A Comprehensive Argument In Favor of Picture Tributes
by Mark Liberator (e-mail: editor@liberator.net) [November 10th, 2003]
The Liberator is a website that is dedicated to freedom of speech and provides a forum for people to share their thoughts with the global community. There is also a picture tributes section, called The Liberator’s Ladies, that has some people asking, “What the heck are pictures of models doing on a site like The Liberator?”
Is the picture tributes section a natural element or does it run out of alignment from a forum for free speech?
This is a philosophical question and begs many others of great importance. Ultimately, there are only two different answers to the question. Let us examine each of the two cases, so as to appease the naysayers.
-
The picture tributes are not in alignment with The Liberator and distract from its goal while hindering women in the process. Feminists, religionists and etiquettists are inclined to take this position.
Feminists would claim the pictures of scantily dressed, mostly sensuously posed, women are demeaning. If we are allowed to hypothesize the feminists defense while wearing our freshly pressed and starched Gloria Steinem bandanas, we would claim that portraying women as mere sexual objects sends negative, far-reaching ripples on the fragile pond of womankind.
The waves displace women’s ability to achieve equal status in the corporate world. They make it difficult for women to be self-destined participants in society and in the family, preventing women from escaping a twisted 1950’s ideology.
This rhetoric may make us want to adopt a standing position while supporting the stance of a 1960’s Black Panther member -- fist held high. “Down with the-man” has a better application to this sort of feminism than it ever had with the Black Panthers.
Unlike members of militant, extremist groups, religionists devote their lives to shaping women’s lives, as well as the lives of all people, into peaceful roles. These religionists seek to create a society based on forgiveness and mutual respect. The true proponents of these lofty goals leading to grace should be respected for the positive influence their work has on society. But, does the end goal justify the contentiousness of their means?
Religionists plan on obtaining a peaceful society in part through the passification of women. It is believed by religionists that women as models will inevitably lead to immorality. It is a conclusion based on traditional values, which attempts to nudge womankind slowly back in the direction of a 1950’s ideology, or to a biblical era when women were sold like cattle. The religionists view that women must be passive creatures would have them in direct opposition to contemporary feminists.
Religionists want to prevent our society from degenerating into a state of frequent divorce and are prepared to restrict the freedoms of women to do so. If religionists are allowed to disarm women by restricting their femininity, there will be two-fold gains. Women will not be tempted to pique the curiosity of men, thereby reducing the number of adulterous relationships in the western world. Single people will be guided toward the sanctity and wholesome nature of marriage.
Of course, there is an operating assumption here that society runs more smoothly when it is dominated by monogamy and that its citizens are happier as a result. What about men and women who opt not to marry? Are these people influenced by modern lustful advertisements, sending them off the path toward happiness and grace? Religionists think so.
There is another group serving womankind by pushing women to be proper and practice etiquette. Members of this group can be called etiquettists. They steer women to be ladies, less of tomboys and more of socialites. Etiquettists help women maintain a high vocabulary, wear tasteful clothing and conduct themselves accordingly. Wearing articles of clothing other than evening gowns, speaking of topics unrelated to the home, and acting unlike the wife of men holding public offices is not acceptable.
Women who pose with little or no clothing, who entertain controversial dialogue, and who sometimes get their hands dirty are not ladies according to etiquettists. Etiquettists would have received the 70’s television program Maude as a vampire takes to sunlight, even though Maude’s husband Walter was a man who accepted his wife’s strengths. Maude told it like she saw it, but etiquettists would never approve of such behavior.
According to etiquettists, women must be proper and passive, if they ever want to be married, happy and live full, rich lives. What would Maude have thought of the etiquettist's position?
As if in a trance-like state, we have allowed ourselves to be filled with the holy spirit, of all that is good and right. We identified the various drawbacks of posting pictures of women on the Internet. As if sanctioned by Susan B. Anthony, the holy trinity, and the Queen Mother, it has been decided and confirmed. The picture tributes must go!
-
Oh contraire; the picture tributes actually help women obtain personal independence and the section does fit into a larger model typically viewed under freedom of speech. This is a position for people who are critical thinkers and are intimidated by neither anti-feminists nor women who are secretly trying to benefit from a double standard.
First of all, feminists have accomplished many important plateaus for women. Women have sexual independence. Women are no longer shackled to the home, saddled with mindless responsibilities that once made some women silently numb their dull lives with valium. Hey, they can vote and wear pants, too!
They can become members of the Supreme Court and run countries, like Sandra Day O‘Connor and Margaret Thatcher. Women can obtain positions of corporate leadership, and date who they choose to date and as frequently as desired. Carole Burnette, Marie Curie, Oprah Winfrey, Marva Collins and Hypatia of Alexandria are pioneers that women can use for excellent role-models.
However, before we award Ms. Steinem-types with medals, let’s agree that society is having difficulty dealing with gender-role confusion that is a direct consequence to the liberation of women. The destruction of traditional roles brought variables to the world of social do’s and do not’s, too numerous to list.
