I would like to take this opportunity to make my first ever post to this site, having just joined today, by thanking Col Rouge for showing us what an important commentator Melinda Tankard Reist must be to have attracted his comments.

I have to ask Graham Y, did you actually pay for that little rant?

I'm staggered if you did.

From my experience, nothing screams fat jealous bitch like the use of the phrase 'real women'.

'The whole PC beauty shift is for so many just a hilarious bit of theatre.'

Indeed it is! I think it's a measure of the disdain most have for

a) Proponents of the shift like MTR
b) The attempt at PC censorship
c) Victim gender politics

Remember when politics dictates what's correct, it's called propaganda. Aptly realised and appropriately reacted to by the group intelligence of telegraph forum trolls, hooking the 'please give me something to be irate about' MTR, and adding to the wealth of 'anecdotal research' that she splatters on rants like this to push that horse. Wonderful theatre! A triumph for free thinking human spirit.

What would never occur to the likes of MTR, is that the general punter on a telegraph forum can see the farce for what it is, doesn't care (shock horror) about her hobby horse, and enjoys adding fuel to the fire and getting a rise out of the likes of her. Or maybe it does occur to her, and the indirect mocking of her hobby horse is even more upsetting to her than the fact she'll never look like Jen Hawkins.

I don't read this article as being about thought police or being against women looking nice at all.

I read it as a comment about a magazine using the lovely Jen Hawkins as a role model for average women. It was done probably to show that even Jen H. is not afraid to show her flaws in contrast to the media's tendency to airbrush women to look perfect (even if the image is not real). The point being that Jen Hawkins is probably not really an average looking woman to use in this particular instance and her flaws are not really flaws just a natural part of a real body.

Melinda R, I think, was arguing that if normal body characteristics are seen as flaws how does this help with body image. The comments made by posters on online newspapers make the point.

There will always be someone more beautiful more brainy more elegant more skilled than oneself. The trick is being content with the way you are.

The magazine was trying to make a (well-intentioned) statement that even Jen Hawkins has flaws and no-one is perfect - even a Miss Universe. The mistake was the assumption that the dimple and waisline are flaws in the first place.

When models (male or female) are featured in magazines without airbrushing we will have evolved to another level in civilisation where ageing will be seen as a natural and beautiful part of the life cycle. Where real body characteristics are not hidden as though something to be ashamed of, but cherished as realistic and beautiful.

Even men and young boys are becoming obsessed with the way they look. The fashion and beauty industry do have vested interests in keeping the status quo so don't hold your breath for change anytime soon. Give me a real-life craggy, rugged guy over a metro plastic variety anyday.

Ultimately, the only way it will change if we the consumers don't fall for it and that may take some time too.

Elka,

Before I posted I read through many of Melinda's posts and some articles on the web, and saw that as the link I posted claimed, that Melinda has deviated from reflecting the women's liberation movement to representing exclusively the church's definition of what women should want.

My comments were to show that her article is both hypocritical and from the religious right wing.

Having just read through all your posts over the last couple of years, it is clear that your views are so much in lock step with Melinda / religious right that either Elka is a pseudonym for Melinda, or your sole burpose is to follow behind her clapping.

I support women's rights not right wing women.

Melinda's article was trite, sarcastic, and completely missed the point.

Women's magazines are the ones focusing on the body perfect, and the beautiful people, and why? Miranda and her ilk (elka) would have us believe that it is to influence how we think, however, it is purely in response to how we think.

Any women's magazine that does not feature these beautiful people will sell only to the religious right and end up bankrupt.

Well, I await to see that day pelican when all photography is done in passport photo detail bright flash light, none of that flattering soft light that hides 'flaws'. The brothels and strip joints will be in stark fluorescent lighting and women all over the world will all wear flat shoes and no make-up, never shaving any body hair, or even washing their hair for that matter.

It will be like that Ben Elton's book Blind Faith, with all the fatties wandering around in their 'beautiful' barely covered sweaty pimpled bodies.

Anyone who knows anything about photography would know that the 'stillness' of the captured image makes people look less attractive as we normally never see live people in such static light and stillness. So the 'flaws' are more visible than in real life. So lighting and angles and lenses are used to make the images more flattering.

Since no photo is ever an accurate representation of reality, at what point do you draw the line in post-processing? Do we go down to regulating contrast hue and even white balance on every image? Do we legislate all photo processing must be done by the camera's sensor and processor? Do we outlaw digital imaging altogether and regulate some standard of film to keep everyone 'enhanced' only by the talent of the photographer?

Houlley
You are taking my comments to the extreme - of course photographers would use subtle lighting to make the best of a photo in a similar way I would take a photo of my family without faces squinting in the sun.

I don't think this is the same thing as a whole industry built on the myth that bodies are absolutely perfect in that plastic airbrushed way. This is not just an issue for women, male models are treated the same and it is being reflected in an increase in boys with eating disorders. What is wrong with the body au naturelle? Most models like Jen Hawkins don't need airbrushing.

If you read my last line I wrote that it will be the consumer that will change the nature of fashion magazines/industry not government intervention. It is already happening and some magazines are already responding to public opinion. Last year there was another magazine that did an experimental issue without airbrushing and it received a very positive response