that included everything – vagina, labia, clitoris (at least Ms. Steinem appears to be aware that a vagina is an internal part of a… pussy). Here’s the term they came up with:

“Power bundle.”

Steinem loved that.

So do I.

A theory: When 9 – 16 year olds get together, it’s the 16 year olds who are in charge, and who are listened to, especially in matters of sex. I think it’s safe to assume that “power bundle” is coming from them, not the 9 year olds.

By 16, females have figured something out. (See photo at right.)

What else could 16 year old girls be referring to? Some feminist/existential/angst-ridden esoterica? Nah. They know what boys want and they know it gives them “power.” Hence “power bundle.”

Is it possible that Ms. Steinem didn’t really think this one out? Female domination over males (through sex) doesn’t seem to be the message of TVM.

Plus, where’s the shame and the fear and loathing Ensler claims women are fraught with? If these young women have a vagina-esteem problem it’s in the opposite direction.

Anyway, regarding my contention that TVM is sexist, which is what this dialog between us is about, aside from your characterization of my webcast concept as “creepy” and “porn’…

Which reminds me. I emailed you a while back with a definition of “sexism;” (as with “vagina”) I like to define my terms, so I know what I’m talking about. Again, I went to the dictionary, asked you if this one was all right:

sex·ism(skszm)
n. 2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

In the email I also wanted to know if it would it be less “creepy” if I asked women to send audio tapes of faked orgasms (as a part of my humorous webcast on female sexuality). This of course was a Socratic trap: In TVM production I attended you “had” a whole string of orgasms in front of a packed house and claimed your performance was not “creepy” or “porn” (because it was “acting”). Neither a Yes nor a No would have worked as an answer to my question, not with you keeping your story straight -- no inconsistencies. So (I presume) you did all you could to solve your disputational dilemma. You didn’t answer the email.

So no response to my definition of “sexism” either. Let’s agree that whatever it is, stereotyping is a vital part of it: A one dimensional portrayal of either gender, with negative connotations. Okay? (A definition that leaves out sexism against men would itself be sexist, wouldn’t it?)

Regarding references to men in TVM, I’m going to list them all, even oblique ones. Okay. Here we go:

Page xxi: Ensler was raped as a little girl. (Oddly, no details -- but it’s safe to assume that a man did the raping.)

Page 9: The interviewee lambasts her “first and only” husband (some subtext there), who screwed around because she wouldn’t “shave (her) vagina.” (I have to put it in quotes to reiterate my writerly distaste for describing what amounts to an anatomical impossibility.) Then when she did shave it – even let him shave it (a fetishist!) – he still screwed around.

Page 27: “Andy” calls the interviewee a “stinky weird girl” when her vagina lets loose “a flood” – a sexual arousal kind of flood. (The two times in my life that I’ve witnessed this phenomenon I’ve taken it as the ultimate sign of encouragement.)

Page 28 (same interviewee as above): Burt Reynolds makes a cameo appearance in a dream sequence. Burt is “horribly disappointed” when her aroused vagina floods a restaurant and Dean Martin nearly drowns in the deluge. I’m pretty sure there is negative subtext regarding Burt’s reaction (the “horribly” is a hint), although in my opinion Burt was pretty easy going about it. I might have been “horribly horrified” as I watched my buddy nearly drown.

Page 29: A male doctor tells an elderly woman with cancer and who is having a hysterectomy that “if you don’t use it, you lose it.” (Talk about an insensitive brute!)

Page 31: (a “Vagina Fact”): A “married man” calls a clitoris “the devil’s teat” and then has the clit’s owner burned at the stake for being a witch.

Page 35: A little girl’s brother laughs derisively while talking about periods. (The girl’s father makes a one sentence appearance; he’s neutrally portrayed; he doesn’t support his daughter, but, on the upside, doesn’t rape her or beat her up either.)

Page 53: After going almost 20 pages with no mention of men, Ensler makes up for the silence by pointing out that 20,000 – 70,000 women were raped in Bosnia in 1993, during the war there. (Although Ensler does not deal with it [nor do I chastise her for this], the rape was systematic – done as part of the genocide of that conflict.)

It would be self-serving (though not disingenuous) for me to go on about my disgust over rape, so I won’t. But it disgusts me. As does war. As does genocide. (Yes, men do almost all the raping, waging war, and so forth, but a quick observation: Hillary voted for the Iraq war, and if she is elected president I absolutely assure you that she will send Tomahawk missiles and "smart" bombs onto civilian populations with the same blithe abandon as did her husband or the current prick [so to speak]).

