Women’s Digital Solitude: Holofeminism and Female Privacy in the Age of Social Media

Öz

This study examines women’s experiences of privacy in the digital age by theoretically discussing the concept of “Women’s Digital Solitude.” The primary aim of the research is to reveal how women’s digital representations on social media platforms are shaped along the axes of privacy, visibility, and solitude. Within this context, the newly developed theory of Holofeminism is employed to investigate the multi-layered modes of women’s existence in digital environments. Holofeminism (The Holistic Feminist Theory) is a novel feminist approach that goes beyond the notions of biological sex and gender; it incorporates multi-layered, multi-temporal, multi-spatial, and technological dimensions. The prefix “holo” derives from the Greek word holos (whole, entire) and represents a holistic, inclusive perspective. The study uses qualitative research methods, specifically critical discourse analysis and descriptive sociological approaches, to analyze women’s visual representations on social media content, particularly on Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. The findings indicate that women are often compelled to display themselves on digital platforms; however, this visibility paradoxically generates feelings of solitude and loss of privacy. Holofeminism analyzes this contradiction within both technological and social contexts, defining digital solitude as a new form of privacy. This analysis suggests rethinking debates about women’s privacy within the frameworks of digital culture and artificial visuality, thereby contributing theoretically to the literature in women’s studies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Holofeminism
• Digital Privacy
• Female Representation
• Social Media and Solitude
• Critical Discourse Analysis

Kadınların Dijital Yalnızlığı: Holofeminizm ve Sosyal Medya Çağında Kadın Mahremiyeti

Öz

Bu çalışma, dijital çağda kadınların mahremiyet deneyimlerini inceleyerek “Kadınların Dijital Yalnızlığı” kavramını teorik bir çerçevede tartışmaktadır. Araştırmanın temel amacı, sosyal medya platformlarında kadınların dijital temsil biçimlerinin mahremiyet, görünürlük ve yalnızlık ekseninde nasıl şekillendiğini ortaya koymaktır. Bu bağlamda, yeni geliştirilen Holofeminizm kuramı aracılığıyla kadınların dijital ortamdaki çok katmanlı varoluş biçimleri incelenmiştir. Holofeminizm (Bütüncül Kadınlık Kuramı); kadın deneyimini sadece biyolojik cinsiyet ya da toplumsal cinsiyet kavramlarıyla sınırlamayan; bunun ötesine geçen, çok katmanlı, çok zamanlı, çok mekânlı ve teknolojik boyutları içeren yeni bir feminist yaklaşımdır. “Holo” ön eki, Yunanca holos (bütün, tüm) kökünden gelir ve bütünsel, kapsayıcı bir perspektifi temsil etmektedir. Çalışmada nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden eleştirel söylem analizi ve betimsel sosyolojik yaklaşım kullanılarak sosyal medya içerikleri (özellikle Facebook, Instagram ve TikTok) üzerinden kadınların görsel temsilleri analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma bulguları, kadınların dijital platformlarda sıklıkla kendilerini sergilemeye zorlandığını, ancak bu görünürlüğün paradoksal olarak bir yalnızlık ve mahremiyet kaybı hissi doğurduğunu göstermektedir. Holofeminizm, bu çelişkiyi hem teknolojik hem de toplumsal bağlamda analiz ederek dijital yalnızlığı yeni bir mahremiyet biçimi olarak tanımlar. Bu çözümleme kadın mahremiyetine dair tartışmaları dijital kültür ve yapay görsellik bağlamında yeniden düşünmeyi önererek, kadın çalışmaları literatürüne kuramsal bir katkı sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Holofeminizm
• Dijital Mahremiyet
• Kadın Temsili
• Sosyal Medya ve Yalnızlık
• Eleştirel Söylem Analizi

Kaynakça

1. Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. (2006). Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. In Privacy enhancing technologies (pp. 36–58). Springer.
2. Adam, B. (2013). Time and social theory. New York: Polity Press.
3. Ahmed, S. (2010). The Promise of Happiness. North Carolina: Duke University Press.
4. Akyil, Y., Oral, T. The mediating role of problematic TikTok use and loneliness in the relationship between mindfulness and psychological resilience in adolescents. Discov Psychol 4, 204 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-024-00317-0.
5. Anzak, S., Sultana, A., & Zeeshan, M. (2023). Digital Technologies: Enabling Environment for Women Entrepreneurs. Russian Law Journal, 11(5S), 567-579.
6. ArXiv. (2023). Online harassment and women’s responses: A study on social media platforms. https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.11733.
7. Barnes, S. B. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday, 11(9), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v11i9.1394.
8. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. New York: Polity Press.

