The opinions expressed in the letter below are solely those of the two undersigned individuals.
Dear Fr. Leahy,
The Women’s and Gender Studies Program’s recent production of The Vagina Monologues– a play that has been widely performed on Catholic campuses despite its controversial exploitation of human sexuality – undermines the mission of this university as a Jesuit, Catholic institution of higher learning. The play’s immorality and concomitant affront to our religious principles regarding the dignity of the human person, especially in relation to the female body, are an overwhelming cause for concern.
Having viewed the play ourselves, we have come to the conclusion that the campus of a Catholic university is not the appropriate venue for such a production. We respectfully request that you again examine this issue, for we are aware that this play has been performed on this campus for the past ten years and, therefore, presume that you have made prior evaluations of it and are thus familiar with its contents.
Two points of particular concern to us, among the very many problematic components of the play, are (1) the radical reduction of the female person to her sexual organs and (2) the lauding of the statutory rape of a sixteen-year-old girl as not simply good, but in fact salvific and heavenly for her. In the light of recent Church history, it is incomprehensible how a play that praises sexual intercourse involving a minor can be permitted to continue on this campus.
We now leave you to consider these words of the Servant of God, Pope Paul VI:
“We take this opportunity to address those who are engaged in education and all those whose right and duty it is to provide for the common good of human society. We would call their attention to the need to create an atmosphere favorable to the growth of chastity so that true liberty may prevail over license and the norms of the moral law may be fully safeguarded.
“Everything therefore in the modern means of social communication which arouses men’s baser passions and encourages low moral standards, as well as every obscenity in the written word and every form of indecency on the stage and screen, should be condemned publicly and unanimously by all those who have at heart the advance of civilization and the safeguarding of the outstanding values of the human spirit. It is quite absurd to defend this kind of depravity in the name of art or culture* or by pleading the liberty which may be allowed in this field by the public authorities” (Humanae Vitae, 22).
Regards,
Christopher J. Canniff Ethan Mack
A&S Honors Program, 2014 A&S 2015
Editor-in-Chief Managing Editor
The Observer at Boston College The Observer at Boston College
*Cfr. Conc. Vat. II, Decr. Inter mirifica, nn. 6-7: A.A.S. LVI (1964) p. 147.
Click the links below to see the corresponding pieces:
I don’t think that calling this instance “statutory rape” is appropriate. The age of consent in many states is 16 (including Massachusetts), so unless we know which state this was happening in, no one knows for sure.
First of all, I think it’s funny that two men are claiming to know what constitutes an “affront to the female body,” that makes me giggle.
Also, if you’re at all familiar with Eve Ensler, you know that her style is to collect real stories from real women and publish them in an effort to spread awareness about the vast range of relationships women share with their bodies, their sexualities, and their sex lives (whether they make you uncomfortable or not). The religious affiliation of this school should not deny anyone, man or woman, from learning the realities of these topics. This includes topics you failed to mention in your article like say….rape in a time of war. (I guess you think we should be shielded from that too)
Finally, I guess I should mention free speech but….eh, seems like we should be beyond that now doesn’t it?
Nicely said!
Hear, hear. This editorial represents a deliberate misreading of Ensler’s intent.
Also, banning performances? Where are we, Iran? The values of a Jesuit institution promote an open and honest exploration of ideas, including, and especially, ideas that we disagree with.
lol you kids are freakin’ idiots
This article is absolutely off-base. Vagina Monologues is a NECESSARY event at Boston College due to the massive ignorance that exists here. Contrary to what this article says, this show does not reduce women to their sexual organs. It instead recognizes that their sexual organs are a part of them that is okay to love and talk about. If you think that feminism isn’t necessary, LOOK AROUND YOU. Women are still being beaten, raped, paid less than men for the same jobs, developing body image issues leading in injury and death, not taken seriously in business or politics, and are facing number of other injustices BECAUSE people keep trying to stifle the voices that speak out against them. The Vagina Monologues is a play that encourages women to love their bodies, speaks out against injustice, and donates its proceeds to a charity that works towards ending violence towards women and girls. I’m tired of so much ignorance at this school, so please take my words seriously and educate yourself on these issues. We can do better than this.
*And as for the statutory rape issue, it’s important to remember that this monologue is based on a real woman’s experience. She has sexually been abused by a man in the past, and meets a woman who helps her learn how to love herself and her body after thinking her vagina as a place where only bad things happen. Yes, perhaps she shouldn’t have a relationship with because this woman because she was too young, but she happily consented to the sexual relations and seemed to only have positive growth from the situation.
Once again: nicely said! (Ditto for all the other ones in the vein of Nate’s and Tessa’s comments!)
This is just another instance of the patriarchal misogynistic dogma that the Catholic Church is so intent on preaching. Boys get it together. The Vagina Monologues give voice to women who have felt disempowered and have been made to feel ashamed about their sexuality and their vaginas. I would argue that this shame comes largely from your church. Women everywhere have a right to speak freely and openly about cunts and sex and orgasms. If a girl has sex at 14/15/16/17 that is her choice and you are in no position to condemn it. So you want to silence these girls? Get with the times, silence yourselves and re-evaluate your belief system before you speak again.
