HRS, you forget Amanda Vanstone. Clearly an example of men voting based on her looks (I might not be serious about that).

There probably are men out there who vote based on looks when the opportunity arises but I am not aware of any who do so. On the other hand it's more likely that there will be journo's who will give favourable treatment to one of their own who presents well on camera.

If we were going to vote based on looks then the democrats would have done a lot better in recent elections than they have done.

The article seems to imply that the taboo's on trading on looks are a womans issue. Maybe not the intent but if so it's not obvious.

Someones kidding themselves if they think males get an easy run if they are obvious about trying to play up their looks (or sexual characteristics). Remember the ribbing the former Qld opposition leader got over shirt off shots. Find a male polly (or a male in an professional environment) who gets taken seriously if they make a habit of leaving the top few buttons of a shirt unbuttoned or of showing plenty of leg at work. Warrick Capper got away with tight shorts but most of us can't do so at work no matter how good our butts and legs.

The article is not about men but readers are better served if they remember that the issue is not one that applies only to women.

R0bert

Oh gawd, not another feminist beat-up. ..ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz

Judianne,
The example you give of Muhammad Ali conveys a sense of his personality but is devoid of any reference to his physical attractiveness or sexual desirability – on the contrary, it’s a pro-active description conveying power, agility and cunning … against other men. How different the gender power association might be if your example went something like:

‘The sexy ring dancer’s eyes ooze like liquid chocolate … as do his muscles …’?

R0bert,
‘Find a male polly (or a male in an professional environment) who gets taken seriously if they make a habit of leaving the top few buttons of a shirt unbuttoned or of showing plenty of leg at work.’

Exactly! And that’s the whole point. In the case of women, the habit automatically gets made FOR them – so that their ability to be taken seriously is automatically compromised. I don’t buy the fashionable gender-political rhetoric that whatever cultural negatives apply to women equally apply to men - particularly when it comes to the culture's over-sexualisation of women (and more recently, even little girls).

MLK
I don’t find Mohamed Ali sexy either. I would have to be converted into the religion of feminism and become a male hate feminist, and then I might find Mohamed Ali and politicians sexy. However I don’t think that is going to happen, or at least I hope it doesn't.

The sexualisation of children is a very serious problem in our society, but when was the last time did you find a father in a women’s clothes shop buying sexy little outfits for their daughters. And when was the last time did you see a father in a newsagency buying one of those disgusting teenage magazines for their daughters. It is the mother’s who are buying those items and propelling the sexualisation of children.

MLK, "I don’t buy the fashionable gender-political rhetoric " - I don't see it as fashionable rhetoric but rather as a loose reality. Most of these issues have a flip side and too often that is ignored. I suspect far to often with an intent to make women feel like victims of men.

I don't think we will ever get a broad based measure of the relative benefits and disadvantages men and women have experienced from the gender expectations society has placed on people. That's why I say a loose reality. The phrase "until you have walked a mile in my shoes" comes to mind.

I support men and women being free to explore non-traditional roles and to take on the responsibilities that go with those roles.

R0bert

HRS said: "I don’t find Mohamed Ali sexy either. I would have to be converted into the religion of feminism and become a male hate feminist, and then I might find Mohamed Ali and politicians sexy. However I don’t think that is going to happen, or at least I hope it doesn't."

This is such a wonderful example of completely and utterly missing the point, not to mention confused thinking and nonsensical reasoning. Did you read what MLK said at all before you wrote that HRS?