"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.