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.