....LMB: "Jake vs. Low Female Self-Esteem"....

August 12, 2003

On my radio show today, I gave a rambling monologue about women and men, at one point re-assuring women that their breasts are okay. I know many a woman who is insecure about the size or shape of her breasts, and whether or not the guys will like them. So I set the matter straight, that while men may like some breasts more than others, that very rarely will a fellow find any set of breasts to be unappealing. So ladies, rest easy.

But now, following that same thematic arc of battling low self-esteem, I present any insecure ladies with this link.

It's a series of swimsuit magazine-quality photographs of a sexy young woman. But these photos have been retouched, and when you wave your cursor over the photo, you see it in its original form. At no point does this woman look bad, but she looks a lot more "real" in the un-retouched form. But unfortunately, the ladies of today are forced to compare themselves to these quasi-fictional images, women who do not really exist.

To the guys, don't worry, I'll find some way to raise our self-esteems later.

Posted by Jake at 12:51 AM | TrackBack (0)
Comments

<heh> I actually like my women with pores. And anyone who thinks the "real" version of that lady is unattractive is severely deranged.

Posted by: John at August 12, 2003 09:54 AM

I have been sending that link to everybody lately. We sometimes forget that in the real world, people have pores.

Posted by: Andy at August 17, 2003 05:00 AM

hmmm, very interesting - i'm terribly sorry i missed your diatribe - i would have been very interested in the tone you took with the subject. whilst some women perform the dance of spring when a man looks upon them, others would much rather like to give a man a compliment and have legitimate discourse, without men thinking we want to blow their proverbial horn of plenty (this term may not apply to all). those women who truly know themselves know they rock and don't need the brotherly advice from a online guru --harsh i know, but it is what it is... we feminists make up a large part of the proletariat, speak up sisters! your article really made me want to add some expletives to this response, do you dwell in a cave cloistered by wanna be actresses who quiver at the mention of your name?

Posted by: paula at August 17, 2003 11:15 AM

Ugh, identity politics rears its ugly head...Jake, you should know better than to play armchair feminist. How dare you, you condescending bastard! The funny thing is that I half agree with Paula (which is why I usually refrain from commenting on feminism unless I'm asked to!) and the other half is sick of "because you're not like me, your ideas are useless."

Posted by: Eric at August 17, 2003 08:31 PM

Hmmm...after reading Jake's article, I can see why Paula was pissed (sorry Jake, I know you meant well, but women can take care of themselves). It's sort of the same reaction I get when some white, middle-class liberal talks about racism as if they're experts on minority oppression. Still, I don't think rigid identity politics is good either.

Posted by: Eric at August 17, 2003 08:43 PM

thank you eric... pondering what you submitted

Posted by: paula at August 18, 2003 05:09 AM

sub-grouping/factioning within the proletariat is exactly what "they" are looking for, i agree, eric. on a critical level though, and just as jake mentioned (i'll give him credit here) women are bombarded with unrealistic images of what they should look like, sound like and personally value. desperate times call for desperate measures, sometimes identity politics are the facilitators of change, i.e. the black panthers.

Posted by: paula at August 19, 2003 05:12 AM

sub-grouping/factioning within the proletariat is exactly what "they" are looking for, i agree, eric. on a critical level though, and just as jake mentioned (i'll give him credit here) women are bombarded with unrealistic images of what they should look like, sound like and personally value. desperate times call for desperate measures, sometimes identity politics are the facilitators of change, i.e. the black panthers.

Posted by: paula at August 19, 2003 05:14 AM

sub-grouping/factioning within the proletariat is exactly what "they" are looking for, i agree, eric. on a critical level though, and just as jake mentioned (i'll give him credit here) women are bombarded with unrealistic images of what they should look like, sound like and personally value. desperate times call for desperate measures, sometimes identity politics are the facilitators of change, i.e. the black panthers.

Posted by: paula at August 19, 2003 05:15 AM

sub-grouping/factioning within the proletariat is exactly what "they" are looking for, i agree, eric. on a critical level though, and just as jake mentioned (i'll give him credit here) women are bombarded with unrealistic images of what they should look like, sound like and personally value. desperate times call for desperate measures, sometimes identity politics are the facilitators of change, i.e. the black panthers.

