http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=9lp0IWv8QZY

Susan Boyle, an ordinary British woman brings the house down on "Britains got Talent".

I usually like good country and bluegrass music, but this woman is remarkable and they laughed at her. Not now.

She gave the elite gits something to think about!

Hope she realises her dream.

The lady has a stunning tallent but a small point.
she isn't singing opera that's just a quibble
I think the nobs were two of the judges. I think the woman was afraid Susan was going to be like hundreds of other frumps who thought they could sing.
PS good music is good regardless of style I listen to them all with equal interest.

Good on her. Just goes to show we should never judge by the package.

Middle aged women who care nought about fashion are not the only group to think they can sing. Many young people who have been told they are wonderful when they are not, go away devastated when their lack of talent is revealed on national television.

So, if you have real talent, you don't need years of lessons.

They must have done a pretty good job of helping her. She could not have had the knowledge of how to handle the electronic environment.

I heard her and thought she was wonderful, the odd missed note notwithstanding. Good on her for standing on her own feet, to hell with the opinions of others.
Good luck to her.

eAnt,
Thanks for your correction, I assumed Les Miserables was an opera but it was a long running stage production.

Susan Boyle has caused a sensation. Youtube now has 5.5million views and 30,000 comments from all over the world.

I was hoping to find out more about Susan and I suppose the media will ferret some details out before long.

Hope she is well looked after. I look forward to hearing her perform later and maybe in some West End productions.

This remarkable lady now has Youtube viewings of over 9 million and over 51,000 comments. All in about 3 days which is unprecedidented and stll rolling in, from all over the world.

Some are even suggesting that she should perform at the opening of the London Olympics.

I just love to see an ordinary person do so well. Remarkable that she can start a singing career at 47 years old.

With the best wishes, go for it Lady!

For those that may be interested in the unremarkable and remarkable Susan Boyle.

The link below, from a Scotish paper, gives some information.

http://www.theherald.co.uk:80/features/featuresopinon/display.var.2501746.0.The_beauty_that_matters_is_always_on_the_inside.php

What I'd like to know is whether she would have got this level of attention if she had been good looking. Or would everyone have said, "Ho hum, just another good looking starlet with a so-so voice"?

You've asked a question Graham. It needs a response!

To the contrary; if this lady had been a 'looker', I suspect she would not have suffered the initial ridicule that she did, (though I think a lot of the rolling eyes etc., are for the camera. Those on the stage are not the only ones performing...).

If she had an hourglass figure with big eyes and...er,-twin peaks she would have been hired for a musical in a flash.

The nice thing is that she has none of these things; just a good singing voice. What a lovely change from the adolescent stick insects who all sound the same, yelling their songs;-but appeal to the mass market-so they get rolled out with instant record deals like a conveyor belt production line!

Ginx

Thanks for your excellent response to Graham. And a big welcome back.

Just for once, instead of a woman being chosen for her looks, she gets there on talent; in spite of all the ridicule and eye-rolling.

And not chosen as a 'token' which I believe Graham was trying to make out.

Irrespective of ability, appearance still appears at the top of the list when judging women.

Well done Susan.

Hi Ginx, good to have you back.

>>if this lady had been a 'looker', I suspect she would not have suffered the initial ridicule that she did<<

The real power of this performance is not the singing, but the twin impacts of i) having our preconceptions confounded in such a dramatic way and ii) the classic ugly-duckling-to-swan transformation happening before our eyes.

So in one sense GrahamY is right. While it may have been a pleasant surprise to find a good voice in an attractive package, neither of the "transformations" would have occurred, which are essential ingredients to a moving story.

As an aside, it was interesting to hear Peter Potts, who is out here at the moment (he won a previous contest with a similar mobile-phone-salesman-with-depression-to-riches story).

His journey from nervous neophyte to global stage-traveller has turned him into a confident, articulate person, with a wholesome and unspoiled outlook on life. I wish the same for Susan Boyle.

Thanks both! And your points are taken.

Pericles, it's good isn't it? The two folk who have made a huge global impact are mature-aged folk who had just their talent to rely on. Magic!

(Adjourns to shower to practice musical scale..).

I've only caught the briefest of glimpses of Susan and her voice on a news broadcast, so I can't comment with any real authority on either her or the reaction she's generated.

But I came in midway on a conversation today on RN where someone was being very critical of the initial response by both the audience and the judges. Her point, and even without seeing the show myself I think it's a good one, is that why should we be so surprised that an ordinary middle-aged woman who as Pelican said cares nought about fashion should be so extraordinarily talented. The reaction, as others here have already alluded to, should be more along the lines of - so what, she has as much chance of being talented as anyone else - but of course it's not.

I think this whole over-reaction speaks volumes about the status of older women in society today. Unless they make an effort to conform to a certain look and to look much younger than they really are, they are treated at best as invisible and at worst, as in this case by all accounts, with ridicule.

The commentator on RN made the point that there's a gender element involved here. She claimed that plain men or men that don't bother over their appearance are not treated with the same level of disdain as women in this situation. She referred to Peter Potts, and again I wouldn't know personally as I didn't watch the show, but apparently he wasn't subjected to quite the level of contempt that Susan was.