9. Blommaert, J., & Bulcaen, C. (2000). Critical discourse analysis. Annual review of Anthropology, 29(1), 447-466.
10. Bordo, S. (2003). Unbearable weight: Feminism, Western culture, and the body (10th anniversary ed.). California: University of California Press.
11. Boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven:Yale University Press.
12. Boyd, D. and Marwick, Alice E., (September 22, 2011). Social Privacy in Networked Publics: Teens’ Attitudes, Practices, and Strategies A Decade in Internet Time: Symposium on the Dynamics of the Internet and Society, September 2011, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1925128.
13. Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x.
14. Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Cambridge: Polity Press.
15. Brown, L. S. (1995). Beyond Feminism: Anarchism and Human Freedom. Reinventing Anarchy, Again. San Francisco: AK Press. pp. 149–154.
16. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
17. Colebrook, C. (2015). Death of the posthuman: Essays on extinction, volume one. Michigan: Open Humanities Press.
18. Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge.
19. Díaz, A., Guerra, L., & Díaz, E. (2021). Digital transformation impact in security and privacy. In Developments and Advances in Defense and Security: Proceedings of MICRADS 2021 (pp. 61-70). Singapore: Springer Singapore.
20. Dobson, A. S. (2015). Postfeminist digital cultures: Femininity, social media, and self-representation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
21. Duguay, S. (2024). Queer women and digital platforms: Identity modulation for digital sexual citizenship (and beyond?). In P. Aggleton, R. Cover, C. Logie, C. Newman, & R. Parker (Eds.), Routledge Handbook on Sexuality, Gender, Health and Rights [2nd Edition]. Routledge. [accepted version embargoed for 18 months by publisher]. Dworkin, A. (1981). Pornography: Men possessing women. New York: A Plume Book.
22. Eisenstein, Z. R. (1978). Capitalist patriarchy and the case for socialist feminism. New York: Monthly Review Press.
23. Firestone, S. (1970). The dialectic of sex: The case for feminist revolution. New York: William Morrow.
24. Fotopoulou, A. (2014). Digital and networked by default? Women’s organisations and the social imaginary of networked feminism. New Media & Society, 18(6), 989-1005. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814552264.
25. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books. (Original work published 1975).
26. Freeman, J. (1973). The origins of the women’s liberation movement. American Journal of Sociology, 78(4), 792–811.
27. Freeman, J. (1975). The politics of women’s liberation. London: Addison-Wesley Longman Ltd.
28. Friedan, B. (1983). Kadınlığın Gizemi. (Çev. Tahire Mertoğlu). İstanbul: E Yayınları.
29. Fuchs, C. (2017). Social media: A critical introduction. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
30. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. California: Stanford University Press.
31. Gill, R. (2007a). Gender and the media. Cambridge: Polity Press.
32. Gill, R. (2007b). Postfeminist media culture: Elements of a sensibility. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 10(2), 147-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549407075898.
33. Hall, P., & Ellis, D. (2023). A systematic review of socio-technical gender bias in AI algorithms. Online Information Review, 47(7), 1264–1279. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-08-2021-0452.
34. Haraway, D. J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. London: Routledge.
35. Haraway, D. J. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. North Carolina: Duke University Press.
36. Hargittai, E., & Marwick, A. (2016). “What Can I Really Do?” Explaining the Privacy Paradox with Online Apathy. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3737–3757. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/4655.
37. Hartmann, H. (1976). Capitalism, patriarchy, and job segregation by sex. Signs, 1(3), 137-169. https://doi.org/10.1086/493283.
38. Herring, S. C. (2003). Gender and power in online communication. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp. 202–228). Oxford: Blackwell.
39. Im, J., Schoenebeck, S., Iriarte, M., Grill, G., Wilkinson, D., Batool, A., Alharbi, R., Funwie, A., Gankhuu, T., Gilbert, E., & Naseem, M. (2023). Women’s Perspectives on Harm and Justice after Online Harassment. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Volume 6, Issue CSCW2. Article No.: 355, Pages 1 – 23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555775.
