Well said. Very well said indeed. There is a faction backed up by the College that believes that it can say and do whatever it likes, attack whoever gets in the way as well as attacking the College student population in general as guilty of whatever they claim you are guilty of while they play the role of victim. They say we all have to be sensitive to them, but not only aren’t they sensitive to others they are openly offensive and intolerant of others, demanding the right to accuse, abuse and call other Dartmouth students criminals, as a community. They are leftists, patently anti-religious and they are continuously advocating their agenda of coarsening the atmosphere and public conversation. Some strains of feminism have taken on the classic Marxist, atheist, sex and class warfare intended to break down an individually ordered society and turn it into disintegrating warring factions that it then rhetorically puts itself above as the last word in arbiter of what is and what is not acceptable. Their entire enterprise is a power play to use others who either do nothing about them, appease them or if they have no sense at all, join them. They just keep attacking and squeaking and whining and busy-bodying their way all over anyone who won’t confront them head on. They have no right to continue this kind of behavior with anyone who rejects it or them, they are the equivalent of stalkers. Someone needs to put a restraining order on them. The College should at least revoke their funding and tell them to go sit in the offensive corner with their sex toys, and dunce caps.

Wow, you totally misread the whole purpose of the mirrors. It simply wants ppl to be open to looking their gentalia regardless of beliefs. It doesn’t mean they are lesser but that maybe they can reconsider some things they are told. I’d have to say you are completely uncomfortable with the whole project because an attack this ridiculous is unwaratned. As w/ any other event, it is optional. You can throw away the mirror for all any one care. Geeze.

FFS, such victimology, Grace. The D isn’t known for promoting liberal or conservative ideologies (unless by liberal, you mean it’s to the left of the assuredly neutral, unbiased Dartmouth Review, *coughs), the D is, instead, known for being lousy.

Not that I necessarily agree that the difference between the note and the op-ed piece is necessarily biased or poor journalism, it certainly wasn’t a “clear misrepresentation-to the authors, combating religious hangups and shame about one’s own vagina may have just been a minor element of the broader purpose of the project.

There are op-ed pieces in the D on a semi-regular basis criticizing the heathen drunken, sluttish, sex-ed-orientation-attending ways of the campus, as well as op-ed pieces criticizing the liberal bent of campus, the D, professors, etc. It gets published, it mostly gets ignored, we go on. Some of it is offensive, but I hate to break it to you, Grace, there’s no right, at Dartmouth or otherwise, to not be offended.

We’ve had evangelical students at Dartmouth before and we will again. Would you criticize evangelicals with the same fervor that you did the Orchid project, Grace? Afterall, they are an attack on faith in their own right, depending on who is being targeted.

Lastly, that line you found offensive in the Orchid project’s was not “a direct attack on all faiths”, Grace, at most, it was only an attack tightass ones that drive an honest, open discussion of sexuality into the closet. Unless you’re trying to imply that the only true faiths are the ones that agree with your religious doctrine, mmm?

Ms. D'arcy, having spoken with Ms. Kawaguchi, I can assure you that the intent was not a liberal attack on faith. While I recognize the concern about the wording of the message itself, the project was not intended to be a “blatant [attack] on an entire outlook on life.” She is not advocating “misguided sexual profligacy” or otherwise prescribing sexual behavior – as you mentioned, it’s about body awareness issues. She does acknowledge that religious perspectives are sometimes a barrier to this kind of self-knowledge – as you point out, religious groups on campus don’t condone it because knowing your vagina might be associated with promiscuity (see femnew.wordpress.com for a recap on a discussion with Ms. Kawaguchi on some of the reasons why people are afraid to know their own genitals). However, her purpose is merely to add knowing about your vagina to the list of routine things you do to make sure your body is healthy, like breast exams and seeing if your moles are still the same shape. It is possible to do this without launching a full-scale “liberal attack on faith”. I do agree that “respectful discussion with only breed further respect and discussion”, which is why Ms. Kawaguchi made a serious effort to follow up the distribution of mirrors with a lot of discussion events to clarify her project (again, a recap can be found at femnew.wordpress.com). Having attended one such event, in no way did I get the impression that she was trying to bring down religious institutions. Perhaps another such event is in order?

Also, can I just mention the irony of this Op-Ed being published on the same day as Mr. Talamo’s “No Offense Taken”?

There goes Angela and the gang again. Notice how they get all “you don’t understand” on you every time someone calls their activities and statements into question. No, you are not allowed by these sensitive police to be sensitive about what they do, they are only able to sensitive about what you do. This table turning on them will not do, not at all. It’s all your fault if you don’t like what they do. Chant after me, “I’m guilty and it’s all my fault.” We are so lucky to have the sexperts, where would we or the College be without them? That’s right the sexperts were a part of the original charter of the College, they knew even then, go to your wayback machine to the year 1769 and you will find that even then they knew if they had no sex between 1769 and 2010 that the College would have difficulty continuing as a viable institution. No one knew anything about sex at the College until it went co-ed in 1972 and even then not enough to actually have sex until the Women and Gender people really got it going. So, we really owe the sexperts everything because without them….where WOULD we be? Tell us more. Got any new slang sex words that are pretty funny? Invaluable. Nay, priceless.

