A good article. The clock has been turned back re magazines, advertising, etc, re their portrayal of women. If men were depicted as sexualised, skinny waifs with nothing between the ears, there would be hell to pay.

It's no wonder that some young women feel they 'live on another planet' - the Planet of the Strange - as they are taught in schools to be ambitious and intelligent, yet they have to sit in bus shelters or train stations and be confornted with scantily clad women suggestively eating a chocolate bar.

Mixed messages or what? Sure sex sells but it's the lowest common denominator in advertising. When the creative director or copywriters can't think of a clever idea, they throw in a semi-naked woman.

There have been som great female journos: Wendt probably being one of the best (male or female). Maybe Lisa, you'll start to redress the imbalance.

I was surprised to see the model used by the Victoria Racing Club to promote the Caulfield Cup in the suburban Melbourne papers. The model appears to be 16 years old which is appealing to the race goer demographic. It has become fashionable for girls in year 11 and year 12 to attend the Caulfield Cup. Of course the Monday morning editions of The Age and The Herald Sun will thunder about the number of underage drinkers who vomited champagne all over the place.

The Victoria Racing Club will tsk, tsk while planning their next years marketing campaign.

Sadly our society has a wide gap between public opinion and public sentiment. An example of Public Opinion - yeaterday The Australian mourned the injustice done to the battler family in Lithgow taking home $140,000 per year who have a home mortgage and investment property mortgage. Public Sentiment - half the adults in Australia live on less than $28,000 per year.

Our media celebrate the success of those who are good looking, earn good money and everyone else is invisible. People who do not conform to the ideal body image can't find clothes and shoes that are big enough to fit.

Yes I agree, there are some efforts in the doll industry in providing more "real" type dolls for girls.

The objectification of women continues unabated instead of a reduction in semi-clad teens, young men are also being bombarded with equally vacuous and unattainable images:

http://mycareer.com.au/promotions/salary-2008/Salary08_Hotties_Colin.gif

This is from an ad for MyCareer.com.

Imagine you are 18 years old, unemployed, bad case of acne and just an average sort of person. Thumbs down MyCareer.

Why should the state interfere with the pleasure the rest of us get from attractive faces and bodies? If you don't like what you see on TV, turn it off and read a book.

In any event, all the well-meaning legislation in the world won't make the public watch fashion shows with fat middle-aged models, or ads in which drab second-hand cars putter noisily through dreary suburban streets full of boring badly dressed people. We are hard-wired to seek out and enjoy depictions of slim, elegant people and attractive things, and no advertiser or TV executive who tries to buck the trend is going to stay in their job very long.

I wonder how much of our taxes will be spent on this futile attempt to avert the inevitable?

As long as there is a market for the images and stories that are the subject of complaint, nothing will change. It is foolish to blame men when it is so obviously women who buy the offending magazines and watch the model shows on TV.

I don't know any mother who would ever let her husband buy clothes for their daughters, yet much of the clothing worn by girls accents their budding sexuality. We can argue that those are the only clothes available but the rags trade like any business reacts quickly to buyer refusal.

It is time for women to drop the excuses and take responsibility for their choices. What stops anyone from climbing out of a rut? Why blame others or the system when the answer lies within? Honestly, how many paparazzi would there be if only men were interested in celebrities? How many fathers would buy those slimy magazines for their daughters? Ever heard men being interested in fashion? Men laugh at the excesses of fashion and are shocked by the feeble, emaciated skeletons that are models.

I notice that Sarah Palin always attracts bile, direct or indirect, on this forum but she seems to take responsibility for her choices and she is successful, so why sledge her continually? In many ways she is a good role model and like most of us, she is not perfect - which is a good thing for any girl (or boy) to recognise and accept.

It is easy and comfortable to be a victim because one always has an 'out' for staying in a rut and for the less attractive consequences of our own choices. Maybe that is the problem.

I don’t know how old Ms O’Brien is or how much TV history she has studied in her BA in Communication. However, this has all been said and done before – and many times over.

Every so often, a series or series trend comes around, which breaks out of the TV comfort zone of women as newsreaders, lifestyle (aka weight loss gizmo) presenters, panel padding (you know ... the token female who is mainly there to laugh at all the men's jokes) or UST stooges.

In these 'groundbreaking' series, women are either the rare creative force or are featured on-camera in intelligent roles where they might actually talk to one another about something other than attracting a man.

The series/trend then receives lots and lots of media coverage of the ‘oh-look-a- strong-female-role-model’ kind. Then comes the inevitable backlash.