Beautifully said Emma.
All valid and true, but we do go to a Catholic University so in a way, that doesn’t really matter.
But you guys just apologized for the whole anti-gay article you just wrote. Why attack women’s rights in this way now? Why not bring this up to the Women’s Resource Center? Directly writing to the president of BC really seems to me as if you disrespect the systems we have setup here, WRC included, at BC and just want your own opinionated views to be gospel. I would quote previous popes to support my views, but I don’t really think that popes are a real source to draw inspiration from.
Well said, Ryan.
Hey guys,
I completely agree with you. Boston College should ban the performance of the Vagina monologues and in its absence allow you two to read your open letter. We can bill it as the “Chode Monologues”.
Nice letter, Chodes.
-Neal
This is my favorite thing
I do not believe this evaluation of a thought-provoking, frankly feminist play is at all fair, nor accurate. In fact, Eve Ensler’s intention is the exact opposite of your accusations. The play is celebratory, lauding not sex, but the female body as something to be appreciated and not feared. I have read and viewed this play and believe you are grossly misled by prejudice. Allowing the play to be continued to be performed is in fact an extremely wonderful move on the part of Boston College’s administration as it shows that we are not a Catholic university that promotes censorship of issues that deserve to be explored, including women, and people in general’s rights to love themselves.
Father Leahy, I know personally several women that have been raped and have considered The Vagina Monologues a healing piece of theatre to witness and be a part of. I also don’t understand why a man is writing on something he has little understanding about. I encourage you to listen to the real and true viewers of this play to understand the point of view of so many women who find their identity as female to be hijacked by the media and by men. Please do not abolish such an important part of womanhood.
I challenge the two of you to attend the Dialogues on Monologues with the cast members themselves tomorrow night McGuinn 334 at 5pm. I’m sure neither of you have anything better to do on Valentines day anyways
Hello,
Thank you for your comment. I would very much like to go the the “Dialogues on the Monologues” tomorrow, however, I unfortunately have class from 4:30 until 7:00. I am going to still try and see if I can attend, but it is unlikely. Regardless, I hope that in the spirit of true dialogue, someone will be there to defend the Catholic position on human sexuality and dignity.
Also, if anyone from the cast would like me to discuss our views about the play, I would be happy to set up a time for us to meet and talk. My e-mail is listed in my comment below.
Pax,
Ethan Mack
Ethan, it seems to me that you should be the one reaching out to the cast members to discuss the play, as you are the male who is declaring greater knowledge of the female experience than the a) women whose stories are portrayed in the Vagina Monologues, b) woman who translated those stories to the stage, c) women who act out those stories, and d) women who view the play each year it is produced. I truly doubt that you have nothing to learn from them, and I encourage you to make the effort to speak to those whom you are declaring judgment on.
1. “if anyone from the cast would like me to discuss our views about the play…” Your views are quite apparent. Try revising to: “if anyone from the cast would like to enlighten me as to their knowledge of the play…” Try listening without judgement rather than imposing your own views on something you clearly don’t understand – female sexuality.
2. I appreciate that your article talks about defending the dignity of the female body when in fact it is often male representatives of the Catholic church who hold the most degrading views on female sexuality.
First of all it’s called VAGINA Monologues. Unless you have a vagina, keep your opinion to yourself
Furthermore, you claim that this play “undermines the mission of this university as a Jesuit, Catholic institution of higher learning.” How does this play do that? I was under the impression that free speech and artistic expression were elements of higher learning that BC supports. The reality is, you’re a conservative republican male who missed the entire message.
I find it infuriating that two men are commenting on a female sexual empowerment program. As Ryan (above) mentioned, the Observer seems to be picking on the groups that are trying to bring more open discussion and understanding of the communities that make up the Boston College campus. I don’t think it is fair of the Observer to assign or allow two men, who do not even begin to understand the feminine sexuality, to comment on something that has brought Boston College women together for a discussion and REFLECTION period. Part of the Boston College Mission is entitled “Needed: A Conversation”, and that is exactly what the Vagina Monologues have done. If you are truly Boston College students that want to follow the missions of the Jesuit University you attend, I challenge the authors to attend the discussion tomorrow and, like proper members of society, bring up their concerns to the other people in the Boston College community, instead of throwing a slanderous article in the face of the Vagina Monologues. See you tomorrow at 5.
well said Jake
Yet another article shaming the celebration of minority rights on campus from white men. Congratulations, Observer, for continuing your history of misogyny and other phobic natures. Always a good laugh to read the bullshit you people produce from time to time.
Most of the other commenters have covered what I was going to say, but I will add that I had expected better of the Observer this semester, given your most recent editorial rightfully apologizing for your disgraceful conduct toward the LGBTQ community at Boston College. As a man for others, including women, I wholeheartedly support the performance of the Vagina Monologues on campus. Do you presume to dictate to the women of BC what they should and should not feel about their bodies? Do you presume to know the mind of a rape victim? The tone of your editorial suggests that you know what’s best for women, and that’s quite a presumption on your part. This is exactly the sort of patronizing hot air that has driven young people, and particularly young women, away from the Catholic Church. You wouldn’t want to be responsible for that, now would you?