Without wanting to divert the thread into a gender war, I think this is absolutely spot on, and have made much the same sort of point before on other threads.

Bronwyn, unlike you, I saw both the Susan Boyle and the Peter Potts performances.

In my view the RN commentator is wrong to assert that the"gender element" is anything more than superficial.

Take a look yourself at the video sometime, and draw your own conclusions.

You will see - as almost everyone else has - that it is the transformation that creates the tension/release combination that is the key ingredient of a memorable narrative.

The performance of Peter Potts a couple of years ago is also available on YouTube for you to make the comparison yourself. You will see that it shares many of the same characteristics.

>>Without wanting to divert the thread into a gender war, I think this is absolutely spot on, and have made much the same sort of point before on other threads.<<

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

But it is more convincing if the nail is your own, Bronwyn, and not one that you happen to have borrowed from an RN talkshow for the occasion.

Pericles

"But it is more convincing if the nail is your own, Bronwyn, and not one that you happen to have borrowed from an RN talkshow for the occasion."

There was no 'borrowing' as you snidely insinuate. I freely acknowledged I was quoting the words of a commentator whose title I didn't catch, but who was no doubt well qualified and speaking on the basis of research done in the area. I was perfectly open about bringing someone else's view into the discussion. It's exactly what informed and intelligent debate is all about. What are you suggesting? We all sit here and spout from the top of our heads? You might have all the answers Pericles, but I learn from others and I assume that most others here like to do so too.

I added another perspective to the debate and most thinking people will I'm sure welcome it. And no, I won't be watching re-runs of TV talent shows in order to justify my views to your good self. Women here like Fractelle and Pelican, who possibly know firsthand exactly what I'm speaking about and may as well have seen the footage you're referring to, will in my view be able to address my comments far more authoritatively than you will. I respect your view. But I certainly don't respect your calling-in of my debating ethics in order to make it.

As a middle-aged woman myself, the nail of the point I was making is very definitely my own, thank you Pericles. If you'd bothered to read more carefully, you'd notice I stated that I have made the same point myself before on OLO. I find your implication that I was merely lifting someone else's ideas quite offensive.

"You will see - as almost everyone else has - that it is the transformation that creates the tension/release combination that is the key ingredient of a memorable narrative."

Transformation? What from? Frumpy middle-aged woman who looks like a nobody, to a person who, surprise surprise, actually has some talent. That is exactly the point I was making.

Sorry, Ginx. Just realised I definitely should have added your name in there too, alongside Fractelle's and Pelican's. I still haven't quite gotten used to having you around again, but it's a good feeling to know you're back with us and in such fine form too!

Hope you're finding fine form in mastering those musical scales too! :)

Bronwyn

Imagine the collective media slavering if Susan Boyle still sang as well as she does but looked like Pamela Anderson.

That an 'ordinary' woman can make it on talent being seen as remarkable is as sad as when the first woman gained her commercial pilot's licence, or the first female electronics technician graduated; being treated as some amazing phenomena. These are just examples of how women are still evaluated as the 'other'. I really don't want this to devolve into gender wars either, but we still have a way to go before men and women are evaluated in an equitable fashion. For example, a world which values men for being caring and nurturing rather than ridiculed as being somehow lacking in masculinity - I'd like to see that.

Fractelle

"For example, a world which values men for being caring and nurturing rather than ridiculed as being somehow lacking in masculinity - I'd like to see that."

I would too, Fractelle. We'll know the 'gender wars' are behind us, when we live in a world like that. But I'm afraid there's a long way to go yet, as you well know. :)

I don't think gender comes into this at all, at least not in a substantial way. I'm with Pericles. It is the narrative that counts here. If you had a "blind tasting" of operatic or light operatic style voices, Sue Boyle would do OK, but she wouldn't be anywhere close to the top.

I guess we can have an argument about that, but it is my favourite musical genre in which I have considerable training and practice, and I'm happy to defend that position.

Which really goes to the question of how intangibles, such as design and packaging, inform our judgements on other issues that we find harder to judge.

So, to take my metaphor of a blind tasting, how many people buy their wine because of how it tastes, compared to those who buy it because of its label, pricing, or prominence in the store. What exactly is quality? What are we buying when we buy something?

Or when we buy clothes, are we buying technical excellence in construction, design, longevity, or membership of a particular club.

In the era of the Internet, people like Cory Doctorow can give their books away online, but still sell more offline than ever before, so what exactly are people buying when they buy the book?

OK, it was late at night, maybe I was a bit snippy Bronwyn. My apologies.

But I still get the impression that it is not at all appropriate to see all this through the lens of "gender wars".

The comparison with Peter Potts was intended to point out that the "transformation" was specifically gender-independent. We build in our heads an image of a depressive shop assistant, or whatever, and are then quite affected by the apparent change to that image, one that seems to happen in front of our eyes.

You appear to believe that there are no male equivalents of a "frumpy middle-aged woman who looks like a nobody" (your description, by the way). There are, and that is what this programme exploits.

