Oh, and in case I wasn’t clear, I mean to say that the principal is operating not in a world where parents are perfectly enlightened and children of all ages are aware of the full extent of human anatomy.
Good thing you’re not in public school these days, is all I can say.
Why? Would I get suspended for refusing to be suspended?
Too true. However, it also could be that the superintendent would have no problem with the show being performed so long as the audience knew what to expect. Y’know, just like he said? Conversely, the girls involved are welcome to say whatever lie puts them in the best light. i.e. “We figured to uphold the integrity of the piece, of the monologue and of what we believe, that it was the right thing to keep the monologue the way it was written.” Or it’s possible that we’re both right. Frankly, I don’t know. And I don’t think that there’s a chance in hell that either of us is going to find out anytime soon. And from everything I’ve seen, nobody freaked out and said, “No, no, never again.” Quite to the contrary, actually.
And you’d wind up depraved on accounta you being deprived.
It’s a vicious circle.
I, also don’t get the frenzy over using the word vagina; that’s what I was taught as the proper term at a young age. “What’s this down there?” Vagina, clitoris, labia, OK, them’s the bits. My brother had a penis. It seems a shame to deny those bits a decent name at first, and have a child fill in the blanks left with the nasty names later.
WhyNot has articulated the matter very well to my mind: I admire the girls for having some huevos about standing up for a feminist cause. I imagine them reading the Vagina Monologues and feeling empowered by that, as the piece is meant to do. As teens, they stood up for something they believed in, wholeheartedly, and whooshing in with great power to their sensibilities. They decided to have their moment of breaking rules to make a point, and bless em for that. Youth is good for continually stirring the old kettles, and making the world go forward, soupcon by teaspoon.
They didn’t see all the issues the Principal did, nor the issues of maintaining order in the community. Ya just don’t at that age. I think the Principal was justified in making them aware of how they were wrong in the transgression, and, it was a light punishment, really.
Oddly, while reading this whole thread, some vestigal teenage remnant part of my brain became active and eager-answered how I would have handled that situation at that age. This is what came up:
Do the piece, and address the censorship:
My short skirt is a liberation
flag in the women’s army
I declare these streets, any streets
my vagina’s country.
So, instead of saying “vagina”, all three girls stop and hold up large posterboard with
“THE V-WORD” written in large letters down low across their vava bits. Big-long-awkward pause between “my” and “country”. Written smaller across the bottom of the signs ; The First Amendment to the Constitution, and, the definition of vagina.
“My short skirt is a liberation flag in the women’s army. I declare these streets, any streets, my bagel’s country.”
<checks location.>
oh dear…
<backs discreetly out of thread>
What have I missed here?
Principal decides that in a production open to entire families, little brothers and sisters, etc., that copntent should be “safe” for viewing by families of all sensibilities, including those who do not want their five year olds to hear “vagina.” He’s dealt with this crowd before, methinks, and is making an educated, authoritative guess at what some would find objectionable on a family night.
Kids agree that they can do a monolog from the show if there is no language in it that crosses what he has assessed to be the line and that that line includes the word “vagina” Kids agree to the terms and are trusted to comply. They kid have just said no, we won’t do it, it violates the spirit of the piece. They could have petitioned the public for support ahead of time. They did not.
Kids instead just betray the trust placed in them because they feel that the prinicipal is wrong in his assessment/they know better, or just because they don’t care about that or because they are so full of themselves. Whatever.
And people support these self-important brats? I don’t get it at all.
WhyNot generally makes good points but
Really?
I do care why. Question authority: always. Lie? Betray trust? Decide that you have the right to impose your assessment of what is right upon everyone else? No. Disregard the authority? No.
Back in my day (graduated 1992), the in-school was not like described in this thread where you go to classes but they don’t count. It was an all day detention, basically, like that portrayed in The Breakfast Club, but without the weed and the rawkin’ soundtrack. You sat in an empty room for the whole day. You were not allowed to read, write, do homework, talk, sleep or breathe loud. You had to bring a lunch and you’d eat it at your seat. You were also not allowed to make up any assignments or tests that you missed that day - grades of zero would be entered. I don’t know how they handled bathroom breaks, because I never had an in-school myself.
And yes, if you refused to serve your in-school suspension, you would get an out of school suspension, which by some bizarro-world logic was considered worse. Please don’t ask me to explain it, I just don’t get it at all.
