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.