Heldman states that self-objectification can lead to all or some of the following in women: depression, low self-esteem, less faith in their own capabilities, which leads to diminished success in life, low political efficacy, disgust and shame about their bodies... the list goes on. (To me, the most interesting side-effect is "low political efficacy", which is just a fancy way of saying that women who objectify themselves do not believe that they can create change, and thus rarely or never get involved with politics.)

Dr. Heldman, bless her soul, tries listing ways to combat self-objectification, but most of them seem fairly implausible, particularly if you're a television and movie lover. A "radical, personal solution is to actively avoid media to self-objectify, which, unfortunately is that vast majority of movies, television programs and women's magazines," Heldman writes. "My research with college age women indicates that the less women consume media, the less they self-objectify, particularly if they avoid fashion magazines. [Emphasis ours.] By shutting out media, girls and women can create mental and emotional space for true self-exploration." I guess the only solution is for women to make our own un-self-objectifying media to combat the other kind. Tina Fey and Diablo Cody? We are looking at you.

Self-Objectification — Seeing Ourselves Through Others Eyes — Impairs Women's Body Image, Mental Health, Motor Skills, And Even Sex Lives [Ms.]

Earlier: Memo To Women's Magazine Editors: White Women Hate Themselves After Reading Your Magazines

Our November 1st post on the state of 'Ms.' Magazine — now celebrating its 35th anniversary — riled some readers up, including 'Ms.' staffers themselves! We asked Jessica Stites, Assistant Editor at the magazine to respond.

At such times of feminist crisis I turn to Lisa Jervis, founder of Bitch. In a '04/'05 Ms. article, Lisa tried to put the "wave" terminology to bed, pointing out that, "ideological disagreements...can't be discussed productively while in disguise as generational issues." In other words, dividing ourselves according to the relative viability of our eggs is only going to get nasty. She goes on to point out the dubious origins of the "wave" stereotypes:

[The image of the second wave feminist is] a slightly — and only more slightly — more nuanced and polite version of the stone-faced, hairy-legged man-hater whom we all know to be a myth that originated in the sexist culture at large and was cultivated and amplified by conservative, antifeminist and/or just plain clueless journalists. The image of the frivolous young pseudo feminist has the same provenance.

And that's why I think Jezebel, at its best, is so necessary. Sometimes the best antidote to stereotypes is snark. Three cheers for Jezebel when it takes down Asian fetishists, sugar daddies or too-thin models.

But there are other reasons I'm a feminist, and I refuse to believe they're fundamentally at odds with Jezebel or hopelessly "second wave." I'm a feminist because magazines and newspapers still accept back-page sex ads that allow human traffickers to connect with johns. Because U.S. women still work a "second shift," spending 133 minutes per day on housework compared to men's 81. Because immigrant women laborers in the U.S. Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands work long hours in squalid conditions for little pay to make clothes that bear the misleading label, "Made in the U.S.A". Because plastic surgery is becoming scarily mandatory, with 11 million procedures performed in the U.S. last year alone. Because the government recently drove up birth-control prices. And because the U.S. invasion of Iraq set the clock back 40 years for women there.

Ms., like Jezebel, is necessary, because it can bring all this to the attention of hundreds of thousands. The other week, our Fall issue came out lambasting New York magazine for running sex ads; this week New York magazine changed its policy.

Movements have faced worse conflicts than "serious vs. funny." Most of us integrate these two traits just fine in our day-to-day lives. Maybe it's time to do so in our political lives? Here's a deal for you, Jezebels: admit that you and Ms. are kinda maybe fighting the same fight, and I'll see what I can do about a few sex-positive Ms. articles, because lord knows, prune stereotypes notwithstanding, I can't think of a single Ms. staffer who's against sex.

Earlier: Ms. Magazine Celebrates Its 35th Anniversary... Yay?

Because feminism isn't monolithic, and we're allowed to have dissent among our ranks, that's why. Challenging each other is what helps us to continue to progress. In fact, Whoopi Goldberg, in her little blurb in the "Voices Carry" feature in this issue of Ms. said:

We just have to keep our eyes open—as well as our ears and hearts. it's constantly evolving, that's why it's called a movement.

I envision her being in a decked-out loft with a little corner for a desk that look like it belongs in a poor person's East Village apartment, with her battered-women's stuff and her Ms. magazines and all her communication with leading feminists.

That's probably the biggest divide between second and third wave feminism. There's this emphasis on the "serious" shit, which is indicative in their coverage of grave news, and insistence of an anti-pornography stance. In fact, in Beth Ditto's blurb in the article, you can see exactly how retarded "serious" can be:

I am hopeful that the best-known feminist publications of our time will go into schools...and ask students. Who wants to be in a magazine? And then I hope that all the girls raise their hands and then I hope you ask them to write a poem, and then I hope y'all publish the poem because our movement depends on them. Those grrrlz. There is a now of then, a now of now and a now of tomorrow. Don't neglect the latter and embrace the others. That's all. Sisterhood is power to the people.

The personal doesn't just have to be political, it can pleasurable, too.