Forever annoyed at people being so willing to believe the Roman defamation of Cleopatra. Alexandria was an ancient super power under her rule, because she managed to get support from the Egyptian people for the first time really in her families 300 year odd dynasty. She was a huge threat to Rome at that point, and the only documentation of her being a coquettish seductress hell bent on ruining everything come from Roman historians and writers of the time. But the Arabic texts tell a very different story. There’s not any mention of anything like that, instead it’s documentation that talks about her being a philosopher and enjoying being surrounded by scholars.
Cleopatra succeeded where most of the Ptolemaic dynasty failed. By having better command of the Egyptian language, religion and social dynamics; she won the support of Egypt rather than endless rebellions. The coins minted under her rule, and the statues built from them show a woman who wasn’t some stunning queen. She was incredibly intelligent, and ambitious as proven by her attempt to unify Rome and Egypt through her son Caesarion.
It’s 2015, can we please stop taking biased accounts as facts and writing Cleopatra off as someone who fucked her way to power, as opposed to a woman who was actually extremely politically intelligent and who was so much so, that she quite literally terrified the Romans as a very real potential threat to their position as a world power? Thanks.
This is how they take everything from us, even our history. If the men can’t wipe it out of memory the turn it into sexy bullshit.
Web 2.0 was meant to be a game changer for feminism. Academics and social commentators alike told us that social media platforms would be a fabulous resource for our activist practices, allowing us to work collaboratively, communicate with ease, develop ideas, and expand the reach of the movement. Some argue that social media has resulted in all this and more. Common doctrine persists that “there is no glass ceiling on Twitter.”
Undoubtedly, many single-issue liberal feminist campaigns are visible, even prolific, on social media platforms. From Slutwalk to #FacesofProstitution, women are using social media to organize in the name of women’s liberation. Men are even defending their right to do so. But surely it is here that we need to start asking more questions. What kind of feminism is being facilitated by social media platforms? And what kind of feminism can really develop while men are watching?
The #FreetheNipple campaign, for example, clearly illustrates the type of feminism that is able to flourish on social media platforms. Free the Nipple claims to be “an equality movement, and a mission to empower women across the world.” It calls for a “more balanced system of censorship and legal rights for all women to breastfeed in public.” This, certainly, is a good thing. But the campaign now seems to be less about a woman’s right to breastfeed and more about a woman’s right to post a topless selfie.
By comparison, feminist activism that offers revolutionary ideas and issues a strong challenge to dominant cultural norms appears to be severely lacking on social media platforms. During the second wave, feminists deeply questioned personal life politics in order to formulate their political theory. Women made connections between issues, and remained resolute that emancipation on male terms was not enough. It was always about asking the hard questions. In the words of Catherine MacKinnon, the process of consciousness raising represents the “collective critical reconstitution” of female social reality. At this time, women were engaged in reframing patriarchal assumptions: understanding the pornography and prostitution industries as violence against women, theorizing the reproductive technology industry as facilitating male control of women’s bodies, and developing the concept of compulsory heterosexuality.
The type of feminism occurring on social media platforms today, however, often appears to be little more than what the recent book, Freedom Fallacy: the Limits of Liberal Feminism, describes as a popular brand of “fun-feminism” or “feminism-lite.” This type of feminism is palatable to a male audience, does not require women to engage in the often painful process of self-reflection integral to consciousness raising, and contains little, if any, political conceptualization of structural male dominance. Rather, the kind of social media campaigns that receive the most media attention often focus on a woman’s individual right to objectify herself.
Using the very language of the sex industry, the twitter account @freethenipple prompts a response from its viewers by asking: “How far will you go for Equality?” Increasing numbers of young women are now uploading topless photos of themselves on Twitter using the hashtag. The campaign has garnered widespread public support, and generated a large amount of publicity due to the backing of popular celebrities such as Miley Cyrus and Lena Dunham.
It is difficult to understand, however, how the Free the Nipple campaign in any way challenges male social dominance. Rather, young women are being urged to strip for the entertainment of an infinite number of men on social media sites. Insidiously, such behavior is being sold back to women as empowering, and once again the sexual objectification of women is being rebranded as feminist. Men, meanwhile, are able to share and download these images countless times for their own purposes.
ONE OF THE FUCKING BEST FEMINIST SCENES IN TV EVER.
“but remember that when you are in debt that women get paid more for being sex objects in male fantasies than they do for practicing medicine” okay yeah if you think that’s feminism you haven’t read a single book on the subject apparently
Why do women need to have sexualised pictures taken of themselves to be able to afford an education? Who does this benefit?
Women have fought to be able to get an education and being exploited for let’s face it petty cash is just more evidence of inequality.
These pictures can be used against women in the future and threaten women’s career.
I am not really comfortable with the free the nipple’s topless activism. We don’t need this shit.
australian-red-cedar “i like the premise but
tbh true nipple freedom will only come *after* men stop sexualising
them, nipples right now certainly won’t convince them to stop“
Exactly they skipped ahead to the point where men’s hypersexualisation is lessened and more socially unacceptable. They are being too unrealistic.
The same arguments that showing off women’s naked bodies will create positive change for women (somehow) have been made by pro porn advocates and look where that’s done to women.
most girls and women have learned to perform sexy years before actually feeling desire of their own. it is incredibly difficult to separate the performance of sexy from one’s own actual desire.
the saturation of women-as-objects, abusers using grooming techniques such as exposing minors to porn, the constant and overwhelming message that women exist solely to be fucked by men – these are things you absorb long before you learn that you have the right to enjoy your own body. if your sex positive feminism can’t be bothered to address the difference between these things, or brush them off then your sex positive feminism hurts women.
Not all Muslim women cover their bodies. Not all Muslim women who do are forced to do so. Like freelance writer Hanna Yusuf, who chooses to wear a hijab in a daily act of feminism. In a new video for The Guardian, Yusuf challenges stereotypes by setting out to reclaim the choice to wear a hijab as “a feminist statement.”
hijab is not feminist it’s a religious practice that is used often by men to oppress us
honestly sick of this choicey feminism!!
what about the millions of us women forced to wear it by men and the laws they make?
i understand that muslim women in the west face a lot of shit for their hijab and we’ve always/ always will support you, but can you not throw us under the bus just to make yourself a name in popular western feminism?
“…reduced to their sexual allure…” Girls and women are literally being forced to cover up because of how sexualized the female body is. They think men might get too distracted and even sin when they see the human female body, yet we’re the ones being blamed.
Because women’s bodies are hyper-sexualised covering up does not discourage unwanted attention. Men will sexualise anything. It isn’t really about the clothes the clothes are pretense.
yeah exactly. She seems to think there is a way to dress that will make men take you seriously but there just isn’t. The prude/slut dichotomy thing punishes everyone regardless of what side they are perceived to be on.
Not only that but men will sexually fixate on the clothes themselves. Women covering up creates a taboo and many men see that as a boundary to cross for sexual gratification. If women had to hide their elbows men would obsess over women’s elbows. It’s men’s psychology that is the problem not women’s bodies.
Not all Muslim women cover their bodies. Not all Muslim women who do are forced to do so. Like freelance writer Hanna Yusuf, who chooses to wear a hijab in a daily act of feminism. In a new video for The Guardian, Yusuf challenges stereotypes by setting out to reclaim the choice to wear a hijab as “a feminist statement.”
hijab is not feminist it’s a religious practice that is used often by men to oppress us
honestly sick of this choicey feminism!!
what about the millions of us women forced to wear it by men and the laws they make?
i understand that muslim women in the west face a lot of shit for their hijab and we’ve always/ always will support you, but can you not throw us under the bus just to make yourself a name in popular western feminism?
“…reduced to their sexual allure…” Girls and women are literally being forced to cover up because of how sexualized the female body is. They think men might get too distracted and even sin when they see the human female body, yet we’re the ones being blamed.
Because women’s bodies are hyper-sexualised covering up does not discourage unwanted attention. Men will sexualise It isn’t really about the clothes the clothes are pretense.
Men that think the objectification of women is simply “appreciating women and their bodies” make me cringe and I avoid them at all costs.
Sexual objectification always follows wins for women. It is an attempt to put women back in ‘their place’; that place being beneath men, individually, collectively, metaphorically and literally. Commonplace sexual objectification sends powerful messages to women and children of course; but it also sends messages to men. It sends messages of assurance, messages that say no matter women’s gains towards equality in the workplace, in politics, in the home – women as a class can be, and are still, reduced to their sex alone: scrutinise-able, purchase-able and abuse-able.
One of the many reasons MAD MAX: FURY ROAD is so successful as an action film is the editing style. By using “Eye Trace” and “Crosshair […cut for length]
It occurs to me that one of the reasons Mad Max is so remarkably effective at eschewing the male gaze may be because of this approach. If you listen to this pre-release talk by the cinematographers, he talks about how challenging it was for him to follow Miller’s edict to keep the centre on whatever was meant to be the focus of the scene because, and this is from memory and it’s a two hour talk, ( but I think it’s in the first twenty minutes or so, and he says it twice, so if anyone wants to go check?) his instinct was to include the beautiful girls in the back of the cab.
Like, he literally mentions how gorgeous Rosie Huntington-Whiteley is, and how it went against all his instincts to leave her out, even though the scene was supposed to be about Furiosa, or Max.
And I think we the viewers noticed that.
As someone who has no training in film or video, I would have to see some counter-examples, to see how not-on-center more conventional cinematography is. And to see some more exploration of what it has to do with male (or other) gaze.
Most film composition and photography composition is off-center for visual interest. Specifically they aim to hit one of the golden ratio ‘points of interest’, all you have to do is google “Golden Ratio” or “Rule of Thirds” and the word “composition”. This is the golden ratio:
The blue lines are where it would appear on a rectangle the ‘points of interest is roughly where the lines cross perpendicular. You can ‘cheat’ by using ‘thirds’ (black lines) instead of the golden (blue lines) REMEMBER THESE POINTS:
This is (mostly) center frame:
This is more classically composed:
You can see especially how she literally shifts from one point of the golden ratio to another. Your eyes are immediately drawn to her eyes. (San Andreas trailer which is mostly clean of male gaze)
Max is, as a still shot, in comparison more ‘boring’. Your eyes aren’t ‘led’ anywhere. There’s nowhere for it to go…which is a good thing because your attention needs to be about right there because Max is going to nearly get his head taken off.
And then you have the Age of Ultron trailer. (Fuck you Marvel):
If you’re framing this by the golden ratio, one of the points of interest is at her eyes, the other is her cleavage. I BARELY HAD TO GO 20s INTO THE TRAILER.
Why don’t we get Steve’s cleavage?
Why don’t we get Tony’s cleavage?
Both their eyes are at the sweet spot of the Golden Ratio.
Natasha’s head and ass are too, however.
Red Witch’s chest instead of her face….
See how there’s almost no headspace for Natasha:
The focus here is literally NOT on her face, it’s on Natasha’s chest and hips
Celtyradfem 