feminizam i prikljucenija

disident wrote:Meni je ovo potpuno novo, mislio sam da su to gluposti altrajtovaca , kako feministkinje size na seks lutke jer su onda potpuno nepotrebne. A rdo mi zvuci kao registar osoba koje poseduju bilo kakvu seks igracki

disident wrote:Mada priznajem da me zanima argumentacija doticne, sta je problem u seks lutkama, nikad se nisam bavio tim fenomenom

sejlor wrote:A pa tako reci, ne zanima te diskusija o fenomenu, nego konkretna osoba.

The assumption: consent once, circulate forever. Once you have put an image into circulation, it can be circulated forever. These women, like celeb­rities who deliberately cross the line dividing private from public, can be exposed shamelessly as shameless. Again, this logic blames the user, her habits of leaking, for the inherent leakiness of new media.

As mentioned previously, this linking of gender, race, and privacy has a long history within the United States, as Eden Osucha, Eva Cherniavsky, and Hortense Spillers among others have demonstrated. The right to pri­vacy in the United States was defined in relation to a white femininity that was purportedly injured by the mass circulation images. This circulation was portrayed as intrinsically pornographic, as racialized and racializing. Osucha makes this point by comparing the case of Abigail M. Roberson, to which "The Right to Privacy" largely responded and which inspired New York State's first privacy law, and that of Nancy Green, the woman who would become "Aunt Jemima.1126 These women's images were used to sell related mass commodities: Roberson's to sell flour; Green's to sell pancake mix. Green's image-like that of so many people of color used in advertis­ing during that period-was assumed to be general rather than individual; Green did not have-and was never perceived to have-a right to privacy. As Hortense Spillers has argued, captivity and slavery de-gendered the enslaved body, reducing the female slave body to unprotected flesh that could be exposed so that others could become private subjects.27 Roberson, in contrast, was seen as "damaged" and profoundly shamed by the mass 148 Chapter 4 circulation of her image. Her body's image-and thus private bourgeois subjects in general-needed to be protected. Citing Cherniavsky, Osucha notes that historically, "white women's claim to a protected interiority receives the widest cultural sanction, insofar as white women are required to embody interiority for others.''28 This logic is still with us today: Justice Antonin Scalia, in the majority decision in Kyllo v. United States, which declared the use of heat-seeking technology on private homes unlawful (that is, until such technology became widely available), argued that this technology "might disclose ... at what hour each night the lady of the house takes her daily sauna and bath-a detail that many would consider 'intimate.'"29 The term "lady" and the presumption of a "daily sauna and bath"  make clear the class bias of this statement. Even more pointedly, in light of slut shaming, white privileged women are required to  embody shame, so that 'we' might empathize with them; indeed so that a 'we' that empathizes may emerge.30

This logic, however, is complicated because this demand to embody interiority-that is, be shamed-is coupled with the simultaneous condem­nation and celebrification of women who refuse to do so. In essence, we have the clash of two stereotypes: the proper young white bourgeois woman who is wounded and shamed by publicity, and the empowered young white woman who embodies publicity and consumption by "self-branding.''

erős paprika wrote:jel ima negde ti skrinsotovi da ne gledam ovog pacenika?