You all know, Dear Readers, how Veggie Mom feels about women competing in this world. But I'm not so sure that they all have to dress up to do it.
Susan Boyle showed up on Britain's Got Talent the other day, all glammed and gussied up. But I'm not sure her makeover has made her any better.
Yes, for the most part Ms. Boyle virtually nailed "Memory," that classic from the musical, "Cats." But she started off a tad shaky. She clearly was nervous, and those nerves showed in the opening bars of the ballad.
I wonder if all the buzz around Susan Boyle's initial performance, when she knocked that snarky smirk right off Simon Cowell's face, has somehow upped the ante for this Scottish lass.
We were talking about this at work the other day. Do the clothes really make the woman? Is Ms. Boyle somehow a better person because her hair's been permed, her eyebrows waxed, and she's wearing a glam frock? Does the powder and the rouge help her project? Keep her vibrato steady? Enable her to sing in the upper registers?
Above all, does all this America's Next Top Model treatment make Susan Boyle a better person?
I'm not sure it does.
One of my colleagues maintains that Ms. Boyle has to be glammed up in order for audiences to pay attention. I maintain that her lusty soprano is what helps her command the most attention.
Another friend said, "But what if she wins? Won't she be made over anyway? Won't the whole experience transform her?" My friend says the producers are "just getting a head start."
I can't help but think that if Susan Boyle were named Steve, she might be treated differently. How much of a price must one pay for success?