It is foolish, unconvincing and plain old-fashioned wrong to pretend that Kate Ellis' fashion shoot and her tight-fitting leather clothes and dominatrix-style eight-inch heels had anything to do with men. Women wear fashion to show off to and 'blow off' other women.

It is about what women want to wear - their individual style - and women versus women: vanity, boasting rights and power. Proof of this is in the magazines women buy for themselves and those bought for their daughters. Further proof is in the clothes women buy for their daughters - it is not the 'shops' or 'makers' who are at fault, it is the buyers and women do all of the buying.

None of this is to say that women never consider men, however that is only one consideration and often the least important when choosing clothing and accessories. Clipping a comment from some man ('Mick') who posted a comment in a newspaper misses the elephant in the room.

Are some women foolish enough to follow the lead of Kate Ellis? Probably, but that is what choice is all about. However choice also implies taking responsibility for one's own decisions, for the behaviour modelled to daughters and for the buying decisions they are encouraged to make.

Similarly, if daughters are taken to Maccas for dinner after childcare and are baby sat by a TV, it is a bit much to expect that they will prepare healthy food for themselves later. Obesity and eating disorders come from home and it is time we took responsibility.

This article got off to a wrong start by concentrating only on girls and trotting out some old stereotypes. It didn't improve by the end. Sorry, but a public health advocate specialising in eating disorders prevention has to do better than that.

Good onya Lydia. You have just proven what men have known all along about how women feel about themselves & other women. When it comes to fashion & body image women are stupid & gullable. ;-) They are led on by the media & they believe it all. As stated by some female Professor in Melbourne recently & quoted in the Courier Mail. "80% of women have some sort of mental problem." Yep, I believe that.

Women go to all thoes "feel good" classes to learn how to put other women down so they will feel good about themselves. I've got the books.

That's just what has happened here. Kate Ellis has been dressed up just so other women can critize her. Well done the womens media.

Bring on the flack!

Cornflower once again you have completely missed the point.

This is not just any old photoshoot - indeed, there is nothing wrong with wanting to maximise one's attractiveness - however Kate Ellis has positioned this shoot as an attempt to improve women's body image and self-esteem.

The author is spot-on when she highlights that girls and women are continually pressured to measure their self-worth by their appearance and how sexually desirable they are to men.

How is upholding the current beauty ideals meant to challenge body image problems? Clearly Ellis has been hypocritical in not even adhering to her own recommendations put by the National Advisory Board (ie not revealing whether or not the images of her were airbrushed)

You say that this is all about women versus women. You have completely ignored the role of commercialisation. While some degree of competition between individuals of the same sex is probably natural, how much of this is exaggerated when magazines like Grazia encourage women to judge other women based on appearance alone? When women are continually bombarded with messages across a whole range of mediums that reiterate that they must look a particular way just to matter

I saw the Ellis photo and I thought, gee, she looks hot. I didn't associate it with body image. I mean it's like making love and thinking, oh no, if I have a baby, I'm adding to the world's population.

I know we don't see this very often but Ms Ellis is evoking what we old hags used to call freedom. It's an old fashioned concept: freedom of choice, freedom of action, freedom to pursue wants and needs, to satify desire.

Try it, you'll like it.

To Cornflower Part 2:

Psychological studies have shown repeatedly that a 'halo effect' exists in western cultures where those who are considered attractive are more likely to be hired for jobs, be paid more, be given lesser jail sentences for time, more likely to be helped (even resuscitated for longer) compared to those who are considered unattractive. I would argue that there are genuine rewards and consequences that are carried out depending on how much one conforms to existing beauty standards. Your physical attractiveness is linked to your social attractiveness.

Our beauty ideal however is largely socially constructed- (think about how foot binding in China was considered the beauty ideal for centuries; corsetry in the 1800s; fat women are revered in rural parts of India) - which means we can change this.

Advocating for body diversity is a start- and it is one of the key recommendations put out by Ellis herself. Yet she did everything to uphold existing beauty ideals as we saw with the whole Hawkins debacle.

Cornflower I encourage you to consider that people who are oppressed (in this case, by commercialisation, media ideals) often participate in their own oppression. They learn to internalise the values of those in power. This is partly why women rush out to buy these magazines. They're not stupid - on some level there is understanding that they will have more opportunities presented to them by conforming more closely to the socially constructed beauty ideal.

I dont' think this article is about attacking men -it's really attacking the hypocrisy of Kate Ellis as a body image advocate confusing the issue of body image. Shifting the focus onto what she is wearing (deliberately sexual and unusual for her) takes the focus off of what body image is really about- the linking of self-worth to what one looks like.

What was it that Kate Ellis was trying to say about body image by her outfit? Especially as I suspect it was the magazine's choice, but I may be wrong.

I don't understand the relationship between the desire to make a statement about body image and the photoshoot.

If Kate Ellis wants to get around in an uncomfortable tight wearing leather dress and wobbly stiletto shoes - go for it. Those tiles at Parly House can get a bit slippery though and you would need a head start to get into the Chamber in time for Question Time.

All women want to be seen as attractive to the opposite sex and both men and women compete with their own gender, even if unconsiously - no news there.

We are missing the point which is - what was the point?

'One of the functions of sexualising powerful women is that they become less threatening. Their abilities fade into the background while all that is focused on is whether they are ‘hot-or-not.’ '

There I was thinking men just liked looking at beautiful woman, when really it's all a conspiracy to take focus off their other attributes that are 'threatening'.

By that rationale, no stupid women would ever be 'sexualised'. Women are sexual beings, they cant be sexualised.

Oh, I get it. If you're a girl with a brain, you have no right to dress in attractive clothing, and no one else should be allowed to find you attractive. Intelligent women should take their lead from feminists and refuse to express themselves in the way they want and become asexual identities.

Perhaps women can be smart AND sexy. Radical I know.

'Instead of giving in to the pressure to sexualise herself,'
Hang on. I thought she was an independent intelligent woman with her own mind? Now she's a brainless drone that is giving in to 'pressure'?

'So many of the comments posted in response to Ellis’ photoshoot have been about whether she is ‘hot or not.” Because that’s what counts.'
Yes it is, IN THAT CONTEXT! Geez.

' while catering to the sexual fantasies of men.'
By wearing some boots and not going into a feminist lecture in response to being told she's sexy?

'Given that girls and women are already taught that their worth is measured by how sexually desirable they are, having our Youth Minister reiterate that message just trivialises an issue she seems to care deeply about.'

I rather think she sets the example that you can be sexy and intelligent and contribute to society in a positive way.

BTW: I don't see any feminists jump up and down about the millions of references to Tony Abbot in speedos. If the treatment about the budgy smugglers was aimed at Gillard in a bikini there would be an outrage-athon.

Pelican: exactly.

Ellis claims she did this photoshoot to make a point about body image- and what is it?
no different to any other modelling shot out there.

the "i was just trying to spark a debate on body image" is a pathetic excuse for a fashion shoot.

there is nothing wrong with wanting to look hot in a fashion shoot, just don't say it's in the name of improveing women's body image/ self esteem.

I reckon the best photoshoot for body image would be to line up a bevy of male and female politicians in a group nude shoot. No airbrushing or other interference just plain old skin in all its glory with every fold, wrinkle and dimple to be seen.

With a big slogan underneath saying - naked and proud of who we are. Or similar.

Probably not too many takes on that one though. :)

I wonder if Grazia would have approached Kate Ellis for a body image shoot if she didn't conform to socially constructed beauty standards, and whether kate ellis would have said 'yes' at all if she wasn't attractive.

Our company does a lot of branding work with personalities such as politicians, writers and general advocates all trying to achieve personal celebrity ONLY so that they may deliver the true protagonist - the message or issue they want to amplify.

I really believe Kate Ellis needs to hire another communications/marketing/and PR consultant if her aim was actually to highlight issues related to Body Image in Australian Popular Culture.

Remember, as Lydia highlights, this is what Ellis claims to have been aiming to do - but, as other commentators here in the forum point out - they didn't think about the issue at all when looking at these images.

Well, maybe it's because the brand focus was soooo heavily diluted that it achieved the opposite.

If Ellis was aiming to present herself in the light of being happy and positive about her sense of self in her own skin, we would have approached the shoot with her in her favourite outfit (which she notes this is not,) in which she actually looks comfortable and genuinely happy and situated in a location representative of her political goals.

It's clear she is, in fact, uncomfortable in this totally unrelatable shot and it's sad to think that she has now conformed to what she was working against - a sexualised portrayal of designer/ societal femininity - instead of presenting her real, authentically beautiful self.

Ahhh - another case of intelligence being photoshopped away!