So let’s actually send out the crosses and see what the reaction is!!! A most interesting experiment into professions of liberal open-mindedness.

throw the mirror away then grace if you feel so inclined to hate

Anon 4:02: You need to look in the mirror! Please identify where in Grace’s writing she says anything hateful?

Gabby: If Grace misread the purpose, explain away her observation about the accompanying note? Even Angela stumbled trying to respond … “I recognize the concern”

I’m tired of being bullied by people carrying either mirrors or rosary beads. Just let me drink boot punch.

Anonymous@10:06 PM: The project isn’t perfect, and people recognize that. I, initially, had reservations about the project too (that were completely unrelated to anything brought up in this article) long before the mirrors actually arrived in Hinman boxes. At the time, so did many other people, actually, and OPAL told her so even when the Orchid Project was still in the drawing boards. However, Ms. D'arcy infers that the entire project a “liberal attack on faith” based on, literally, a single word (“religious”, in the original note). I think a huge part of the problem is that the most vocal opponents of the project have not bothered to try and see what kind of message that Ms. Kawaguchi was trying to convey, drawing their opinions based on hearsay or from the accompanying information card (not much larger than an index card). I’d like to reiterate that Ms. Kawaguchi did her best to follow up the project with a series of discussions (off hand, I know of at least 3 formal discussion events) in order to more clearly express her message and address concerns. The one I went to was not particularly well-attended, and while people mentioned that religion was sometimes a barrier to knowing their vaginas better, it was in no way a radical call for the destruction of religion, as Ms. D'arcy believes (again, see femnew.wordpress.com for a recap of the discussion). I simply don’t believe that the tiny piece of paper that went out with the mirrors did service to Ms. Kawaguchi’s message, and people should first make an effort to learn what the Orchid Project was actually about (hint: not about destroying religion) before judging the Orchid Project based on a single word.

Anonymous@3:52 PM: You’re welcome to send out the crosses, but of course, there will be a backlash – not unlike the one that the Orchid Project is currently experiencing.

Wanna bet a crosses backlash would be very unlike the Orchid backlash… much more strident!!!

Ah, college. The only place in North America where you can be conservative and rebellious AT THE SAME TIME.

Or instead of bemoaning your “victim” status, you could actually put the idea into action you are mentioning in your article… but then you wouldn’t get to play the “good christian martyrs” card right?

D'arcy — Context is always bigger than someone’s point of view.

Your closing remark is “…cannot and must not be ignored for the action that they truly represent: a liberal attack on faith” — pffft, really? I think we should talk.

Name-calling-people-of-faith is such a weird concept, don’t you think? Despite the trite spite, lashing out at non-believers is something that believers can be really good at. I think you’re on the right track but you’re going to need a little more practice. If I may suggest something: you might practice fixation-orations in front of a mirror. It helps to practice sincerity and eye contact. As you improve, you’ll find that the narrative will begin to roll off your tongue, as opposed to rolling from generations previous. Maybe you could use one of the small mirrors you received in your Hinman Box.

Furthermore, your ‘hypothetical situation’ doesn’t have to be imagined because it actually has happened; e.g. Univ. of Oklahoma where my poor state-school ass comes from. You may be confused by this one but you wouldn’t guess what the non-believing libruls of that community do every time faithers push their salvation agenda on them: THEY SUCK IT UP because that’s life. No, really.

Of all the negative in this comment, this one is not meant to be: you have a lot of growing up to do. If you pastor told you so, I imagine it would be phrased without the “up” and would go down like a spoonful of sugar — or artificial sweetener, whatever. The point is, your human life is only 0.000000015 % of the story on the planet, and that number is accurate (maths tells me so). The number isn’t to declare your insignificance, but instead to remind that you are part of the whole. So wrap your head around this before graduating and becoming a speech writer for who you think is the next Joe/Jane Conservative III.

pejoratively, Saint Meany-face

Ms. Kowaguchi’s project is an admirable one, and one that I fully support. Female sexual health, both physical and psychological, is an important aspect of overall female health.

Sex and sexuality are, with good reason, private matters. But that does not mean public discussion on such issues can not occur. Indeed, such public discussion is one means of developing healthy, helpful attitudes towards sex and sexuality, however one defines healthy and helpful, whether one be religious or not.

Ms. D'arcy’s critique of one aspect of this project is quite misguided. Religious ideas are, for many women, an important part of their sexual image of themselves. Thinking about the ways in which religious ideas inform one’s attitude to one’s sexual anatomy and sexual health is important. And it will not necessarily result in an abandonment of those religious ideas, which seems to be the underlying fear of Ms. D'arcy.

To claim that such a request is an attack upon all religions is absurd, though perhaps somewhat revealing. If the religious ideas that underpin Ms. D'arcy’s faith can be so easily offended by the mere suggestion that she, or any other person, examine such, then it is quite a poor, weak faith she possesses.

Robust examination of any idea is to be encouraged, for it is through such examination that bad ideas can be discarded and good ideas retained. One suggests that Ms. D'arcy engage in such an enterprise for herself, as suggested by Ms. Kowaguchi in her Orchid Project. She may surprise herself by finding her faith strengthened because of the test.