I still recommend that you take a moment to view both YouTube videos, so that you can form your own opinion.

I hear violins,....and violins, ....and the sound of gender warriors ....who see everything in gender terms... with chips raining off their shoulders.

Marketing 101 man. She has a point of difference and is cashing in on that. Good luck to her. She happens to appeal to jealous females obsessed with their own lack of looks, the same type who hate girls who happen to be slim and beautiful. Big market that.

BTW: Pamela Anderson is dog ugly. Even when she was younger and didn't have a deformed chest she was still pretty average looking.

The point I see in what Bronwyn's said is why should there be a need for a "transformational moment" at all. If everyone had always treated everyone else fairly, with respect and on their merits, there wouldn't be a need for such a moment. Susan Boyle's no doubt always had the talent, but she's been typecast, probably by society since year dot, to look frumpish and that all she wants to do, or is good for, is to warm her legs beside the fire or something similarly bland.

The way I see it, the people who are really being judged on the show are some of the judges as their obvious societal preconditioning comes to the surface. Their responses made me embarrassed to watch as their egos turned back in on themselves.

RobP

I agree, that is how I interpreted Bronwyn's post as well - that people's prejudices (in this case the judges and audience itself BEFORE Susan sang) were revealed for their superficiality.

Women usually are judged on appearance. For men, they are often judged on height, but it is more likely to be on their actions than whether they are aesthetically appealing or not.

To reiterate what I posted above, I long for a time when neither gender is judged according to superficial stereotypes.

BTW, my reference to Pamela Anderson is that her appearance is a very artificial extreme version of what is considered feminine and attractive. I guess that was she was too subtle an example for some. My point was that women are so judged on appearance that some (like Pammy) go in for major surgery to conform to some ridiculous ideal. That if someone freaky like Pammy could sing like Susan would create an even greater furore than an ordinary real life woman can sing extraordinarily well.

I hope I have managed to make myself clear this time.

;-)

It's television, people. Entertainment.

>>The point I see in what Bronwyn's said is why should there be a need for a "transformational moment" at all<<

Because that's what we, the audience, tune in to be exposed to. It's what makes the ratings. It's what drives 50 million YouTube views.

For a start, I would strongly suggest that there could not possibly have been any surprise at all at the judges' table, given that the contestants are not simply pulled off the street and told to perform. They are stage managed, choreographed and groomed before being let in front of the audience.

It would be fair to suggest that she was presented to the audience by the show's producers in the mode most likely to create the "transformation" narrative. The image was built for us, not for her.

Here's some hindsight for you, courtesy of Crikey's Ross Stapleton.

"Boyle is following the same viral trajectory used by the show to turn 2007 winner Paul Potts into a YouTube smash. First time round Potts was sold as a humble Welsh car phone salesman. In reality he was actually the store manager where he worked. Also before he warbled his way through Nessun Dorma in a televised audition before the same Simon Cowell-led panel now effusively singing Boyle’s praises, Potts claimed to suffer from a lack of confidence. Yet he’d been a Bristol City Councillor for years, and had already sung in leading roles with a half-decent amateur opera company. He had also performed in front of 15,000 with members of the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra."

And there's more.

"Shaheen Jafargholi, a 12-year-old Welsh contestant, was stopped by Cowell mid-way through his hopeful show stopper, as Cowell opined it wasn’t happening for him and could he sing something else? Of course he could and they just happened to have the backing tape all ready to go as he launched into a blisteringly good performance of Smokey Robinson’s Who's Loving You"

The "transformation" here was from just-about-to-fail, to conquering hero. Same narrative. Gender irrelevant.

We have to believe the story, or the suspense is lost.

Why does Pericles ALWAYS have to be right? One day I'll catch him/her not making sense or not having an insightful finger on the pulse.

Banjo

Both E ant and I are fans.
The sunday BS paper had an article which said she is single (I think E ant is contemplating a proposal at the monment).
It also sraid she had a small time local career but jobs just dried up and then she nursed her ill mother.
The paper also said she pressed a 1000 run of CD some time back but I wonder what they wouldbe worth now?
Aparrently she entered another tallent show and was beaten.
She has gotten in weeks more hits than the other facebooK/UK you've got tallent star (now an opera singer)than he got in 4 months.
Good on her.

yep there were the odd less than perfect notes but perfection needs years of training and practice. Tallent only goes so far. Take the massive Bass singer from Opera Australia.

Pericles

"OK, it was late at night, maybe I was a bit snippy Bronwyn. My apologies."

Apology accepted. :)

"But I still get the impression that it is not at all appropriate to see all this through the lens of 'gender wars'. "

I said from the outset I wasn't interested in turning the thread into a 'gender war'. I still believe though that the fact this woman was judged harshly to begin with, and for no other reason than that her appearance didn't measure up in the eyes of those who judged her, is a telling commentary on both the superficial nature of society in general, but very particularly for older women within it. You mightn't see gender, or ageism, as a factor here, but others do.

Houellebecq

"I hear violins,....and violins, ....and the sound of gender warriors ....who see everything in gender terms...with chips raining off their shoulders."

