Hannah,
Can I suggest that perhaps you take a step back and laugh a little. No-one is saying you are wrong in what you say. I understand where you are coming from. However, Ted did not say anything that was incorrect or wrong or insulting, he said and I quote (with some paraphrase of my own and apologies to Ted): "...It is time to stop perpetrating the old notion that women are victims...and treat them as people.....otherwise they will always be victims" Thanks Ted, you are an angel from Heaven. Now, Hannah, what Ted said is true. We are NOT victims, but if we constantly think of ourselves as victims, then we will be treated as victims. Because 'victims' always put out 'Victim' type vibes and hence bring the victimisation on themselves. We as women have NEVER been victims! What women did throughout history as they do now, they do of their own freewill --- certainly social mores had a bearing on their choices. Now, Hannah, before you write another word, try changing the word Victim to Challenge. What we had was certainly discrimination but we saw it as a 'CHALLENGE.' A challenge that my generation of women set about CHALLENGING! We challenged everything from the men's right to dominate certain professions, trades, the so-called Glass-ceiling and positions, to their right to be paid 30percent more and we won! We won so that women today have the opportunities that we did not. As Mothers we brought our sons up to be more enlightened towards women. Frankly, we enjoyed challenging the 'establishment'. We enjoyed being the first to do something. We enjoyed breaking down barriers. BUT without the assistance of many,many Men folk, we may well not have done it. Today, certainly there is the trend for skinny emaciated models and actors - no-one twists their arms to be skinny-- they starve themselves of their own free-will. They have a voice, they can always CHALLENGE the trend/system by refusing! I have already said how I think men, women, children alike are judged all the time and it is certainly NOT simply when youth fades-- some women are far prettier at 60 than at 20 while some men are simply not superbly handsome until they reach their 50's, 60's and beyond. As to your comments re the current USA President V Clinton I think you are dead wrong! Age had nothing to do with it. Hilary is 'yesterday's lady' --- the world has moved forward. Forgive for my next comment, I do not mean to offend, but whether ladies like it or not, sex or the implication thereof, is what makes the world go around --- it sells everything from cars to swimsuits, to houses, to pantyhose. Without it, the world would simply stop! And to use it is not exploitation of anybody or anyone. It is simply a fact of life --- you sing Opera --- one of the sexiest operas I can think of right now is 'Lowingrin" (?Spelling) by Wagner --- in fact the Overture to the (I think) final Act and the Bridal Chorus just about spell it out in neon signs! And that was written in the 1800's! In short, what I am trying to say in a long-winded manner is step back and laugh! Enjoy the journey of life, laugh at the sexy dames drawn on telephone walls, better still ignore them and don't bite so hard when a man puts forward his point of view. Oh, and be careful in repeating someone, be precise and if you are not going to be precise, give an explanation for using other words --- these blogs are wonderful but you don't know who is behind the comments --- it could be a lawyer, a Judge, a Doctor, it could be anyone. Just an opinion.

I think Ted and Hannah, you are both correct. I also think Mark1334 was correct. All three of you are correct. Yes, there still is discrimination in certain areas against women but, compared to the discrimination that went on when I was younger, today's 'discrimination' is nothing --- believe me, ladies, you are very lucky now and forgive me for saying it, but today's young women, do not really know what discrimination is. Men today such as Mark and Ted are much more enlightened than the men who were bosses and managers, boyfriends and husbands when I was younger in fact may I say Gentlemen, your kind are almost angelic by comparison. There are still the other ignorant ones around but, the majority of men these days are much more enlightened. Here, I have to say, that in certain areas, MEN are the one's discriminated against and it is women who get the opportunities. Sadly however, there is a very strong tendency in society to judge humans by the way they look(and how old they are) --- not only in talent contests, but also in job applications and promotional opportunities/chances within careers. It is simply a sad fact of life --- our abilities both mental and physical, our talents and position within the status-quo are judged on the way we look, men, women, children and adults alike. We are judged on the way we speak, how we sound and how we dress. Sadly, it is human nature -- I am not sure that, unless we all become computerised robots that it is something that will ever be eradicated. Susan Boyle did look dowdy and given her background, that is understandable, but that should not be part of the judgement of her talent --- her deportment and diction was perfect and given a few months with the proper grooming including a more appopriate hairstyle and clothes, she will not only sound magnificent, but also look stunning as well. George Bernard Shaw's "Pigmalion" was written almost 100 years ago (it may be a full 100 years, I am not sure) and it says it all, by the 1950/60's both Julie Andrews and Audrey Hepburn had made stunning Eliza Doolittles on stage and film in 'My Fair Lady" with the same message (there was an earlier version made in the 1930's with a very young Rex Harrison but the name of the leading actress escapes me right now)---- have times changed? Only on the surface. Scrape that away and I think you will find that Hannah, Ted and Mark1334 are all, in their own ways, absolutely correct.