40. Jane, E. A. (2016). Online misogyny and feminist digital activism. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 30(3), 284–294.
41. Jordan, B. (2009). Blurring boundaries: The “real” and the “virtual” in hybrid spaces. Human organization, 68(2), 181-193.
42. Kolek, E. A., & Saunders, D. (2008). Online disclosure: An empirical examination of undergraduate Facebook profiles. NASPA Journal, 45(1), 1–25.
43. Krasnova, H., Widjaja, T., Buxmann, P., Wenninger, H., & Benbasat, I. (2015). Why following friends can hurt you: An exploratory investigation of the effects of envy on social networking sites among college-age users. Information Systems Research, 26(3), 585–605. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2015.0588.
44. Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007). Teens, privacy & online social networks. Pew Internet & American Life Project.
45. Linabary, J. R., Corple, D. J., & Cooky, C. (2019). Feminist activism in digital space: Postfeminist contradictions in #WhyIStayed. New Media & Society, 22(10), 1827-1848.
46. Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (2009). Kids online: Opportunities and risks for children. Bristol: Policy Press.
47. Locke, A., Lawthom, R., & Lyons, A. (2018). Social media platforms as complex and contradictory spaces for feminisms: Visibility, opportunity, power, resistance and activism. Feminism & Psychology, 28(1), 3-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353517753973.
48. Mackinnon, C. A. (1989). Toward a feminist theory of the state. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
49. Marwick, A. E. (2013). Status update: Celebrity, publicity, and branding in the social media age. New Haven: Yale University Press.
50. Megarry, J. (2020). The limitations of social media feminism: No space of our own. Switzerland: Springer. Moi, T. (1985). Sexual/Textual Politics: Feminist Literary Theory. London: Routledge.
51. Nakamura, L. (2002). Cybertypes: Race, ethnicity, and identity on the Internet. London: Routledge.
52. Nakamura, L. (2008). Digitizing race: Visual cultures of the internet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
53. Nisa, E. F. (2018). Creative and lucrative Daʿwa: The visual culture of Instagram amongst female Muslim youth in Indonesia. Asiascape: Digital Asia, 5, 68–99.
54. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press. Okin, S. M. (1989). Justice, gender, and the family. New York: Basic Books.
55. Pew Research Center. (2025). (2021, January 13). The state of online harassment. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/01/13/the-state-of-online-
56. harassment/pewresearch.org+2pewresearch.org+2pewresearch.org+2. Pew Research Center. (2021, January 13). Personal experiences with online harassment.
57. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/01/13/personal-experiences-with-online-harassment/pewresearch.org. Pew Research Center. (2012, February 27). Women more likely than men to keep social media profiles private. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2012/02/27/women-more-likely-than-men-to-keep-social-media-profiles- private/pewresearch.org+4pewresearch.org+4pewresearch.org+4. Pew Research Center. (2019, November 15). Americans’ attitudes and experiences with privacy policies and laws.
58. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-attitudes-and-experiences-with-privacy-policies-and-laws/pewresearch.org.Pew Research Center. (2013, September 12). It’s a woman’s (social media) world. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2013/09/12/its-a-womans-social-media-world/pewresearch.org+4pewresearch.org+4pewresearch.org+4.
59. Reer, F., Tang, W. Y., & Quandt, T. (2019). Psychosocial well-being and social media engagement: The mediating roles of social comparison and fear of missing out. New Media & Society, 21(7), 1486–1505. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818823719.
60. Reichmann, F. F. (1959). Loneliness. Psychiatry, 22(1), 1-15.
61. Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs, 5(4), 631–660.
62. Strano, M. M. (2008). User descriptions and interpretations of self-presentation through Facebook profile images. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 2(2), Article 5. 1-15.
63. Taha, L. H., & Caldwell, B. S. (1993). Social isolation and integration in electronic environments. Behaviour & Information Technology, 12(5), 276-283.