I don't at all see 'everything in gender terms'. I contribute to a wide range of topics on OLO and rarely raise the issue of gender, except when appropriate. And despite you, Pericles and Graham insisting otherwise, I still think it is appropriate here. I won't labor the point though and I certainly won't be watching You Tube videos in order to take it any further.

We all view the world through the prism of our own gender, but as RobP's comments indicate, some are more capable than others of occasionally stepping outside its limitations.

"She happens to appeal to jealous females obsessed with their own lack of looks, the same type who hate girls who happen to be slim and beautiful."

This comment says more about you than it does me. It also perfectly illustrates the very point I've been making.

There is no way I should be placed in the situation of having to defend my appearance in the light of comments like this and I absolutely refuse to do so, apart from stating that I'm very happy in my own skin and am not at all interested in looking like something I'm not.

Ah Bronwyn,

Not everything is about you m'dear! I find it interesting that you have assumed I was talking about you particularly in the later quote.

'There is no way I should be placed in the situation of having to defend my appearance in the light of comments like this...'

Perhaps you shouldn't voluntarily assume a defensive position because of a general comment about who she may appealing to in marketing strategy then. Just a thought.

In fact, by your last post, perhaps there is a chip on that 'ol shoulder.

This reminds me of A Fish Called Wanda and that guy popping up everywhere saying 'Don't call me stupid'.

Bronwyn

Well said. A little anecdote. A couple of male friends who are very dear to me and I never thought of in terms of appearance, rather more valued their friendship and wonderful conversations and I am sure thought the same of me. However, one day (don't know how topic occurred) told me my exact bra size. I was never aware of being scrutinised thusly, just had to accept that males do look, appraise and evaluate - even the most respectful.

Therefore, I suspect that Pericles, Graham et al are telling huge porkies. And for Houellebecq suggest he unload the chip from his shoulder before casting aspersions on the shoulders of others.

Geez Fractelle, female friends have worked out my waist size, but I've never put it down to sexism, just good powers of observation. In fact, my observation is that women are much better at observing these things than men. But the way this conversation is trending I'll probably be accused of sexism on that last count as well.

"Because that's what we, the audience, tune in to be exposed to. It's what makes the ratings. It's what drives 50 million YouTube views."

Pericles,

You won't be surprised to know that I'm not one that's all that "entertained" by phoniness or sensationalism. (I only saw the rections of the judges because it was plugged to death on Channel Ten's other programs and promos).

"We, the audience", is of course the generic we. But it ain't everybody.

"Ah Bronwyn, Not everything is about you m'dear! I find it interesting that you have assumed I was talking about you particularly in the later quote."

I knew you'd come back with this comment. How predictable. Of course it's not at all about me, but as Fractelle and I were the only women who'd posted immediately prior to your comment, it's reasonable to conclude that at the very least you were referring to us, if not solely, then certainly fairly directly.

I've replied on my behalf and will leave Fractelle to exercise her own judgement, but I know we're both perfectly capable of deflecting the odd personal insult when we think it's warranted. In this case, I'd say Fractelle's decided that some things are just not worth responding to.

Fractelle's right about the chip on the shoulder though. If I'm carrying a chip, you're carrying a boulder. Sorry if that sounds a bit like a corny biblical line, but it seems very apt.

Graham

"But the way this conversation is trending I'll probably be accused of sexism on that last count as well."

Yes, it's fraught territory alright, but it can provide some light relief, as well of course as some thought provoking commentary.

Just tread carefully! :)

Sorry, I know it's probably fairly obvious, but the first part of that last post should have been directed specifically towards Houellebecq. I always have to cut and paste that name and I clean forgot to come back and do it.

Graham

Facts of life.

1. Men check women out.
2. Women are more likely to be judged than men, by both sexes (but particularly men), on their appearance.

Not accusing you of being sexist, just average. Therefore I find much of what you have to say, vis a vis Susan Boyle, to be completely disingenuous. Next you'll claim you never check out women. Oh, have I made a big mistake? You're not into women?... could've sworn you were straight.

Bronwyn

Perhaps we should be kinder to Houellebecq, some things just go over his little head. He still doesn't understand why I used Pamela Anderson in an example rather than a genuinely beautiful woman like Rose Byrne or Kate Blanchett. He doesn't get the contrast of natural and unpretentious with artificial and specious. And how we (as a society) underestimate the ordinary.

Fractelle, it really annoys me that posters continually accuse me of dishonesty when this site demonstrates my openness and tolerance to a wide range of views. It is possible to sincerely disagree with your views. It is not a sign of perversity leading to a charge of being disingenuous.

You seem to be suggesting that men check women out, but women don't check men out. I'd be interested in the research that backs that assertion up. I think you'll find that both sexes check the other sex out, but they do it in different ways. I think you'll also find that they also check other members of the same gender out. And in fact women are more likely to judge other women more harshly than men do the same women.

Of course I check women out. But where does that lead the conversation? At least half the people passing the Susan Boyle video around are female. So their reaction can't be sexual. And in fact most of life isn't sexual, or I'd never get onto editing the journal, I'd be too consumed looking for Ms Looks AlRight.