Literally only reaction to your letter: you’re stupid. Not ignorant. Maybe closed-minded. But mostly just stupid.
This is absolutely absurd. Shocked.
Hello,
I would like thank everyone who has commented on the letter that we sent to Father Leahy. I would like to extend special thanks to those who have avoided Ad Hominem attacks such as calling Chris and I “misogynistic” and “sexist”. I understand that this is a topic where many on campus disagree with our position, and I hope we can respond to this with dialogue as opposed to continual ranting by both sides. Chris and I went to the performance of The Vagina Monologues last Thursday, and we felt that the message it tried to convey regarding human sexuality and dignity directly conflicted with BC’s mission as a Catholic university. We decided that an open letter to Father Leahy would be an appropriate method to voice our concerns with the play. If anyone would like to talk to me about why we feel this way about the play or about why we chose this course of action, please feel free to email me at ethanmack12@gmail.com and I will be glad to set up a time we can meet together and talk.
Pax,
Ethan Mack
I’m not writing this in any way to sound angry, but I believe this article was a little early for the performance that happened this weekend, granted that there is a discussion section that is supposed to facilitate a conversation among the community. The discussion is openly publicized and is open to everyone who wishes to have an opinion. I don’t disregard your opinion, I just disagree with the actions of an open letter to Father Leahy without asking the people who put on the performance why they chose that skit and without understanding the background behind it. I think you have missed the most integral point of the Vagina Monologues and I advise that you attend the session tomorrow for clarity on the skits.
Also, I would like to say that even I don’t understand the entirety of the Vagina Monologues primarily because I am a man and have not had any female experiences – and that is something that you, as men, cannot understand. This is a topic that is meant for female identifying members of our society and their personal empowerment, please don’t put down something that is incomprehensible for the male identifying community.
I simply ask that you respect the complexity of the gender identity that is being subjected to scrutiny. Please attend the session with an open mind if at all, I hope it will help clarify.
Ethan,
Sorry, but after this “letter” you wrote? Calling you “sexist” is not an ad hominem attack. It’s a fact.
Also, I find it hilarious that you’re calling for a “dialogue” on this issue. I swear to God, if I had a penny for every time I heard someone at BC pleading for a “dialogue” because they couldn’t handle the backlash to something sexist/racist/stupid they said, I could probably pay my parents back for the money they’ve spent on my college education. You do realize that “dialogue” includes listening to the other side of things, right?
“Pax”!
Jane,
I am always in favor of dialogue. It has nothing to do with not being able to handle the “backlash” that you refer to. If you would like to meet up and discuss why I and many others believe the monologues should be discontinued, please feel free to send me an e-mail. That way I will be able to, as you said, listen to the other side of things.
Pax,
Ethan
If one of the two of you is not at the dialogue tonight, I may just send an “ope letter” to Father Leahy telling him how your claims in the letter should be devalued because of your hardheadedness and inability to understand anything more than your chauvinistic insanity. I am going to expect one of you to be there, and you’d better state your opinion and listen up – and who knows, you could take notes and write a proper article on the production. This is public defamation of an on campus group and I will not stand by and let it happen, its happened to the LGBT community and your not changing the target to women. So, yes we can find a picture of the two of you and yes there will be someone making sure that one of you, if not both, of you is attending the session. Thank you.
P.S. maybe have coffee with one of the performers that clearly knows more about the topic than the two of you.
I unfortunately have class tonight from 4:30 until 7:00. However, I would certainly like to attend, because I think dialogue could be very useful on this topic. I have posted my e-mail above if anyone wants to have a discussion with me about the play.
Then I suggest that Chris attends.
Jake,
Chris also has a prior commitment off campus. However, we are both willing to talk to you or any member of the cast. Just tell them to send either of us an e-mail or fb message.
Pax,
Ethan
Calm down people. These guys are just trying out for Fox News. I’d be surprised if they actually believed their own oral diarrhea. Every semester/academic year it’s the same damn thing with this pocketful of idiots. All they do is take poorly reasoned jabs at minority or disadvantaged social groups seasoned with a thin veil of religious dogma. The Observer should be ashamed at the way it perverts Catholicism in order to attack the people who deserve its love and support.
Anyway, I hope the young women of BC keep fighting for the support and respect they deserve. You can be happy that this didn’t appear in a respectable publication.
Here, here!
What do these pious, unmarried shits know about vaginas?
Hey, chill out bro. It’s not like they are anti-gay or homophobic or anything…
You have to be trolling, because this is so unbelievably pigheaded that I’d have to conclude you were making some terrible joke of things.
We were all 12 years old and immature about sex once. Most of us chose to grow up though.
