technoculture314-09

While it is easy to judge and assume the worst, it’s not until you visit suicidegirls and see what the site is all about, that you gain a broader understanding and even in some ways a respect for what these women are about. And yes they are women. Not simply objects of female voyeurism, there appears to be more to the persona that these women build for themselves than simply a double spread in this month’s Playboy. Blogs on sobriety, science fiction and equal opportunity expands the domain that this website fits into, broaching more ground than an explicitly visual arena. The one picture on the homepage for example is a head shot of a women not even looking particularly seductive. Much less raunchy than I had expected having read Magnet’s review of the site and what it stands for. Its opening tagline describes itself as a ‘community that celebrates alternative beauty and alternative culture from all over the world.’

Despite this goal and what the women wish to gain from participating in the suicidegirls website there is little to be done once content is online. A prerogative of “liberatory intentions” as Magnet (pg 579) describes is one thing, but the eye of the beholder and how the consumer behaves may ultimately not be how women wish these pictures and blogs to be perceived.

Far be it from me to judge a person that wishes to express themselves in such a public and potentially risqué manner. Perhaps they are trying to be controversial and stand out from the crowd. To make a point against the masculine view that dominates so much of our world. But it may be us, those that aren’t directly involved or viewing it as ‘normal’ that are making it seem derogatory to women.

Another side to me wants to put these so-called feminist showgirls into the same category as every other woman that chooses to post explicit editorials of themselves online. One could say that hiding behind the mask of tattooed skin and over the top makeup doesn’t break them far enough out of the mould. That they are simply finding another niche market in which to sell their image and exploit masculine desires. Magnet’s article discusses the issue of whether these sites constitute soft-porn, concluding that the site does “fundamentally alter oppressive photographic practices which rely on the objectification of women for the male gaze” (Magnet; p597). I believe it is those that consume and interact with the site that dictates how it fulfils its aims, navigating the fine balance between porn and feminism

While it is easy to judge and assume the worst, it’s not until you visit suicidegirls and see what the site is all about, that you gain a broader understanding and even in some ways a respect for what these women are about. And yes they are women. Not simply objects of female voyeurism, there appears to be more to the persona that these women build for themselves than simply a double spread in this month’s Playboy. Blogs on sobriety, science fiction and equal opportunity expands the domain that this website fits into, broaching more ground than an explicitly visual arena. The one picture on the homepage for example is a head shot of a women not even looking particularly seductive. Much less raunchy than I had expected having read Magnet’s review of the site and what it stands for. Its opening tagline describes itself as a ‘community that celebrates alternative beauty and alternative culture from all over the world.’

Despite this goal and what the women wish to gain from participating in the suicidegirls website there is little to be done once content is online. A prerogative of “liberatory intentions” as Magnet (pg 579) describes is one thing, but the eye of the beholder and how the consumer behaves may ultimately not be how women wish these pictures and blogs to be perceived.

Far be it from me to judge a person that wishes to express themselves in such a public and potentially risqué manner. Perhaps they are trying to be controversial and stand out from the crowd. To make a point against the masculine view that dominates so much of our world. But it may be us, those that aren’t directly involved or viewing it as ‘normal’ that are making it seem derogatory to women.

Another side to me wants to put these so-called feminist showgirls into the same category as every other woman that chooses to post explicit editorials of themselves online. One could say that hiding behind the mask of tattooed skin and over the top makeup doesn’t break them far enough out of the mould. That they are simply finding another niche market in which to sell their image and exploit masculine desires. Magnet’s article discusses the issue of whether these sites constitute soft-porn, concluding that the site does “fundamentally alter oppressive photographic practices which rely on the objectification of women for the male gaze” (Magnet; p597). I believe it is those that consume and interact with the site that dictates how it fulfils its aims, navigating the fine balance between porn and feminism.