"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.