Given the form runner believes his god gave hime (cynical, snide and ignorant) it is no surprise runner would wish others to hide the bounty life has given them.

More power to Hawkins, sight unseen.

Rusty.

According to Bishop Brian Frumpley, the editor, of "Christianity Today" a survey of 5,500 readers that found only 12 per cent of Christians were happy with the state of their souls. "Its a disgrace" fumed editor Frumpley. "That smug self-satisfied 12 per cent better watch out, because they're headed straight to HELL!!"

Kenny: I don't find it surprising. The magazine is part of the extensive Hearst empire I believe - dominated by older men promoting conservative values and limited ideas about women.

The only thing that surprises me is that there are still enough silly people, presumably women, to buy it. I wish they could realize their full potential and see how their anxieties in trying to gain social approval are being exploited.

Rusty: <"... it is no surprise runner would wish others to hide the bounty life has given them.">

The trouble is that it isn't the "bounty" of the average or ageing bod that Hearst and other magazines want to promote. Women who flash it only get approval if they meet certain ideals. On a forum somewhere else I saw where women who'd had kiddies and were no longer 'ideal' were referred to as "letting themselves go".

I don't think too many people care too much either way whether men display their bounty even if it's a paunch and hairy ears. I've never heard or seen any comments from women bagging out pics of men, whereas, as the article points out - many men feel entitled, even obliged, to pass judgement on a female's looks.

It's a good article.

SM and Col Rouge, the big issue is not whether some women like shaving their legs or not.
It's about women's social place, where they are reducted to a physical body. Eating disorders are (it seems to me) the result of the interplay between social expectations and an individual's urge to matter.

That we are happy to reduce women, again and again, to their physical appearance, is dehumanising.
Have a look at magazine photographic images of women from fifty years ago. Our cultural representations of women have become glossier, younger, and hypersexualised in comparison.
Even our movie characterisations of women aim for a 'young and dumb' prototype.

It is an issue that is impinging on women's lives, not least because men feel as entitled as ever to comment on women, in a way that women do not comment on men.
When I married, I became privy to the banter between sporting men about women. I thought I was fairly realistic about the esteem with which men hold women. Alas, I was in for a shock.

Women need to help themselves come to grips with life as protagonist, not as vase.
And, no, that does not solely mean the 'right' to be available, or to appear available, for sex. Is 'Sex And The City' the best we can offer ourselves? Pretty (read 'sexy') clothes?

Floatinglili “That we are happy to reduce women, again and again, to their physical appearance, is dehumanising.”

One observation… what you appear to be complaining about happens to men too… maybe not to the same extent but to some degree or other…..
proof… pictures of “hunks in trunks” in magazines and the success of the male review groups like “Chippendale”

what you also complain about as “we” is also misleading.

The point is ladies have free will. They are free to accept being reduced to their physical appearance or not.

I know a lady who is extraordinarily beautiful.

She has got used to other women coming up to her and complimenting her on her appearance and asking her advise on health / weight / beauty secrets.

When she walks through venues both men and women turn and watch her. She has often retreated to the ladies room to avoid persistent would be suitors

She admits she is the vainest person she knows and she just loves the attention and disruption she causes from momentary and fleeting encounters.

However, anyone who thought she was simply a coat hanger for her Dior coats and Versace tops would be very much mistaken.

So it seems to me, those who come here and complain about ladies being treated as “beautiful objects” are venting mainly because

no one has treated them as “beautiful”… objectified or otherwise.

If you do not like something you have the personal right to ignore it and get on about your life.

You do not, however, have the right to impose your personal expectations or limits upon others.

Like I said before

Jennifer Hawkins is likely simply getting on with her life

It is a shame Tankard cannot find a real life to get on with, instead of writing the anti-aesthetic drivel which I suppose she thinks impresses the god-squad