So can we move on past the 70s feminist stereotypes and accept that there are a lot of reasons why Susan Boyle hit the mark, and most of them have nothing to do with gender politics?

Graham

I think you must've missed point 2 in my post above, in your eagerness to claim the moral high ground.

So I will help by re-quoting from some of my previous posts on this thread:

"2. Women are more likely to be judged than men, BY BOTH SEXES (but particularly men), on their appearance."

"but we still have a way to go before men and women are evaluated in an equitable fashion. For example, a world which values men for being caring and nurturing rather than ridiculed as being somehow lacking in masculinity - I'd like to see that."

You are annoyed by the numbers of posters who don't find you as honest and open as you claim to be. Well, if you, like every male in the audience AND not a few women judge Susan to be NOT f*ckable, when you first looked at her BEFORE hearing her sing - I'll eat MY shorts.

I'm not a naive 15 year old; I know men. I am not saying its wrong, because I judge men by appearance too, but our culture is dominated by the male gaze. You see it in movies, advertising and those magazines that you "read only for the articles".

I would really appreciate some honesty here. That's all. And I think you doth protest too much on this one Graham.

All straight guys do it; categorise women according to appearance and whether they would like a 'leg-over' or not. Its basic instinct. So don't go claiming you are somehow 'above' every other straight male here and that you always judge women by their sparkling personality or intelligence before even considering appearance.

Pants on fire.

Sadly, and much against Bronwyn's expressed wish, this is beginning to turn into a classic gender skirmish.

>>I was never aware of being scrutinised thusly, just had to accept that males do look, appraise and evaluate - even the most respectful. Therefore, I suspect that Pericles, Graham et al are telling huge porkies<<

Telling porkies, Fractelle?

And what's with the "therefore"?

I doubt you will find anywhere a denial from me that I "look, appraise and evaluate". My partner even compliments me upon the discretion with which these actions are accomplished.

She asserts, in fact, that it not only is evidence that I am still alive, but is far more accurate than determining whether or not I am breathing.

Fractelle,

Start eating your shorts. You may think you 'know men', but I find your assertion that every man in the audience was instantly deciding whether she is f&ckable bizarre.

'All straight guys do it; categorise women according to appearance and whether they would like a 'leg-over' or not.'

'every male in the audience AND not a few women judge Susan to be NOT f*ckable'

I think you have a very low opinion of men. The fact you imagine a whole audience of men immediately thinking of sex with any performer they see, 'categorizing women', even the term 'leg-over' to project a sexist old fashioned shallow view. To me you seem like someone perpetually confronted by the ghost of Benny Hill. Either that or you base your opinions of men on a bunch of 15yo boys reading Ralph magazine. Even that you imagine not 1 member of the audience could possibly find her f@ckable.

'just had to accept that males do look, appraise and evaluate - even the most respectful.'
So it's not respectful to look at the opposite sex? Someone you know well and obviously have a plutonic relationship with. That lends no weight to your toungue out, sex obsessed, categorize instantly every women you lay eyes on opinion of men.

'Women are more likely to be judged than men, by both sexes (but particularly men), on their appearance.'
Rubbish! Women judge appearance just as much as men, are much more observant, and much more subtle at doing so.

As for your assertion that I STILL didn't understand your Pamela reference, well that's just childish. Oh poor fwactelle didn't get an answer.

Bronwyn,

You have got me wrong. Honestly. The refernce to Jealous women had nothing to do with yourself or Fractelle. The first quote you referenced was actually about Fractelle and I have asserted before she sees everything in gender terms, but obviously you were arguing the same line and took the first one to be about you too.

Out of curosity, what do you believe I have a chip on my shoulder ABOUT?

GrahamY “What I'd like to know is whether she would have got this level of attention if she had been good looking.”

Yes maybe it’s the Australian notion of how, against all the odds, the underdog can prevail (and in this case “dog” being the operative noun).

Fractelle “Just for once, instead of a woman being chosen for her looks, she gets there on talent; in spite of all the ridicule and eye-rolling.”

Yes this woman is a reincarnate Margaret Thatcher but without the makeup or hairdo or dress sense… and dearest Maggie did do a course in public speaking.. not in the melodic range of this gal but who cares… women not chosen for their looks but for their indisputable talent and in margaret’s case, indomitable spirit.

Fractelle “1. Men check women out.
2. Women are more likely to be judged than men, by both sexes (but particularly men), on their appearance.”

You obviously have not dated in a long, long time…
In my recent experience.. women check blokes out and judge us just as much as we judge them.

Of course.. whilst some are judging others are moving in… modern dating is a fast and furious process.. and to bring this back on to topic

I doubt Susan Boyle would do too well at speed dating.. regardless of her voice

Whenever Col talks about Margaret all is well in this OLO world. Do you talk to your kids about Margaret Col? I bet they don't realise how lucky they are.

Gads! This has become quite complex-for my slow brain at least.

I AM going to check out both appearances; Potts/Boyle. It will be interesting to see.

