Brooks: A Controversial Monologue
By David Brooks, Contributing Columnist
Published on Monday, February 13, 2012
February is to full swing, and at college campuses across America, the festivities of V-Day are set to begin. Multiple groups across Dartmouth have planned myriad events for V-Week, which will culminate in performances of “The Vagina Monologues.” Here at Dartmouth, the performances are produced at the behest of students with help from the Center for Women and Gender. However, one particular monologue in the play seems to be at odds with the goals of the students and groups involved in the production.
“The Little Coochi Snorcher That Could” is centered on the true story of a woman who, throughout her youth, suffers many traumatic experiences involving her vagina. She is violently raped at the age of 10 and later comes to view her vagina negatively. In the original version of the play, the girl is befriended at the age of 13 by a 24-year-old woman who convinces the girl’s mother to allow her daughter to spend the night. Back at her apartment, the woman plies the girl with alcohol, and the girl says, “The alcohol has gone to my head, and I’m loose and ready.” The woman proceeds to sexually assault her — performing oral sex on her and making her “play with herself.” Reflecting on what happened to her, the girl later says, “If it was a rape, it was a good rape.”
The initial backlash at the sexual assault of a young girl and the idea of a “good rape” eventually lead the author, Eve Enlser, to make some changes in the monologue. The line about a “good rape” was removed and the girl’s age was raised to 16. However, the use of alcohol in the monologue was left intact. Also left intact was the celebratory and justified tone of the assault.
The events described in “The Coochi Snorcher” — even the new version — are at odds with V-Day’s stated goals of ending violence against women and girls. Often the people most involved in sexual assault education and in providing support for victims are the ones most involved in the production of the play. Too often, these people feel the need to defend the show as a whole, and either ignore the problematic elements of “The Coochi Snorcher” or outright defend the issues. I am happy to say that as far as Dartmouth is concerned, those I talked to in CWG and SAAP see the same problems in this monologue, and indeed, mentioned other aspects of “The Vagina Monologues” that they found problematic. There will be a “Vagina Controversies” discussion during V-Week that will address these issues and receptions after the performances to highlight any concerns.
However, while CWG and SAAP are receptive to problems with “The Vagina Monologues”, I found the reaction of some of the students involved to be problematic. In an interview with Dartbeat, the actress performing “The Coochi Snorcher” said of the girl who is raped, “When she meets the woman at the end of the monologue and becomes a sexual being willingly, it’s the first time that her ‘Coochi Snorcher’ becomes a beautiful thing — she makes it her own.” To view this as a willing sexual experience is to ignore the law and the perpetrator’s coercive use of alcohol. Multiple students with whom I spoke have stressed that, although the experience isn’t politically correct, the girl is able to define it for herself. However, the problem with the scene isn’t political correctness. This isn’t the story of an interracial lesbian couple applying for a marriage license in Mississippi. The problem is that the experience meets the legal parameters for sexual assault.
Victims of sexual violence can view their assaults in many different ways, and some argue that this monologue reflects a victim’s point of view. However, the diversity of victims’ experiences is not what is stressed and celebrated in “The Coochi Snorcher.” The defense of the sexual assault by some of those involved in the monologue doesn’t coincide with this interpretation.
The conversations I had with women involved with the production highlighted many positive facets of performing the play, which include sparking conversation about female sexuality, celebrating women’s bodies, providing an outlet for victims of sexual assault and raising money to end violence against women. The “Vagina Controversies” discussion represents a positive development for V-Week as it provides an opportunity to talk about the problems with this monologue. The negative aspects and subsequent defenses of a small part of a generally positive program harm the positive whole of V-Day and damage the credibility of those people and groups that defend the monologue.
I keep waiting for D-Day. What’s up with Dick-Week? Come on. This V stuff is getting old, crusty and most of all stupid. “Coochie Snorcher”? This is what has become of Dartmouth College 40 years later. Dartmouth College used to be a mostly serious place. It is now a leftwing political joke.
By anonymous on Feb 13 | 11:33 am
While is it admirable that Brooks has thought about these issues in depth and with care, it is difficult to believe that he or the D supports the overall mission of V-Week. The choice to focus on poking holes and present the most nuanced aspects of the Vagina Monologues as the first printed D article about V-Week 2012 is a disservice. Splotlighting this one negative aspect is exactly what Brooks describes here:
“The negative aspects and subsequent defenses of a small part of a generally positive program harm the positive whole of V-Day and damage the credibility of those people and groups that defend the monologue.”
Additionally, as Brooks states, the organizers have taken these issues seriously and have made sure they are addressed thoroughly in the “Vagina Controversies” event. On this day, students, faculty and staff come together to discuss the politics of the Vagina Monologues and nuanced intricacies of personal stories. It is truly disappointing to see that the D continually chooses to divide the unity of VDay by either giving it erroneous press (last year) or choosing attention-grabbing topics like this aspect of the Vagina Monologues performance.
By Female ‘12 on Feb 13 | 11:53 am
Yeah, the D should totally get in line. How dare they “poke holes” or present “nuanced aspects” of the events they’re covering? And in an opinion piece too! Don’t they now how important the groupthink… I mean unity… of V-Week is?
By @ Female ‘12 on Feb 13 | 5:11 pm
For the first poster (anonymous) and the inevitable others that will follow, bemoaning the lack of a D-Day, Penis Week, or what have you, I say: Go ahead, make one. Nobody is stopping you from doing it; if you want it, get off your laurels and do what the women who founded V-Week did – fight to make your cause a reality.
The reason such a thing as P-Week doesn’t exist is because the whining demographics who like to make victims out of their priveleged, entrenched selves never go as far as actually putting in the time and effort to make their demands a reality. The only explanation then as to why calls for P-Week hasn’t become a reality is that those who complain are either lazy and just like to make noise for the sake of making noise, or they subconsciously are aware what everybody else who is not raising the P-Week flag is already aware of – that every week is P week, and to begin to plan a week to celebrate penises would be an exercise in redundancy.
By ‘12 on Feb 13 | 9:07 pm
The D-Week thing was a joke. V-Week is a joke in reality. A very, very sad joke at that. Dartmouth College, going right down the tubes with sex idiots, among others, driving the clown car.
By Anonymous on Feb 13 | 10:16 pm
“whining demographics who like to make victims out of their priveleged, entrenched selves never go as far as actually putting in the time and effort to make their demands a reality.” It looks like they do, with free money from the Women and Gender Studies department. I think you misunderstand the P Week post. It is a joke.
On a more serious note, I disagree with Brooks’s call for censorship. In order to get students involved in any kind of constructive dialogue, the dialogue needs to be real. It needs to be politically incorrect. It needs to be uncensored. The reason students repeatedly and obstinately resist coercion is that they recognize and resent administrative condescension. Campus dialogue is already effectively distorted enough by a bizarre hierarchy of power relationships; let’s not twist it further through deliberate censorship.
With the age at 16, this might not have been a rape in any sense in Europe or even Canada (though I’m not sure the Canadian laws regarding drinking and consent). Part of the discussion of sexual assault has to involve both the legal and College-imposed, decidedly a-legal definitions of sexual assault. If a person gets drunk and buys something, he cannot return it free of charge when he sobers up. If a person gets drunk and bangs his head, his head doesn’t heal when he wakes. Making the risks of drinking clear is important. If women want to get drunk and have rampant sex, they ought to be allowed. Preventing the spread of certain ideas will only add to the spiral of pleasure by adding an aspect of rebellion to a simply stupid act. We all need to be more free.
By Rick ‘12 on Feb 14 | 10:53 am
The moves made here are dangerous. V-Week and the performances found therein are beholden to no sense of moral direction unless one emerges organically. But here we have Brooks imposing a worldview, and one I might add that owes all it is to conditions distinct from those that generated this play. I’m a male, just as Brooks, so neither of us know why a woman could ever call her own rape ‘good.’ The difference is I care enough about her condition to find out why. Brooks? He wants you to believe that’s impossible. And that’s a lot more disturbing than anything Mz. Ensler could cook up.
By Nick ‘12 on Feb 14 | 4:22 pm
How is it helpful to censor a true story? If she thought to herself that it was a good rape, that’s what people should hear, regardless of whether she believed it or just wanted to. If it happened, tell it. Otherwise the whole movement loses credibility
By 14 male on Feb 16 | 5:03 pm
where is there any call for censorship in this piece Rick or ‘14?
By Anonymous on Feb 17 | 3:24 pm