Dear christopher canntiff and ethan mack,
Understand i believe you’re beautiful creatures, but, in your present state, you are unfortunately what we call squids. I’d take personal time to help you fix that, but you would ink on me in the process and it would be no use. Time and experience will help you. Just try to stay quieter for now.
good luck
Derek
The Vagina Monologues empowers women, encourages a sexual identity, and gives a space for survivors of sexual violence to feel supported and encouraged to speak out, not silenced by societal norms. The monologue about the 16 year old girl having sex is an empowering story of a survivor of rape. Speaking as a rape survivor, with my rapist being a “good Catholic” BC student, having sex after an attack is an incredibly difficult thing to do. Being able to hear this particular monologue left me with tears in my eyes, tears of sadness for my past, tears of empathy, and most importantly, tears of hope for the future.
The Monologues are so important on BC’s campus, for women and men, and I find it so disheartening that you two cannot see the benefits. I hope that as your time at BC continues, you can begin to see how crucial it is to support the women we love, especially those who are survivors of sexual violence. Chances are, if you have female friends, girlfriends or sisters, one of them has been or will be raped; I hope you can look past your opinions and be supportive friends in a world filled with victim blaming and gender oppression.
You are so brave.
I am not saying I agree with this letter, but people shouldn’t be so harsh to them either. They are entitled to their opinion and if they want to share it with Father Leahy than they should be able to do so.
And if this is a sexual empowerment for women, why isn’t there a Penis Monologues for men to feel empowered, or the Hermaphrodite Monologues for those people? If one group gets it, it’s only fair other groups do to.
I think the play is very crude and abhorrant to non-seually liberal females at this school. There are many other plays they could do that are supportive of women and not so blatant.
It’s true, they are entitled to their own opinion. There could be a Penis Monologues, if someone felt inclined to write it. Hell, you could even write it yourself. The point of the show is not to exclude men or hermaphrodites or transgendered individuals. It is meant to highlight female sexuality and the ways that it has posiitvely and negatively affected women. Just because it is specific does not mean it marginalizes other genders.
As to your point about the play being offensive to more conservative women at BC, this is true. I have friends who flat out refused to come see the play with me, but that is their choice. I did not think any less of them for not going, but the point is that going to see the show is up to the individual – no one forces anyone to attend, and I hardly think that any “non-sexually liberated female” would be offended by the mere advertising of something that they were not required to watch. Also, I believe “blatant” is a somewhat pejorative word for what others consider “openness” and “honesty”.
On the topic of why there isn’t a Penis Monologues for men to feel empowered alongside the Vagina Monologues for women: it is because historically men have NOT been made to feel disempowered. Male sexuality has never been repressed and shamed as women’s has. This is also the reason why there does not exist a Men’s Resource Center at BC and most universities even though there are often Women’s Resource Centers. The answer is that, as a group, men have not faced the historical oppression that women have faced and continue to face. Offices like the WRC and performances like the Vagina Monologues are necessary to ensure that women’s and gender issues are represented in a culture that historically has silenced and stigmatized them to such a great extent.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that these students are entitled to their opinion and I am even glad that they have shared it in such a public forum, as it is articles like these that open a dialogue among students perhaps even more so than the performance of the monologues themselves. I am sure that many of the commenters and people who have discussed this on Facebook/twitter/on campus have never had the opportunity to see the performance, and yet now they have a reason to engage in meaningful conversation about its purpose.
I am not a sexually liberal female at all, but I went to see the play a few years ago because my roommate was in it, and it was uncomfortable to be sure, but even so you have to acknowledge the point and the message which is to empower women. That’s worth making a few women such as myself slightly uncomfortable…
Considering they are hiding behind the whole “religious doctrine” angle, may be time to repent guys. Then again this lack of tolerance is exactly why it is so embarrassing to attend the same school as these clowns. No God gives you the excuse to discredit others from empowering themselves. Another half-baked apology resulting from public outcry in 3,2,1…..
Ethan, since you decided to disrespect the cast of Vagina Monologues and the Women’s Resource Center by escalating immediately to Father Leahy with your sexist, narrow-minded views, I would like to know who I can escalate above you to remove BC’s affiliation from this archaic, ignorant, offensive publication. This play is meant to inspire discussion and to stand up to violence against women, not oppression of women’s rights. It encourages women to love their bodies and themselves while proceeds went towards ending violence against women. Frankly that’s something that a Jesuit university SHOULD stand for. Please leave that contact information for me because if not, I intend on writing my own open letter to Father Leahy about this.
I don’t agree with this letter, but to each his own. I created everyone equal, and that includes the blessings of sexual self-expression and love. If the play empowers women, who have been so unfairly maligned for centuries, why try to get rid of it? This article reminds me of many of my more extreme worshipers in the Middle East, but I also remember a lot of these things happening 600 years ago (a second in my Chronological Calendar), and those usually ended in witch burnings and hangings. Please, don’t go back there. It’s not why I sent Jesus to redeem you. Relax and accept. I am not an All-Conservative type.
Pax et bonum,
Deus
Hey Christopher and Ethan,
Thanks for allowing me to sample what goes on in your head. Now I have the pleasure of limiting your social acceptance here on campus. I hope what you miss out on in the coming years will teach you both some of the lessons you need to become more humble, informed, and intelligent members of society. If we’re lucky, when you leave this school, you will remember how hubris and childish ignorance ruined opportunities and relationships you never knew were possible. If we’re really lucky, you might develop the impetus to listen and maybe learn some of the things you currently don’t know you don’t know.