Women ARE judged on their appearance, (Pamela Anderson is a 'dog'?. Other blokes love the bleach and plastic of her.....appearance! Not how well she did in this/that TV/film!). It IS all about female appearance that such comments are made-and sorry gentlemen,-it IS generally a guy thing.

I have NEVER heard a female say "God! look at him, he's pig ugly!" Has it occurred?,-possibly;- but jokes and attitudes to female appearance are common;-and I won't deny that that judgment sometimes comes from women. I'm going to risk this: when women judge other women like this, it is because of something women are damn good at; sheer nasty bitchiness/cattiness. Here goes: when men say it, it is a derogatory put-down. (Or would you xy's prefer bitchy/catty??) It is a putting of a female in her place by a male judgment call.

And you know something fellas?; you DO know that. Don't go off ...er, half-cocked, think about it. I haven't exactly flattered women here you know.

This is a thread about Boyle,-the issue of her initial acceptance (whether 'choreographed' or not), was inevitably going to occur. (And was raised by a male.....).

Personally?-it would be interesting to see if she and Potts were perceived differently. Frankly it comes as no surprise to me that this issue was raised by Graham. It is a valid issue.

"Yes this woman is a reincarnate Margaret Thatcher but without the makeup or hairdo or dress sense… and dearest Maggie did do a course in public speaking.. not in the melodic range of this gal but who cares… women not chosen for their looks but for their indisputable talent and in margaret’s case, indomitable spirit." (Quote: TB)

Gawd's strewth!!

(Well at least I understand now, WHY you used the term 'dog').

Ginx

Do you believe these men? They don't judge women by appearance first? Ever?

Major powers of observation issue here, because not only are they trying to claim that they don't assess women's appearance, but their myopia includes the fact that all female posters here have made the point that women also judge by appearance, yet you'd think that it was only men being criticised here.

No the issue is about how we, as a society*, judged Susan Boyle purely on her appearance until she began to sing. Graham had the opportunity to bring Potts into the debate with his first post. He did not, his focus (so to speak) was on Susan.

As for Houllie, Pericles - you are a sensitive little bunch of flowers aren't you? Can't handle the female gaze at all can you? We women live with the male gaze every day of our lives, until we reach the 'age of invisibility' AKA 'nonf+ckable'.

And Col your description of Susan was pure appearance: "Yes this woman is a reincarnate Margaret Thatcher but without the makeup or hairdo or dress sense.." Ooer bitchy. Much. Which also is a worry - you find Maggie's helmut hair and suits alluring?

Men, here's a little quote from one of your fraternity:

"Truth? You can't handle the truth!?" Jack Nicholson AKA Jack the lad, who has the cojones to admit he loves a good perve.

society* consists of males and females.

Dear Ginx, I had the opportunity to bring the universe in with my first post, but I didn't. You should not, however, construe this as being a comment on the universe.

Brevity is not only the soul of wit, but it is an aid to clear argument. Don't distract from the point you are making by putting in too much information.

My original proposition was that a good-looking person would not have elicited this attention because the element of surprise and contradicting of stereotypes would not have been in play. Note that I used the words "good looking". They are gender neutral.

I was hoping to elicit a response about why we choose one thing over another when the qualities they exhibit as things are indistinguishable. The last thing I expected was a feminist diatribe.

But at one level that answers the question. You and Fractelle (at least) are cheering for her because she represents a feminist narrative. I suspect it is a minority story, but obviously powerful for you.

I'm staying right out of this hilarious stoush, but I'll just note before leaving that - despite being a man who shamelessly delights in 'appraising' the female form - I wouldn't have a clue as to the bra sizes of any of the women with whom I've been intimately acquainted, let alone more casual acquaintances.

I also can't stand those TV talent shows.

Ciao :)

"Dear Ginx, I had the opportunity to bring the universe in with my first post, but I didn't. You should not, however, construe this as being a comment on the universe." (GY)

I will leave 'construe' to you. I simply responded.

"Brevity is not only the soul of wit, but it is an aid to clear argument. Don't distract from the point you are making by putting in too much information." (GY)

I checked. That isn't a forum rule.

"My original proposition was that a good-looking person would not have elicited this attention because the element of surprise and contradicting of stereotypes would not have been in play. Note that I used the words "good looking". They are gender neutral." (GY)

Eh? I KNOW that. The discussion expanded and I based my comments on that.

"I was hoping to elicit a response about why we choose one thing over another when the qualities they exhibit as things are indistinguishable. The last thing I expected was a feminist diatribe." (GY)

A feminist diatribe? Sorry.I should have known my place.

"But at one level that answers the question. You and Fractelle (at least) are cheering for her because she represents a feminist narrative. I suspect it is a minority story, but obviously powerful for you." (GY)

It does indeed answer the question! You are not assuming/believing/supposing;...you are TELLING me what I my view is. Then you finish with a condescending and sarcastic remark.

Kind of proves the point.

And don't call me a feminist. I loathe to follow the belief systems/structures of any set of principles.

Potts is 39. Boyle is 47.

Potts was not asked his age. Boyle was.

