Royal women and other female public figures used in domestic violence campaign


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.

TLLK

Majesty
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
Messages
6,362
City
Torrance
Country
United States
Doctored images of Spain's Queen Letizia, the UK's Duchess of Cambridge, VPOTUS Kamala Harris and the European Commission Chief chief Ursula von der Leyen.depicting the women as victims of domestic violence are being used in Spain and Italy as ad campaign posters. Reportedly this was without the women's consent to have their images used.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...Middleton-used-without-Palace-permission.html


Italian artist and activist Alexsandro Palombo, who edited the pictures, said he wanted to ‘draw attention to the poor responses from politics regarding the problem of gender-based violence’ and underline ‘ineffectiveness of the support and protection system to the victims’.
But some comments on social media were critical: ‘You are not funny. Don’t use images of women who didn’t give you their authorisation,’ said one.
 
Last edited:
So basically it's William Stead's Eliza Armstrong: "pushing a point about violence against women by violating women" ...
 
Yes, but apart from not obtaining permission I think it's a good way of hammering home the message.

It's easier to "overlook" that Prunella is off sick again, because she fell down the stairs... Or that Renata over in number 66 is wearing sunglasses again - in November... In the evening...

This images are very direct and involves women that are so well known.
 
But an anti-violence campaign by doing something to women without consent (and unfortunately by a man, in this case) doesn't really help the message, does it? No matter how needed or valiant a cause it might be.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but apart from not obtaining permission I think it's a good way of hammering home the message.

It's easier to "overlook" that Prunella is off sick again, because she fell down the stairs... Or that Renata over in number 66 is wearing sunglasses again - in November... In the evening...

This images are very direct and involves women that are so well known.

Agreed - I saw a similar campaign - but the celebrities were asked and gave permission. They were also involved in the campaign.
 
But an anti-violence campaign by doing something to women without consent (and unfortunately by a man, in this case) doesn't really help the message, does it? No matter how needed or valiant a cause it might be.

I fully agree. And honestly, I had a hard time recognizing Letizia...
 
Well, yeah. He should of course have asked - and before it would have gone through the mills at the courts, probably resulting in a no, months would have passed.

Instead he didn't ask permission and we are talking about it here - and more or less indirectly paying attention to the message.

And it is of course difficult for the ladies depicted to take action against this campaign, because naturally they agree with the message - some of them having actively spoken up against domestic abuse.

So in this specific case I'd say the cause justifies the means.
- And it's not like many, if any at all, will believe that say Kate is actually beaten up at home and that these are real photos.
 
Well, yeah. He should of course have asked - and before it would have gone through the mills at the courts, probably resulting in a no, months would have passed.

Instead he didn't ask permission and we are talking about it here - and more or less indirectly paying attention to the message.

And it is of course difficult for the ladies depicted to take action against this campaign, because naturally they agree with the message - some of them having actively spoken up against domestic abuse.

So in this specific case I'd say the cause justifies the means.
- And it's not like many, if any at all, will believe that say Kate is actually beaten up at home and that these are real photos.

The thing is, Muhler, in this specific case, there's already some fraction who believe that her husband cheated on her and involved in a smearing campaign against his own brother, so next time she wears a thicker make-up who know if a speculation would resurface about her trying to cover the bruises on her face.

Sometimes this "for the greater good" mantra just make me uncomfortable. But that's just me.
 
I first saw this on Instagram and thought it was absolutely brilliant. Well done!
 
I first saw this on Instagram and thought it was absolutely brilliant. Well done!
I would agree with you if the ladies featured had all issued statements that they'd consented that their images be used in this manner to bring awareness to domestic violence. However it appears at this point in time, that none of them have authorized the artist to depict them in as battered women. IMHO this is a violation of their privacy and could be used against them or their spouses/partners in the future.
 
Last edited:
Well, yeah. He should of course have asked - and before it would have gone through the mills at the courts, probably resulting in a no, months would have passed.

Instead he didn't ask permission and we are talking about it here - and more or less indirectly paying attention to the message.