I think Kate Ellis' latest stunt has less to do with body image, than the Rudd ALP, like Blair's New Labour, being utter, desperate media tarts.

Face it, Kevin Rudd would pose naked with a rose in his mouth if he thought it would win a few votes (rather than send voters screaming and clawing at their eyes).

While countries like France and Spain implement regulations and laws to protect the health of their nations - eg implementing minimum BMI for catwalk models, banning adverts promoting "the cult of the body" (spanish saying) to after 10pm etc,

Australia's politicians and eating disorders charities thinking getting a supermodel to strip and a politician to wear a dominatrix outfit is the solution to body image problems.

Way to go, Aussies.

The whole concept of voting on women- not only the sexiest mp but also on celebrities as Lydia has highlighted demonstrates that a womans worth is still very much dependant on her appearance. Getting females to vote on celebrities is an alarming practice that is so mainstream now so many women do so without even considering the practice or it’s consequences. Essentially it is playing women off one another- & reminds me of Foucault’s “panopticon”, the self governing jail, where “the sentiment of invisible omniscience” means that women must constantly watch themselves- because they are always being watched. Thinking about this issue within such a paradigm may go some way in explaining Kates behaviour as quite natural- however ultimately as an MP she needs to seperate her role as a (so called) “leader” on this issue with her (natural & normal) desires to be seen as “sexy”.

pelican, sylvie,

'Ellis avoided disclosing whether or not the images were airbrushed, yet disclosure of airbrushed images was one of the key recommendations put forward by the National Advisory Board on Body Image'

Smart politics. EVERY image is airbrushed in some way, in every publication. She says she hasn't and she's left herself wide open. As always it's a measure of degree.

'Flipping through the magazine, it’s hard to understand how Grazia’s editors could possibly think they were doing women any body image favours'

Of course, like the happy to be me dolls (Which sold so so well), I'm sure it would be better to have a magazine with no celebrities, or a staid medical journal about anorexia, or just a fashion and celebrity mag censoring all opinions on body image, with no good looking women or celebrities.

“Why are we our own worst enemies? 71% of [women] judge other women based on their bodies”

Sounds like a good message. Better that quote be amongst celebrities talking about their body issues and the whole range of opinions quoted in the article about diet and airbrushing and botox and all the things women do to change their body. From the excerpts it sounds like a very comprehensive celebrity/fashion issue about.... body image.

'Ellis said her reason for modelling for Grazia was to “spark a debate on body image” ( '

Ummmm Mission accomplished! Thanks Kate for involving pelican and sylvie and Lydia in the debate about body image.

'if she didn't conform to socially constructed beauty standards'

There has to be some beauty standard. What is beauty if we're all equally physically beautiful to the majority of people?

'instead of presenting her real, authentically beautiful self.'

Now if she'd have done that, she would have been detracting from her position as a minister. She's a serious minister and outside that she can 'dress up' (like we all do) an play in the world of fashion without taking away from that. Context.

Would you rather she be draped over her desk?

holleuebecq

you're kidding right. your entire argument is a straw man. i'm at work now so i'll keep this short- most of your comments undo themselves

the point about all images being airbrushed - you know french marie claire just came out with an entire issue with no airbrushing at all?

kate ellis is an MP with a high profile - as if she couldn't have requested that they do an unairbrushed shoot. rubbish.

DWIGHT,

Do you know nothing of image manipulation? There are more tools available than the airbrush. Ask any photographer how many of their images are sold straight from the camera with no post processing.

Marie Claire... Ah, forget it. Just believe everything you read.

Holleuque

i think your last comment is spot-on. i agree there are multiple techniques used on images- which is why i think the National Advisory Board's recommendations are weak.

at the same time, there is still the question - why recommend magazines disclose whether they have airbrushed images or not, when you're not even willing to adhere to this recommendation yourself?

i agree with CatalystCommedia - this all just a pathetic PR stunt, which selfishly confuses the issue of body image, which is the #1 concern for teens today.

well done to lydia - another great article.

If Kate Ellis had appeared at the beach on a Sunday doing safety with the nippers, in a yellow one piece with a yellow and red quartered cap would she have been castigated by our fawning media by highlighting only her sexuality or would they have derided her for wearing lycra if she'd competed in a triathilon or horror of horrors jeered at for spending too much time on fitness activities instead of formulating policy.

Nah they'd be all over her with praise for being super fit, a fantastic role model and something to which our youth could aspire.

What a load of crap the poser Ellis and the stupid fawning labor media is all about.

Sylvie Jade, "I wonder if Grazia would have approached Kate Ellis for a body image shoot if she didn't conform to socially constructed beauty standards, and whether kate ellis would have said 'yes' at all if she wasn't attractive."

Attractive to whom and why? You are stretching a very long bow if you are inferring that fashion shoots have anything to do with men, or that women choose their clothes with men as the first, second or (usually) even distant third consideration. Do you choose your clothes to appeal to men? The fashion industry meets the needs of women and it is women who must change it, but that means an attitude change.

Just taking a ridiculous assertion from the article, "One of the functions of sexualising powerful women is that they become less threatening." Mind telling that to Jana Wendt, who dressed well, took care of her body and carved out a wonderful career to boot? Would anyone claim that (say) Tracey Grimshaw hasn't had a career equalling Jana's because viewers are focused on is whether they are ‘hot-or-not’? Tracey does not have the ability nor the skills of Jana, it is as simple as that. It is about ability, drive and persistence, forget the other excuses. Anyhow, since when was Jana less effective in interviews because she looked presentable?

What about leaving all of the stereotyping and blaming out of it because this should be about women taking responsibility for their own purchasing decisions. However, without the over-used, worn-out stereotyping of a previous Age, the article doesn't have much to rely on does it?

Fashion is catering to the sexual fantasies of men? Pull the other leg! The Ellis shot is for women and women should stop buying it, simple as that. Take responsibility for choices and leave the other gender out of it.

Yes but Houlley what has this photo shoot got to do with positive messages about body image?

Kate Ellis can do a photoshoot wearing whatever she likes - it's her choice, just don't dress it up or politicise it as a body image stunt when clearly it has nothing to do with it.

Kate Ellis is the Minister for youth. We can safely assume that as the author states she is presenting am image for other youth to aspire to. In this case she is supposedly sending a message about body image. We all know that youth firstly could not afford these clothes nor would most be dressing like this on a daily basis.

Why didn't she decline this shoot based on her position as Youth Minister and the unrealistic image it sends to youth who are battling to find an image that is acceptable by their peers?

It shows little thought on the matter and would suggest this is used as an opportunity by the Minister to keep her profile up to secure votes in the next election to keep her seat in parliament. If she is serious about sending the right message to the youth about body image, she would have used her own clothing like another contributor has suggested.

Ultimately Kate Ellis had the power to say no to the shoot but instead she agreed to it. I guess it shows she does not have the maturity to be the Minister for youth if she is not able to discern the kind of message she is sending other youth. Yet another public figure who is thinking of themselves not the greater good of the people she represents, the youth of Australia. What hope have we got for battling the images portrayed who say they care about preventing food eating disorders that is taking the lives of our youth.

I saw the photo and it looked more like mutton dressed up as lamb.

Well I think you're all being way too hard on the woman. I think to some degree she is a target because she happens to be attractive. If she was less attractive the feminists would be loving her efforts in the magazine. Showing a 'real' woman.

She's someone to aspire to. Would you rather your daughter want to be Kate Ellis or Brittany Spears.

How many 16 year olds watch question time? So, as the author says,

'She wanted to draw attention to the results of the body image survey in Grazia.'

She has done just that. When a magazine like this no-matter how 'bad' has an article such as this, why not encourage it to be read? If some racing magazine had a minister driving a car to promote a road safety message in it would there be such a song and dance?

Woe betide a woman in a position of power who dares not to be a perfect siren for every feminist gripe. She's doing a lot more for women than the feminists knocking her down.

Must every action by a woman in a position of power be part of some feminist script. I think she relates a lot better to young people by saying honestly 'yes it was fun' to dress up and be photographed.

'tight-fitting leather clothes and dominatrix-style eight-inch heels'
Come on! Trying to make out she's dressing as some sort of dominatrix? What are we in the 50s? Should she have worn a floral frock?

What was she supposed to say to the hottest politician rating? A lot more young people would tune out if she started banging on like the author. Her comments on the Lara Bingle saga did her credit too.

She's affable, sensible, took on the body image thing with initiative, and a clear and straight communicator who has done well to get where she is.

I thought feminists would support her rather than tear more strips off her than they would accuse men of doing to an attractive woman who has achieved such a position at a young age.