Page 66: This chapter deals with rape of homeless women. Ensler says she has interviewed “hundreds” of them, and of those hundreds “only two” have not been subjected to incest or rape. Her estimate of “hundreds” (as her sample) is a bit vague, but let’s assume she means at least two hundred. Say, two hundred. As any statistician would tell you, that’s a pretty good sample; it should be representative of homeless women as a demographic group.

Extrapolating: Ensler is saying that (at least) 99% of homeless women have been raped (or subjected to incest). Statistically, 99% means virtually all.

Here I’ll get really politically incorrect – to doubt a rape statistic will be considered by some (not you, I trust) as tantamount to approval of rape. But for reasons that will become even clearer, I don’t trust Eve Ensler. So I googled. I’ll quote the only formal study I found on rape of homeless women that gives the relevant statistic:

• A 1989 study of homeless women in Baltimore found that nearly one-third of the women had been raped

Breakey, W.R., P.J. Fischer, M. Kramer, G. Nestadt, A.J. Romanoski, A. Ross, R.M. Royall, and O.C. Stine. Health and mental health problems of homeless men and women in Baltimore. Journal of the American Medical Association 262: 1352-7 (1989).

Nearly one third. About 30%. Horrendous. Awful. (Truly.) But a whole different number than (at least) 99%.

Who are we going to believe, though, Eve Ensler or… or an A.M.A. peer-reviewed study?

The A.M.A. is all men!

Sorry! Never mind!

Page 70: “Edgar Montane” punches a seven year old black girl in her “coochi snorcher.”

Page 71: The same little black girl (at ten years old) gets raped by a family friend, a “big man” named Alfred; she comes to the conclusion that her coochi snorcher is a very bad place. (Gotta keep repeating that one since this debilitating belief is Ensler’s “party line.”)

Page 72: At thirteen now, the little black girl is seduced by a 24 year old woman, after being plied with alcohol. Although the monologue doesn’t go into too many gory details, it’s obvious that the adult woman completely has her way with the little black girl and her snorcher (this is stated) – plus, the adult “makes me play with myself.”

But Christ this is awful! Punched in the snorcher, raped, and now raped again (statutorily, involving alcohol), this time by a woman! Relentless!

You know where I’m going with this: According to this monologue, the statutory rape-with-alcohol is a transcendent experience, blissful, sublime; a rape that (since it was by a woman) “turned my sorry-ass coochi snorcher into a kind of heaven.”

Since one definition of sexism is to claim that something is okay for one sex but not the other (job opportunity or rape culpability, take your pick), let’s turn it around: A 24 year old member of the Man/Boy Society gets a 13 year old boy drunk, corn-holes him, comes in his mouth, then makes him jerk off.

What do we do with the 24 year old Man/Boy guy? (Predictably for molested children, the 13 year-old boy assures the judge that the corn-holing, mouth-coming and jerking off were all fine with him.)

Throw away the fuckin’ key.

But in the world according to Eve, a woman does this and it’s transcendent; the key is to the gates of heaven.

Page 83: A five-year old Vietnamese girl comes to live in the States. While playing with her best friend, she falls on a fire hydrant and “cuts her vagina.” Since she doesn’t know English for “fire hydrant” she can’t explain what happened and her parents assume she’s been raped by her best friend’s brother. They rush the five year old to the hospital, where “a whole group of men stood around her bed, staring at her open, exposed vagina.”

This was where I decided I’d better go back and google to see if at least 99% of homeless women have been raped. Why here? Because of the transparent dishonesty of the quoted passage: What no doubt happened at the hospital was “the little girl’s injury was tended to by concerned doctors.” But Ensler can’t help herself; she translates that to “a whole group of men (not just a group, but a ‘whole group’)” stared (lasciviously?) at the five year-old’s “open, exposed vagina.”

Two possibilities: The hospital is staffed by a bunch of sick-fuck pederast doctors, or someone is lying. (Not the interviewee – if there was one – I’d bet.)

But Ensler isn’t finished with men here, not yet. The next thing that happens is that the little girl “realized that her father was no longer looking at her. He never really looked at her again.”

She’d been “raped” and was therefore “unclean.” What a cold-hearted, ignorant sonofabitch. Typical man.

