"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.