JamesH, "I saw the photo and it looked more like mutton dressed up as lamb."

Chauvinist pig! Then you are not admitting either that you along with other men conspired to make her do it for your own sexual gratification and to control women?

Admit it, those women editors are your stooges and you get off on those surly looks of fashion models, right? Just you wait until the revolution when men like you will be done on a spit and women everywhere will achieve lasting equality courtesy of brown bib'n'braces and Doc Martens (alright, some coloured laces are OK).

Bless OLO for the odd funny article mid-week.

I don't think that Lydia is saying that she doesn't want Kate Ellis to look good. I think one thing she is saying is that doing the photoshoot implies that it is not enough to do your job well as a woman, but that there is an expectation from men -- and women -- that women also have to look "hot" (in very conventional terms) in order to be successful. Kate Ellis is in a position to challenge that expectation, and instead she seems to have given in to it.
And Houellebecq, lots of people, including those terrible scary "feminists", do jump up and down about Mr Abbott in speedos. But at least if boys decide to emulate Mr Abbott, they need only spend a couple of dollars on briefs, whereas to emulate Kate's look, they need at least $2500 and, so it appears, the services of a skilled airbrusher.
Helen

isabelberners, "it is not enough to do your job well as a woman, but that there is an expectation from men -- and women -- that women also have to look "hot" (in very conventional terms) in order to be successful."

What about the contrary argument that is also advanced and probably more often concerning attractive women - that they are not taken seriously because of their looks and have to work harder to gain credibility?

Similar things are said about men and either way.

Personally I think it has nothing to do with looks, anyone who is well groomed and takes some pride in her/his appearance is likely to do better in employment.

Enough of the excuses, the opportunities are there just go for it.

This article is worthless without the photos.....

But that is just the unreconstructed pre-post-modern male in me.

Actually this reminds me of a great article in the SMH and Age by Cordelia Fine (5 Feb 2010) after the Macquarie Bank/ Keily/ Miranda Kerr scandal- that highlights the difficulties that females face when they are sexualised and concludes "[sexual] stereotypes adversely affect women trying to gain ground in male domains, material that primes those very stereotypes and attitudes becomes more common"... Politics is clearly male dominated and I think that part of the issue here is that Ellis is essentially participating in (not just) her own oppression (but the oppression of females in general) by positioning herself, first and foremost, as sexualised. And of all areas to do this in... under the auspice of improving body image? I agree with Lydia that this is sending a very confusing message about body image which I think Ellis herself is indeed confused about.

To Cornflower, re:

"What about the contrary argument that is also advanced and probably more often concerning attractive women - that they are not taken seriously because of their looks and have to work harder to gain credibility?"

Ive never heard of this phenomenon before- what is it actually called? My understanding is that there is overwhelming evidence supporting the "Halo Effect" (which someone else has referred to in the comments here) - where attractive people are very much rewarded for the way they look...have never heard anything about life being more difficult for attractive people. However I think this misses the point entirely- the blog is not about jelous feminists criticising someone for being beautiful (and successful). (And not sure if youve seen a picture of Lydia on any of the blogs she has written but she happens to impress as attractive herself). It is about body image (a very serious issue in our culture that it is consistantly voted as the biggest concern of young Australians by Mission Australias National Youth study) being caught up in a political stunt by someone who is actually watering down and confusing messages in an attempt to capitalise on it themselves. This is very dangerous when we are talking about a serious public health concern that (in extreme cases ie clinical eating disorders) affects 5% of the population and has the highest mortality rate out of any mental illness. It is not acceptable to merely give lip service to this issue. Ellis needs to take the issue seriously- parading around for a magazine is simply unacceptable, tokenistic and quite frankly potentially very harmful because it completely glamourises and ultimately trivialises the seriousness of the problem.

"Ellis said her reason for modelling for Grazia was to “spark a debate on body image”

Great, lets have a debate about the usefulness or otherwise of self-esteem. It cannot be held amongst expert psychologists, because none still want to be associated with the self-esteem movement. The debate needs to be held in the mass media, where the value of self-esteem is unchallenged. Our obsession with self-esteem isn't supported by scientific evidence, sets people up for failure, discourages self-improvement and perpetuates double-standards, whereby women are seen as needing protection.

Cheryl

"Ms Ellis is evoking what we old hags used to call freedom."

Ms Ellis is conforming to a narrow idea of women's sexuality, originally designed to please men. All of the women who act in this way claim to be individual, yet all are so very similar. They remind me of those "alternate" people who all dress the same, listen to the same music, hold the same views, have the same interests etc.

Sylvie Jade

"girls and women are continually pressured to measure their self-worth by their appearance and how sexually desirable they are to men."

They are constantly pressured to see themselves as beautiful. Some people have as much chance of genuinely believing that they are attractive as they do of looking like a model. We would never treat men in this way. Still, insisting that women must see themselves as beautiful might convince them to buy a few more of the overpriced clothes and cosmetics that the fashion magazines advertise.

Pelican

"I reckon the best photoshoot for body image would be to line up a bevy of male and female politicians in a group nude shoot."

Dead right, but thats no excuse for putting that image in our heads.

If the commentary here is anything to go by, Lydia Turner's clearly correct that Kate Ellis has sent very mixed messages with her photo shoot. It may well have stimulated a debate about women's body image, but I doubt that it's gone in the direction that she anticipated.

Mind you, I thought Ms Ellis looked great in the photos and shouldn't be flogged just because she's an attractive woman. She undoubtedly meant well, but what were her minders thinking?

Having said that, I have to contrast Kate's image with that of Joan Kirner, who did her bit for the 'body image' of female Aussie politicians decades ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGyD2hn7d3Y

What is it about Labor women in boots?

I thought Kate Ellis looked wonderful in the photos as well.

Having watched her in action (verbally!) on several episodes of QandA on TV in the past, I found her to be a very intelligent, articulate woman.

I believe that any politician with both attractive, well groomed looks and an intelligent manner, can be a truly formidable foe.

What I can't understand is why there aren't many male politicians with this desirable mix?
If there are any, could we also have a photo shoot of them? :)

Another Calvinist article from MTR.

Kate Ellis is intelligent and accomplished. God forbid as a role model she should try and be attractive. While I understand the point of the body image issue, at no point has Kate stated that she starves herself or tries to look like a size zero model.

Is frumpy the new Black?

As for men, don't for one instant think they don't trade on their looks.

Give it up girls, it's hopeless. All this hand wringing over how much your gender focuses on body image, yet this very hand wringing shows how obsessed you are with it.

I don't give a rats what photo's Kate Ellis appeared in, but I would like to know why her staff turnover is 13, given she only has 10 of them. That's pretty turn over rate for just 2 and a bit years.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/pm-staff-in-the-doghouse/story-e6frea8c-1225854274956

pinky,

'positioning herself, first and foremost, as sexualised.'

I think she has positioned herself as a minister. First and foremost. secondly, she's a woman. It seems feminists want her to position herself first and foremost a feminist, secondly a woman, thirdly a minister.

As for 'sexualised', a skirt and boots is neither 'simmering' or 'dominatrix'. What are you lot the high puritans of modesty. I mean I know feminists love 'sensible shoes' but this is ridiculous.

A few months back, a skipper of an American warship made some scathing remarks about the skimpy and revealing clothes Darwin ladies were wearing.
“Ladies, think of the message you are sending...” he proclaimed.
Isn't this precisely the attitude Muslim men display, in insisting their women cover up? That men simply can't control themselves, and that women are simply about manipulating men's helplessness?
Isn't this the excuse Muslim rape gangs used?
To me, it sounded very much like a pre emptive excuse, for his randy sailors. 'It wasn't my boys fault; those tarty girls led them on'.
I think the only message the girls in Darwin was sending is that they are not ashamed of themselves, and why should they be?
Ever noticed overweight women tend to wear low cut tops? (Bless them).
Overweight men tend to wear sleeveless shirts, to display their overweight arms? (Got a few myself).
People have a tendency to try and display themselves in the best possible light; verbally, intellectually and physically.
Duh.

Grim

"A few months back, a skipper of an American warship made some scathing remarks about the skimpy and revealing clothes Darwin ladies were wearing.
“Ladies, think of the message you are sending...” he proclaimed.
Isn't this precisely the attitude Muslim men display, in insisting their women cover up? That men simply can't control themselves, and that women are simply about manipulating men's helplessness?"

Check your facts. The American claimed to be a marine and his arguments had nothing to do with rape. He claimed that wearing revealing clothes might attract the attention of some men but will not impress nice guys. Of course, the thought that these women's behaviour might lead some people to think less might hurt their feelings. Consequently, the media found it safer to disagree with him.