64. Taylor, A. (2011). Single Women in Popular Culture: The Limits of Postfeminism. Londra: Palgrave Macmillan.
65. Toffoletti, K., Thorpe, H., Olive, R., Pavlidis, A., & Moran, C. (2023). A feminist embodied ethics of social media use: Corporeal vulnerability and relational care practices. New Media & Society, 27(1), 43-61.
66. Tong, R. (2009). Feminist thought: A more comprehensive introduction. Colorado: Westview Press.
67. Tong, R. (2018). Feminist thought: A more comprehensive introduction. New York: Routledge.
68. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.
69. Turkle, S. (2016). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. London: Penguin Books.
70. Turkle, S. (2017). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.
71. UN Women. (2023). Technology-facilitated violence against women: Taking stock of evidence and data collection. https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2023/04/technology-facilitated-violence-against-women-taking-stock-of-evidence-and-data-collection.
72. UN Women. (2024). Placing gender equality at the heart of the global digital compact. https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/placing-gender-equality-at-the-heart-of-the-global-digital-compact-en.pdf.
73. UNESCO. (2020). I’d blush if I could: Closing gender divides in digital skills through education. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://www.unesco.org/en/artificial-intelligence/gender-equality.
74. UNESCO. (2021). The chilling: Global trends in online violence against women journalists. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/fight-against-technology-facilitated-gender-based-violence.
75. UNESCO. (2023). Technology on her terms: Addressing the impact of social media on girls. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://www.unesco.org/gem-report/en/articles/new-unesco-report-warns-social-media-affects-girls-well-being-learning-and-career-choices.
76. UNESCO. (2023). Women4Ethical AI platform. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://www.unesco.org/en/artificial-intelligence/women4ethicalai.
77. Van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vitellone, N. (2021). Sociology and the problem of description. Qualitative Research, 21(3), 394-408.
78. Vlasceanu, M., & Amodio, D. M. (2022). Propagation of societal gender inequality by internet search algorithms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(29), e2204529119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2204529119.
79. Walby, S. (1990). Theorizing patriarchy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
80. Walker, A. (1983). In search of our mothers’ gardens: Womanist prose. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
81. Weinberger, M., Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M., & Bouhnik, D. (2023). Sex differences in attitudes towards online privacy and anonymity among Israeli students with different technical backgrounds. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03814.
82. Wilkinson, E. (2022). Loneliness is a feminist issue. Feminist Theory, 23(1), 23-38.
83. World Economic Forum. (2024). Global Gender Gap Report 2024. https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-gender-gap-report-2024/digest/. World Economic Forum. (2025, May). Digital inclusion: $5 trillion opportunity for women entrepreneurs. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/05/digital-inclusion-unlock-5-trillion-opportunity-for-women-entrepreneurs/. World Economic Forum. (2023, March). Digital public infrastructure – blessing or curse for women and girls? https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/03/digital-public-infrastructure-blessing-or-curse-for-women-and-girls/. World Economic Forum. (2023, June). Gender Equality Is Stalling: 131 Years to Close the Gap. https://www.weforum.org/press/2023/06/gender-equality-is-stalling-131-years-to-close-the-gap/.World Economic Forum. (2020, March). Just 24% of news sources are women. Here’s why that’s a problem. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2020/03/women-representation-in-media/.
84. Zipdo. (2025). Social media privacy statistics. https://zipdo.co/social-media-privacy-statistics.
85. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. New York: PublicAffairs.
86. Zur, H., & Hatuka, T. (2023). Local–Digital Activism: Place, Social Media, Body, and Violence in Changing Urban Politics. Social Media + Society, 9(2), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231166443.