OFWGKTA
Luke
Yet another example of the ignorance on this campus.
The Observer Sucks.
Why is it that so many of those who have commented make personal attacks against the authors? If you are truly as liberal and open-minded as you purport to be, surely you should have respect for views with which you happen to disagree.
This is a university. It is supposed to be a place where ideas can be freely exchanged and discussed. Some of the comments are hurtful and relflect a complete intolerance for a different viewpoint.
There are actually instances, like this one, in which the matter at hand calls for rejecting a “different viewpoint” because it is morally problematic. The Vagina Monologues empowers women by exploring the scope of femininity and female sexuality, and bringing related topics and issues into a public discourse. Yes, it is provocative, but it needs to be, in order to remedy the gender inequalities women have contended against for millennia in speaking to feminine experience, because the female perspective has been suppressed throughout the whole of history, especially with regard to sexuality.
The authors’ claim that the Vagina Monologues presents an “affront” to the “dignity of the human person” is nauseatingly misguided. On the contrary, the play affirms the “dignity” of all people – women included – by providing a means for honestly examining experiences and sensibilities that are particular to half of the human race.
I personally don’t purport to be a “liberal,” but as a woman, I have zero obligation to respect someone who uses a public platform to perpetuate the outdated, sexist notion that a discussion of female sexuality is “immoral” and “problematic.”
Would you respect someone who espoused racist or homophobic viewpoints? I certainly hope not. So why should these guys be shielded from criticism?
Wow – so surreal reading the above exchange. This same type of thing happened exactly 20 years ago at BC, except the play was “The Normal Heart” (about the early onset of AiDS) and it was directed by a BC priest (the legendary Fr. Moran, God rest his soul). I remember people walked out of Robsham during the middle of the play and there was a big uproar by campus conservatives, much like the one above. Sad to see that the culture of ignorance still exists at BC but encouraged by the above responses to the letter to Fr. Leahy. At least some progress…
It’s the Women’s and Gender Studies Program–not the Women’s and Gender Study Program. Come on.
There are actually instances, like this one, in which the matter at hand calls for rejecting a “different viewpoint” because it is morally problematic. The Vagina Monologues empowers women by exploring the scope of femininity and female sexuality, and bringing related topics and issues into a public discourse. Yes, it is provocative, but it needs to be, in order to remedy the gender inequalities women have contended against for millennia in speaking to feminine experience, because the female perspective has been suppressed throughout the whole of history, especially with regard to sexuality.
The authors’ claim that the Vagina Monologues presents an “affront” to the “dignity of the human person” is nauseatingly misguided. On the contrary, the play affirms the “dignity” of all people – women included – by providing a conspicuous means for honestly examining experiences and sensibilities that are particular to half of the human race.
Bravo, Vagina Monologues and its champions (including Fr. Leahy).
That play “radically reduces women to their sexual organs” way less than the typical BC male… just saying
Frankly, I am dismayed at how The Observer can still have the gall to carry the slogan “There is no Freedom without the Truth” – clearly this freedom pertains only to white male Catholics and those who share their close-minded views. This letter is a blatant attempt to try and restrict the Freedom of women to express themselves as they see fit. What makes us less deserving of the right to speak our minds? Just whose Truth are you proposing to advocate? Because if you see the marginalization and silencing of women and homosexuals as Truth, then we have a serious problem.
“The word itself makes some men uncomfortable. Vagina.” – Maude Lebowski.
The Vagina Monologues is not about reducing women to their sexual organs.. which is something the catholic church does all the time.
I suppose every argument against this has been made. I would just like to express how cringe-worthy it is to me that those who see Boston College on my resume may associate me with the people who write editorials in the Observer–tactless and, at times, unintelligent. How are we, as alumni, meant to feel proud of our school, to support it, when students spew messages like this under the banner of “The Jesuit Tradition?”
This is not a thought-provoking opinion. If you truly wanted to spark debate, you would acknowledge the ways in which the play gives voice to rape victims and try to engage with it on that level. It is not smart to declare something “immoral.” Everyone has heard that one before.
Please, everybody, just erase this from your minds. Do not give these people more attention than they deserve. I imagine the two writers sitting in their dorm-room thinking: “Ah, they all hate us now, but we are just spreading God’s message.” (Cue self-applause.)
Dear Chris and Ethan:
As theater, The Vagina Monologues neither elevates nor entertains. It is a shrill, soviet-style agitprop for the moral pygmies of feminism. It remains vulgar, but no longer shocks. With its lesbian and anti-male bias it debases both the performers and audience and serves only to advance an anti-heterosexual and anti-Catholic agenda. In case Fr. Leahy has forgotten, the feminist movement has as its principal public policy goal the preservation of unrestricted access to abortion.
A performance of The Vagina Monologues on campus should shock the students and faculty and be condemned by the administration. Fr. Leahy is derelict in his duties in shaping the BC environment to support our faith.
Chris and Ethan, thank you for your defense of the Catholic view point.