It happens from without – lots of ‘has-the-pendulum-gone-too-far’ and ‘are-men-losing-out’ stories in the media. And it happens from within – TV executives and advertising directors declaring that viewers are ‘just not interested’ in strong women kicking intelligent butt, despite poll after poll revealing otherwise. The series either gets pulled, banished to an unwatchable timeslot or sanitized for patriarchal consumption.

The list is as long as it is tragic – Cagney and Lacey (destroyed by stealth despite a swag of Emmys), the Golden Girls, Roseanne (most hated woman in America) Barr, Murphy Brown, Designing Women. Others – like The X-files and Moonlighting – start off with intelligent, feisty secondary female characters, only to gradually disempower them as the series unfolds.

At least the US has tried several times and failed. Britain and Australia barely even bother. Kath and Kim was a rarity and the talented Linda La Plante forged her success on the solid formula of female mutilation-murder.

It will be interesting to see if Oprah and Whoopi are able to keep their considerable amount of money where their mouths are ... or whether they will bow out gracefully when the media inevitably turns against them and/or their executive producers suggest that ‘viewers don’t want’ to hear minority women talking politics anymore

What has changed in the decades since I was a teenager.

Very little.

Pretty girls in magazines, feminists complaining about body image.

Probably will be the same in another 30 years.

There have been a few intellectual role models for women in Geraldine Doogue, Caroline Jones and Jenny Brockie just to name three - the real problem is in magazines and on catwalks within the fashion industry.

Advertising standards have slipped. 'Slim' is no longer a healthy curvy girl in the likes of Marilyn Monroe who was a size 14 (I believe). The anorexic waif-like image has become the standard for some in the fasion and advertising industry. There has also been an increase in boys affected by anorexia in an attempt to conform to a distorted 'social' idea of beauty.

On one hand we have the problem of anorexia and on the other of childhood obesity.

The real issue is what to do about it? It looks like the big end of town is not too concerned with the social issues, whether it be junk food or fashion, so maybe some government intervention in this case is required for the collective health of our youth.

One day we will be smart enough to work out that our problems are just as much spiritual as natural. The more spiritually dead we are the more emphasis we put on external things. An acceptance of secularism and evolution (both flawed philosophies) has led us to a place where the external looks of someone is far more important than character. Unfortunately flawed feminism champions the right for women to dress seductively and then screams the loudest when women are measured by the shape of their body. The winners of course are men who have plenty of women who are keen to prove themselves and then the Counselors who get paid big bucks to try and mend emotional wrecks.

It seems we have one brand of women trying to dress and look like men while another brand dressing as seductively as they can. Parents can solve a lot of pain by allowing girls to be girls and boys to be boys. They can teach their children to dress modestly and to grow into the man or woman they were created to be rather than the slut or stud they see on TV.

This is a tired old discussion, isn't it. As a feminist I don't know which I despair of more - men who blame women for everything or women who blame men for everything. Then, of course there're the women who blame women for being feminist instead of good little feminine girls.
we don't live in utopia unfortunately, and I feel this thread could go on until 3008.I think we should all stop hammering the same old stuff if there are no genuinely new ideas to add to the genuinely old ideas.
This reminds me of that feeling when you see the news headlines,with the predictable annual articles about school fees being too high, schools banning some game because it's too rough, insufficient childcare places, and health alerts telling us (shock, horror) that there is a growing problem in Australia about obesity, etc etc. Let's talk about things we haven't already talked about ad nauseum.
I totally agree that there are a lot of inequities in patriarchal perceptions of female gender issues. But think up some new ideas about addressing it rather than observing that they exist. I think most people male or female know that pretty well already. Those who don't never will!

hocuspocus

All discussions are tired old discussions. There is nothing new under the sun, it has all been done before - the real issue is that we never learn from history. Obesity/anorexia might be the newest health problems but the approaches won't be new or innovative.

Part of the issue is that a lot comes down to personal responsibility as far as adults are concerned. Children are a bit different in that they are still blooming flowers (so to speak) who are still developing and maturing and much more succeptible to social pressures.

The discussion will always be the same - those advocating for some government intervention and those for complete freedom to the private sector and some with shades of grey in-between.

hocuspocus "I totally agree that there are a lot of inequities in patriarchal perceptions of female gender issues."

Then you are not just a feminist, you are one of the feminists who refuses to take responsibility for her own choices. Have a look at Palin, regardless of your particular opinion of her, she stands tall as a woman who has grasped opportunities with open hands. She is successful and she is obviously willing to be responsible for outcomes of the choices she has made.