You also misunderstand the opinions of many Muslims. These women cover their heads in much the same way that you or I put clothes on before leaving ther house.

All that story about Capt John Campbell, the fictitious marine and his 'letter' saying Darwin women wore too little to attract "nice men" proves is how easy it is for media hacks to start the dogs barking.

What an unlike story: a marine officer writing and signing an inflammatory missive dumping on local women while his ship was docked in the port of a friendly nation.

More likely it was written by an unprincipled local stirrer in the hope of causing trouble.

Later, some mud sticks because the media never return to a story they knew originally was an egg-beat. Journalistic ethics?

I agree with Cornflower. I have never known any army or navy personnel visiting a new port somewhere in the world to make derogatory comments about how little the local women are wearing!

More likely it was a local God-fearing man pretending to be a marine.

I have lived in Darwin before, and the men don't wear much either!
It's incredibly hot most of the year!

Benk,<" You also misunderstand the opinions of many Muslims. These women cover their heads in much the same way that you or I put clothes on before leaving ther house."

Most women in our society don't dress according to their religious beliefs Benk.
The vast majority dress in clothes to suit what they plan to do for the day, and to the probable temperature of the day.

Most devout Muslim women dress as their religion demands- very modestly.
Some devout Muslim men require their women to dress from head to toe so other men do not 'lust after them'.

Suze

Once again, you fail to understand a simple argument.

I'm guessing that you would never leave the house wearing only your underwear, no matter how hot the weather is. A nudist might think that you are conforming to un-necessary social pressures. I could fairly safely assume that you are quite happy to conform to these particular social norms.

I don't mean to criticise these social conventions, I just wish to point out that many Muslim women are happy to cover their head before leaving the house, in much the same way as you or I wouldn't leave our house without a shirt on.

No Benk, I absolutely understood what you were trying to say- simple or not.

I would imagine you would be able to leave the house without a shirt on Benk- many men do that in hot weather in this country.

There is a vast difference between you and I leaving the house in light clothing in an area with extreme heat conditions, and a devout Muslim woman covered from head to foot in layers of clothing leaving her house with her husband while he is comfortably dressed in light, modern clothing.

She may or may not wish to dress like this, but either way, she is required to do it for religious reasons.

benk: <"I just wish to point out that many Muslim women are happy to cover their head before leaving the house.">

Very likely true.

However I am more interested in what happens if a woman (wife; daughter) 'decides' not to cover her head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpV_cJ5E0wQ

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18277927/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71O4_JbU_GE&feature=related

Too right Pynchme and while the going is good benk might as well blamed for these burqa clad bombers as well:

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/burqa-bombers-kill-41-at-kacha-pukha-refugee-camp/story-e6frfku0-1225854998736

- 41 dead and 61 injured and it is all your fault benk.

See what happens benk when you say something really insensitive and inflammatory like, "These women cover their heads in much the same way that you or I put clothes on before leaving their house"? Now you didn't realise just how politically incorrect that statement could be, now did you?

Hey Benk, check your own dam' 'facts'; I was expressing an opinion. Not an unreasonable thing to do on a site such as this, I would have thought.
The parallel I was drawing rested solely on this concept of 'message'.
I don't believe anyone wearing light or skimpy clothing is deliberately telling the world: "Hey everybody, I'd really like to be forcibly penetrated!" Probably not even prostitutes.
I think the only 'message' they are sending -including Kate Ellis and ol' mate the mad Abbott- is 'this is me, and I'm not ashamed of it'.
And why should they be?
I have never understood the logic behind the Christian attitude of being ashamed of our bodies; especially since we are supposedly 'made in God's own image'.
Although I do understand why old fashioned Christian and Muslim males don't want anyone to look at 'their' women; this attitude is simply one of ownership.
"Love, honour and OBEY".
On the subject of 'PC', is Ms Turner suggesting that it would be more appropriate for someone in Kate Ellis's position to show she's comfortable with being overweight?
Or should she be ashamed or defensive of not being overweight?

Grim

Your exact words were; "A few months back, a skipper of an American warship made some scathing remarks about the skimpy and revealing clothes Darwin ladies were wearing.
“Ladies, think of the message you are sending...” he proclaimed.
Isn't this precisely the attitude Muslim men display, in insisting their women cover up? That men simply can't control themselves, and that women are simply about manipulating men's helplessness?"

The American marines are actually different to the navy. Your claim that he thought that scantily clad women were asking to be raped is also factually incorrect. His argument was that these women would attract the attention of sleazy men but fail to impress nicer men. No-one has claimed that either Kate Ellis or the lightly dressed women of Darwin are asking to be raped or anything like that.

I merely questioned the accuracy of your claims and the strength of your arguments. Also not an unreasonable thing to do on OLO.

Suze

We all agree that many Muslim women have dress codes imposed on them. Pynchme pointed out just how far some men will go to ensure that these dress codes are followed. I have just pointed out that we all have standards of dressing and expectations that we are expected to follow and that these conventions feel totally natural to most of us and we are happy to follow them. Many Muslim women feel the same. Many don't.

"Pynchme pointed out just how far some men will go to ensure that these dress codes are followed."

She was right, but just while the decks are being cleared it is worth noting that it is not just men who support and enforce religious traditions. For example, the strong public supporters of the veil and burqa in Australia have been women not men.

Similarly in (say) the Catholic church while the priesthood is male, mothers are acknowledged as the backbone of church, ensuring traditions are maintained and ensuring regular church attendance. Italy provides excellent examples.

Religious fundamentalists are not constrained to one gender.

What Cornflower says is right.

What women wear is mostly driven by different groups of women. The womens mags drive beauty, the youth mags drive the sexy outfits, and the ultra conservative drive the "body image" (read cover up and hide yourself away) outfits.

shadow minister

with all due respect i think if you did your research you would find ms turner is actually openly non-religious, so all your rantings about calvinism and body image being part of an ultra-conservative campaign to keep women more fully clothed is completely unfounded.

how cornflower and benk etc got on to this massive discussion about muslim customs is beyond me as it is totally irrelevant to this article.

a number of other commentators have already pointed out - the author is not saying that there is anything wrong with wanting to maximise one's attractiveness or wearing high heels etc. she is asking how kate ellis dressing in this manner is meant to boost women's body image- a question shadow minister and a few others love to avoid.

and cornflower- what is up with your 'chauvanist pig' rants. i think you have read far more into this article than is actually written. your preconceived notions of feminism are what you are arguing against rather than what is actually written. read the article again.

the idea that women only dress up to compete with other women is frankly, idiotic, cornflower

there are many reasons both men and women dress up - for women it can include competition (tho not always), clothes are also a way of communicating something about ourselves & our identity, etc but also as sylvie jade pointed out in her 2nd/4th comment to you - there are genuine rewards and consequences depending on how closely you match the current beauty ideal

but sorry for destroying your anti-feminist, female-hating crusade cornflower, what a terrible day you must be having : (

ooh... well i was was thinking of losing 15kg, getting all dressed up in designer gear - ooh la la! Getting my hair and make up professionally done and then being professionally photographed in flattering lighting. I'll then have them published in a magazine - without any digitial retouching! - all in the name of "Body image." What do you think? Will it work?

Well said DWIGHT.

Why stick with the point of the article when it is much more fun to use it to raise other agendas and sidestep the real question; what does this particular photoshoot add to the goals of promoting positive body image?

If it was just a media stunt, well and good - we all know politicians will take advantage of a photo opportunity - but why the need to make it into something it is clearly not.

Runner is right,

There is enough immorality in the world today. Why on earth should we expand availability outside the church.

Maybe there is a lot of petty and jealous sniping at at successful women like Kate Ellis too. This puts women in her position constantly under the pump for having to perform at superior level while being judged for the political correctness of their most minor actions.

Kate takes care of herself, she is fit and is proud of her body, where is the 'body image' fault in that? She chooses to do it for herself so she will enjoy life to the maximum and doubtless so she will continue to be around for her loved ones. Her choices, her decisions and her win. By her lifestyle and the pride she takes in herself she is a worthy ambassador for body image.

Why take anything away from Kate Ellis by pretending her lifestyle choices and the fashion shoot were in fact the outcomes of some sinister plot by men to control her? That really is stupid stuff, it is not feminism, just bitchiness and it should be outed as the absolute tripe that it is.

shadow minister

interesting that when your claim that 'body image' is all about ultra-conservative-religious-tactics is disproven, given Ms Turner's open atheism, instead of addressing the issue at hand or admitting that you are in the wrong, you press on with your own agenda, that somehow this *must* be about religion.

clearly your cognitive abilities are quite limited indeed - but then again, judging from your posts on other issues, why would this surprise anyone.

there you go again cornflower.

where in the article did it state that kate ellis was being controlled by a sinister plot men have against women ? you are making this up on your own, as DWIGHT has stated, based on your preconceived notions of feminism.