Boyle was indeed subjected to ridicule in terms of 'you must be joking' looks from both the males on the panel and the audience.

Potts was NOT. Only Piers Morgan (Pierced Organ to those who know him well), gave an unbelieving glance. Both Holden and Cowell AND the audience simply waited for Potts to sing.

PLEASE NOTE: I did not raise this comparison. But the advice on this thread was that a comparison should be made-because they were treated equally.

They were NOT.

So less with the 'diatribe' thing eh?...though I'm not surprised that 'feminists' are ticked off.

Ginx, both events were stage-managed for maximum impact. And yes, Susan Boyle's was more stage-managed than Potts'. The video I watched had grinning side-kicks mugging at the camera from the wings, saying stuff like "you weren't expecting that, were you?" That was far from being happenstance, I would suggest.

But the accusations here are that it is only men who had formed the "ugly duckling" image prior to her starting to sing.

If that were true, I'd be happy to cop the gender-war abuse. But I bet that the vast majority of women watching were thinking the same thing. Poor girl, setting herself up for failure like this...

And where did this come from, Fractelle?

>>As for Houllie, Pericles - you are a sensitive little bunch of flowers aren't you? Can't handle the female gaze at all can you?<<

Strange observation. Not sure what I did to deserve it, but moving on...

Ginx

>>I have NEVER heard a female say "God! look at him, he's pig ugly!" Has it occurred?<<

You would know, if you had been at our place when Dalziell and Pascoe comes on the TV.

Fractelles comprehensions skills:

Male poster says: Not EVERY man in the audience was fantasizing about whether or not they would have sex with any performer that came on stage. Men don't ALL categorize women as f&ckable and even those that do probably not at first glance, even less likely while watching a performance.

(As a rejection of Fractelles ''ALL straight guys do it;..', 'EVERY male in the audience..')

Fractelles translation: Posters are saying, They {personally} don't judge women by appearance first? Ever?

Just who was 'trying to claim that they don't assess women's appearance'? Personally I 'assess' womens appearance, though whether I would have sex with them or not doesn't enter my head. I certainly don't put them into 'categories'. Though I'm sure fractelle knows better, as I'm just a man, but she 'knows men'.

'Can't handle the female gaze at all can you?'
WTF? I'd love to be wolf whistled!

BTW: Still trying to reconcile these two Fractelle quotes:

".. a world which values men for being caring and nurturing rather than ridiculed as being somehow lacking in masculinity"

"you are a sensitive little bunch of flowers aren't you?"

Thanks Ginx. I wasn't about to do it myself, but I was confident that if I had, a re-viewing of those two videos would indeed reinforce the commentary I quoted. Susan Boyle was clearly subjected to a greater level of disdain than was Peter Potts.

Pericles can waffle and obfuscate all he likes. Your concise comparisons have cut through it all, and well and truly vindicated my position. I've had one apology from him, so I know expecting another would probably be a bridge too far.

It would be good to have some sort of acknowledgement though of the invisibility, and worse, of older women who choose to be themselves, rather than wasting huge amounts of time and money trying to look years younger than they are, purely in order to conform to unrealistic social norms imposed on them by the androcentric society in which they live.

One only has to look at how older men are perceived to see the difference. Provided they keep themselves fit, which is something we should all do anyway regardless of aesthetics, men don't face the same pressures women do. Greying and thinning hair on men is perfectly acceptable, whereas most women have quickly learnt that they need a youthful-looking head of hair and spend a small fortune and endless hours to achieve it. While lines on men's faces are accepted as they should be, there's a whole industry built on telling women they should have line-free faces, not to mention pert breasts, blemish-free legs and all the rest of it.

The reason you men just don't get this is that you've never lived this reality. And no, Houellebeqc, I'm not envious of slim young things. I just want to be myself without being judged harshly and superficially for what should be every person's right, and I want this freedom for all older women.

Susan Boyle's treatment highlights just how far we've got to go to win that fight.

I never thought I'd have to argue that men judge women by their looks more than women do. Denial of the bleeding obvious. The overwhelming majority of the following 'services' are entirely geared towards the male perspective:

Brothels
Strip Clubs
Gratuitous nudity in film/advertising. (All women can do is hope for a shot of George Clooney removing his shirt).
No female equivalent at all of 'Ralph' type magazines (only magazines of beautiful nude men are for gays). Actually I wouldn't even be interested in buying one - do other women think this?

And I don't even watch freakin' reality shows, but I do know our world is structured very much around the male perspective.

As Bronwyn expressed in far more polite terms than the ones I used (non-f*ckable), older women are judged harshly. They are sneered at for trying to look younger, or sneered at if they simply appear as themselves - “she's let herself go” - as Susan Boyle was.

Nor have I denied that some women are complicit in this form of judgement – something that those “who protest too much” deliberately ignore.

Then there is the deliberate obfuscation:

Graham's definition of a 'feminist diatribe':
“Any woman who has a different opinion to mine, sniffle”.

Pericles: are you so bored since Boaz left the party that this is the best you can do?

Houllie: Never been wolf whistled at? There is a reason, you have been judged by the female gaze.

