Talk:V-Day
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Edit attribution
The following edits were me. My session got logged out without my realising it:
- (cur)(last) 02:31, 5 Apr 2005 220.244.224.204 (→See also)
- (cur) (last) 02:27, 5 Apr 2005 220.244.224.204
- (cur) (last) 02:26, 5 Apr 2005 220.244.224.204 (ext links, wikification)
An An 02:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I rearranged everything to make the information more accesable.
I moved some of the information to the top as it directly defines the movement.
I put any information related the actual activities (dated or official recognized) into a history section.
I also put any pro content into a support section and did some research to include a disputes section.
I also added some new links, one going to Random Houses home page for the vagina monologues as well as a link to the CBLPI, who is the only organization taking direct assault against the V-Day organization.
I know it might look like I butchered it, but every bit of it is there, some time tense words were changed as well as some grammatikal nuances (please don't judge me by the accuracy of these and if you can do better do so please), and everything I did was in the name of solving the dispute of nuetrality.
In the world of wiki, a nuetrality dispue is the worst label to carry with you and completely destroys all credibility in most peoples eyes.
[edit] Neutrality
The article seems to imply rather strongly that to advocate V-Day is to advocate peace, safety and human rights, while to want Valentine's Day is to be narrow-minded, shallow, and uncaring. JorgeMacD 04:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I to agree that the article is more of a piece advocating V-Day rather than informing about it.
This is actually taken from the 'about' section on the official v-day website.
134.39.114.194 04:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC) I feel this article is very bias. Not all women, or feminist for that matter, agree with V-Day.
My mother, a long standing feminist since the late 70s, considers it insulting and pornographic. She told me "The vagina monologues promote child sexuality and attempt to define a woman by her body alone.". I for one don't really care, but if my mother says its degrading, then clearly not all feminist agree with this.
The article also fails to mention that it has been banned from all catholic schools for being pornographic in nature and that the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute (a conservative women's group) is expending huge amounts of money to battle this.
I think it should be written in a non-bias view that mentions all sides of the movement equally. Maybe a generalized description that explains the basic movement and the principles behind it in an anthropological manner. Then a few sections explaining the pro arguement (stopping men who abuse women, female confidence, equal women's rights, etc...), in a non-degrading fashion, followed by a con arguement (defining a woman by a body part, being considered pornographic in nature by some, child sexuality*, etc...) in a non-degrading fashion. Anything else would not be encyclopedic.
If that isn't possible than it will probably just make people think the writter was ignorant to reason and lacks common fairness. That is, after all what attracted me to the discussion.134.39.114.194 04:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
134.39.114.194 04:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC) * I know I ruffled some ones feathers with this one, but in my defense if a grown man did a monologue pretending to be a six year old boy describing his penis he would sentanced to life for manufacturing and promoting child pornography. By legal definition pornography is any media (video, pictorial, written, etc...) pertaining to sexual behavior or description. So save your breathe.134.39.114.194 04:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
BAKenned@pierce.ctc.edu
I believe I have fixed the neutrality of this article so I am removing the POV questionability. If any one decides it is still not neutral, then they can feel free to re-instate it.134.39.114.194 05:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] random
I'm not sexist, but that seems to be a waste of a day.--66.218.28.46 03:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I always find it funny, but for someone concerned with gender-equality (as feminists claim), Ensler certainly left out anything about violence towards men, which in fact domestic violence in the US is significantly (but not in the majority) against men. Check for stats someplace, I think its like 30% of all domestic violence is the woman beating the man, just men do not report it.Scryer_360 03:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean. It's not "Gender Equality Day," it's V-Day... it's to stop violence against women and girls. They're not saying that men being hurt is a good thing, any more than someone raising money for breast cancer is therefore a big fan of colon cancer.--Agbdavis 07:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