Condemned? Geez cover up, your Old Testament is showing
“Shrill, soviet-style agitprop.” Look out everyone, the Cold Warrior is on the case. The principle goal of feminism is equality for women and men; that is the textbook definition of feminism. If you refer to feminists as “moral pygmies,” I assume that you regard women as lesser than men. This does not shock me, because your post appears to have been written in 16th century Spain. By all means, continue to advocate for an oppressive, theocratic form of administration at Boston College that is entirely contrary to the Jesuit tradition of acceptance and reflection, but know that you are only discrediting yourself further in doing so.
By the way, I am saying all of this as a heterosexual male. Strange that I would defend a piece of “anti-male” “anti-heterosexual” theater, isn’t it?
As the aging parent of a freshman woman at BC, I suppose I might be expected to weigh in on the side of The Observer’s editors. On the contrary, I think the fact that BC has permitted productions such as The Vagina Monologues to be performed on campus is healthy. Often, and with good reason, universities are criticized for being liberal hotbeds of intolerant political correctness where opposing views are censored or shouted down. We forget that the same intolerance can be practiced by those of a more conservative bent. My question is: how could two guys with this kind of sanctimonious, narrow-minded attitude end up running a school newspaper at a university of BC’s stature? Perhaps that’s what needs a closer look, particularly in light of the egregious errors in Mr. Mack’s response: i.e., special thanks to those who have avoided Ad Hominem [no capitalization needed] attacks such as calling Chris and I [sic] “misogynistic “and “sexist”.
Dear Parent,
I’m glad that you choose to pick them apart on my grammar. Weighing in none on my views of the issue at hand, I will weigh in on things that annoy me to no end: those who claim to be grammatically infallible, and try to use that perceived super power as their main point to undermine an argument.
You are – gasp! – not a perfect grammarian. It turns out that the period between your first and second sentences should have been a semicolon, and the following majuscule “O” should have been miniscule.
Further, when quoting directly (even if it is yourself, or your hypothetical self), the preferred style is to precede the quote with a comma, a space, and an opening quotation mark, and end it with a quotation mark after the final punctuation (with some exceptions, to be found elsewhere).
I’m not sure that you know what “i.e.” is an abbreviation for, and I think you may have mean “e.g.” (The former stands for the Latin “id est,” meaning “that is,” and the latter for “exempli gratia,” or – roughly – “for example”. Similarly to above, you have misused the colon, which in this instance should most-probably be a comma; additionally, the comma following the abbreviation is superfluous, and perhaps completely wrong.
I do not disagree with you that “no capitalization [is] needed” for the phrase “ad hominem” in running English text; however, it is neither forbidden. If you care to disagree, then I can only assume that you are eschewing the widely held opinions on the use of language in favor of your own close-minded view.
Mr Mack’s error regarding the case of the first-person pronoun, which you cited, is a common error in English. I am not purporting that this is correct, but merely note that I have seen the same error committed widely by editors of major national newspapers (including The Walls Street Journal and The New York Times), other campus newspapers at Boston College (whereby I mean The Heights), professors and administrators at the same university, and their students. I would be fairly sure that your precious freshwoman daughter has committed the same egregious crime in the last two years, and will make it at least once in the next four. I say I am “fairly sure”, because I analyse text for a living, and I have statistics that confirm it.
In fact, I am fairly certain that YOU, dear Parent, have at one time or another committed the sin of grammatical confusion, as regards the cases in English. You either have the option to concede that I, your daughter, yourself, and most other people have done something objectively “wrong,” or that there really is no standard; either way, the effect is the same: your metaphorical tail will be between your very literal legs, as you recognize that you are either equally culpable of these things, or that there is actually no standard which we can use to judge. In the former case, you class yourself the same as Mr Mack; in the latter, you recognize that you are just flat-out wrong.
I extend apologies that I have to correct your use of grammar in such a public forum, but it is — if your comment is to be interpreted — vitally important to do so. I hope that you can save your daughter from the sin of Mr Mack, by scrupulously poring over her papers to ensure that they meet your exacting grammatical standards.
Best,
Noah Webster
Patriot, Dictionary writer.
Ah, fooey: my response on the subject of grammar is typo-ridden. That is why you don’t write flames on a smartphone.
Noah
Strunk & White,
If those who claim to be grammatically infallible annoy you to no end, you must be quite annoyed with yourself.
Also, you are incorrect about suggesting that the period should be a semi-colon, as either one would be equally acceptable in that instance.
Finally, I find it sad that you would not only address a parent in such a disrespectful way, but also that all you pulled out of that entire comment was the point made about grammar, which you then harped on incessantly.
If the good Lord grants me the fortune of having children that attend BC, and I find it a proper use of my time to lob assertions at students good enough to give their time to extracurricular activities, someone please look me in the face and remind me, “don’t do that.”
@ Jon,
Some replies to you comments:
To say feminists are moral pygmies, is not to say that all women are moral pygmies, let alone “lesser than men.” Where did that come from?
Did 16th Century Spain have computers and emails? I must missed that in my history courses. If you meant by that comment that I adhere to the teachings of the Church and the leadership of our Pontiff – guilty as charged.