But wait. Her best friend was there at the accident and knew she’d fallen on a fire hydrant, and had not been raped. No explanation from her? And no assurance that her own brother had not raped anyone? (Given the nasty father’s permanent ostracism, this was obviously never cleared up. How could that be?) Also, the doctor who tended her would have asked how the injury occurred. Hospitals have access to translators. If a rape was alleged by the scumbag father, the cops would have been called. (Cops have access to translators too – there is no way they would not have found out the truth.)

What kind of family is this, anyway, where there is no communication whatsoever? The little girl couldn’t explain (via pantomime if necessary) that she’d fallen down and cut herself? This is all explained by her ignorance of how to say “fire hydrant”?

You’re watching a play, stuff can slide by; this bullshit did. But when you read it and pay a modicum of attention while doing so, you can see what’s going on.

I’ll not mince: The above is a crock of shit. It’s awful. Writers should rot in Writer Hell for this sort of dishonesty.

So I went back and googled and found out Ensler lied about the percentage of homeless women who get raped. (Maybe there’s an explanation for the discrepancy between 30% and 99%? No, there isn’t. Maybe factor in the incest and that the study was done in… Baltimore? No. Statistically, there is no way to explain the discrepancy between 30% and 99%. Ensler lied.)

I’m sure Ensler figures the lie is for a “greater truth.”

Men are bad. Women are good.

#

Interestingly, on the same page as the above (p. 83), we finally come across a man – the only one in the whole of TVM -- who isn’t a rapist, batterer, scumbag, fetishist, or dumb or vicious beast. A father who assures his congenitally vagina-less daughter that he’ll get her a “homemade” one and all will be well.

Okay, one man out of how many isn’t a rapist, batterer, scumbag, fetishist, or dumb or vicious beast? If you count the 20,000 – 70,000 men who raped the Bosnian women… well, you get the idea.

Men are bad. Women are good.

A one dimensional portrayal of either gender, with negative connotations.

Did we agree on this as a definition of sexist?

#

I hope we’ve settled the sexist question. Factor in the dishonesty (I’m not done with that) and TVM is as sexist as you can get.

Now we come to the part you played in the stage production I attended, and how it relates to my webcast idea being “creepy” and “porn.”

In a sense, I couldn’t (and shouldn’t) make this situation up; it’s Ensler-esque in its simplistic convenience for making my point, which is that you are guilty of inconsistency if not outright hypocrisy, not in your characterization of my idea, but in your assertion that your performance in the play was somehow a whole different thing, and therefore not creepy or porn.

You play a former corporate lawyer who is now a lesbian prostitute – one who enjoys her work immensely.

Although that’s good enough (for my purposes), it somehow gets better: You are obsessed with moaning – your own but even more so the moans of other women, which you precipitate using props, many of the dominatrix, S&M variety. (Isn’t sexual domination a central bugaboo of TVM? I can only imagine Ensler’s view of men who whip out whips in their sexual antics with women. But when women do it, it leads to… fulfillment.)

For someone who is “not into listening to other people’s sexual experiences” your character (and you, in your performance) sure do a good and very detailed job in describing some very kinky stuff – much to the audience’s voyeuristic delight. (I know, I know, you were “acting,” which somehow makes the voyeurism “respectable,” even a reaction to art.)

Which reminds me. I emailed you a website URL, asked what you thought of it. This one: http://beautifulagony.com/preview/showreel/high.html

Another of my little traps, of course. I wanted you to react to listening to (and seeing the faces of) women (and a couple men, uhg!) having orgasms through masturbation, and talking about it. (Aside from faces, no body parts are displayed.)

The parallels with your monologue are striking. There are even two women buddies who laugh about helping each other in the act – talk about right up your character’s alley! (Am I imagining it or do I keep concocting bad puns?)

Another dilemma! No way were you going to characterize that little film as creepy or porn; it was right out of TVM. On the other hand, you’d sort of have to if my idea (which is identical except it would only be via audio) is creepy and porn. I mean, right?

What’s a gal to do? Right. Just don’t answer the email!

(Is this is too easy? Am I having too much fun?)

Speaking of too easy (and stuff I would never make up because it’s too convenient): Your monologue ends with a wild and very funny list of “moan types.” I recall that this was the audience’s favorite part of your performance. A full page (in the book) of characterizations of female vocal rapture. I also recall that the biggest laugh was elicited by “the WASP moan (no sound).” But they were all clever and goofy. I bet Ensler had a blast making this stuff up. In fact, I know she did: I had the same sort of fun making up my clever and goofy moaning-contest rules. (I hope they’re clever; I know they’re goofy.)

