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.