Some women want equality in the workplace on one hand and benefits brought by traditional values within polite society on the other hand. They demand salaries equal to their male collegues and still want to be courted by men. Yet, the two are mutually incongruous. The women who would like to rest on both sides of the fence know nothing of personal sacrifice and are not representatives of feminism as a result. Those women beg for two sets of benefits and operate under a cloak of feminism, much like the wolf did for Little Red Riding Hood. They impair the achievements of feminism.“If interviewing women who are well-proportioned and physically fit rattles a few cages, then let those people develop a rational voice to air their differences.” Women can choose to be models. Whether they are bikini models or even nude models, images of women have become plastered across magazines, commercial advertisements, and films. Few people can rightfully disagree that these images do affect society; but, it comes with great surprise that there are feminists who claim the images hurt the women’s movement through reasoning too specious to entertain.
Instead of heralding the victories of feminine achievements, there are quasi-feminists who also want women’s freedoms socially revoked. These women seem to be suffering from all sorts of loyalty-confusion and need to figure out what they really want and where they really stand within woman's rights.
Women have a right to make a living through the public display of their mentally and physically fit bodies, don’t they? If the American dream enables us to forge our own destinies, we must agree. People who disagree are neither believers in the American dream nor are honest supporters of women’s rights.
Religionists suffer from a malady similar to quasi-feminists regarding women’s rights that borders on anti-Americanism. If they had it their way, women would never be allowed to make a living within the worlds of modeling, advertisement and film, at least as we know these ventures today. Religionists might allow them if yet another “flawless” rating system was created, making as much sense as their push for lyric-awareness has on society and the record industry today. It is all about restricting choice, limiting behavior and burying repressed desires.
Should we trust the religionists who still propagate dogma that conceptualizes woman as the bearer of temptation and path to evil? Here is the track record. The Catholic Church prohibits women from attaining positions of leadership. The practice in Islamic and Hindu faiths force women to enshroud themselves with burkas ('bourkas' or 'burqas') or robes. Let us not also forget how the religion-influenced culture of India places their women on playing fields less than that of farm animals by killing women when they bring shame on the family.
Since it is unconscionable to kill women when they misbehave, we might as well send in the imparters of etiquette, called etiquettists, to help mold our women. Women can be taught to walk, talk, and speak properly. If they are imbedded with enough meaningless rules, disguised as etiquette, about fork & knife usage, eye-shadow thickness, and the frequency of their makeovers, we can bring about selective amnesia and watch their ambitions entirely disappear.
On close inspection of the picture tributes section, feminists, religionists and etiquettists should notice that every tribute on The Liberator is by far, overwhelmingly tasteful. They shed light on the minds of women who are driven. Every layout is accompanied with a battery of questions meant to promote higher level thinking in the reader and the model.
Feedback from our readers suggest the best spreads are those that contain insightful answers to questions along with titillating pictures. If there is anyone who finds the pictures to be too revealing, then that person should first contact National Geographic to launch a complaint, or local doctors who openly display such magazines in their waiting areas.
The physical beauty of the women who are featured on The Liberator are treated with a high degree of respect. Women appear in flattering photos with nothing less than can be seen on a typical beach, which is more clothing than a European beach. Like most women who wear bathing suits that are skimpy, the women in the tributes section are aware they are attractive and are unashamed to be viewed by global audiences.
These women should be on display, as they represent ideal, healthy mind-body role models. Their ability to will themselves to gain physically fit bodies is a trait that should be recognized and appreciated. All of us desire to summon the same mental discipline to adopt good eating habits and exercise programs, so why not show the end results of those people who have such discipline?
The Liberator houses a considerable amount of prose that accelerates the brain to function at higher speeds. Where is the mind going if the body does not follow?
If The Liberator were to showcase nude, gratuitous spreads with interviews that were likewise geared (like the countless number of porn sites that exist) only then would complaints bear merit. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudity, sex and those sites, but explicit usage of such material on The Liberator would run in direct conflict to our mission.
The Liberator adopts a different approach toward sensuality while still actively promoting a society consisting of an informed electorate that is self-governing. To reach this goal, our world must be filled with citizens that are headed toward a state of grace, which must not, nor cannot, deny or inhibit human sexuality.
If interviewing women who are well-proportioned and physically fit rattles a few cages, then let those people develop a rational voice to air their differences. They would best serve their cause by sitting down and drafting a rebuttal to this comprehensive editorial; that is if someone can poke a hole in the flawless reasoning presented here.
If the picture tributes are found to be too risqué, then a paper on The Liberator outlining the benefits to legalized, regulated prostitution might send a disgruntled ring of people who claim to be intellectuals into cardiac arrest, if read. Until freedom of speech is revoked by Constitutional Amendment, revolution or military force, The Liberator will continue to serve as a forum for people to share their views regardless of the side of an issue one stands.
Regarding the picture tributes, they are here to stay and hopefully grow over time. So, if there is a model, entertainer or person who would like to request a free picture tribute, contact me, the editor, using the e-mail address above. Happy viewing, reading and contributing.
Resources