Posted by: paula at August 19, 2003 05:16 AM

Somewhere between retouched photos, cosmetic surgery and Women who will (take it all off)...there is always that person like me. I only care about one man's opinion, and sometimes not even his. When a friend suggested I put my photo on my web page, I declined stating that who I am has little to do with what I look like. It takes young women a few years before they realize that people should be shown inside-out so you get a real view from the start. I feel lucky to have figured it out sooner than most.

Posted by: erin at August 19, 2003 05:39 AM

Facilitators of change, yes. Dividing and conquering ourselves, no. As long as we all realize the difference.

Posted by: Eric at August 19, 2003 09:26 AM

eric, realization clear: you do realize we have some MAJOR damage to address just in the last 10 years alone in the area of sexism though? and erin, i feel pretty lucky to have grasped this too, i cant even imagine living in an emotional quagmire of unworthiness.

Posted by: at August 20, 2003 04:12 AM

eric, realization clear: you do realize we have some MAJOR damage to address just in the last 10 years alone in the area of sexism though? and erin, i feel pretty lucky to have grasped this too, i cant even imagine living in an emotional quagmire of unworthiness.

Posted by: paula at August 20, 2003 04:12 AM

There has been considerable reaction in the areas of sexism, racism, classism, etc. As for sexism, I think the crude male chauvinism in popular culture speaks for itself (though that's just one example). It's a reactionary backlash against feminist empowerment. So how is this to be combated? I think any movement - feminist, minority, gay, etc. should be part of a greater diverse movement. My point is that rigid identity politics tends to be exclusionary and counterproductive, making a larger movement impossible (I won't even get into the sexism that exists in minority groups, that's another topic for discussion). At the same time, self-empowerment is the only way since no one else can set you free. Unfortunately, many women seem to be submitting to the post-feminist mindset, being afraid to speak out against sexism, etc. I've heard men say vile, sexist things around women, who just roll their eyes and say harmlessly, "Oh, men." and that's the end of it. That's an indication to me that there has been a lot of damage done here. Thoughts???

Posted by: Eric at August 20, 2003 11:29 AM

Eric, I feel sorry for the females you were around... I do a little less eye rolling. My father refers to my responses to such vile behavior as verbal castration. At least he acknowledges that I MUST BE PROVOKED. In a perfect world we would not have to banter back and forth with insults and uneducated assumtions of others. If you find that world let me know..my bags are packed and ready to go.

Posted by: erin at August 20, 2003 01:41 PM

reactionary backlash to female empowerment..... or... fear of the abolition of the madonna-whore complex, i vote for the latter and no, they are not the same thing. a supermarket of men for friends, mates and lovers exist for us, to some male misfits this is very frightening, especially to those ill equipped. women who let themselves be raked over the verbal coals are sadists, hoping for that special spot amongst the unenlightened bourgeois male population, who supposedly provide the all too played out material security option and those same women are so quickly identified by real women whilst escape the unscrutinizing male eye most of the time. i do concur separationism can all too quickly quash a true movement, addressing these issues and supporting your female comrades will make that said movement succeed. thanks to jake for the ability to have this mini forum

Posted by: paula at August 20, 2003 05:42 PM

Paula, let me tell you what I have noticed in this world today..hear me out..I spent several years in management. The business in dominated by women. I saw alot of women working thier butts off and thier men sitting on thiers. Sort of the Mr. Mom thing except without the caring for children, running all the errands, and keeping a tidy house. Basically uselessness. Somewhere the tides turn so much that there are men out there who have taken female empowerment to the hilt. Milk the proverbial cow for all it is worth. These women don't mind working. They simply want the partnership to be equal.
In the long run I think this is what we are all looking for."Armchair" nothing. Any open minded intelligent person SHOULD be able to grasp that racism, sexism, classism, etc... is wrong. But people in general are driven to power and control.The major idea is how do we individually learn to share without feeling we have compromised ourselves. The bottom line is that alot of feminists (sorry) forget that the major design requires TWO. A man and a woman to make a child, a mother and father to raise a child. And in the scheme of it all both need to realize the value of the other...don't you think?

Posted by: Erin at August 21, 2003 04:36 AM

Madonna-whore complex is right, particularly when talking about American attitudes towards sex and gender. It's a confused view - the clash of puritannical values and oversaturation of sex that assault the senses. Again, popular culture provides many examples - the M/W manifestation of the "virginal slut" image in the teen pop scene. Talking about having it both ways. We want women to be virgins, but yet sexual. No wonder many Americans are head cases -- dysfunctional, neurotic.