A college that calls itself Catholic, and that is run by Jesuits is, by definition, theocratic. Any college that imposes order in classes and on campus, that has laws and regulations, that teaches and grades, is oppressive to those that chafe under such strictures. What is you point? When the college ceases to be theocratic and “oppressive” it will cease to be Boston College.
The Jesuits were formed to advance the teachings of the Catholic church against the Reformation. They did not tolerate and reflect on the heresies of Protestantism, they worked to refute them. Jesuits were sent to the Asia and the Americas to “set the world on fire” with the Good News of Christ, not to reflect on and tolerate paganism. The Jesuits are not a debating society for Feminists and liberal cranks.
If you say you’re male and heterosexual, I guess I have to believe you, but you’re certainly not acting it. I wonder … were you “empowered” during the enlightenment of the “Reclaiming the cunt” monologue? Did your heart swell with pride during the “The Little Coochie Snorcher That Could” when the monologist describes her statutory rape by an adult lesbian?
1) Going off of the standard definition of feminism, which aims for equality between men and women (notice I do not bring up the abortion issue or gay/straight relations because that is not in the basic definition of feminism), your assertion that feminists are moral pygmies either suggests that you do not agree with their goal or that you do not know what feminism is. Perhaps taking a gender studies course might change this view.
2) Way to be a literalist. You know what I meant. The reason so many young people are leaving the Catholic Church is because its medieval social positions haven’t evolved to address complex modern realities.
3) I have no problem with the Jesuit Catholic administration at Boston College. In fact, I love it. I am objecting to the assertion that the administration should be able to impose a very narrow view of Catholicism upon the vast majority of students that do not agree with this interpretation of their religion. By the way, the majority of Jesuits with whom I’m acquainted would also disagree with such a limited interpretation of the faith.
4) The fact that you still refer to Protestantism as a heresy speaks volumes. I’m also sorry that you view Asian religions as mere “paganism,” given that the Jesuit missionaries in Japan, China, and Tibet did their utmost to assimilate into the culture and live among their peoples as brothers while still retaining their Catholic faith. See the writings of Fathers Ippolitio Desideri and Matteo Ricci, among others.
5) Thank you for belittling my sense of masculinity and sexuality despite your complete lack of knowledge of me as a person. I was trying to avoid personal attacks, but clearly you aren’t interested in doing that. Tell me, how should I act if I want to be a real man?
To the authors:
Firstly let me say that I whole heartily respect your right to express your right to voice your opinion.
I would, however, urge you to reconsider your proposal to remove an event for students which you deem to be morally questionable.
I encourage you to consider that many students at this university do not share your perspective. Please respect their right to express themselves. While I am sure that this is not your intention, shutting down an event such as the one in question would cultivate the impression that you are actively being disrespectful to those who do not share your views.
Pursuant to Kant’s categorical imperative, consider that if every “morally questionable” public performance were censored, is that a world you would want to live in? I personally shutter at the thought, as I am sure you do.
Moreover, consider that while this university identifies itself as Catholic, it also prides itself on fostering independent thinkers who embrace their own perspective. Eliminating the event in question would contradict the essential purpose of the university.
In the spirit of community, please embrace the right of anyone to publicly voice his or her opinion, no matter how different it may appear to you, and withdraw your proposal to remove “Vagina Monologues” from BC.
Thank you
As a woman, I would firstly like to thank all of the men that have commented in support of the Monologues for restoring my faith in the student population of BC. Secondly, I would just like to say how disappointing I find this article. Being a freshman and having just decided on this school almost a year ago, I remember one of my main concerns about BC was how things like this might happen. I am Catholic, confirmed and everything, but years ago I began to look beyond some of the established Catholic views especially on issues of homosexuality and feminism. I think the Vagina Monologues is a beautiful portrayal of female empowerment. Contrary to the first point made in this article, this performance is in fact a celebration of women beginning to look at their vaginas as a part of who they are. It is actually society and people like these two boys who tend to reduce women to their vaginas and limit them to a simple mechanism for birth.
In case these two boys neglected to read the program (which they clearly did), the Vagina Monologues are run to raise awareness for cruelty against women. One of the monologues they failed to mention was the woman who told of her experience being raped by multiple men and violated in many other ways, which left her feeling disgusted with herself. The Vagina Monologues are also a way to show support for those many women among us who are victims of rape.
While I respect the fact that there are differing opinions, and I realized that would happen when I signed on to go to a Jesuit institution, I believe it is healthy and wonderful that BC allows this production to go on. By no means is anyone required to go, so if you are that opposed to it, just don’t go see it. We are a different society than in the time of Jesus, and I believe it requires a little compensation and perhaps a shifted view on things.
Regardless, I think next time you boys might want to try and appreciate things that you might not agree with rather than automatically try to remove it from campus. One of the beautiful things about BC is that it tries to foster the viewpoints of all of its students, so instead of trying to get rid of anything that you don’t agree with, just accept it for what it is and feel free to ignore it.
Strunk & White,
My, I struck a nerve. That was quite a manifesto you pecked out. And on a smartphone!
