Diverse Vaginas?

Life imitating art is one thing, but it’s quite another when the art that is imitated is X-rated and thus difficult to discuss on a family-friendly blog. Nevertheless, some things must be done, so tell your children to avert their eyes.

I have argued before on several occasions (such as here, from which the following quote comes) that

[a]lthough I have not studied the issue (and welcome comments from those who have), I have long thought it evident that much of the opposition to gay civil rights stems from a fear that equal rights for gays really means, as it is usually stated, “special rights.” Since so many opponents say this, I see little reason to doubt it. (That’s not to say such opposition is the only reason people oppose gay rights.) It’s easy to say that such fears reflect bias, but I’ve always thought it harder to demonstrate that they are false. Those people have seen women and blacks campaign for decades and longer for “equal rights” only to demand preferences as soon as equal rights were legislated. Is it so unreasonable to suspect that the campaign for gay rights might follow the same course?

And why shouldn’t it? As I’ve asked before, insofar as the proponents of “diversity” mean what they say, won’t they be compelled by their new principle to insure that entering classes contain a “critical mass” not only of gays and lesbians, who may be prevalent enough (but, of course, may not) to appear without preferences, but also of transgendered males and females, who may not so readily appear without investigation and recruitment? Of course, in order for any of them to contribute to “diversity” they would have to be open in their sexual expression, not in the closet, and this need might also have to be reflected in new admissions methods and procedures that in an earlier day might have been seen to infringe upon a privacy interest.

Alas, this bleak prediction is proving true even sooner than I’d expected. A case in point is the protest against a production of the “Vagina Monologues” at the University of Oregon (via Michael Friedman). As reported in the Oregon Daily Emerald, the protesters gathered

to protest what they called a lack of representation of different kinds of women in “The Vagina Monologues” production, which ran Thursday through Saturday at the Agate Hall auditorium.

In flyers handed out to audience members at the show, University graduate Nicole Sangsuree Barrett wrote that while there was “diversity” in the show, it was minimal. Women of “a variety of skin colors, body sizes, abilities and gender expressions” were not adequately represented, she said.

“I would just like to call attention to the fact that this could have been a more diverse cast, but a safe and welcoming environment was not created for people that I consider to be ‘underrepresented,'” Barrett said in the statement.

….

“The Vagina Monologues is a very good cause but not all women were represented in this production of the monologue,” Ballard said.

After her dismissal, she said only one other woman of color remained in the show. “Plus size” and queer women were also not well-represented, she said.

“They could have had the option of having them but they chose not to,” Ballard said.

Natalie Mays, the show’s assistant director, disagreed.

Mays said about 85 people auditioned for the show and there wasn’t a large pool of “visible” people of color to choose from. She said it is also not always possible to tell one’s ethnicity or sexual orientation just by looking at the person, adding that she does not usually ask people what their sexual orientation is at an audition.

Mays, who is part Native American herself, said she mainly wanted strong women with passion and dedication when she made the casting decisions.

“I’m not just going to put someone in my show because of the way they look,” she said, adding that to do so is in itself a form of discrimination

Emotions ran high at a forum held to discuss the play and protests in which “participants debated racism, sexuality, weight, definitions of feminism, age and inclusivity in the production, as well as the future of “The Vagina Monologues” at the University.” Here, Mays repented her un-diverse ways.

“I’m so sorry,” assistant director Natalie Mays said as tears ran down her cheeks. “I feel so guilty for not representing people and all the women. That’s all I wanted to do is create a safe space for women.”

….

The show’s producer, Guru Simrat Khalsa, suggested what she called a “V-Board,” which would represent a diversity of women and address concerns raised in the forum before work begins on next year’s production.

The day after its article about the protest appeared the Daily Emerald printed an article by its editorial board entitled, “Protesters Undermined The Diversity They Sought.”

… [P]rotesters claimed that the producers did not select a cast that represents a variety of “gender expressions.” Regardless of how true that claim is, the alternative is necessarily worse: It would be wholly inappropriate for the producers to ask each auditioner what her sexual orientation or gender identity was, and worse yet, cast parts based on her answer. If people are allowed to ask that kind of question, it opens up a doorway for undue discrimination against any sexual preference, which is exactly why asking such during job interviews is illegal in many cities and states.

But how can believers in “diversity” not ask those questions? And why is it “wholly inappropriate” to ask them since it is now widely regarded as not only wholly appropriate but mandatory to ask about race and ethnicity and classify people accordingly? Since “civil rights” has now come to require racial preference to engineer “diversity,” wouldn’t it amount to discrimination against gays to leave the definition of gay rights saddled with the now discarded standard of gender/sex-blind non-discrimination?

Say What? (5)

  1. HA February 21, 2004 at 7:13 am | | Reply

    I support vaginal diversity. The more the better. Same goes for mammorial diversity.

  2. KRM February 21, 2004 at 11:23 am | | Reply

    I oppose preferences. But if this whole diversity thing really did take hold, a lot of us conservatives would have to be hired in the universities (or does diversity only run to the benefit of those that the academics view as one of them, or someone that they can look down on and pity?).

  3. Laura February 21, 2004 at 11:55 am | | Reply

    “I’m so sorry,” assistant director Natalie Mays said as tears ran down her cheeks. “I feel so guilty for not representing people and all the women. That’s all I wanted to do is create a safe space for women.”

    Oh, she is too tender and precious for this world.

  4. Harvey February 21, 2004 at 2:21 pm | | Reply

    “I would just like to call attention to the fact that this could have been a more diverse cast, but a safe and welcoming environment was not created for people that I consider to be ‘underrepresented,'” Barrett said in the statement.

    If she wanted true diversity in the show, she would have insisted that men were adequately represented as well.

  5. Mary February 21, 2004 at 2:52 pm | | Reply

    Harvey, My sentiments exactly. It is certainly discriminatory to not allow men to participate. And suggesting that they start their own program (P-Day?, the P-Monologues?) will not suffice, because after all, “separate is rarely, if ever equal.”

Say What?