Erin's mention of women in the workplace reminded me of another issue that needs to be address. I'm saying this somewhat flippantly, but not entirely. What's the point of having advancements of women, minorities, etc. if they're just going to support the same white, patriarchal capitalist system, as bell hooks once called it? This seems to point to a need for a broader assault against the system (whatever that is, heh).

Posted by: Eric at August 21, 2003 11:37 AM

erin, you're just preaching to the choir in reference women working their behinds off,(no disrespect intended), but if i may tactfully add, i liked the zeal with which you presented those facts. when i first read your dialogue i felt misheard but after rereading it, i digested and mulled over your p.o.v. feminists are very often incorrectly labeled as man-haters, dissectors of the family, i could go on. truth be told i adore men, but accept estrangement, harrassment of all varieties, and unequal pay in order to have a guy at home treat me like rhino dung, just to say i have a family? never! healthy egalitarian based families are a beautiful thing and a confident guy to watch the science channel with at the end of a long day is my version of heaven but i live on rue de hades, ha ha- my hopes are that all women can meet their ideal mate and be truly recognized either silently/or outright for them just being their incredible selves, that makes a great family foundation. the input from eric is right on the money in reference to women supporting unethical entities (any multinational corporation) in middle and upper management, we have to let go of the brahmins robes and let them clean up their own sheit off the street of old calcutta.

Posted by: paula at August 21, 2003 04:11 PM

Paula, I got a chuckle out of your mention of watching the science channel with your guy at the end of a day's work. That is what I do. We enjoy documentaries, CNN, and basically anything that creates some information for our minds to delve into. Now, more than ever, I see our relationship as being equally supportive of each other. I DID make more money than my husband while I was in management, but when I decided that I wanted to leave and take a less demanding job in order to have more time at home.. He had my back, so to speak. I am, at the core, a workaholic. Somewhere down the line I realized that the money wasn't all that important and neither was the title. I wasn't happy and that was making everything fall apart. I have always encouraged the women around me to "not put up with it". I acknowledge, though, that our value systems change from person to person.Always an unfortunate circumstance to me when the self esteem issues of any PERSON, male or female, leads them to let themselves be treated poorly. I guess I just look at the world from more of a stand point of human, rather than male or female because I have honestly seen the same issues for both sexes. You know, when the need to be with someone overrides your own identity or self worth. On another note..Eric, I am so proud of my kids. My son states that it takes more than being cute before he can like a girl, my oldest daughter stopped listening to Brittany Spears music all together because she tells me that she just looks like"trash" now. Thank God! It is nice to know that at thier young ages they at least already have a clue. The Madona-whore, and virginal-slut issues get on my last, very last, nerve. Michelle Branch, Vanessa Carlton...they have my vote on the teen pop scene and my kids know it. I have a deep admiration to those performers who dive into thier music instead of thier sexuality. I have always prefered staying true to yourself.

Posted by: Erin at August 23, 2003 05:04 AM

Before this thread goes into archival obscurity, I'd like to say, "Amen."

Posted by: Eric at August 25, 2003 12:33 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Lying Media Bastards is both a radio show and website. The show airs Mondays 2-4pm PST on KillRadio.org, and couples excellent music with angry news commentary. And the website, well, you're looking at it.

Both projects focus on our media-marinated world, political lies, corporate tyranny, and the folks fighting the good fight against these monsters.

All brought to you by Jake Sexton, The Most Beloved Man in America ģ.


contact: jake+at+lyingmediabastards.com

Media News

December 01, 2004

Media Mambo

The Great Indecency Hoax- last week, we wrote about how the "massive outcry" to the FCC about a racy Fox TV segment amounted to letters from 20 people. This week, we look at the newest media scandal, the infamous "naked back" commercial. On Monday Night Football, last week, ABC aired an ad for it's popular "Desperate Housewives" TV show, in which one of the actresses from the show attempted to seduce a football player by removing the towel she was wearing to bare her body to him. All the audience saw, however, was her back. No tits, no ass, no crotch, just her back.

No one complained.

The next Wednesday, Rush Limbaugh told his shocked viewers how the woman had appeard in the commercial "buck naked".

Then, the FCC received 50,000 complaints. How many of them actually saw this commercial is anyone's guess.

The article also shows the amazing statistics that although the Right is pretending that the "22% of Americans voted based on 'moral values'" statistic shows the return of the Moral Majority, this is actually a huge drop from the 35% who said that in the 2000 election or the 40% who said that in 1996 (when alleged pervert Bill Clinton was re-elected). This fact is so important I'm going to mention it over in the main news section too.

