Julia "looks like a Prime Minister?"
Have you seen the glammed-up killer-heeled Julia in the Women's Weekly today?

Having failed miserably in just about every other area, Gillard is now falling back on the exploitation of her glammed-up looks to win votes.

Anybody, woman or man who offers themselves up for this kind of airbrushed and manufactured glorification of their appearance hasn't much right to be upset if the public focuses on that appearance, offering both negative and positive comments.

When did we last see the WW do a glammed-up photo shoot of Tony Abbott, complete with windblown hair and designer suits?

I didn't have a whole lot of time for this woman, but now I've got none at all.

Briar Rose

>> When did we last see the WW do a glammed-up photo shoot of Tony Abbott, complete with windblown hair and designer suits? <<

Er, when he was featured with glammed up shots of his wife and daughters and blithering on about women keeping their "gift" of virginity for marriage?

Sorry Severin, very different photo shoot, very different outcome.

All I'm saying is that if politicians are now willing to use their glammed-up bodies to lure voters, then they can't complain if commentators use physical appearance to judge them.

They can't have it both ways.

People have been banging on about Abbott's ears and abs for ages. Yet we don't think anyone should mention Gillard's earlobes and dyed hair? Why not?

I don't like reading unpleasant comments about a woman's appearance. However, if the woman is willing to exploit that appearance (but only after it's been glammed-up) then I don't know why anyone shouldn't comment on it, and some of those comments will be negative.

Personally I haven't noticed Gillard's earlobes.

But I have noticed the words "Do Not Trust This Person" written across her forehead.

Severin writes
'Er, when he was featured with glammed up shots of his wife and daughters and blithering on about women keeping their "gift" of virginity for marriage?'

no doubt you would prefer the alternative (ie sleep with the first man that comes along in case you miss out). Your hatred for decency seems to know no bounds.

"no doubt you would prefer the alternative (ie sleep with the first man that comes along in case you miss out)"

runner incomprehensible as it may seem to you there is a whole range of other alternatives between your preferred "get so sexually frustrated that you marry someone else even more sexually frustrated and then be stuck with them because divorce is bad" option to the other extreme which you pine for.

You appear to be very frustrated by what you think that you are missing out on judging by the inordinate amount of time you seem to spend thinking about every one else's sins and just how delightfully wicked they must be.

R0bert