We, as a society, do need to treat each other with respect. But I find myself devoid of respect in the face of the dishonesty displayed by some of the male posters here. I am so glad that the men in my life are honest and caring (even if they do sneak a peak – that's OK), at least they are honest about being normal human males.

Bronwyn,
I think posters here are placing too much emphasis on Susan Boyle's appearance. The other big factor in the ridicule she encountered was the fact she is middle aged and everyone simply assumes that if a person, of either gender, has not 'made it' by then they cannot be any good. However, Susan's life has not been what the majority of us have had and her personal circumstances resulted in her late start to be a professional singer.

I was not surprised when I saw the video as I had been told about her but it must have been a shock to the audience. I agree with Perciles that these shows are stage managered and the performers would have to audition before being chosen to appear. Perhaps they even allow some less than average performers to appear so the judges can critisize and make it more interesting. The judges would be briefed, at least, on the acts to appear. I don't watch the shows myself.

I read a lot of the comments attached to the clip and there were quite a few that were critical of the young woman in the audience at 1.25 (I think).

As said before, I love nothing better than to see ordinary people succeed so I hope Susan realises her dream. Am sure we will hear a lot more of her.

Fractelle “And Col your description of Susan was pure appearance:”

Yes and that is because

1 Appearance matters

and

2 I am entitled to formulate my assessments on whatever criteria I choose and not on those which you decide are important

hence,
my ideal woman is 64 inches tall
a bust of 36 D
waist of up to 26
hip of 36/38 (I do like a little hip spring)
weighs 55-60kg

age, race and colouring is irrelevant...

IQ 130+

and an positive appetite for the wilder excesses

(the obese need not bother to apply as instant rejection often offends).

I am dating presently, several different gals a week, so I see how many use older photos and how the “obese” describe themselves as “average build” – ha

Women are as obsessed with their appearance as men are

And they are also obsessed with the appearance of the men they want.

One even told me when we met recently.. but your hair is different to your photo.. I said that’s because I have just had it cut and she was not an airhead but ran her own national business.

I bet if you asked women would they pay to look like Susan Boyle or pay to look differently to Susan Boyle, all would say they would not go out if they looked like Susan Boyle…

Good grooming, attention to appearance and good dress sense is more likely to mean less to the desperate and alone but it is, after all, why they are desperate and alone.

That probably explains it, Fractelle. Boredom.

>>Pericles: are you so bored since Boaz left the party that this is the best you can do?<<

But in all seriousness, it is a little disturbing to see a well-crafted, but wholly manipulative piece of television being turned into a major "us and them" bunfight.

At least when I was duking it out with Boaz, he didn't stoop to calling me a liar.

>>Therefore, I suspect that Pericles, Graham et al are telling huge porkies<<

And Bronwyn...

>>Susan Boyle was clearly subjected to a greater level of disdain than was Peter Potts. Pericles can waffle and obfuscate all he likes... I've had one apology from him, so I know expecting another would probably be a bridge too far.<<

You had an apology, Bronwyn, for my lack of manners, not for content. I simply pointed out in a somewhat discourteous manner that you had made up your mind on the topic without actually bothering to find out what the fuss was about.

And as for "waffle and obfuscate", which part of my observation that "...yes, Susan Boyle's was more stage-managed than Potts'" is difficult to fathom?

And finally, back to Fractelle, clearly signalling the end of a short but wonderful friendship.

>>They are sneered at for trying to look younger, or sneered at if they simply appear as themselves - “she's let herself go” - as Susan Boyle was.<<

I can only point out once again: who was sneering at Susan Boyle? Men, women, or both?

Ginx

>>I have NEVER heard a female say "God! look at him, he's pig ugly!" Has it occurred?<<

You would know, if you had been at our place when Dalziell and Pascoe comes on the TV.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 24 April 2009 7:52:31 AM

This really made me laugh!! Thanks Pericles.

Other than that I ain't sayin nuffin!!

Pericles

Your point about 'staged event' was spot on BTW. I just had to work some personal issues and as I said on another thread, I did not give your posts sufficient consideration, gobsmacked as I was by Graham's claim that men don't judge women by appearance first.

Graham, read Col's last post. There is much appalling truth in it. No wonder we wind up with anorexic teens and so much low self esteem.

Which brings me back to Susan Boyle - she's displayed a lot more cojones than many people, male or female, can do.

Susan - YOU ROCK!

An interesting postscript from the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/fashion/26looks.html?_r=1&em

It even outlines a possible chemical reason for the "transformation narrative"

"Professor Dovidio said that encountering discrepancies to stereotypes probably 'creates a sort of autonomic arousal' in our peripheral nervous system, triggering spikes of cortisol and other indicators of stress. 'That autonomic arousal is going to motivate us to do something in that situation,' he said, especially if the situation is dangerous.

Helen Fisher, an anthropology professor at Rutgers, theorizes that in Ms. Boyle’s case, the audience also experienced a 'rush of dopamine' from the surprise pleasure of hearing her voice. 'Novelty drives up dopamine in the brain and you feel good,' she said."

I'll buy that.