Brian Williams may surprise America- Tom Brokaw's replacement anchor, Brian Williams, dismissed the impact of blogs by saying that bloggers are "on an equal footing with someone in a bathroom with a modem." Which is really funny, coming out of the mouth of a dude who's idea of journalism is to read words out loud off a teleprompter. Seriously, if parrots were literate, Brian Williams would be reporting live from the line outside the soup kitchen.

In related news, Tom Brokaw has quit NBC Nightly News, and it appears that unlike his predecessor, the new guy can speak without slurring words like a drunk.

PR Meets Psy-Ops in War on Terror- in February of 2002, Donald Rumsfeld announced the creation of the Office of Strategic Influence, a new department that would fight the war on terror through misinformation, especially by lying to journalists. Journalists were so up in arms about this that the Pentagon agreed to scrap the program.

Don't you think that an agency designed to lie to the public might lie about being shut down, too?

This article gives some examples about the US military lying to the press for propaganda and disinformation purposes.

Tavis Smiley leaving NPR in December- African-American talk show host Tavis Smiley is opting to not renew his daily talk show on National Public Radio. He criticized his former employers for failing to: "meaningfully reach out to a broad spectrum of Americans who would benefit from public radio but simply donít know it exists or what it offers ... In the most multicultural, multi-ethnic and multiracial America ever, I believe that NPR can and must do better in the future." He's 100% correct. NPR is white. Polar bear eating a marshmallow at the mayonaise factory white. And the reason it's so white is that it is trying to maintain an affluent listener base (premoniantly older white folks) who will donate money to their stations. This is a great paradox of American public broadcasting, that they have a mandate to express neglected viewpoints and serve marginalized communities, but those folks can't donate money in the amounts that the stations would like to see.

U.S. Muslim Cable TV Channel Aims to Build Bridges- it sounds more positive than it is "Bridges TV" seems to simultaneously be a cable channel pursuing an affluent American Muslim demographic, and a way of building understanding and tolerance among American non-Muslims who might happen to watch the channel's programming. I was hoping it would be aimed more at Muslim's worldwide, but it ain't. Still, I'd be interested in seeing how their news programs cover the issues.

Every Damned Weblog Post Ever- it's funny cuz it's true.

Wikipedia Creators Move Into News- Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, created collectively by thousands of contributors. It's one of those non-profit, decentralized, collective, public projects that show how good the internet can be. Now, the Wikipedia founders are working on a similar project to create a collaborative news portal, with original content. Honestly, it's quite similar to IndyMedia sites (which reminds me, happy 5th birthday, IndyMedia!). I'll admit, I'm a bit skeptical about the Wikinews project, though. IndyMedia sites work because they're local, focused on certain lefty issues, and they're run by activists invested in their beliefs. I'm not sure what would drive Wikinews or how it would hang together.

CBS, NBC ban church ad inviting gays- the United Church of Christ created a TV ad which touts the church's inclusion, even implying that they accept homosexuals into their congregation. Both CBS and NBC are refusing to air the ad. This is not too surprising, as many Americans are uncomfortable about homosexuality, and because TV networks are utter cowards. But CBS' explanation for the ban was odd:

"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples...and the fact that the executive branch has recently proposed a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast."

Whoa, what? First of all, the ad does not mention marriage at all. Second, since when do positions opposite of the Executive Branch constitute "unacceptable"? This doesn't sound like "we're not airing this because it's controversial", this sounds like "we're afraid of what the President might say."

Posted by Jake at 10:09 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
More Media News

Jake Jake Jake

 

Fake "Ha-Ha" News

News

 

Quotes

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."

-Jonathan Swift

More Quotes

Media News

 

Obligatory Blog Links

 

Snapshots

Damn. That joke would have been much funnier if I'd said "apprentice" instead of "intern".

More Snapshots

Columnists Of Note

 

References

Sonic Resistance

 

Dead Trees

 

Heavy Rotation

Archives

 

Squiggles of Insight

SubvertWare

Credits

Design and Layout by Mark McLaughlin and Quang Tang
LMB Logo by Quang Tang

Alt "One Hell of a Leader" logo largely stolen from Obey Giant.
All other material by Jake Sexton (unless otherwise cited)

hosted by nice dream