I had posted last week about the Date Auction my alma mater was putting on (sidenote: unfortunately, I'm not in MN) and I *do* have a rather pleasing update! I was contact today by a writer for the school's independent newspaper about my comments and thoughts on the date auction. 

Any thoughts?

I'm going to post my answers here; I'm fairly certain you can figure out the questions:

(1)I think the Vagina Monologues Date Auction is a good fund raising applied to the wrong event. The Vagina Monologues has the explicit goal of empowering women over patriarchal (to use a feminist buzzword) treatment. A Date Auction is patriarchal because it reduces any person being auctioned to an object that needs to be paid for. This objectification, even if not intentioned in a harmful way, is counter productive to the whole idea of The Vagina Monologues as I've understood it to be conceived by Eve Ensler.

While ending domestic violence is an important and noble cause, as someone who has seen others survive and is a survivor of domestic violence, I don't feel that a Date Auction keeps in the pro-women, feminist ideals of the project with which their auction is associated. With monologues talking about how a woman should be able to wear her short skirt without being seen solely as an object or how painful it can be to be transgender or how much female circumcision (which is a cultural institution centered around the "beautifying" of the vagina) can pain a women, I don't see how an organization can put on such a powerful and important production about the power, faith and resilience against being seen only as a thing and not as a person and then put people on stage to be bid on. It honestly confuses and troubles me.

(2) I think the Date Auction objectifies anyone who is participating in it, regardless of gender. Having not attended the Date Auction, I'm unsure of the genders of those who participated, but no matter if it were a man or a woman, the auction is objectifying because objectification is not something which can only happen to women. Being put in front of a room and bid on is objectification at definition; you're bidding on the person, in that moment, as a thing to be coveted, not a person with feelings. Any objectification is not supportive of any person no matter the circumstance and can serve as an excuse to publicly tokenize a person based on certain criteria used to "sell" the auctioned person.

(3) I don't feel the amount of money changes whether or not its objectifying, though I applaud (Women's Group) and (Theater Group) on raising so much money for an important cause. Objectification is not something which comes with a price tag as it's a human action, thought or feeling which has no monetary value. Raising money for a good cause is an excellent endeavor, but I think (Women's Group) and (Theater Group) lost sight of who it was they were raising money for.

While I support the cause that (Women's Group) and (Theater Group) are fund raising for, I believe that the Date Auction was the incorrect way in which to raise those funds. I feel like this option was chosen because it cost nothing to put on and everything raised would go straight to the charities involved -- a very decision financially, just not in the broader picture, in my opinion.

I have tremendous respect for anyone who runs a theatrical production. I had run two of my own with the (Campus Theater Group), and had worked with one of those in charge of The Vagina Monologues this year, during my tenure at (Alma Mater). It takes a lot of hard work, dedication, stress and sometimes tears to get a show running, polished and smooth. There is no question in my mind that these women did extraordinary work to put this production together from start to finish; I honestly just wish they had picked a better fund raising option than a date auction.

(4) I was actually unaware that there was a date auction last year. I'm an alumnus of (Alma Mater) (graduated in 2007) and was uninformed that it was happening due to my own personal scheduling. If I was, I would have still objected. It's the idea that any group would use an objectifying event to help end domestic violence, which relates directly to seeing your partner more as property than as person, that bothers me the most. Why would any group encourage the behaviors which lead to that which it is trying to eradicate?

(5) You are more than welcome to use my words so long as they're representative of my opinions. I never had the intention of derailing, decrying or trying to "start something" with either (Women's Group) or (Campus Theater Group). I was a member of both groups at various times in my tenure at Framingham (WE in 2003-2004 academic year and (Campus Theater Group) 2003 to graduation 2007) and am intensely supportive of the cause to end domestic violence. If it were possible, I'd like a copy of the article as it appears in print when it is run.

0

You recommended

1 Comments

February 9, 2009 4:34 AM

[0+]  EGhead said:

I'm glad to hear someone's continuing the discussion at your university. Since you might be upsetting some of your fellow vagmon-ers, just be sure to be extra careful about what you say. Two things you definitely got wrong: 'patriarchal' doesn't fit the definition of a buzzword (in fact, it might be the OPPOSITE, since it's rather fallen out of favor among younger feminists) and - this is incredibly important- female circumcision isn't about 'beautification'; it's about controlling female sexuality.

Glad you're responding, though! Good luck!

I  Liked  Liked this comment  |  Reply |

Leave a comment

Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)