And again you have avoided answering the question (HOW MANY MORE TIMES DO WE HAVE TO GO AROUND IN CIRCLES? ) - NO ONE has stated that there is ANYTHING WRONG with Kate Ellis dressing up. She can run around in a bikini for all i care.

BUT it is KATE ELLIS who claimed this photoshoot was about IMPROVING WOMEN'S BODY IMAGE.

NOW before you reply again, PLEASE answer the question - HOW IS THIS PHOTOSHOOT SUPPOSED TO IMPROVE THE BODY IMAGE OF WOMEN?

Spark a discussion? Ha! What a load of tripe. Didn't we already have that discussion after she posed in a bikini for The Daily Telegraph (again - in the name of body image) and when Jen Hawkins posed NUDE in Marie Claire? How many more 'discussions' does the Australian public need to have?

And what of the quality of these discussions? They're certainly not about body image. They're about WTF are our community leaders doing, stripping naked and in Ellis' case, going against ther own board recommendations by posing in airbrushed photos.

Here's another question. Cornflower if you really think thin is the only way to be healthy and therefore Ellis should be congratulated, then WHY defend Ellis, given she is responsible for trying (or at least giving the appearance of ) trying to promote body diversity and non-airbrushed images in magazines?

This is not about body image at all. If Ellis wants to look hot in a photoshoot, no problems with that. Just don't trivialise the very serious issue of body image.

it is true that girls are continually taught to measure their self-worth by how sexually desirable they are to men. but this has less to do with men and more to do with the process of commercialisation, as sylvie jade wrote about in comment #2 to you.

NOWHERE did ANYONE mention this was about a sinister plot by men against women, Cornflower - and indeed, it certainly is NOT.

and yes- allow me to repeat what someone else also wrote - France has passed an anti-anorexia bill, Spain has implemented minimum BMIs for catwalk models to PROTECT their health (WHICH I SUPPORT FULLY), and has proposed a bill to limit TV adverts that promote surgical and/or chemical enhancements for the body to after 10pm

What is Australia doing? getting a supermodel to strip and an MP to dress sexy as a way of improving body image. GET REAL

I've be watching these posts with absolute amazement. So with that in mind I'll post my first post again. Thank you all for vewrifying what I have said.

JB: Good onya Lydia. You have just proven what men have known all along about how women feel about themselves & other women. When it comes to fashion & body image women are stupid & gullable. ;-) They are led on by the media & they believe it all. As stated by some female Professor in Melbourne recently & quoted in the Courier Mail. "80% of women have some sort of mental problem." Yep, I believe that.

Women go to all those "feel good" classes to learn how to put other women down so they will feel good about themselves. I've got the books on the subject. Lots of what to do to improve you self image & gain confidence then go out & do the opposite & critisize everyone else. Great stuff ladies.

That's just what has happened here. Kate Ellis has been dressed up just so other women can critize her. Well done the womens media.

Dwight,

I don't believe I mentioned religion in this thread. I was talking about ultra conservatives, many of whom are not religious.

The issue of body image is whilst a few have the genetics and personal trainer to get photos into magazines, the vast majority of us don't. The agenda is that this is causing misery amongst those that don't meet this criteria, therefore we should prevent anyone that has from appearing in mags etc which will then make everyone feel good about themselves and prevent the side effects such as eating disorders.

The very premise on which this is built is flawed. Body image issues have existed long before print, TV or digital media was available. Most of the population recognizes that they don't have the perfect body, and while they will try and make themselves look better, virtually no one kids themselves that they can ever be a 5'9" size zero model.

Kate looks attractive in the clothes that many of her peers are wearing to parties etc. She is not posing naked and air brushed or in a swim suit, or even pretending to be a size zero model.

Whilst the "body image" issue could apply to stick figures, to extend it to a normal person wearing attractive clothes is going way too far.

oh come off it shadow minister!

you've mentioned religion TWICE in your previous posts to this article. you've wrongly accused the author of being a CALVINIST, and posted a quote in relation to immorality and the CHURCH. who do you think you're kidding?

and how is this an issue of the 'ultra-conservative' when kate ellis is part of the left wing sector?

to pretend that no one seriously tries to meet the beauty ideal nor believes that they ever can, is ludicrous.

of course body image issues have been around before, but again (HERE WE GO AGAIN ) - this is getting so tedious -you fail to answer the question of HOW kate ellis' photoshoot, which she HERSELF claims was done to improve women's body image, achieves just that.

whether or not she is attractive is not the issue here. whether or not she likes to dress up in her personal life is also not the issue. the author has clearly not attacked this at all.

the issue here is how does this help women's body image?

and why defend kate ellis when it's clear even SHE does NOT agree with your ignorant views regarding body image, otherwise she wouldn't have put together the national advisory board for body image. Yes, body image issues have been around for a long time, but what is the impact of commercialisation?

please just answer the question of how her wearing a sexy outfit improves women's body image, when already women are continually bombarded with sexy images of those meeting the beauty ideal, and those particular images are almost exclusively what is allowed to be shown in magazines.

You totally miss the point, shadow minister. try again.

"How many more 'discussions' does the Australian public need to have?"

We need to have a serious national discussion about whether this concern about body image is misplaced. I certainly believe that our society spends far too much time agonising about issues of body image and self-esteem for several reasons:

1) There is a large amount of scepticism about the concept of self-esteem among prominent psychologists, most notably Roy Braumiester. There is an increasing body of research that contradicts everything we thought that we knew.

2) We can set people up to fail when we tell them what they want to hear to protect their self-esteem. For example, we have all seen a bigger woman arrive at a party dressed in clothes that don't suit her figure. People all snigger behind her back, but are reluctant to give her accurate advice to her face, supposedly to protect her self-esteem. Certainly if we insist that all women absolutely must think of themselves as beautiful, most will fail.

3) Boosting people's self-esteem discourages self-improvement. Many parents will sabotage any effort by their teenaged daughter to lose weight. It would be so much better if they all went on a health kick and supported (almost) any example of self-improvement.

4) The whole thing smacks of out-dated, paternalistic views about women. The way that we are told to tip-toe around the fragile little egos of women is like something from the 1950s. Certainly, there is a marked difference between the amount of protection that men and women are thought to need.

5) Far too many young women seem have an expectation of going through life being told only what they want to hear.

Dwight,

Hop off your soap box. This has mostly been brought up by MTR or her cohorts. MTR is a "feminist" with a distinctly catholic agenda including stopping access to termination of pregnancy. So most of the conservatives have a religious leaning.

However, in THIS thread I was not dealing with this aspect of the topic, and the only reference to religion I made was to use the adjective calvanist, which while having a religious background is also associated with strict dress codes and the frowning on any unwarranted decoration.

The post to Runner was meant for another thread to wind him up with regards censorship of video games.

The issue is that Kate Ellis is marginally better than average looking woman, that normally most men would not stare at. However, when she dolls herself up she looks fantastic. There is no way she has a body like Jen Hawkins or other models, but dressed well looks great.

Supposedly as Minister for youth she would connect better with the youth if she dressed like a granny?

Shadow Minister

love how you say MTR "and her cohorts," as if some sort of brainwashing has been going on.

is this baiting i detect?

it's clear not all of MTR's so-called "cohorts" are of religious or conservative following. I'm amazed you would assume that anyone who publishes on her page must be of her worldviews, as there is quite a diverse range there. But you know what they say about assuming...

let me reiterate what another commentator said earlier- some of you on here are just enjoying using this forum to debate other issues you feel strongly about rather than debating the article at hand. this certainly applies to you, SM!

you do realise that in life you have to pick your battles, don't you. if you only ever choose to work with people who are of the same political and religious persuasion as you, chances are you won't go far when it comes to bringing about positive change.

just saying...

part 1
what a pity that the magazine *grazia* didn't give space to an article on what women parliamentarians stand for in terms of policy - for example; or the role and place of women in parliament; or the response to women in parliament by their fellow parliamentarians - is there bullying? are they taken seriously? is it accepted that women in parliament are equal participants with an equal right to be there? do fellow parliamentarians engage in sexual and/or sexist harassment of women parliamentarians?

there are hosts of issues that surround the women-in-parliament which would make great magazine stories - and readers (surprise! surprise!) would be interested. could women parliamentarians, when approached by the media, take a positive stand (together!?) by raising with the media the possibility of doing stories that do not focus on 'how sexy (sic) women parliamentarians are' (or particular members) and, rather, that explore the interesting and important role of women in parliament.