Well Susan, not only do you have a stupendous voice with a clarity of speech that I have not heard since Julie Andrews sang in "The Sound of Music", you have also given me a wonderful morning reading people's comments. I enjoyed Hannah's comments as much as the responses from Mark1334---Both of you were indirectly correct! Kim managed to get everything in perspective and SteveNYC was, to my mind, one of the most knowledgeable, but the one thing that seems to have troubled (is that the word?) most of you is Susan's backstory. Would someone out there please tell me WHY, if a person lives alone with or without companion animals (usually a cat for very good reasons), that they are considered lonely? Or sad? etc. Especially if the person happens to be a woman. This fact has always amused me. This is one aspect of discrimination that still exists --- and believe me, it IS discrimination. Consider how many places a woman cannot go,how many thngs she cannot do without a male accompanying her, how many parties she is not invited to on her own -- are we really such a threat to every married lady's hubby? Even restaurants place single people at a table in a little dark corner that no-one else wants. Society by its attitude tells every single woman living by herself, that there is something wrong with her -- especially once she is out of her 20's or 30's and enters mid-40's. Even Government budgets repeatedly have nothing in them for the single person but squillions for 'families'! Single people really dooo pay taxes and get no benefit from the money spent. Now why does this attitude or train of thought persist? Would someone tell me, especially the commentors above who have mentioned repeatedly Susan's backstory of being single and living alone. Does it bother you? Does it make you folk uncomfortable? Are you jealous? Envious perhaps? What is it? I really would like to know the answer to the connundrum. Living alone is one of the more beautiful experiences in life. It is a life where one can think, read, listen to beautiful music, learn whatever, listen for God's voice, study whatever, paint, or sing all in beautiful peace, eat when and if, get up when and if, sleep till when and if, decorate one's home as one chooses, come and go whenever, leave the newspaper on a chair and know it will be there when you get back. In short, enjoy one's own company. Life does not begin and end with husbands, partners, sex, children, diapers, teething rings, school events, teenagers untidy bedrooms,piles of dirty socks and jeans to wash, ironing to do and University exams. There is another life out there --- it is called 'single' and those in it for the most part of their lives would think twice before changing but many cannot 'hack' and allow themselves to be railroaded into having a partner -- often with sad results. Just an opinion.

Well, for all you men(and women) who think Susan is a frump and unattractive, DID any of you look at her beautiful face? I personally think Susan is a very beautiful looking lady. If my memory serves me correctly, I think most of the top female opera singers such as Joan Sutherland are quite hefty ladies and I don't believe anyone worries a tad! As for the vibrato I liked it. Her voice IS stunning! Really stunning! God Bless you Susan you deserve every success. Oh yes! Believe it or not folks, people DO live alone with a cat --- it is NOT a sob story --- it is a fact of life in this day and age, that single ladies DO live alone with their only companion a cat or a dog ---- How do I know? Because I too have lived alone with two companion cats for over 30 years-- I would much rather come home to them after a very long day working at my career than to a house full of husband, kids and no quiet! SOME folk actually enjoy living alone Did any of you cynics think of that? There are thousands of women in this world very happily living alone with a companion animal --- we choose to do so. As for Susan --- Go Girl! Go and get that Dream! Love from Australia