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.

;-)