Wow, thank you Melinda. I have witnessed a lot of discussion about this in the last few days. There are a few people out there who have been defensive saying that Jennifer is a "real woman" and that "doing something is better than nothing." Those who are criticising this so called "brave move" are being characterised as "catty" women who will never be satisfied. It is assumed that us critics are all fat and bitter women. And the fact that the proceeds of this edition are going to the butterfly foundation which assists people with eating disorders...well us critics must be against a charitable organisation!!

None of that is true - we just believe that the magazine has missed the point in a major way when they employ "Miss Universe" in the fight against body shame and eating disorders.

This criticism isn't about Jennifer's body and of course she is a "real woman." Skinny women exist, but so do a whole range of other types of women, not that you'd know it from magazines and advertising. We are a diverse bunch and not all of us are meant to be skinny. It is very unhealthy for those who are not naturally skinny, to aspire to be this way. There is broad range of "healthy" in terms of size and weight, why not represent that through the entire magazine?

So yes, Jennifer is a "real woman" but the representation of women in these magazines is not real, it is an artificial narrow minded representation designed to sell magazines and the products within. Referring to Jennifer's human characteristics (er, the fact that she bends in the middle...you know, the "crease") as "flaws" is devastating to the cause. The controversy over this just highlights the fact that women won't be fooled and we demand better.

Melinda is right when she says that many of us (from both genders) have imperfect bodies. That being the case, it should surprise no-one that "only 12 per cent of women were happy with their bodies." Instead, it should be seen as natural that most women would like to change some aspect of their looks. We certainly shouldn't be telling most women that they have a mental problem called "low self esteem." Almost all of the unsatisfied 88% are being perfectly rational and shouldn't be told that they have a problem. We don't treat men this way.

Thank-you, Elka; thin models are just as real as any other woman. They aren't androids.

Of course all men and women come in different shapes and sizes as do all their bits and pieces. I'm sick of this body image stuff. Not everyone even wants the same thing and the way nudity is regarded as shameful for some reason is beyond my comprehension. If everyone walked around naked, as they do in some places, no one would take much notice. If for some reason bald men were considered salacious in some way and kept hidden, I wonder how many people would go to lengths to see one? It's mostly only the the hidden nature that causes the desire. We admire a Rubens Nude and hang it on the wall, but depict it in the flesh and everyone goes crazy. The Archibald fountain by the War memorial in Sydney hardly creates a second glance yet everything is on view there and few have wanted it banned since the 1930s. However, Jennifer Hawkins was not the person to photograph to give women confidence although she shows nothing more than displayed in her lingerie adverts, unretouched as she maybe.
We have always been hypocritical over body image and while it was quite alright for large aboriginal women to dance topless in front of Parliament House and at the Olympic Games, what sort of criticism would be apparent if those women were white ?

I notice with some interest that Melinda has only the one image available on the net which I guess is many years old. Could it possible be because she is afraid of showing her wrinkles?

Miranda's politics come from the religious right wing, and whose writings follow more closely baptist dogma than womens' rights. Considering that nearly all her pleas are for restrictions on choice whether it is for termination of pregnancy, advertising, internet access, etc, she is definitely the vanguard of the PC thought police, and for the restriction of liberty.

Considering that food photographs in magazines consist mostly of undercooked meat covered in oil, and styrofoam chips, I am not stunned by the air brushing of a few models.

Jen Hawkins sells because it is what women want to see. The time of the muffin top models is still a long way off.

http://unbelief.org/articles/melinda-tankard-reist/

http://www.sydney.catholic.org.au/news/latest_news/2009/2009925_776.shtml

SM “she is definitely the vanguard of the PC thought police, and for the restriction of liberty.”

She certainly reads that way

I wonder if Jennifer HAwkings bothers to read the dross of Tankards pieces

Probably not, dear Jennifer is probably getting on with her life, as a successful super model… and good luck to her

Just as I will return to getting on with my life and ignoring this victim of O/C disorders, manifest in the way she demands to controll what everyone else is allowed to do, wear and have pictures of themselves taken.

Noting that the few images of the Tankard portray her in a manner of her choosing, it is a shame she cannot respect the same desire of Jennifer Hawkin’s and other women (like my wife) who just like to look “great”.

Oh Shadow Minister, I so love it that you've resorted to to caricatures, personal attacks and opinions on physical appearance instead of responding to the substance of Melinda's argument. It means you really have nothing to say.