UNF Newspaper Shocks

Non-RedNeck Westsider · March 31, 2011, 09:52:48 AM

QuoteJacksonville is the same town that couldn't handle The Vagina Monologues being on a theater marquee.

Yet has no problem with "Dick's Wings"

copperfiend · March 31, 2011, 10:14:42 AM

Quote from: stephendare on March 31, 2011, 09:54:30 AM
Quote from: copperfiend on March 31, 2011, 09:41:09 AM
Jacksonville is the same town that couldn't handle The Vagina Monologues being on a theater marquee.

That was the choice of the theatre director, Tom Fallon (a good friend actually) not the city. He got in trouble for it with the Vagina Monologues people. Its part of their contract.

I think he chickened out and called it the 'Hoo Ha' monologues instead.

Which to my ear is actually funnier, but I don't think that was the point.

In fact, I cant think of a funnier thing to call a vagina than a 'hoo ha'. It sounds simultaneously childish, tribal and embarrassed.

I know the city of Jacksonville had nothing to do with it because it was in Atlantic Beach. My point was more on the citizenry of this area. People called and complained about the word Vagina being on a theater marquee.

Timkin · March 31, 2011, 11:52:34 AM

I thought it was a great cover and great informative article. I fail to see what is so offensive.

Timkin · March 31, 2011, 11:53:21 AM

Quote from: Shwaz on March 31, 2011, 09:52:48 AM
Quote from: copperfiend on March 31, 2011, 09:41:09 AM
Jacksonville is the same town that couldn't handle The Vagina Monologues being on a theater marquee.

Jacksonville is only one chromosome away from being Westboro KY.

THAT is scary... But you're right

Debbie Thompson · March 31, 2011, 12:44:43 PM

You are missing Sarah's point, and sorry, I have to agree with her. Her problem isn't the information. She agrees with the topic. Her problem is the objectifying of the woman's body on the cover. The woman is scantily clad; the man is fully dressed. Why isn't the man in a g-string? If you are going to make this woman into a scantily clad object, why not the man?

That's the issue. It's one the women's libbers have been pointing out for quite some time, and you are all still missing the point.

Sarah, glad you pointed it out. Obviously, someone needed to bring the discussion back into focus.

Timkin · March 31, 2011, 12:49:50 PM

Well , I didn't write the story or design the cover , but I would have been okay with with the guy in skimpy clothing. I get what you're saying.

Sorry I missed the point .

finehoe · March 31, 2011, 01:04:11 PM

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on March 31, 2011, 12:44:43 PM
Her problem is the objectifying of the woman's body on the cover. That's the issue.

Too bad her rant just comes across as an hysterical anti-sex screed.

Timkin · March 31, 2011, 01:05:30 PM

Well.. she is entitled to her opinion, and I now get it. I just did not think about it in that light, so to speak ..

SarahTay · March 31, 2011, 01:17:39 PM

Thank you Debbie...

In response to everyone:

I use the term 'kids' loosely - and sarcastically here in the context of discussing this small group of students. I am aware that most students at a university are "young adults", being one of them. There are an equal amount of adults and 17 year-olds, mind you.

No I am not on the staff now. However, I also use to work for the Spinnaker - for 2 1/2 years - so I am aware of the "for students by students" mission statement... you can save the deliverance for someone else.

Let me be clear - I titled the post as I did because "people are talking about it" - at school, on local news networks, and on larger blog sites. I personally am not shocked BY ANYTHING, anymore. Nowhere in my rant did I say I was shocked. But yes shocked in the fact that it has drawn so much attention, but hey, you're right that bad attention is better than none at all.

Yes it is an independent, student-run paper. But the school's student government funds them - they are a paid staff and SG has the right to revoke such payment, which they did. They voted for the first time in years to strip their funds for three days - making them work without pay to put out this current week's issue.

I'm not sure why the girls didn't step up, suppose they had no problem with it either. But my thing is, I have no problem, again, pushing the envelope. I have no problem with the "attention-grabbing" aspect, I'm aware of the elements that make for great journalism. I praise his boldness. It did get people to pick up the paper, but that doesn't mean they'll pick up next week's or the next. This is the most, and one of very few, "provocative" cover they've ever had. If the intention was for shock value to jumpstart circulation, be consistent.

My point here is if you're going to have a passionate cover, you need to have a passionate staff. They aren't being reactive or care to explain or really have a good excuse other than "it's necessary" and something people need to know about. And AGAIN, I'm not commenting on the story alone nor the picture alone. I have no problem with each on its own - I have a problem with the pairing of the two. I don't see the connection. And they aren't making it for me. I'm not ashamed to say I'm a woman and I found the cover, as a woman, offensive. Why isn't the guy stripped down? The picture inside on Pg. 5 is also the girl "receiving". Why didn't they switch it up? It says to me that woman are the ones spreading it. I rarely have a problem with any news angle or story, but I have a problem here, sorry.

I can see I'll have to pay my dues and be initiated on this site. I appreciate and respect all of your opinions. I have a lot to learn and I am excited to do so.

Timkin · March 31, 2011, 01:20:00 PM

Welcome, Sarah

sean · March 31, 2011, 01:26:57 PM

YABSNI
Yet Another Bull Shit Non Issue

SarahTay · March 31, 2011, 01:39:40 PM

"hysterical rant?" Well excuse me for being passionate and having an opinion, surprising a young female has one, I know.

"anti-sex"?? HA if you only knew...

finehoe · March 31, 2011, 02:03:46 PM

Quote from: SarahTay on March 31, 2011, 01:39:40 PM
surprising a young female has one, I know.

Please. Check the victimhood at the door.

Jimmy · March 31, 2011, 02:05:43 PM

Quote from: SarahTay on March 31, 2011, 01:17:39 PM
I am aware that most students at a university are "young adults", being one of them. There are an equal amount of adults and 17 year-olds, mind you.

You're an aspiring journalist. I'm going to need to see a source for that statistic. It strains credibility.

KenFSU · March 31, 2011, 02:06:15 PM

Though I do appreciate your passionate opinion Sarah, I disagree on the cover. I realize that I'm speaking from a male's point of view, but to me, regardless of attire, it seems like it could be viewed as equally, if not more degrading to the male.

Ask yourself this question:

What if instead of a fully clothed male doing the deed for a partially dressed female, it was a fully clothed female doing the dead for a partially clothed male, how would you react? I'm guessing the average female would be WAY, WAY, WAY more offended.

Don't get me wrong, objectification is a real issue that has real consequences on the female population, I just don't see it being a real issue with this particular cover.