Timkins

Neither I nor Ambo has attempted to 'stereotype' you. Don't be so precious.

We are saying that all children need encouragement, regardless of sex.

Singing is universal - neither masculine nor feminine its HUMAN - get it?

Stereotyping in advertising has nothing to do with this forum. Nor does your sponsoring of a female child - although I suspect that you think your sponsorship gives you some sort of validity for your POV - it doesn't.

I just hope you encourage any child (whether male or female) to be everything they can be and not divide it so much into masculine and feminine.

You take everything so personally that it is impossible to have an effective discussion with you.

Advertising standards are a reflection of our culture. Stereotypical views of male and female are older than recorded history. Sure you can log complaints - like I said if that's what stirs your pot.

However, advertising will only change with a significant cultural shift which must come from all of us. There are plenty of men and women who prefer to believe the stereotypes, not questioning the status quo makes life easier - acceptance of any dogma is always the easy way out.

Stephen Crabbe has raised an issue that goes a lot further than just taking the 'girly' image away from choir singing.

Xena,
Advertising has a lot to do with this forum. The author began and finished the article with references to an advertisement that I have also refereed to and lodged complaints about at the Advertising Standards Bureau, (as this is one of the very few ways of getting advertising changed), and comments such as “You take everything so personally that it is impossible to have an effective discussion with you”, are very much attempts to stereotype myself. Perhaps you should read the article and provide an apology, instead of calling me names such as “precious”.

Ambo,
Media and advertisements are not reflections of our culture. They are creating our culture, and this can be tested by taking out media and advertisements.

Some of the most intrinsically happy people I have known have lived in environments where there was limited media and no TV, such as on more remote islands of Tahiti about 30 years ago. In those places people made their own entertainment and developed their own culture, often through singing and music, and I would not like to say to a Polynesian male that he was not masculine and it was unmanly for him to sing or play musical instruments. However that is now being projected towards our young boys at least.

Most of it is originally coming from highly commercialised and manipulative media, and last time I looked that media cares very little about what people actually want. What most of that media and advertising wants is for people to become easily manipulated and obedient consumers. Take out such media and advertising and you will readily find out how much it changes culture and alters what people do.

If someone also believes that singing should somehow become standardised and androgenous, where there are no males or masculinity, and no females or femininity, then it would become too boring to even contemplate.

(NB. Was “what stirs your pot” meant to be some type of maligning remark similar to those made by Xena? If so, then I should be able to make such remarks also).

Part 1

Timkins "whatever stirs your pot" is simply an expression, like "whatever turns you on". This is not meant to malign you it is simply an observation of your posts on this website where other posters spend too much time responding to your hurt sensitivities instead of contributing to the debate. Xena has a point.

You have given the advertising media alot of power if you believe they create out culture - I have no doubt they are a significant part of it - because the media is made up of human beings like you and I. And the bulk of advertising execs are male. Like everything else the ultimate power at the top is still very much in male domain in spite of your 'feminist conspiracy' rants.

Now I am not attempting to androgynise singing (sigh) I infer from your posts that you like very much to divide everything into little compartments labelled 'male' and female' and you don't see us as collectively human. I know from one of your previous comments that you don't much approve of the book "men are from mars, women from venus" - neither do I. Yet you are doing the same thing as the author of the book. Except you have an overwhelming bias in favour of males. You see them as more maligned than females. I guess you have some personal experience that influences this view.

Why hasn't anyone mentioned the obvious here? It isn't too obvious not to mention. So here it goes.

Miiiiichael Jackson!

Yes. The all singing, all dancing, ultimate feminine girlie boy! And not one post about it. Shame shame shame, I expected more from the sniping and b^tching on this forum.

Penekiko,
I think what you are talking about is the highly androgenous singer who has relied on much commercialism to sell their music.

But that is where much of our music and our culture is now at. In societies where there is minimal outside media, people create their own culture. There is much music, singing and dance, and nearly everyone in that society takes part.

However our own society has now thrown out much of that type of culture and replaced it with such things as a TV set, and much of our own culture has now become fill between the often abysmal advertisements and commercialism (although some people seem to have minimal objection).

We are seeing boys gradually dropping out of song, music and dance, and probably girls will follow eventually