Enough out of school suspensions could earn you an expulsion.
Yeah, that’s why they changed it to the way that they have it at our school now. The students who ultimately care about their education (or playing sports, or being in the band, or actually fear the wrath of their parents) would serve their “sit-in-a-room” suspension, but what educational purpose does THAT serve. And the kids who did’t get a rat’s ass would see it as a two-day break from school. Our current system gives the kid an absence, which for some of them can be a big deal, but they also get their education, which is really the important thing. However, if they decided to ditch the day because it counts as an absence anyway, then yes, then it goes to an off-school suspension, which opens up an entirely different can of worms (again, missing practices, extra-curriculurs, elected positions in clubs, etc., not to mention the homework issue. Being suspended doesn’t mean you get out of the work for that day – you’re responsible for coming in the day before to get the homework, and there’s no grace period.)
There are worse things than breaking a promise to your high school principal. Maybe, instead, they kept what Emerson called “the integrity of your own mind.” Or could be that Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” tempted them.
What’s the point of reading the wisdom of writers and thinkers if you are going to allow a teacher or principal to smother the slightest spark of a very reasonable rebellion?
Or maybe it was the message of The Vagina Monologues itself: Women have no reason to be ashamed of the opening between their legs *no matter what it’s called. *
Was there anyone besides the principal who made this decision prior to the presentation?
A word is a symbol. It is not the thing. In this case, it wasn’t even street slang. I don’t know how the word could have been less charged! Anyone who objected to the symbolic name of “the thing” may have some serious issues lurking. Would they have the same issue with “birth canal”? (of course, it’s not a birth canal unless you’ve given birth.)
There is nothing dirty or evil or charged about the word vagina. The girls knew that; the principal didn’t. It’s time he learned from them. That happens sometimes when you’re an educator. Most consider it a professional perk.
So I’m welcome to come into your church some time and began a talk about the Virgin Mary by saying “Let’s talk about Mary’s vagina” - in front of whatever congregation happens to be there at the time? :dubious:
Oh for heaven’s sake! Context is everything, as has been said multiple times already!
Exactly so. And who is in the position to, and has the authority to make an assessment about the context? The principal with years of dealing with parents in his district and years of fielding complaints from all sides and perspectives? Or a couple of arrogant know-it-all kids?
The issue here is not if “vagina” is an appropriate word for a show presented to all ages and all families. The decision might have been able to go any way. The issue is what you do when someone in authority above you says “No.” [list=a]
[li]You assume you know better and ignore them. Do what you want anyway and thumb your nose at them.[/li][li]Debate with them, appeal, petition.[/li][li]Live with it.[/li][/list] They chose “a”. Bad choice. It will not take them far in life. Supporting that choice is also foolish.
I’m not disagreeing with you in that I think the punishment was justified - and neither are most of the people who’ve contributed to the thread.
I do disagree that a) is by default the wrong option. Although my best guess is that this was typical teenage behaviour in a desire to make a point, it can’t ever be a bad thing for people to question authority. Also, I completely disagree that such an approach will not take people far in life - it is absolutely such actions that have the potential to highlight issues and make others question their stance.
The fact is, the VM themselves emphasise the fact that ‘vagina’ is not a dirty word. The very idea that the ‘authority’ in this case decided what was better with, presumably, a view to avoid controversy meant that by protesting they have got international coverage of the whole issue by ensuring that that is precisely what the outcome was. Who is ultimately right or wrong is not really the issue.
PS. You really think that the one with years of dealing with parents, etc. is the one with the unbiased, unblinkered position? I would suggest exactly the opposite.
Exactly! So the issue is not whether the word “vagina” is inherently shameful, or if arguing that it should not be said at some times and in some places is perpetuating the ickification of women’s bits. I’m glad we’re on the same page. We can get back to our regular discussion of whether, of the some times and some places that it should not be said, this was one.
Talking of unbiased, unblinkered positions, I’m astonished that anyone even bothered to quote the authoress of the poem. :dubious:
They shoulda said “Bagel” :
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8337959#post8337959
So take him to a head shrinker. You.
There is a difference between questioning authority and disrespecting authority. A difference between a noble protest and self-serving arrogance.
Unbiased? No. More likely to know the variations of sensibilities of the crowd, to know what the context was? Yes. In the positiion to make that call? Yes.