And it was obvious to all at the play that you enjoyed interpreting all the various moan types – the sort of stuff I hope will be on the moan-contest tapes.

(Way too easy.)

Here’s Ensler’s description of the male/female union: “I could feel his spiky sharpness sticking into me…”

Aside from rapes, in all of TVM this is the only description of the act that the vagina was designed for, i.e., male/female sex. (If it was designed primarily as a birth canal, it would have been a lot wider and looser – God/nature/evolution needed vaginas to be tight, for the frictional pleasure of both sexes.)

“I could feel his spiky sharpness sticking into me…” Ensler all but adds, “Like a knife skewering my sweet, vulnerable, feminine soul!”

Would it be correct to characterize the subtext of TVM as a manifesto for the lesbian lifestyle? No? Okay.

But here’s a beaut from your monologue, and which (I hope) you know is a full blown deceit: Your character’s moaning “made most men anxious. Frankly, it terrified them.” She goes on to say that her moaning made men impotent.

Terrified them? Made them impotent? Again, I have to ask what world Eve Ensler has been inhabiting. Me, a moaning woman makes my heart soar like an eagle. And the wilder and louder the better (as long as it’s genuine).

All my male friends feel this way.

To use a number Ensler is familiar with: I’d bet this is the case with 99% of men.

The above quote from TVM is more than disingenuous. It’s so patently and transparently false that it puts it into the realm of the lie. Another one. I do trust you know this, since you’re married – by which I only mean you have had experiences with men. You do know that this is a lie, right? (Either by Ensler or uncritically transcribed by her, same difference; but I’d bet the family jewels [still another one!] that this lie is directly out of Ensler, no interviewee involved.)

Please don’t say, “Maybe that was her experience.” The idea that a moaning woman will upset a guy into impotence is just too far off the scale.

Your character, in a separate monologue, explains her attitude towards men, and, incidentally, that of TVM itself: “I did not desire women, for example, because I disliked men. Men weren’t even part of the equation.”

Men weren’t even part of the equation. (Keep in mind that we have to add these references to men to the man-reference total, which is now in another realm of sexist.)

What Ensler (again, whether she wrote it or transcribed it) is trying to say here is that she has no animosity toward men. What she is actually doing is voicing an untruth along the lines of “I don’t look down on niggers.”

Ralph Ellison’s novel The Invisible Man comes to mind here. As a “nigger” in America (in the 1950s) he was a nonentity. Whites looked right through him. He was not even part of the equation.

Also coming to mind is Noam Chomsky’s concept of “unworthy victims” -- how nationalism/fascism/racism results in the deaths of those who are “not us” to be perceived as unimportant.

In this “nonfiction” narrative about sex and sexism and female empowerment -- in the world Eve Ensler inhabits – men do not even exist. They are invisible; if they have problems with loneliness and angst and even have the same human needs as women (heresy!), so what? They are rapists and beasts. Where they do appear they are subhuman.

#

I’ll wrap this up with an attempt to be constructive; I’ll give some writerly advice to the author of this Obie Award-winning play.

When I think of narratives – good ones – about female empowerment, what comes to mind is the 1991 movie Thelma and Louise.

Thelma and Louise is so good that even these many years later I remember that at a certain point in the viewing of it (I even remember the scene) I thought to myself, “This is a special story.”

Screenwriter Callie Khouri deals with the same themes and even incidents as does Ensler – rape and violence against women, sexism in the workplace (and everywhere else), female bonding, the untrustworthiness of men, you name it. And like TVM, Thelma and Louise is relentless in its overall negative stereotyping of men.

But Thelma and Louise is a great story and TVM is a load of sexist crap. What’s the difference?

Thelma and Louise was relentless in its negative male stereotyping, but not one hundred percent so.

Remember the Harvey Keitel character – the head FBI guy? After a bit of a rough start with him, we ended up liking him, didn’t we? He cared about Thelma and Louise. Tried to save them.

But a better example is Louise’s boyfriend, Jimmy, well-played with Elvis-y male angst by Michael Madsen. Jimmy was far from perfect, a bit of a male fuck up himself, but he truly loved Louise and would have done anything for her. (What a great reversal of cliché, with the babe taking off on a violent adventure with her “buddy,” leaving the guy behind to pine. Good storytelling.)

