Talk:V-Day (movement)

Edit attribution

The following edits were me. My session got logged out without my realising it:

1. (cur)(last) 02:31, 5 Apr 2005 220.244.224.204 (→See also)
2. (cur) (last) 02:27, 5 Apr 2005 220.244.224.204
3. (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.

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)

I've done a little revision to address the ad-like tone and have added one ref, more to come. I agree that the article needs a lot of work, but I think a little effort could produce a nice contribution to the Vagina Monologues article. I dosagree that the article has clear POV issues. I am removing the tag. If someone chooses to reinstate it, would they please cite some specifics. Thanks. Phyesalis 06:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Copyright violation

I have reverted the article to the last version that does not feature large chucks of copyrighted text, copied verbatim from the V-Day website. If it appears again, I will request the article be locked, and/or submit it for speedy deletion as per Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Martin 18:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I moved the other usages back to the very top, but this should just be a disambiguation page with redirects to things called "V-Day", including "V-Day (feminism)". --70.234.37.206 04:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Commercial

Though far from perfect, I have attempted to re-write the article so that it reflects the topic at hand, rather than acting as an essential commercial/apologia for the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.82.93 (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Feminist theory section -- is this OR?

The Feminist Theory section has no citations and appears to be wholly original. I have removed it from the text, placing a copy of it here. Please, revert and add citations if it isn't OR.

Feminist Theory

Empowerment Many have applauded the Vagina Monologues and V-Day for its ability to make women feel empowered. The play leaves many women feeling like they can change the world and that they can make the changes in their own lives that are necessary for them to better themselves. This literary work has been said to help inspire women to heal from past violent encounters or to become leaders in their own communities.

Solidarity The movement is meant to bring women together. It is meant to help women to celebrate themselves, appreciate themselves, and to learn their self worth. V-Day provides an outlet to bring women together and to help them deal with their own issues and problems by learning from those around them. Through one unified movement, many are able to consolidate their goals and ideas and find common ground through the need for gender equality.

Standpoint Theory Standpoint theory is based on the idea that one person cannot sincerely empathize with another individual unless they have been through the same issues. The Vagina Monologues attempts to bridge the gap between individuals by providing them with in-depth details and backgrounds about one another's lives in an attempt to grow empathy for one another and to put themselves in one another's shoes.

Intersectionality This movement brings many other factors into the discussion than just gender. V-Day takes an individual's race, religion, ethnicity, culture, sexuality, social class, and gender into account. V-Day makes people aware that there are people living in certain conditions different than others and that those conditions may be more conducive to violence and oppression. Because V-Day is a global movement it is important to take all of these factors into account when organizing protests, marches, and community programs.

Phiwum (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on V-Day (movement). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080515075252/http://www.vday.org/contents/vday/aboutvday/mission to http://www.vday.org/contents/vday/aboutvday/mission

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)