What prevents you or others from doing the same? Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe we make our own limits in life? Maybe for some it is safer not to climb out of their little self-made ruts and it is good to have someone else to blame.

It is easily demonstrated that women exert most of the influence upon young women (and older women for that matter) and there is no use faking it that the old bogeyman the patriarchy is behind it all. Have a look at the womens magazines on the shelves of your local newsagency, if men wrote or edited the articles there would be feminists like you piling them up in the street and setting bonfires to dance around.

You are right about people being tired of the gender wars and it is so yesterday.

Oh wise pelican! Now I remember why I am at the age of 41 studying teaching - because it is only through our children that there is any hope of change. Not through propaganda of any political/social persuasion, but by encouraging children to open their hearts and eyes and ears. By becoming 'global citizens' and questioning current practices about life in general, and issues like this in particular.

As a parent too, I try to open my sons' eyes to social injustices, and though it may achieve little, any move forward is at least the opposite of backwards.

I think I was just feeling tired before, because I'm not usually so negative!

Thankyou for the gentle kick up the pants, and point taken.

P.S.- why pelican?

I don't consider it to be 'highjacking' the thread, in a discussion on the abuse of human rights in China, to raise the equally disturbing issue of the abuse of animal rights in that same country.

I agree, labelling the Chinese as 'barbarians' isn't conducive to establishing the dialogue needed to help effect change, but the heinous acts of animal cruelty depicted in the links Dickie provided in her first post are certainly barbaric. I for one appreciate her efforts in informing us as she has.

Sorry, wrong thread!

Hi hocuspocus

Apologies if I was "kicking you up the bum" even if it was ever so gently. :)

I agree with you, youth is very precious and good on you for going into the profession of teaching - not always an easy role but a rewarding one I would think.

I am the same with my children, we can only lay the foundation to create empathetic and caring adults of the future and, with some support, the rest is up to them.

PS: "Why pelican?" I like the birds hence the name.

Women Acting Like Men... Women as gate keepers at local, regional and state national levels, women following the ways ... very often of aggressive men... We, all need to do better.

While it is known I respect many individuals, who are also men... it is these men who very mostly agree with the argument I am promoting here. Just look at the bagging... the cultures - drinking - fighting - bullies... the people who act-out other peoples values rather than their own... people who fail to discuss the issues -problem solve,

As we know... in many ways women have capacity and can do well if not better than men... (well... ) hence the breakdown; women' blind leading the blind (like Barbie dolls) taking on the many forms of anti-social behaviours... it is nasty.... Unitl women become more conscious of themselves, we only repeat the sad history ... NO EQUALITY... DISLOCATED_Broken FAMILIES_DISCRIMINATION_and a mentality of WAR...our thoughtlessness... costs a quality of life... now and generations to come...

Talking about women issues in Australia is still too difficult. ... we slam women who speak out unless they are "protected" by a circle of males... some power base - it is culturally SICK.

See " Making Women Count: A History of the Women's Electoral Lobby by Marian Sawer. Marian's concern is the "health" of our Australian Democracy.... find link below...

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/

Also if the Government(s) (especially local) of Australia need to do more to support women in Politics... ESPECIALLY AT GROUND LEVELS... It starts here... Women out spoken too often get chewed up like lambs... the stronger their assertion the sharper the methods used to be-knee them of socio-economic resources... their mobility in life... dehumanizing... , expose this practice.

All women need to get up and become more mindful .. Child care... The right of our children... the future of the world is as much a womens political agenda as it is for men. We as women need to stop dis-empowering eachother... the worse are gate-keepers (acting like out-dated Fem-a-crats), our actions as women could do with a most serious address.

http://www.miacat.com/
.

Hocus... IF it were not for the fact that I feel very connected already to a Global movement for justice and renewal (It's called the Evangelical Church).. your comment about 'Global Citizens' would just about wrench me into deep despondency and a clinging foetal position of hopelessness.

Why? because it is a notion that seems to be shared by a lot of equally naive people (such as yourself) which ignores a very imporant and fundamental fact of life.
The World currently has approximately 6 billion inhabitants. Of those, around 1.6billion do not care a scrap for any idea of 'Globalness' other than one which is under their own theocratic form of government.

You can identify which group by simply looking at the vast majority of trouble spots in the world today and see who the parties to the conflict are.