In spite of his male foibles – partially because of them – we like Jimmy. We instinctively know he is real. An honest portrayal of the abstract notion of how men are.

Trust me: Had these two males been like all the rest – one dimensional assholes -- Thelma and Louise would not have even been a good story, let alone a great one. (Ensler is so sour on men that in her stereotyping she can’t even make them look ridiculous – which is not hard to do. They are merely ugly and mean and mindless.)

The success of Thelma and Louise has to do with soapboxes, getting the fuck off them.

Has to do with what TVM is not: honest.

Here’s my advice for Eve Ensler on how to make TVM a real story: Add a recurring through-line, another monologue, this one an old lady talking about her marriage of 60 years. How it survived all the shit men and women go through trying to stay together and in love. Go ahead and have her talk about her “vagina;” how she loved her man even though he didn’t really “understand” it; whatever. Make up stuff, like you already do.

But bite the bullet, Eve, and admit that a man and a woman can be happy together, even if you have no interest in that. Use your imagination. It’s your job as a writer.

A little balance, a little rhythm, a little perspective. Storytelling 101.

If you can’t bring yourself to do a rewrite that adheres to Storytelling 101, at least offer some full disclosure. Before the play starts (and in the book, maybe after the dedication to your “partner”) announce this:

Although loosely based on interviews with real people, this narrative is from the point of view of a lesbian for whom men are not even part of the equation.

#

As I say at the outset, I’m in trouble with this critique. Eve Ensler, with her passion and activism for worthy causes, is… inviolate. (I got unnerved last night witnessing Joe Wilson and Val Kilmer [guys!] in their unequivocal Eve-support.)

My being in trouble for what I write is nothing new. Why do I care? Why should I (almost) feel it necessary to apologize for speaking my mind about dishonesty, whether by Eve Ensler or the president of the United States?

The belief in untruths is the primary reason why the world is so fucked up.

Ensler believes in vaginas. I have the above.

Moaning women make men impotent.

Can we trust someone who has so much contempt for our intelligence that she will blithely voice this untruth?

In Iraq, we only want to spread democracy!

Wait. Now I’m comparing Eve Ensler to Cheney/Bush? Whaddam I, nuts?

Okay, maybe Eve… took liberties with her point of view, but that’s okay if the cause is just and right, the offense so horrendous (the rape of the Bosnian women comes to mind).

Ensler’s True Believership is not like Cheney/Bush’s, with its we just want to spread democracy whopper. Is it? I mean there’s no… destructive hypocrisy here. Right?

In her new book and expanded activism, Ensler is passionate about the horrors of the sexual exploitation of women and girls. Since TVM she’s added girls to those under her wing. Girls. I wonder if Ensler even considers the exploitation that was taking place when the adult woman seduces the little black girl.

Then she does everything to me and my coochi snorcher that I always thought was nasty before, and wow. I’m so hot, so wild. She says, “Your vagina, untouched by man, smells so nice, so fresh, wish I could keep it that way forever.”

Although the “untouched by man” doozey says it all regarding what Ensler’s narrative is really all about, I’ll let it pass…

Again, let’s reverse this, show we’re not sexist, make it the little boy and the adult man:

Then he does everything to my pee pee and I didn’t go blind from touching it (as he’d been told by his mother) and wow. My pee pee gets bigger and feels so good. He says, “Your pee pee, untouched by nasty castrating women, is so fresh and nice. I wish I could keep it that way forever.”

Keep it that way forever.

In the news recently has been a story wherein an adult man was busted for keeping an underage boy as a sexual companion; I believe this went on for years. And the boy was not tied up in the cellar, either. He could have left whenever he wanted. He was willing.

What should we do in this situation? With the adult?

Again, throw away the fuckin’ key. And Eve Ensler would agree. Bet on it. Fucking pederast piece of shit. He brainwashed that kid. (Probably something along the lines of: “Men Good! Women bad!”)

But let’s say the adult woman takes that same step, and carries through with her stated desire. Keeps the little black girl and her pure, “untouched by man” coochi snorcher.

That’s… different. Right, Eve?

You don’t think Eve would say that? Read that monologue; read all of them. Ensler would defend the woman. Bet the farm.

Forget the sexism. The hypocrisy going on here is nothing short of mind boggling.

Men bad! Women good! Women good! Men bad!

