Top

news

Stories

 

Seattle Times' Vagina Problem

Why they said no to the Monologues' ad.

On February 24, in honor of "V-Day," the National Council of Jewish Women's Seattle office will co-sponsor two performances of Eve Ensler's Vagina Monologues at the Museum of History and Industry. To publicize the event, the NCJW produced a print ad for placement in the Seattle Times, among other publications. Much to the organization's chagrin, the Times declined to run the ad unless the sponsors agreed to alter the artwork—which they refused to do. "The artwork was something we didn't feel was appropriate for our audience," says the Times' VP of advertising, Mei-Mei Chan.

The inclusion of an illustrated clitoris (see above image) is likely to have given the family-owned newspaper pause—but that didn't stop publications like the Weekly or, tamer yet, the JT News (another of the event's sponsors) from running the ad. Nor did it stop Temple B'nai Torah and several area synagogues from prominently displaying a poster with the image in their places of worship.

"The artwork was created by a member of my congregation," says Rabbi Yohanna Kinberg of B'nai Torah, which is located in Bellevue. "We have it hanging in several places in our Temple. I was just very disappointed that the Times didn't share our appreciation for what I consider to be tasteful and beautiful artwork. It's okay for a house of worship—I know it's hanging in many other synagogues and Jewish institutions. I have a lot of respect for the Seattle Times, so it was really surprising."

Kinberg sits on the board of directors for the local NCJW chapter, whose executive director, Lauren Simonds, says the Times' refusal to run the ad "really goes against what the Vagina Monologues is all about. It just makes [the vagina] more taboo."

After a version of this story appeared last week on the Daily Weekly blog, the Seattle NCJW office began receiving some anti-Semitic and misogynistic phone calls, says Simonds. Hence, the group has hired security for this Sunday's performances.

 
  • Andie 09/19/2008 4:57:00 AM

    I guess "Dan" and "Bob" work for the Times. LOL.

  • erika 02/27/2008 2:32:00 AM

    The Seattle Times has run several ads for The Vagina Monologues just none this graphic. People really need to get a life!

  • S Reed 02/27/2008 1:17:00 AM

    You're kidding -- right? Your option Times to not run any AD and the choices you chose are telling. I saw the Vagina Monologues as performed by Eve Ensler and loved it. It's powerful and important. Time's refusal to show the imaginative and clever artwork show far we still have to go to get rid of sexism and our ridiculous immature attitudes towards our "naughty bits." I suppose The Times would rather keep such things in the dark along with rape,incest and sexual abuse which, by the way, is the message of the performance. I saw this performance SEVEN years ago! Not only is the Time's keeping its readership in the dark, it's keeping them way behind! WAKE UP Seattle Times! Get a clue, better yet, get your (decision) staff tickets to the show. For crickeys sake - this ain't Kansas!

  • Dan Fisher 02/26/2008 1:27:00 AM

    Again, this is N-O-T censorship. Not: meaning the opposite of. All the Times is doing is considering the preferences of their target demographic. They are allowed to print what they want. Also, "oblication" is not a word.

  • rita 02/25/2008 9:23:00 PM

    There is not question that the Times has the legal right to refuse to print the ad for the Vagina Monologues. Yes, it's a business decision. However, one would hope that a newspaper abide by journalistic standards against censorship out of principle, rather than legal oblication. In that case, one might even dare to hope that the newspaper would carry journalistic principles to its business decisions as well. So much for that hope with the Seattle Times.... Bottom line, the Times' refusal to run the ad in order to protect its readers' (imagined) sensibilities underlines the urgent need for the voice of The Vagina Monologues. When we will ever learn?

  • debR 02/22/2008 11:33:00 PM

    Yes, it's a business decision - the issue was the equality of standards when ED ads get ok'd. I guess pictures speak louder than words (or else our kids can't read). What is really sad in all of this is that a non-profit organization, trying to raise funds for family and children's issues (funding scholarships, lobbying for health care, operating support services for survivors of domestic violence, etc.) has had to hire security - a big chunk of money wasted because people turned ugly. How quickly anti-Semitism and anti-women comments crept into the conversation! I'm making a donation to them to defray those costs.

  • BobH 02/22/2008 10:05:00 PM

    It's not censorship; it's a business decision. If it's my business, and I think a good portion of my customers would be offended, I have the right to not piss them off. Since the Times was turning down revenue in making this decision you can be sure it wasn't made lightly. And seriously, there's nothing subtle about this artwork. I'd be interested in how people would react if that were an anatomically correct erect penis in the middle of that heart (in an ad for "The Penis Monologues"). Finally, the first commenter links to a *parody* of the Times done by The Stranger. How she thinks that's relevant here, or somehow an indictment of the Times, I have no idea.

  • GL Coe 02/22/2008 8:59:00 PM

    I think the artwork is far less distasteful than the Seattle Time's hypocrisy. The paper that found THIS ad offensive runs ads offering GREAT SEX for some sex therapy place, runs ads for Viagra, Cialis, and other �Erection Enhancement� potions, including disclaimers about 4 hour long erections and the like, The ads for bras of all kinds, including full page, color enhanced Victoria Secrets ads from the week prior to Valentines Day and so on. Apparently the Boston Clinic ads screaming GREAT SEX TONIGHT with a juicy photo of a couple looking lustful are OK� not embarrassing or offensive, yet a non-descript heart is "Oh-My-God-hide-the-kids-eyes-scary." Will the Seattle Times also not allow photos of some Orchids? Thank GOODNESS they are there to protect our eyes. GREAT SEX TONIGHT is OK, but a Vagina is not allowed to have a monologue. I guess one is independent of the other. At least it seems to be in the mind of the Seattle Times ad management. I can�t wait till this Sundays Sears ad to see if all the bra photos are made less offensive. Thank you Seattle Times for saving me from sinful art.

  • Dan Fisher 02/22/2008 8:08:00 PM

    Hey Andie, how 'bout you check your facts before you attack the Times. Refusing an ad is NOT censorship. As a business, not unlike any other establishment you might frequent, they have the right to refuse service to anyone. That includes selling ad space. If they don't feel it's appropriate for their readers, and are willing to take the loss of profit on the ad, that's their choice. So grow up and get a life. Oh, and by the way, you misspelled disgusting.

  • Andie deRoux 02/20/2008 10:39:00 PM

    GROW-UP SEATTLE TIMES! The art is beautiful and not offensive in any way. How puritanical and hypocritical of you to censor them. I guess this discusting image is less offensive to you: http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2006/10/Dog-Killer-2-455.jpg

 

Most Popular Stories


Now Click This

Browse Voice Nation
  • Voice Places

    Voice Places

    Discover restaurants, nightlife, travel, shopping...

  • VOICE Daily Deals

    VOICE Daily Deals

    Get 50 to 90% off every day on restaurants, movies, massages...

  • Best Of

    Best Of...

    More than 10,000 of the BEST things to eat, drink, and experience

  • My Voice Nation

    My Voice Nation

    Join the Village Voice community and get exclusive deals and info

  • Happy Hour

    Happy Hour

    Your local Happy Hour guide at your fingertips

or

Log in or Sign up

Social Connect:

Use your favorite account to access My Voice Nation.


Use your My Voice Nation account to log in:





Forgot password?
or

Sign Up or Log in

Social Connect:

Sign up for My Voice Nation with your preferred network.


Sign up for a My Voice Nation account:



Privacy policy