@ -11,6 +11,10 @@ Other ugly things are the private and hidden events of family violence. For femi
## Streaming media in relation to female continuity
In the ancient medical and anatomical theory women had two mouths, the upper and the lower, connected through a neck. The lips of both of them guarded the “hollow cavity” (Carson, 1996, pg. 131) and they had to remain closed. Having two mouths that speak simultaneously is confusing and embarrassing and this creates ‘kakophony’. Females were expressing something directly when it should have been told indirectly. This direct continuity between the inside and the outside is repelling for the male nature that aspires the self-control which interrupts this continuity and dissociates the inside from the outside (Crason, 1996, pg. 131). They 'transmit' unfiltered information. At this point I would like to draw parallel lines with the streaming media that has been used as a tool of direct and urgent communication for protesters like in the case of the Occupy Movement. Similarly with the continuity I described before streaming protocols/processes are delivering unedited live messages that sometimes don't agree with the mainstream current public opinion. In Occupy Wall Street for example streaming media was a way for the protesters to be heard in public fast and broadcast their own news online ("Multiplication..."). Thus not any expert or official media platform could filter their speech and alter the message before they spread it online. This unaltered and direct speech of (radio/streaming) broadcasting (Ernst, 2016, pg. 104) have similarities with the non controlled direct expression of the female bodies in public (like hysteria and aischrologia, ololyga). Like Livestream or youtube streaming.
@ -10,7 +10,13 @@ From my point of view, the Occupy Movement revealed a lot about the relation of
Multiplication could be seen as a way of parallel and multiple presences in diverse private and public places. Internet, Skype, Youtube, voice messages “[r]adio and television have brought major political figures as public speakers to a larger public than was ever possible before modern electronic developments” (Ong, pg. 135). There are two ways of multiplication in the above examples. The one is through a unified collective voice and the other one through spreading the words as a spider net. The 'human microphone' resembles the first examples of collective voices in public, which is the 'ololyga', the female collective utterance (see 'Monstrosity'). Even though may not be a direct expression of resistance, it was an alternative temporary and informal [not specialized] mode of address that was suppressed and used only for specific occasions that were acceptable by the society at that time (see 'Monstrosity'). The second case reminds me of the very ancient practice of gossiping [example of gossip-based algorithms/ Gossip protocol/ peer-to-peer communication]. It has a negative connotation especially when connected with women [text of Federici]. However sometimes this is more an attempt to claim and exchange knowledge when there is no platform for them that practice it. The Internet and social media have the same baton effect and even though this is misused by mainstream political voices, it also serves the voiceless [examples and images].<br>
## The mediation of voice through amplification
In some occasions the amplification of the voice, as a mode of prohibition and presence, becomes possible both literally and metaphorically [definition of amplification]. This means that somebody can amplify their voice with the use of microphone so to strengthen the signal on the spot, and at the same time to make themselves loud and present so to be heard over the dominant ones. Microphonic demonstrations in Greece, antifascism and presence, occupying for a couple of hours using speakers, microphone or megaphone broadcasting music and speech...Relatively nazi soundscapes with the megaphone and the van/the history back ... Suffragettes' speech-making workshops was a way to provide women with tools “with which to take their concerns out into the public domain” (Rose Gibbs, 2016) or in other words to amplify their voices in public. Speech was a civilized way to respond to violence happening inside homes. Feminists focused on the voice because there is a uniqueness in it, that embodies the speaker when entering a dialogue. It is an approach that rejects the abstract and bodiless universal identity of one's person, that has been developed by the western thought. By such identity I mean that one person is represented as a universal entity that shares the same characteristics and problems with all the people. So this person can be represented by somebody else, like a politician or another member of the family (see Transmitting...through men's speech), in a conversation concerning her/his body. But according to the feminist perspective, each one is unique and carries personal and situated problems and principles, so they are the only one that can represent themselves. Arendt () observes that the speech becomes possible with the existence of a group of people. Even more, the voice through speech- that can take the form of songs passing from one to the other or the collective voice of protesting- links one another and at the same time keeps the individuality of the speaker. In contrast to mainstream political spheres the feminists, like anarchists, were looking for horizontal ways of communication were no voice was dominating over others (Gibbs). Listening and wait everyone to speak, even the most shy ones, is a basic element of this kind of practices.<br>
In some occasions the amplification of the voice, as a mode of prohibition and presence, becomes possible both literally and metaphorically [definition of amplification]. This means that somebody can amplify their voice with the use of microphone so to strengthen the signal on the spot, and at the same time to make themselves loud and present so to be heard over the dominant ones. Microphonic demonstrations in Greece, antifascism and presence, occupying for a couple of hours using speakers, microphone or megaphone broadcasting music and speech...Relatively nazi soundscapes with the megaphone and the van/the history back ...
Suffragettes' speech-making workshops was a way to provide women with tools “with which to take their concerns out into the public domain” (Rose Gibbs, 2016) or in other words to amplify their voices in public. Speech was a civilized way to respond to violence happening inside homes. Feminists focused on the voice because there is a uniqueness in it, that embodies the speaker when entering a dialogue. It is an approach that rejects the abstract and bodiless universal identity of one's person, that has been developed by the western thought. By such identity I mean that one person is represented as a universal entity that shares the same characteristics and problems with all the people. So this person can be represented by somebody else, like a politician or another member of the family (see Transmitting...through men's speech), in a conversation concerning her/his body. But according to the feminist perspective, each one is unique and carries personal and situated problems and principles, so they are the only one that can represent themselves. Arendt () observes that the speech becomes possible with the existence of a group of people. Even more, the voice through speech- that can take the form of songs passing from one to the other or the collective voice of protesting- links one another and at the same time keeps the individuality of the speaker. In contrast to mainstream political spheres the feminists, like anarchists, were looking for horizontal ways of communication were no voice was dominating over others (Gibbs). Listening and wait everyone to speak, even the most shy ones, is a basic element of this kind of practices.<br>
