Jump to content

Talk:The Vagina Monologues: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Read Our Lips: new section
Read Our Lips: excess info.
Line 96: Line 96:


I also feel that the Men's Story Project should be considered for the chopping block: Perhaps a separate section could be made for this, but it's pretty small potatoes, too. Are we supposed to feature every amateur spin-off there is?
I also feel that the Men's Story Project should be considered for the chopping block: Perhaps a separate section could be made for this, but it's pretty small potatoes, too. Are we supposed to feature every amateur spin-off there is?

::I agree with that above users concerns. This article is specifically about the Vagina Monologues which as a subject only encompasses 'so much'. If this was an article about 'feminist theater', for example, then naturally there would be a much broader scope of discussion/study and additions such as 'Read Our Lips' would be totally appropriate. Perhaps the information can be 'blocked-out' from view yet left for others to possibly copy to a more relevant article or a new article if desired? The Men's Story Project seems to have a little more relevance, yet only as a male structured version of the Vagina Monologues. Other than that, the information doesn't seem to belong here either. --[[User:Yonkinator|Yonkinator]] ([[User talk:Yonkinator|talk]]) 15:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:07, 24 February 2009

WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

POV

I can appreciate that The Vagina Monolgues has been widely criticised, but this article is mostly about what is wrong with the play. Only a small paragraph explains the nature of the play, and this doesn't explain why the play is noteworthy or go into any detail about the play itself. Surely there is more to this work than the poltical controversy surrounding it? An An 12:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To abate this bias, we need to muster up in-my-own-words accounts of what the subject is.

There should be a seperate article called "Vagina Monologues Criticism, where all the crit is moved, and a "see also" link to it here. -Guest

No. If it relates to the Article, is based around the article, it is part of the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a talk show damnit. --Cyberman 05:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV 2

I've pared down some of the material in the criticisms section. Its very one-sided, used weasel words, didn't add to an appreciation of the play as a whole (by contextualising it within society). It was just lambasting Ensler while celebrating the opinions of other individuals - and wikipedia isn't the vehicle for that.

Can anyone prove that Robert Swope was sacked because of his article about the play? Its basically hearsay, which isn't appropriate for wikipedia. An An 01:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that I think Swope is justified at least in criticising the positive portrayal of statutory rape. Though it sounds like he's a tool overall.98.223.247.4 (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could some other material criticizing the Vagina Monologues be found? I read through some of those articles, and I agree with AnnaAniston. A lot of the arguments being made were extremely one-sided, were generalizing/stereotyping/making degrading assumptions, or were simply bad arguments. If we could find some criticism from a different point of view or one that is focused on the play as a whole related to society, it would be a much better balanced section.

As it is, it makes me cringe that we have a section of links from only one side, when there has to be material that could be found from both. 97.85.153.41 (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hair - cites wanted

I am moving the following to the talk page:

Some also criticized a section of the play called "Hair", which was seen as having the message that a woman could not be liberated if she chose to shave her pubic hair [5] (http://bettydodson.com/vdaymonobrad.htm).

Some also criticized is a weasel-term and not welcome on wikipedia. The source for this criticism is a letter to Betty Dodson from Brad Fox whom, I believe is a webmaster of [1] (I can't fully verify this while at work). The source is published among a collection of letters and articles crticising The Vagina Monologues on Dodson's webpage - a self-publishing arena.

In terms of re-working this paragraph to be NPOV, it would be better to show published, scholarly or argued criticism of this monologue. Or, it would be better if someone would like to get a script and write an NPOV description of a sample of monologues. This second option would allow readers of wikipedia to make informed choices about the subject matter themselves. If no-one else takes this up, I will do it when I have time. An An 01:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't take experts to refute this argument. Viewing pubic hair removal as a choice equivalent to the choice of retaining it is already a form of liberation. Mission9801 03:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't have to refute the argument, we have to describe the play in neutral terms! AnAn 22:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of Eve Ensler's post-"Monologues" work has been dedicated to focus on brutality by patriarchies against the very existence of women: Her follow up, Necessary Targets, was an extension of the Bosnian Piece, about a pair of women who travel to Bosnia to aid victims of the rape camps. Her next work, The Good Body, presents the stories of fourteen women from all around the world who altered their bodies in some way after caving to societal pressure, which is portrayed as a tool of oppression wrought by male society.

American college performances

While its nice to know that The Vagina Monologues has been performed at so many american college campuses. But, I'm beginning to think that the list is becoming long and a bit meaningless. I suggest that we either pick 2 (or 3) high-profile campuses and list those, or just create a list of performance venues and list everywhere its ever been done. AnAn 01:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article claims that the transgendered monologues cannot be performed at Catholic universities. I attend a Catholic university, am currently in the play, and am reading part of the monologue for it. Therefore, I question the validity of this statement.147.126.46.168 01:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In England

The article omits the 2 V-Days held in London (1999 and 2002) with a cast to rival that of New York, in addition to the highly successful West End run from May 2001 through to October 2002. V9seb 14:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Indonesia

The Vagina Monologues have been performed in Indonesia a couple of years ago. At Jakarta's Taman Ismail Marzuki if I'm not mistaken. A couple of Indonesian actresses participated, among them Ria Irawan and Christine Hakim, again if I recall correctly. Unfortunately I can't remember when exactly, nor can I cite any media coverage of the performance. But it has been performed in Indonesia. --Lemi4 05:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australia

They have been performed in Adelaide in the last 2 years. Ozdaren 14:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actresses alphabetical order pls!

I am going to put these in alphabetical order if no-one has any objections. -- Librarianofages 11:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this massive list even necessary? Since nothing is said to them, what difference would there be between having this massive section lengthening this article, and say a category?--Crossmr 14:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It shoud be alphabetized and/or broken out into it's own article called Actresses who have performed in The Vagina Monologues. Of course, some people would prefer the non-gender specific term Actor. If no one can bother to alphabetize it, it serves no purpose in my view. However, if the list is in order of the women who have appeared in it chronologically, it could stay. At present the list is NOT in chronological order, just random as they thought of it order. LiPollis 05:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But again, what purpose does it serve? Wikipedia isn't a random collection of information, and a simple list of individuals who have performed in this play doesn't seem to me like it really benefits this article. Since nothing is being written about them, and its a simple list, adding a category to an article about them if they're notable enough should suffice.--Crossmr 07:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the list is going to ultimately remain or not, but I went ahead an alphabetized the list and corrected the column structure. I didn't organize by last name as that would not have been as visually appealing. Tanman627 10:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tanman627 for being bold! I too wonder if the list is necessary at all but at lkeast now there is some order to it. I understand why you did it the way you did, by first name. Someone may still re-order it by last name, but this is better than the random listing. Thanks again. Perhaps we should put the list to a vote? LiPollis 08:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Performances

Why are the Canadian Performances seperated from the others worldwide? There is no text stating why this is neccessary. Should it say U.S. performaces, then Canadian, then other parts of the world? I'm assuming that the first performance listing is US. ZueJay (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender Version

Isn't there a Transgender version of the Vagina Monologues featuring completely original segments? I saw a documentary about it but it may have just been something inspired by the Vagina Monologues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.63.202.209 (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Separated Trivia from references and organized the links a bit. Didn't have time to finish, will do so later if possible. [unsigned]

The trivia section contains entirely references to the vagina monologues in popular culture. It ought to be changed to a 'References in Popular Culture' section. [unsigned]

Performances in other countries

The "Performances in other countries" section should, IMO, be split into its own article - takes up much too much space here. Comments? --ZimZalaBim talk 21:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lulz

Just wanted to thank whoever came up with "Hoohaa brouhaha." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.180.14 (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vagina Monologues Racist?

I recently read an article (http://asreview.as.wwu.edu/News/561/womens-center-not-to-produce-vagina-monologues-this-year) that spoke of criticism of vag mon being racist. Apparently the roles of women being brutalized are directed to be played by women of colour. Essentially the mantle of victim hood is pushed onto women of color. While the more empowering roles are to be played by whites. I was wondering if this should be added to the criticism section of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by P0o1 (talkcontribs) 18:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go cry to Al Sharpton or the ACLU.--70.149.134.54 (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:LogoblackbackVDAY.gif

Image:LogoblackbackVDAY.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read Our Lips

I am not comfortable with this paragraph at all. I think it needs to come out entirely as it's merely discussing an amateur performance and it references to an amateur blog. As it says in the blog: "We had about 55-60 people show up for our 3 performances. Most of them were friends & family supporting us." You can't get much more amateur than that.

I also feel that the Men's Story Project should be considered for the chopping block: Perhaps a separate section could be made for this, but it's pretty small potatoes, too. Are we supposed to feature every amateur spin-off there is?

I agree with that above users concerns. This article is specifically about the Vagina Monologues which as a subject only encompasses 'so much'. If this was an article about 'feminist theater', for example, then naturally there would be a much broader scope of discussion/study and additions such as 'Read Our Lips' would be totally appropriate. Perhaps the information can be 'blocked-out' from view yet left for others to possibly copy to a more relevant article or a new article if desired? The Men's Story Project seems to have a little more relevance, yet only as a male structured version of the Vagina Monologues. Other than that, the information doesn't seem to belong here either. --Yonkinator (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]