So..while your aspiration is noble, and worthy (in theory.. Mr Machievelli might take issue on a few points:) it is simply unworkable except in the minds of the 2 or 3 remaining utopian socialists out there.

Nothing global will happen which ultimately is not 'Orwellian' in nature.

FRACCY.. I TOLD them not to use my image in advertizing :) (your link) specially after I read your comment in another thread about "Oh that Courtney-Courtney is such a hottie".. I would not want to pander to any shallow perceptions of the male species :)

There is no better role model than Jesus of Nazareth. Talked...walked.. he did it all, and without compromise.

Now, who might that be, Boaz?

>>The World currently has approximately 6 billion inhabitants. Of those, around 1.6billion do not care a scrap for any idea of 'Globalness' other than one which is under their own theocratic form of government.<<

I suppose we might take some comfort from the fact that you are obviously becoming so acutely embarrassed at being consistently and blatantly whack-a-mozzie, that you have decided to hide behind hints and innuendo.

We now have a pattern of Boaz guessing-games to work with.

Guess who wants their own state-sponsored prayer rooms in universities?

Guess which 1.6 billion people are theocratically led, and "do not care a scrap for any idea of 'Globalness'"

etc.

I hope you will soon reach the next stage, Boaz, which is to realize that no-one mistakes you for a warm and tolerant quizmaster, just the rabble-rouser that you are. At which point, I hope, you will finally cease and desist, and take your bile permanently onto the more rabid anti-Muslim sites.

Or alternatively, stay and reason with us here, with an open mind and a loving heart.

Fractelle, thanks for your valuable opening post. Differing pressures but the same issue.

Cornflower it appears your opening post was on the wrong thread. The article associated with this thread did not blame men for the pressures on teenage girls and young women. I went back and reread it after reading your post but no such blame was handed out.

I don't want to be blamed for women's choices but neither do I need to get upset at being blamed when thats not being done.

I doubt that noting that a photo has been edited will have much impact, adults know that toned popular figures have bootloads of money to pour into personal trainers, diet consultants, grooming etc but all too often we still get intimidated by the image.

When we start to value intellect or a broad grasp of the issues more than looks we might get somewhere.

I was intrigued by part of the closing part of the article
"Why aren’t Australian actresses and comedians given air time or press pages to discuss the Garnaut report, or the upcoming American election, in a clever and engaging way?"

Maybe comedians will be wittier but I've got little reason to believe that australian actresses have a better grasp on the Garnaut report or the american election. Perhaps part of the problem is the enfatuation with celebrity, the idea that the seriously toned, the unusually beautiful or those skilled at comedy or acting are more worthy of airtime than others is part of the problem.

If we want female role models then give the airtime to female economists, female environmentalists or female political comentators rather than actors and comedians.

R0bert

Like a dog to a bone Pericles :) Flies to honey.. ants to sugar... Pericles to Polycarp

No.. I don't mention the particular group because it is not relevant to the point.

The same might be said I guess of Marxists. Sure..they want a Global something..but a socialist utopia.... Not quite theocratic, but I'd call it Satanic without hesitation.

Embarrased ? :) hardly.

Though he (Jesus) was not so big on 'wit' because His mission was a serious one involving your own salvation, you have to give him honours for his come-backs to the various elites who tried to snare him.

Herodians: Taxes to Caesar? (Jesus) "Show me a coin"

Saduccess: Marriage in heaven? (Jesus) "You know neither the scriptures nor the power of God"

Lawyers: "Greatest law"? (Jesus) "Love God first and your neighbour as yourself"

The Chief Priests: "by What authority"? (Jesus) "Let's talk about John" :)

He ran rings around them Pericles...let's hope you are in the circle when you leave this world.

A gift to you from Him. (forget that it's at Hillsong)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PebI3YUiAvU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9Up58OEtps Nice one.

May He be the treasure you seek.

John 3:30

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=3&version=31

You are kidding, of course, Boaz.

>>No.. I don't mention the particular group because it is not relevant to the point.<<

You just picked the figure 1.6 billion out of the air?

>>You can identify which group by simply looking at the vast majority of trouble spots in the world today and see who the parties to the conflict are.<<

And this was not relevant to your point? You are only fooling yourself, with this air of injured innocence.

>>The same might be said I guess of Marxists<<

That's actually quite pathetic. You know perfectly well what you were referring to, but now don't even have the courage to admit it.

You cannot resist, can you? Any opportunity - even in the middle of a thread about women role models - to make a snide remark.

The saddest part is the self-delusion, Boaz, make no mistake about it.