part 2

the women's movement has fought for centuries to have women's voices heard (and listened to!) in all public forums, including parliament. the struggle for the vote and the right to stand for parliament was won by women taking a strong stand, being despised (by some), being bullied and brutalised (by some - including the media), and being courageous in demanding women's rights.

the women who are in parliament are there because women of the past fought strongly - it is important that the women in parliament recognise this and honour it by the way they go about their work. that work is the work of members of parliament. it is not the work of models, mannequins, celebrities (whoever they are!) or subjects of 'gossip' magazines.

no one - i hope - says women, including members of parliament, should get about in sackcloth and ashes. no one - i hope - says women, including members of parliament, have no right to dress as they please and to look as 'good' as they think they do or otherwise. however, we (women) have a right to demand that those who represent us in parliament do so with their minds fully focused on their jobs - namely, representation, policy, committee work, work in question time - asking and answering questions, etc.

part 3
women in parliament stand on the shoulders of the strong, courageous, brave women who fought so that they - women members of parliament - could take their positions. i believe the women on whose shoulders they stand fought the battle so that women could - and would - be taken seriously in all forums and in all walks of life.

women need to be aware that the prime way in which women are undermined, put down, excoraited - is through sex and sexuality. aphra benn is not the only woman to have suffered in this way, so that her plays were ignored, denounced, passed over - despite her importance as a playwright. do we want the electorate to be going 'pooowah waah' (or however one writes it) or concentrating on what is in our heads - namely our brains - and the policy we formulate, the bills we present, the committee reports we collaborate in?

no prizes for guessing my answer to that question.

Jocelynne

Fantastic. You actually get it.

I think that Lydia's just trying to distance herself from the OTHER Lydia Turner...

Anyone for a fashion shoot?

www.lydiaturner.com

Dwight,

The reason I use MTR and her cohorts is that just about every article on this issue on OLO is either directly from MTR or reposted from her website, and while they might not all march in lock step, on this this issue, there is little deviation.

The main point coming through is that it is un feminist to be sexy, (as other "real" women can't) and that if you want to be taken seriously you need to adhere to a politically correct image. Most women actually resent being told what to do, or how to act, whether by men, or these radical feminists.

As for other issues, you brought in religion in this thread, and are pursuing red herrings.

What is the end game of this "body image" issue. beautiful girls having to cover themselves up so as not to offend those less well endowed?

My agenda is that anyone telling me what I should or should not do according to what is considered appropriate really p*sses me off. And I am unlikely to find common ground with the likes of MTR, Stephen Conroy etc irrespective of their religion or beliefs.

"Most women actually resent being told what to do, or how to act, whether by men, or these radical feminists."

+1

oh cornflower, posting again are we?

STILL managed to evade the last question pitched at you - ie how is Kate Ellis' photoshoot improving women's body image, which is what SHE claims it does?

Pathetic.

Shadow Minister

yes... judging by her photo i'm sure this author is your stereotypical butch hairy feminazi with an ultra-conservative agenda to make all women wear sensible shoes ...

how absurd for you to accuse me of bringing up the topic of religion when it is YOU who accused the author of being a Calvinist then incorrectly cross posted a quote about church - get off it.

It's clear to me that your gripe (along with Cornflower's) actually has nothing to do with this article at all.

This article has never stated that women should not be allowed to dress up and have fun. Look at the photo of the author for christ's sake, she is clearly dressed up!

No, this is a gripe about MTR and her so called 'cohorts.' Activism requires working with people you don't share same worldviews with - and christ, i can't stand many of the people i work with. But you know what? you do it because it's the only way change will ever occur. Imagine if you only ever agreed to deal with people who shared your same political and religious views.

But it's typical of you, Shadow Minister, to just ignore all the holes in your argument and advance your own crusade.

Time to grow up.

"Most women actually resent being told what to do, or how to act, whether by men, or these radical feminists."

Shadow Minister you have not concluded this from the article. Stick to what's at hand. Are we going to have to have the same debate anytime one of these articles comes out?

And Cornflower- what a sheep.
*yawn*

Shadow Minister

You said

"The main point coming through is that it is un feminist to be sexy"

Did you even read the article?

No, Shadow Minister, that is a point you have made up as a result of your preconceived notions about feminism.

The main point of this article is NOT that there is anything wrong with being sexy, but rather that Kate Ellis' photoshoot does nothing to challenge current beauty ideals and thus does nothing to improve women's body image, as Ellis claims.

Read the article again.

Dwight,

I read the article, but I am not sure that you did, or even tried to understand what I was saying. Kate Ellis is not a model, she does not starve herself or exercise to death. She is a normal person who with the right clothes etc looks great without airbrushing or Photoshop.

She is not creating unrealistic expectations and does challenge the beauty ideals by showing that a normal person can look great.

Has it finally sunk in or do I have to use really small words.

Lydia may not be a feminazi, but by no stretch of the imagination could her clothes be called adventurous, (maybe to the new england settlers)

If you still cannot get your head around this, what would you suggest the beauty ideals should be?

"Activism requires working with people you don't share same worldviews with - and christ, i can't stand many of the people i work with. But you know what? you do it because it's the only way change will ever occur. Imagine if you only ever agreed to deal with people who shared your same political and religious views."

It is disturbing that this type of maturity is becoming so rare. Take Cornflower's statement for example; "Most women actually resent being told what to do, or how to act, whether by men, or these radical feminists." It appears that our desire to protect the feelings of women has created a generation of women who expect to go through life only hearing what they want to hear. Men who deliver unwanted messages are accused of being controlling (Severin provides an excellent example). Women's gender role has always involved being quite diplomatic. The growth of the self-esteem movement and the twisting of feminism to focus entirely on choice means that women are expected to be unbelievably careful about other women's feelings. Quite innocuous statements either "hurt someone's self esteem" or "undermines someone's right to make choices".

Ultimately, they will need to HTFU. Often, the people who deliver unwanted messages are true friends

benk and SM
The issue of self esteem is worthy of a subject itself. I agree that the modern push for 'self esteem' and the indoctrination that goes with it (eg. "you can be anything you want to be" mantra) often make things worse.

In fact I posit that we have become less resilient since the advent of "self esteem" policies.

Still the fact remains that the crux of the photoshoot has not been addressed as DWIGHT and others have repeated. Remembering that Kate Ellis herself (who I like by the way and have no grievance) has stated this shoot was done to foster self esteem and was about body image.

How does this photoshoot supposedly assit with promoting young women's self esteem?

I am not sure what sort of photoshoot would have been able to achieve that goal other than a bevy of people lining up unafraid to be photographed as they really are in all shapes and sizes.

Perhaps the real issue is we should stop trying to mock up any sort of photoshoot that targets body image per se.

Consumers are the biggest power group here and if we want to (some clearly won't) we can stop buying magazines that don't present women and men in unnatural airbrushed photos and who promote the au naturelle.

benk,

Very droll, but you really don't need to twist my rejection of the ideological fanaticism of fundy radical feminists (who would turn a fashion shoot into a male plot) into a straw man argument to spark up your contest with severin.

General comment
As per usual the fundamentalism of radical feminists and the religious right has drawn both sides together in self-righteous wowserism aimed at controlling women. Both sides know what is best for women and if that risks knee-capping a young successful woman MP and minister then so be it, the end obviously justifies the means.

However Kate Ellis has emerged unaffected and with even stronger popular support. This has been a PC storm in a tea cup and the fundys have been outed for their weird beliefs and self-serving agendas.

pelican, "How does this photoshoot supposedly assit with promoting young women's self esteem? "

That has been answered but the answer is not acceptable to the fundys, both religious and radical feminist, who have tried unsuccessfully to get some traction to expand on their own irrational, unscientific beliefs. Kate Ellis is a worthy model for all young aspiring young people, not just young women, so why try to pull her down?

Cornflower

We all tend to focus on different parts of other people's posts, because of our beliefs. I chose to quote that particular part of your post because of the opinions that I outlined earlier. I'm sorry if you feel that I have twisted your words.

I understand and agree with your argument that some feminists can appear too preachy and self-rightous. However, others try too hard to distance themselves from this stereotype and go to the other extreme. They went from preachy to "do what ever you like, I will just walk around behind you applauding."

No-one wins from this new paternalism. Men cannot open our mouths without being controlling. Women cannot say much without being accused of unkindly hurting someone's feelings. Women are fed affirmation but little useful advice.

BTW

I don't need to have any argument with Severin. I'd much prefer that she changed.

Cornflower
Disagreeing with someone or something they do is not to pull them down.