And it is of course difficult for the ladies depicted to take action against this campaign, because naturally they agree with the message - some of them having actively spoken up against domestic abuse.

So in this specific case I'd say the cause justifies the means.
- And it's not like many, if any at all, will believe that say Kate is actually beaten up at home and that these are real photos.

I think we would talk about it far more had the women been able to give permission and there was nothing extra-controversial to debate.

Failing that, I think he could and should have found a female collaborator to put her name on this, at the very least.

Torching an empty spare building to point out how bad arson is both not a good look and no guarantee nothing else will accidentally catch fire in the process.
 
The sad thing is the artist knows that either way he gets the attention - so a campaign that might not have been seen is seen simply because it is controversial and he also knows that none of the women will ask to be removed as then they will be seen as not been supportive towards the cause.
 
The thing is, Muhler, in this specific case, there's already some fraction who believe that her husband cheated on her and involved in a smearing campaign against his own brother, so next time she wears a thicker make-up who know if a speculation would resurface about her trying to cover the bruises on her face.

Sometimes this "for the greater good" mantra just make me uncomfortable. But that's just me.

You can find such people everywhere, who will happily put forward any theory that will miscredit someone they dislike. Especially if it's in favor of someone they support.
The few among them who actually genuinely believe such photos, should avoid looking up at the clouds when it's raining, lest they drown...
 
You can find such people everywhere, who will happily put forward any theory that will miscredit someone they dislike. Especially if it's in favor of someone they support.
The few among them who actually genuinely believe such photos, should avoid looking up at the clouds when it's raining, lest they drown...

Indeed.
Which is why consent from the party involved IS important and necessary. Giving consent means they know the risk and the ramifications and willing to face it (which should also take into consideration the effect on ppl around them).

I'm thin no matter how much I ate which make a a victim of body shame (called anorexic or bulimic which I'm not). But there's a difference between me consenting my half naked picture being used for a body shame campaign on the internet knowing full well that there might be some weirdo randomly start stalking me and get a call from my parent who's been accused by their neighbour of neglecting/abusing me after those said neighbour find my "anorexic" photo on the internet without me knowing.

I believe being public figure don't mean losing their right of giving consent. And even in the face of "for greater good", consent still matter.
 
Last edited:
Well, yeah. He should of course have asked - and before it would have gone through the mills at the courts, probably resulting in a no, months would have passed.

Instead he didn't ask permission and we are talking about it here - and more or less indirectly paying attention to the message.

And it is of course difficult for the ladies depicted to take action against this campaign, because naturally they agree with the message - some of them having actively spoken up against domestic abuse.

So in this specific case I'd say the cause justifies the means.
- And it's not like many, if any at all, will believe that say Kate is actually beaten up at home and that these are real photos.
i wouldnt be too sure about that. People are dreadfully credulous, how often do they quote a fictionalised programme as evidence that something definitely absolutely happened. No its pretty wrong behavour
 
There are people who will willfully believe or at least advocate, that the photo of Kate is real, even if there are neon-signs on every building blinking "it's photoshopped and just a campaign" 24/7.
Even if W&K gave their full consent.

Such people should not be allowed to prevent what could have been a meaningful campaign, had it gone through the proper channels and been okayed. But I don't believe for one single second the courts, any court would okay such photos.

However, the photos are out there now. And they will remain out there. that's a fact. But this happening has also a certain shock-effect - when seen for the first time at least. Unless you happen to be blind or having spend your entire life in a cave in the Outer Hebrides, everyone in UK know Kate's face - and that may have an effect.

So yes, the artist should be whacked on the head for not asking permission and to discourage others from doing something similar.
But I can't help myself from applauding this happening - when no one else is looking...
 
TSometimes this "for the greater good" mantra just make me uncomfortable. But that's just me.
It is not just you. I absolutely agree.

This is a man using women´s bodies without their consent because he can and because they are not in a position to prevent him from doing it. That´s the exact same attitude you will find with people who commit domestic violence, in case you have ever wondered.


(It would not be ok either to use men´s bodies, obviously, but considering the sociological and historical context, it is even worse to do that to women.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom