Publications
Partners
News of the second big celebrity nude photo hack broke recently, and, needless to say, it didn’t quite reach the level of popularity as the first.
Partly because everyone’s said all that they’ve needed to say, and partly because it’s tough for the world to care about one issue twice. Remember #bringbackourgirls?
All our favourite publications are scuffling to ensure that they list exactly which of these famous women have been hit this time – the names meticulously entered both in the title and the metadescription, you know, for SEO.
Kim Kardashian was high up on the new list.
Naturally, Buzzfeed was all over it like Richard Dawkins on a Mormon, but there seemed to be some interesting differences in the way they reported it this time around.
Buzzfeed mentioned some of the well-known names of stars who are the new victims, with a brief informative blurb underneath. Take a look:
The information they included about Kim is particularly interesting. These days, the key to understanding current social progression is to tune out the diatribe, and pay close attention to what respectable sources say between the lines.
When it comes to social issues, publications like Buzzfeed, despite their painstaking gif-age, have undertaken to be a decent source of information with a strong, liberal voice.
However, when the strong liberal voice appears to include some unusual pieces of information, you kind of have to question why.
They haven’t described or specified what accessories or wedding bands any of the other women were wearing. Nor have they mentioned which magazines the other starlettes posed nude or semi-nude for – and a fair number of them have, including Rihanna.
In a news update that’s short and to the point, why mention those things specifically about one person? What’s the significance of her having posed naked for GQ?
In a post about victims of leaked nude photos, it seems rather odd to state that one of the victims also posed nude for a magazine. Sure, they’re both about sexual photos but one is consensual and the other isn’t – which, in any other circumstance, makes it quite uncomfortable to put in the same sentence.
Buzzfeed is gently river dancing around a line.
Had the woman in question been Jennifer Lawrence, I wonder if they would have alluded to that at all. But Kim Kardashian is generally an exception when it comes to empathy of this sort.
Yes, I don’t like her either. She seems unintelligent, she’s talentless, and talks in that spectacularly annoying way.
She’s the world’s quintessential big-boobed, dumb girl - the only type of woman that progressive people still think they’re allowed to slut shame.
Let’s look back circa Kim Kardashian sex tape - she had an affair with Ray J, they taped it, and it was leaked. She sued and matter was settled out of court for a few millions.
Much like the starlettes who took nude photos for private purposes, Kim was a victim then. Interestingly, at the time, very few publications and fewer people seemed to have acknowledged that fact.
Before they even considered it an attack on her rights, the first port of call was to question whether she was telling the truth. She shouldn’t have made it in the first place. I bet she’s the one who leaked it.
In fact, the feminist site Jezebel – who spring into journalistic action every time a Lena Dunham picture is photshopped – seemed to be positively bitchy about all things Kim, and even actually linked to the video in an article of theirs. Keeping it classy.
On the list this time is also Vanessa Hudgens.
Remember 2007 – when the High School Musical star’s topless photos were leaked? Do you remember, a mere 7 years ago, how people reacted when her private photos surfaced?
There was no talk of rights, sexism and online sexual violation. She was asked to apologise with speculation that Disney would fire her. But Disney, being the forward-thinking organisation they are, simple stated that "Vanessa has apologized for what was obviously a lapse in judgment. We hope she's learned a valuable lesson."
Thanks for that Disney. Clearly she didn’t learn her lesson – the harlot is STILL having a sex life.
Overall, the leaked photos in the past two months have garnered a new kind of attention. Respected sites like The Guardian wrote insightful articles on the role of gender dynamics when it comes to reducing powerful woman to nothing but a body - and not just one that’s naked.
Nudity is not inherently degrading. The true degradation and titillation stems from the fact that these women didn’t want these photos to be seen by the public – it comes from the lack of consent.
As Roxanne Gay from The Guardian put it: “It is meant to remind women of their place. Don’t get too high and mighty, ladies. Don’t step out of line. Don’t do anything to upset or disappoint men who feel entitled to your time, bodies, affection or attention. Your bared body can always be used as a weapon against you. You bared body can always be used to shame and humiliate you.” And so it has.
Jennifer Lawrence’s picture graced the covers of every single article about this problem.
As much as she is a victim of it all, it’s also incredibly unsettling to see how a woman’s popularity affects the level of empathy she earns in a situation like this. Jennifer is the official poster girl for the issue because she’s popular right now – she is awesome and wholesome and everyone’s BFF.
This phenomenon isn’t unusual; often in rape trials, the victim’s likeability has been shown to play a big part in how the case is perceived. But acknowledgement of victimisation, in whatever circumstance, should not be proportional to popularity.
Had it been Kim instead of JLaw the first time around – well, I think there may have been a slightly different rhetoric.
There are thousands of women who are subjected to this kind of violation; it’s so popular it even has its own market.
Some of the girls may be liked by those who know them, others might be hated; some are totes awesome like JLaw, others may be a Kim.
Either way, nobody cares how you feel about the person. That detail is completely irrelevant to the situation. The bottom line is that you don’t have to like a woman – but her rights are no less important simply because you don’t like her.