Too often on OLO there is a tendency to portray anything feminist as "fundy" to use your term. There appears to be a lot of misinformation about feminism - often those wanting to pull feminism down using the most extreme of examples instead of looking at the reasons why feminism emerged as it did. It was not a perfect movement by any means and I have also criticised some aspects of it on occasion.

Why is this photoshoot discussion only about feminism? Issues surrounding body image and self esteem are not feminist issues as they affect boys as well.

It seems anytime anyone wants to discuss something that affects primarily women/girls it becomes a feminist issue alone. For comparison when there is a discussion about boys being abused by priests it is simply an issue about pedophilia and the Church with no mention of masculinists.

It really gets up my nose sometimes as the real issues get sidetracked for what I consider unreasonable agendas. :)

pelican

I don't think you have raised anything that hasn't been discussed at length already although you did omit to say that it was radical feminists whose fundamentalism was compared with that of religious fundys.

It was rather a poor show that a successful woman MP and minister, especially one with such a good record as Kate Ellis should be subjected to such frivolous criticism.

Pelican < "It seems anytime anyone wants to discuss something that affects primarily women/girls it becomes a feminist issue alone."

Yes indeed... but you should know by now Pelican, Benk and Cornflower can't discuss many subjects unless they bring up the nasty females of our species.

I often wonder if they know any women who they don't believe are also feminists?

Good on Kate Ellis for showing her feminine side.

We have had to endure watching Tony Abbott's pathetic crutch-jiggling, speedo clad body as he tries to present a manly, athletic figure for us all to admire.

Kate makes a much nicer picture!

Cornflower
"...although you did omit to say that it was radical feminists whose fundamentalism was compared with that of religious fundys".

I omitted it because it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Anything on OLO that is remotely female will be tarnished with the fundy brush.

It is not a poor show (as you well know) to hold politicians accountable for their actions of for whay they say - moreso if those actions are portrayed as being something they are clearly not. As I said, by all means have a photoshoot but please no politicking or spinning it as some greater mission about body image.

Give the public some credit.

Suze
Yes it is head against brick wall stuff for sure. :)

pelican, "I omitted it because it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Anything on OLO that is remotely female will be tarnished with the fundy brush."

Rubbish, the reference was to radical feminists, not feminists in the broad and that was significant and directly relevant as you very well knew. But for what possible reason would you deliberately misquote me to give the misleading impression that I was criticising all feminists - which plainly I was not doing?

You sought to destroy my credibility by pretending that I was in the habit of generalising about all feminists whereas my intent was quite the opposite.

Your remarks about what might happen in other OLO threads have nothing to do with me and are irrelevant to the subject at hand, although they do betray the crooked thinking behind your action.

Maybe it is because I have supported Dr Catherine Hakim's preference theory on a number of occasions that I have raised your ire, but who cares, I have a right to my opinion.

Now what really is your motivation for bouncing into Kate Ellis? Is it Green politics or what, because her alleged 'transgression' is trivial and the emotion invested in giving her a drubbing is out of all proportion. You say you want to hold her accountable. For what, having a normal body for age and wearing expensive clothes? You really have lost perspective.

Brilliant point, DWIGHT.

"Activism requires working with people you don't share same worldviews with - and christ, i can't stand many of the people i work with. But you know what? you do it because it's the only way change will ever occur. Imagine if you only ever agreed to deal with people who shared your same political and religious views."

Cornflower
I thought it was you attempting to pull this discussion down to a radical feminist or greenie agenda.

If you or others don't wish to answer the question about how this shoot has anything to do with body image (which brings in issue like eating disorders) just don't answer it. Reducing any efforts to make politicians accountable for what they do or say to an irrelevant greenie (where did that come from) agenda is also counterproductive.

What is your real agenda? From your posts I find it difficult to believe that you are against a free citizenry questioning the motives of any politician (from either camp as I often do) for what appears to be a misrepresentation. It was IMO a misstep on behalf of Kate Ellis who took advantage of a bit of press.

No-one has explained what this shoot has to do with promoting ideas of body image among young people despite all your protestations to the contrary.

Whether Kate Ellis looks good is not in question, she is an attractive woman and would probably look good in anything she chose to wear.

Pelican,

The body image issue, certainly until recently, has been the promotion of super thin models as beauty icons. Has this now extended to anyone that is thinner than average?

Even these plus size curvier models are at best in the same league as Kate. Are the goal posts being pushed to ridiculous levels?

Is a NORMAL woman no longer allowed to look attractive?

What is attractive to men has not changed substantially in thousands of years. Thin is better than fat, tall is better than short. This is ingrained, and while the size zero models are extreme, Kate Ellis is not.

Yeah but she's 'simmering' in 'dominatrix' gear SM. She's being sexual, and being a woman in power, she has a responsibility to feminists the world over to wear sensible shoes and try not to look good.

Woe betide a woman in a position of power who dares not to be a perfect siren for every feminist gripe. She's doing a lot more for women than the feminists knocking her down.

A 'real' feminist (like a 'real' woman) would support her rather than tear more strips off her than they would accuse men of doing to an attractive woman who has achieved such a position at a young age.

Bonnie J,

" Imagine if you only ever agreed to deal with people who shared your same political and religious views."

That actively describes Kate Ellis' motives in joining in the 'sexualisation' of women in this magazine. Which audience does she want to know who she is? The readers of 'feminist victim monthly', or young people interested in fashion, who might read this magazine and happen on the article “Why are we our own worst enemies? 71% of [women] judge other women based on their bodies”

Then, when seeing this Kate Ellis person, they are exposed to a 'leader' and 'role model' in society, making more famous a woman who is doing something more than walking down a plank, turning around, and then walking back. The reader sees this woman is beautiful, and manages to gain approval and prestige in her job, and has something to say. Maybe she wants to learn more about Kate's message, and maybe she sees another path for women in today's society.

So, pelican, there's your answer.

Kate, the feminist, showing women you can be a good leader and contribute to society, have brains and power, and be beautiful, vs the author and other so called 'feminists', who somehow find it offensive that a woman doesn't restrict her life choices to doc martins and berating beautiful women and whining when a silly online poll says they're attractive.

Houllie

The problem isn't the way that she dressed. The issue is that she pretended that this was making a statement about body-image issues. It was a poorly concieved effort to fix a non-existent problem.

Houlley
benk has answered but if I can add.

"Kate, the feminist, showing women you can be a good leader and contribute to society, have brains and power, and be beautiful, vs the author and other so called 'feminists', who somehow find it offensive that a woman doesn't restrict her life choices to doc martins and berating beautiful women and whining when a silly online poll says they're attractive."

Yes that is true Houlley but she did not say the shoot was about being a good leader and having brains. It was about body image. Body image became an issue because of an increase in eating disorders amongst young people, boys and girls included.

Most feminists I know don't wear doc martens. Many like Naomi Wolf and MTR are attractive women who are very feminine. The doc marten is just a stereotype.

I personally have no problem with women or men being attractive and demonstrating that attractivess as they see fit. We all do it, but when I dress up to go to a pub I am not thinking that my outfit might aid with the cause of body image. I just want to look good.

benk,

'The problem isn't the way that she dressed.'

Oh but it is the problem. Why the hyperbolic 'simmering' and 'dominatrix' then? Why the 'sexualisation'?

If it were a less attractive minister, there would be no outcry. It would rather be a 'you go girl' from the feminist camp for setting the right example by showing how 'real' women can still be sexy. Kate just doesn't quite qualify for 'real woman' status. She's a little bit too young and attractive.

pelican,

My use of 'doc martins' is a retaliatory gesture on my part to the 'dominatrix' boots used by the commentator. Turnabout is fair play. I am making a point about the author, not lazily using a stereotype. God people make it hard. There's no credit given on here is there. Even if I wasn't using it this way, you can be guaranteed I would be using it to wind you up, so I cant believe you'd take that bait unless you are struggling to refute my other arguments.

'Body image became an issue because of an increase in eating disorders amongst young people, boys and girls included.'

Rubbish. It became an issue because victim feminists decided men must be blamed for liking to look at beautiful women. It's an extension of the 'objectification of women' camp. The article goes into this in depth.

But even if you are reading a different article and have somehow missed all the blah blah feminist victim stuff smothering the one point you are trying to defend, how come you have ignored my explanation of the reasons and rationale and justification for her saying this aids the body image cause?

WHo would you rather hear this. People who watch question time, or people who read beauty magazines?

http://grazia.ninemsn.com.au/blog.aspx?blogentryid=629733&showcomments=true

'But she agreed to pose for Grazia because our second annual body survey goes to the heart of an issue she’s deeply passionate about – the self-image of millions of Australian women.