Has an Orwellian ring to it, sort of like the one I use elsewhere (from Animal Farm): “Four legs good, two legs bad.”

Vagina good! Penis bad!

Right now I happen to be rereading Orwell’s 1984. Coming to mind regarding TVM is The State’s “Two Minute Hate.” A couple times a day everyone stops what they’re doing and watches a film about “Goldstein,” the mythical enemy of Big Brother, and Oceania (The State) itself. The Oceanians work themselves into a frenzy of loathing; it’s a bonding thing, us against them, and vital in perception management: frenzies are not conducive to thinking about what’s really going on. Thinking about what’s really going on is very bad for The State.

I recall that even in staid East Hampton (where you put on the play), the audience got raucous in its support of the Ensler world view. And according to my googling this was a minor example of a common phenomenon when TVM is presented. Audiences – usually 90% women – get into a frenzy.

One more thing. As was the case with your production, audiences tend to be predominantly heterosexual women: many members (such as yourself) are married or otherwise involved with a man.

I’m now set up to further indulge in political incorrectness, by pointing out a real difference between men and women (based on TVM).

Although men have their own brand of dumbness – and spectacular it is, too – if we reverse the thematic situation and imagine a male version of TVM, what happens?

It would have to be from the point of view of a male homosexual for whom women are not even part of the equation. I mean, right?

About five minutes in, the heterosexual men in the audience would be thinking this: “Dude, you couldn’t stand the babe-heat and so you got out of the babe-kitchen, but don’t expect me to buy into your problem.”

They’d be walking out in droves.

#

There are other parallels with Orwell – 1984 missed in many places as an oracle but it’s spot-on in its understanding of how the belief in untruths works:

All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory.

In order to buy the We just want to spread democracy! lie we need a bit of a history-rewrite victory over our collective memories: In the last 100 years the U.S. has never once supported a genuine democracy, while the number it has subverted or outright overthrown is way up in double digits.

There are many victories over their own memory women have to score to get frenzied in support of Ensler’s premise, not the least of which is that they (the majority, at least in western cultures) in fact do not believe their… (fuck it)… pussies… are dirty or shameful or that mentioning them will result in being struck down in violent retribution.

(Aside from the memory-buster we call political correctness, I’m not sure what’s going on with the men who buy her TVM act.)

They also have to score a victory over memory and accept that the word vagina does not mean what they know it does. (And how easily they will slip back into reality: How many women, just hours after seeing the play – prior to bikini-shopping, say – will say they have to trim their vagina hair? Try none.)

VAGINA VAGINA VAGINA

Ensler claims that by repeating it over and over (with “passion” and “urgency”) women will set themselves free.

For me – when any word is mindlessly repeated over and over – it loses whatever meaning it did have, and starts sounding like nonsense.

---

Okay. So I emailed the above to Doris. A couple days later I got this reply:

Allan - I think you're adorable - but I don't know howto respond to this and I don't have time! See you at the beach. Xox doris

Notwithstanding that I am adorable, I tried not to interpret Doris’s opener as condescending and sexist – as always, I mentally reversed the situation; I imagined how a woman would react to being called “adorable” during an intellectual argument. (Sort of: Don’t strain yourself mentally, little darling/honey buns. Stay with what you do best, which is to be adorable.)

Regarding her being “busy,” I wrote Doris back, saying I’d give her as much time as she needed and would tell you (the readers) that Doris was not ducking my points; she would respond in due time. I wrote that her “don’t know how to respond to this” could be taken as the equivalent of “nolo contrendre” (“I do not contest what you say”), which would be a disappointment to all the other Eve Ensler devotees out there (Doris is a devotee, organizing V-Days, etc.). I mean I sort of do call Eve Ensler a liar and a (destructive) hypocrite. And Doris knows my goal is to get this stuff all over the web.

No answer.

So it’s up to you. Let ‘er rip in the forum below. And please try to avoid the sort of ad hominem arguments that give me headaches and discourage me further about the prospects of the human race: “You’re an asshole,” etc. Tell me specifically – referring to what I wrote – where I have it wrong.

Best would be if we could get my “review” to Eve Ensler herself, so she can respond. It’s guaranteed that several of you out there know someone who knows Eve – the degree of separation concept.

So consider not only participating in the forum but spreading the review page around (it’ll be missing a couple set ups from the Podcast section; you might mention that, though, and consider sending the whole section).

#

Click here to go to a forum topic on this review and share your thoughts.