Follow Women24 on Twitter and like us on Facebook.
Partly because everyone’s said all that they’ve needed to say, and partly because it’s tough for the world to care about one issue twice. Remember #bringbackourgirls?
All our favourite publications are scuffling to ensure that they list exactly which of these famous women have been hit this time – the names meticulously entered both in the title and the metadescription, you know, for SEO.
Kim Kardashian was high up on the new list.
Naturally, Buzzfeed was all over it like Richard Dawkins on a Mormon, but there seemed to be some interesting differences in the way they reported it this time around.
Buzzfeed mentioned some of the well-known names of stars who are the new victims, with a brief informative blurb underneath. Take a look:
The information they included about Kim is particularly interesting. These days, the key to understanding current social progression is to tune out the diatribe, and pay close attention to what respectable sources say between the lines.
When it comes to social issues, publications like Buzzfeed, despite their painstaking gif-age, have undertaken to be a decent source of information with a strong, liberal voice.
However, when the strong liberal voice appears to include some unusual pieces of information, you kind of have to question why.
They haven’t described or specified what accessories or wedding bands any of the other women were wearing. Nor have they mentioned which magazines the other starlettes posed nude or semi-nude for – and a fair number of them have, including Rihanna.
In a news update that’s short and to the point, why mention those things specifically about one person? What’s the significance of her having posed naked for GQ?
In a post about victims of leaked nude photos, it seems rather odd to state that one of the victims also posed nude for a magazine. Sure, they’re both about sexual photos but one is consensual and the other isn’t – which, in any other circumstance, makes it quite uncomfortable to put in the same sentence.
Buzzfeed is gently river dancing around a line.
Had the woman in question been Jennifer Lawrence, I wonder if they would have alluded to that at all. But Kim Kardashian is generally an exception when it comes to empathy of this sort.
Yes, I don’t like her either. She seems unintelligent, she’s talentless, and talks in that spectacularly annoying way.
She’s the world’s quintessential big-boobed, dumb girl - the only type of woman that progressive people still think they’re allowed to slut shame.
Let’s look back circa Kim Kardashian sex tape - she had an affair with Ray J, they taped it, and it was leaked. She sued and matter was settled out of court for a few millions.
Much like the starlettes who took nude photos for private purposes, Kim was a victim then. Interestingly, at the time, very few publications and fewer people seemed to have acknowledged that fact.
Before they even considered it an attack on her rights, the first port of call was to question whether she was telling the truth. She shouldn’t have made it in the first place. I bet she’s the one who leaked it.
In fact, the feminist site Jezebel – who spring into journalistic action every time a Lena Dunham picture is photshopped – seemed to be positively bitchy about all things Kim, and even actually linked to the video in an article of theirs. Keeping it classy.
On the list this time is also Vanessa Hudgens.
Remember 2007 – when the High School Musical star’s topless photos were leaked? Do you remember, a mere 7 years ago, how people reacted when her private photos surfaced?
There was no talk of rights, sexism and online sexual violation. She was asked to apologise with speculation that Disney would fire her. But Disney, being the forward-thinking organisation they are, simple stated that "Vanessa has apologized for what was obviously a lapse in judgment. We hope she's learned a valuable lesson."
Thanks for that Disney. Clearly she didn’t learn her lesson – the harlot is STILL having a sex life.
Overall, the leaked photos in the past two months have garnered a new kind of attention. Respected sites like The Guardian wrote insightful articles on the role of gender dynamics when it comes to reducing powerful woman to nothing but a body - and not just one that’s naked.
Nudity is not inherently degrading. The true degradation and titillation stems from the fact that these women didn’t want these photos to be seen by the public – it comes from the lack of consent.
As Roxanne Gay from The Guardian put it: “It is meant to remind women of their place. Don’t get too high and mighty, ladies. Don’t step out of line. Don’t do anything to upset or disappoint men who feel entitled to your time, bodies, affection or attention. Your bared body can always be used as a weapon against you. You bared body can always be used to shame and humiliate you.” And so it has.
Jennifer Lawrence’s picture graced the covers of every single article about this problem.
As much as she is a victim of it all, it’s also incredibly unsettling to see how a woman’s popularity affects the level of empathy she earns in a situation like this. Jennifer is the official poster girl for the issue because she’s popular right now – she is awesome and wholesome and everyone’s BFF.
This phenomenon isn’t unusual; often in rape trials, the victim’s likeability has been shown to play a big part in how the case is perceived. But acknowledgement of victimisation, in whatever circumstance, should not be proportional to popularity.
Had it been Kim instead of JLaw the first time around – well, I think there may have been a slightly different rhetoric.
There are thousands of women who are subjected to this kind of violation; it’s so popular it even has its own market.
Some of the girls may be liked by those who know them, others might be hated; some are totes awesome like JLaw, others may be a Kim.
Either way, nobody cares how you feel about the person. That detail is completely irrelevant to the situation. The bottom line is that you don’t have to like a woman – but her rights are no less important simply because you don’t like her.
Follow Women24 on Twitter and like us on Facebook.