Our body survey found a huge majority of us are unhappy with our bodies, with many going to extreme lengths to lose weight – and avoiding work, uni and social occasions because we’re not confident about how we look.

Of our body survey, Ellis says: “Some of the results are horrifying when you look at what women are saying about themselves.

“Going out into the community [after being made Minister] made me realise what a huge issue body image is, especially for women – it just kept on coming up as a big concern.

“When I spoke to some of my male colleagues about it, they said this had been going on for years and years, but actually I think it’s so much worse now, which is why I wanted to make it a priority.

“Women and young girls see so many images every day that give them an unrealistic idea of what their bodies should look like, and it is having an impact on their health and confidence levels…'

Now, what's wrong with advertising that message, and trying to support a magazine that surveys women about their body image? As one poster said...

"Activism requires working with people you don't share same worldviews with - and christ, i can't stand many of the people i work with. But you know what? you do it because it's the only way change will ever occur. Imagine if you only ever agreed to deal with people who shared your same political and religious views."

Houllie

"Our body survey found a huge majority of us are unhappy with our bodies"

The problem being...what? I accept that most women are dis-satisfied with some aspect of their appearance. However, a key concept is being overlooked, having a realistic self-concept. A few of these women are quite attractive and need to stop whinging and be grateful for what they have. Most of these dis-satisfied women are perfectly reasonable people who are correct when they suggest that they might look better if they changed some aspect of their appearance. Most of the people who think that they could probably lose five kilos are right. It does these women no favours to tell them that they have a mental problem called "low self esteem", when they are thinking perfectly rationally. It is just another example of our society wanting to over-protect women and see them as victims.

"many going to extreme lengths to lose weight – and avoiding work, uni and social occasions because we’re not confident about how we look." This is a genuine problem, but I strongly suspect that only a few women are letting dis-satisfaction about their appearance affect their quality of life like this.

“Going out into the community [after being made Minister] made me realise what a huge issue body image is, especially for women – it just kept on coming up as a big concern.

Thats no surprise. The media has been flogging this issue for years, without anyone questioning it. Amongst top psychologists, the self-esteem movement are a joke.

“Women and young girls see so many images every day that give them an unrealistic idea of what their bodies should look like, and it is having an impact on their health and confidence levels…'

Whenever I turn on my TV I see people who look alot better than me too. Thankfully, no-one assumes that I need rescuing.

Houlley
I have not ignored it I responded to this..."Kate, the feminist, showing women you can be a good leader and contribute to society, have brains and power, and be beautiful, vs the author and other so called 'feminists', who somehow find it offensive that a woman doesn't restrict her life choices to doc martins and berating beautiful women and whining when a silly online poll says they're attractive."

...in the previous post.

Maybe I am missing the point, I just don't see feminist conspiracies in everything I read.

Maybe we need to define feminist so we are all on the same page.

benk,

You're preaching to the converted. My point is not about the validity of the issue, just that her actions were consistent with what she is trying to achieve.

pelican,

You keep saying 'No-one has explained what this shoot has to do with promoting ideas of body image among young people despite all your protestations to the contrary. '

And I have posted lots of reasons why it does and how it can be effective and why she would bed down with a fashion magazine to do so.

'" Imagine if you only ever agreed to deal with people who shared your same political and religious views."

That actively describes Kate Ellis' motives in joining in the 'sexualisation' of women in this magazine. Which audience does she want to know who she is? The readers of 'feminist victim monthly', or young people interested in fashion, who might read this magazine and happen on the article “Why are we our own worst enemies? 71% of [women] judge other women based on their bodies”

Then, when seeing this Kate Ellis person, they are exposed to a 'leader' and 'role model' in society, making more famous a woman who is doing something more than walking down a plank, turning around, and then walking back. The reader sees this woman is beautiful, and manages to gain approval and prestige in her job, and has something to say. Maybe she wants to learn more about Kate's message, and maybe she sees another path for women in today's society.'

Then I posted her 'messages', which benk erroneously decided I supported. But they are the messages she wants to get out, to the audience she wants to hear them. Her only mistake I see is that she dares to be attractive while doing so. I think the opposite is true. An ugly woman is open to accusations of sour grapes, a beautiful woman in this case is showing yes you can still be beautiful and be so much more.

But you keep picking up any references to feminists I make and simplistically saying I'm just feminist bashing.

Houlley
Maybe we are both coming at this from our own interpretation which are obviously different. I don't think a less attractive woman would have altered some of the criticism being levelled at the body image premise but this is just a guess.

I am not accusing you of being anti-feminist personally. In the interests of keeping an open mind, I admit that on OLO there tends to be an anti-woman/feminist slant on issues that often surprise me, perhaps that has tainted my own take on the repsonses to this article to some extent.

I think you are looking at it from a female perspective...

'What was it that Kate Ellis was trying to say about body image *by her outfit?*'

A man would pay more attention to what *she* had to say and not even think about what her *outfit* has to say ;-p

I vividly remember my most outspoken feminist friend's excited response to her father driving Julia Gillard around once. Her only question about it to him was 'what was she wearing?'. It even took her a while to work out why I thought that was so funny.

She's never lived it down. I reckon I'm actually more feminist than the average chick who calls herself a feminist.

As Slyvia Jade said...

'Advocating for body diversity is a start- and it is one of the key recommendations put out by Ellis herself. Yet she did everything to uphold existing beauty ideals as we saw with the whole Hawkins debacle. '

The trouble with Kate you see is she isn't diverse enough. It's like a blonde blue eyed chick applying to be a newsreader at SBS to your average feminist.

Houlley
I can only say to that 'viva to all our differences' in whatever shape or form.

It is a shame that there is not more body diversity in the media - when will we ever see a female Laurie Oakes - ;P

I suspect if Amanda Vanstone had done a photoshoot there would not have been the flak, maybe just some unkind comments, given that the body image problem is about striving to be thinner not fatter for the most part.

Although I did read something the other day about feeders and people actively trying to put on weight to become the fattest person in the world. That is different type of eating disorder with psychological isses that are, I suspect, beyond any of our expertise.

Pelican

"I suspect if Amanda Vanstone had done a photoshoot there would not have been the flak, maybe just some unkind comments, given that the body image problem is about striving to be thinner not fatter for the most part."

I agree and Houllie has made this point ad nauseum. Part of the problem that some people have with Kate Ellis is that she doesn't deviate far enough from the current fashion of thin models. However, this obsession with thinness is sometimes blamed for health problems.
It is hard to argue that Amanda Vanstone is a picture of health. Ellis at least seems to be in a health weight range.

Houllie

I apologise if I implied that you are too concerned with tip-toeing around other people's feelings. We all know that you aren't.

Be interesting to put all that aside for a minute.

I wonder if a bloke's social worth, especially as a politician, was judged primarily on looks who the best and worst representatives would be.

Who's wearing Armani this week?

Grim you sure that "jiggling" budgie smugglers won't do the trick to grab some votes ?

(Suzie has conferred an unerasable image)

The idea of any politician doing a photoshoot in support of body image issues should be banned immediately. :)

Grim good to see some humour. Me wearing armani is about as likely as wearing a pair of Manolo Blahnik shoes.

Pynchme, come on!
I wouldn't mind betting that, like the rest of us Australian women, you have been secretly scouring the women's and sports magazines for more close-up images of the Abbott's equipment encased in small, barely there speedo clothing?
Personally, I live for the day! :)

Pynchme, "I wonder if a bloke's social worth, especially as a politician, was judged primarily on looks who the best and worst representatives would be."

Are you suggesting that Kate Ellis was elected and won her ministry through looks alone?

What about their Excellencies Ms Quentin Bryce AC and Mr Michael Bryce AM AE, because both of them are trim and very well dressed and certainly not from Target. Did Quentin get her job through looks alone and is her very lean figure to be construed as a poor example of 'body image' for other women? There are many, many very successful women around who happen to take pride in their appearance, did they all get their jobs primarily because of their looks?

However quite apart from that and this is moving away from Kate Ellis, precisely where is the feminist 'problem' - apart from the looney, self-serving beliefs and spite of radical feminists maybe - in men and women benefiting from their appearance and presentation? Some were luckier with intellect, some had genes that gave them more pleasant features and others might have done well in both. However, most have to work at both, many successfully and full credit to them.

Cornflower, you have captured clearly the perverted Marxism that underlies so much Feminist cant. It's not enough for them to have equal opportunity to make the most of what they have, they demand that anyone who is better equipped to do well should be handicapped. It'd be quite sad if it weren't so perniciously intrusive and destructive.