I happily concede that I made some minor mistakes (at least one less than you arrogantly say I did, though). However you missed the point completely. Unlike the two editors, I am not in charge of a newspaper that purports to speak to, if not for, a prestigious university. I could have committed every grammatical and spelling sin in the book (I prefer the Chicago Manual of Style, myself) and it would be irrelevant. What matters is what Mr. Mack did.
Regarding your long justification for the incorrect pronoun, I always tried to teach my daughter that if something is wrong, it isn’t suddenly right just because other people do it, even if that includes the NY Times, professors, or a bunch of sanctimonious young college newspaper editors trolling for résumé material. Yes, everyone makes mistakes. But just as I expect doctors to make fewer and less serious mistakes in the practice of medicine, I hold those who write for a living to a higher standard.
FWIW [I'm honestly not sure whether any style guide allows this but, as you point out, the English language continues to evolve. I suppose the trick is never to be at the leading edge of change, as Mr. Mack was with his spurious capitalization of the Latin phrase], in your defensive eagerness to trumpet the multitude of my sins, you missed another important point. I did intentionally use “i.e.” for “that is”, not “e.g.” for “for example”. I was not attempting to show that the author was illiterate by listing every possible error he had made. I was citing two specific cases. It appears you were running out of steam during that entire paragraph since you finished up with an equivocal, rather than damning, “most-probably” [sic] and “perhaps” in referring to further errors I allegedly committed.
You’re right. Your posting is typo ridden. Noah Webster, with whom you cheekily claim some figurative kinship, might have done better. No sense blaming it on a smartphone. You’re on the slippery slope to moral relativism and I suspect BC isn’t fertile ground for that type of reasoning.
Dear Sir or Madam,
My point was to bring to the fore the absurdity of your argument, and therefore my “manifesto” (I prefer “diatribe”), was meant both in style and substance to mock you. You have taken what is a substantial argument about the place of religion in American universities, free speech, and women’s empowerment, and reduced it to a conversation about periods and abbreviations. Bravo, dear Parent, for excelling in frivolity.
I hope that you realize the ridiculousness of your device, in which you compare the editors of a college newspaper to medical doctors. These men do not do this “for a living.” The Observer at Boston College, so far as I know, receives no support from the University, and, further, the editors receive no payment from the paper. If you would like examples of people at Boston College who fail verily in the duties for which they are paid, look no further than the executives of the Undergraduate Government of Boston College, who make both frequent grammatical errors and terribly unpopular decisions of what to do with the student body’s money, and are PAID for their work. Look at the professors, who frequently speak with malapropisms, and distribute handouts with misplaces jots and tittles, along with views magnitudes more biased than those with which this rag drips. These are the people who you are paying to commit errors. “Just as I expect doctors to make fewer and less serious mistakes in the practice of medicine…” Well, you know how it goes.
You abbreviation “FWIW” is perfectly acceptable in informal writing, which I assume online comments are. It appears that we both employed the same rhetorical technique in using a construction in an apparently improper manner, but correctly. “Most-probably” (the hyphen because it is a compound adverb, modifying the verb “be”) in my paragraph refers to the punctuation mark that best fits the context where you have mistakenly used a colon, while “perhaps” merely introduces the idea that punctuation might ought not be there at all.
I laugh that you claim me to be a moral relativist. I aim to be objective in all areas of life. I spent my academic career battling against moral relativism, which runs rampantly through Boston College. It turns out there is a lot of psychological manure coming out of many departments at BC, and manure provides fertile grounds, indeed.
Noah.
Strunk & White,
You are the one that reduced in to a conversation on grammar. Also, this is the single most pretentious thing I have ever read, not only in your use of the English language, but also in your implication that many professors at Boston College do not deserve to be paid due to the fact that they make minor errors. Are you by any chance aware of what it takes to be a university professor at one of the top schools in the country? Your argument seems to be that as long as its unpaid, a person in a certain position can make as many errors as they please. I’m not quite sure what your obsession with monetary compensation is, but it is the job of a newspaper editor – unpaid or paid – to edit.
Chris and Ethan are completely accurate and justified in their accusations. Boston College is a Catholic institution and must uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church – it really is that simple. Those who choose to attend Boston College for its academic reputation and other attractive offerings but wish to deny its true identity have no leg to stand on.
To those who scoff at the idea that two men can comment on women’s bodies, what utter nonsense. They speak of issues that affect us all. Devaluing the male opinion on issues of reproduction is ignorant and discriminatory – and that is coming from a woman. The idea that only women have the right to comment shows a lack of understanding of the deep human significance of the issues at hand. I fully support the opinions in the letter and I thank the writers for defending the Catholic viewpoint.
I am a white male. And I have a question for all the feminists who posted comments here in favor of the V-Monologues. Many of you stated that men cannot speak with authority about the value, or lack thereof, of the play because we are not female:
Q. Could I oppose slavery if those being held captive included females? Or is my defense of liberty circumscribed to males, and males only?
Also, I’ll bet you good money that those who promote the V-Monologues endorse the killing of innocent unborn children by means of abortion.
Wow!
The Asshole’s Monologue would be a more apt description of their self righteous diatribe