Mediaboss Marketing

Renowned Canadian psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson says young people, especially boys, are facing a "demoralization" in the world and he's urging the Christian church to become more involved in reaching the next generation.

In a recent YouTube video titled "Messages to Christian Churches," Peterson explained that when he took a "psychological approach" while talking about the Bible, the majority of his listeners turned out to be young men.

"That is not a phenomenon that can be easily accounted for, but let me try," Dr. Peterson said. "Now in the West, because of the weight of historical guilt that is upon us, a variant of the sense of original sin in a very real sense, and because of a very real attempt by those possessed by what might be described as unhelpful ideas to weaponize that guilt, our young people face a demoralization that is perhaps unparalleled."

"This is particularly true of young men, although anything that devastates young men will eventually do the same to young women," he added while referring to anti-natalism and nihilism.

Quick Start Podcast: The Facts on the Alleged Alzheimers Research Fraud

Peterson continued, "When they are children, boys are hectored for their toy preferences, which often include toy weapons, such as guns, and their more boisterous playing style, as boys require active rough and tumble play even more than girls, for whom it is also a necessity. When in grade school, boys are admonished, shamed and controlled in a very similar manner by those who think that play is unnecessary, particularly if it's competitive, and who value a docile, harmless obedience above all."

He said the indoctrination of such an "extremely damaging ideology" is accomplished with three accusations.

"Number one: human culture, particularly in the West, is best construed as an oppressive patriarchy motivated by the desire, willingness and the ability to use power to attain what are purely selfish and self-serving ends," he explained.

"Accusation number two: human activity, particularly that undertaken in the West, is fundamentally a planet despoiling enterprise. The human race is a threat to the ecological utopia that existed before us and could hypothetically exist after in our absence."

"Accusation number three: the prime contributor both to the tyranny that makes up the oppressive patriarchy and structures all of our social interactions past and present and the unforgivable despoiling of our beloved mother Earth is damnable male ambition, competitive and dominating, power-mad, selfish, exploitative, raping and pillaging," he said.The psychologist explained that people in the West are facing "an all-out assault at the deepest levels."He said young men who are "deeply conscientious, capable of guilt and regret," consider that "in pain, every deep impulse that moves them out into the world for the adventure of their life, even that impulse drawing them to women, is nothing but the manifestation of the spirit that is essentially satanic in nature."

This belief is not only wrong "theologically, morally, psychologically, practically and scientifically," but it is also "anti-true," he noted.

Peterson also pointed out that the Christian church is "there to remind people, especially young men, that they have a woman to find, a garden to walk in, a family to nurture, an ark to build, a land to conquer, a ladder to Heaven to build, and the utter terrible catastrophe of life, to face stalwartly in truth, devoted to love and without fear."

He continued, "Invite the young men back, say, literally, to those young men, 'You are welcome here. If no one else wants what you have to offer, we do. We want to call you to the highest purpose of your life. We want your time and energy and effort and your will and your goodwill. We want to work with you to make things better, to produce life more abundant for you, and for your wife and children and for your community, and your country, and the world.'"

Dr. Peterson then pointed out the problems within the Christian church.

"We are more abundant, sometimes, far too often, corrupt, and sometimes deeply so," he said. "We're outdated, as are all institutions with their roots in the dead but still often wise past."

He shifted attention towards Protestant churches, saying, "You're the worst at the moment." Catholic and Orthodox should also invite young men, Peterson said.

"Put up a billboard saying 'young men are welcome here.' Tell those who have never been in a church exactly what to do, how to dress, when to show up, who to contact and, most importantly, what they can do. Ask more, not less of those you are inviting. Ask more of them than anyone ever has. Remind them who they are in the deepest sense, and help them become that."

Peterson concluded the message by saying, "You're churches for God's sake. Quit fighting for social justice. Quit saving the bloody planet. Attend to some souls. That's what you're supposed to do. That's your holy duty. Do it now, before it's too late. The hour is nigh."

Thousands of viewers commented on the video and some even said they were motivated to go back to church.

***Please sign up forCBN Newslettersand download theCBN News appto ensure you keep receiving the latest news from a distinctly Christian perspective.***

View original post here:
Psychologist Jordan Peterson Says Society Is Harming Boys, and the Church Must Save Them: 'That's Your Holy Duty' - CBN.com

This weeks announcement that Stan Grant will be permanent host of the ABCs Q&A follows widespread speculation about the future of the program. On some estimates, ratings have fallen by more than 50% from a peak of over 600,000 during its first decade under Tony Jones, who served as host from 2008.

Hamish Macdonald succeeded Jones in November 2019 but resigned in July last year, describinghis 18-month tenure as a bruising experience. Aside from being attacked on Sky News for his far left Green agenda, he was relentlessly trolled on social media, with virulent accusations of bias from both the left and the right.

Curiously, the BBCs Question Time Q&As prototype has followed a parallel trajectory. Its ratings have fallen precipitously, from nearly nine million to just over a million and the decline coincides with the replacement of veteran host David Dimbleby by seasoned BBC personality Fiona Bruce, whose own brand of charisma is no match for the gravitas of her predecessor.

Question Time is something of a cuckoo in the nest. In its 43-year history it has consistently featured leading commentators and parliamentarians; its two most longstanding presenters, Dimbleby and Robin Day, were the equivalent of BBC royalty. But since its takeover by a commercial production company in 1998, the program has crossed the line into terrain more generally associated with tabloid media.

Now its producers prefer guests like Brexiteer Nigel Farage, conservative psychologist Jordan Peterson and John Lydon (alias punk rocker Johnny Rotten), who serve to ratchet up the controversy. Its been claimed that paid audience plants are instructed to ask heavily weighted questions, and that the chairing is biased. And Bruce endures the kind of social media onslaught that drove Macdonald out.

Reports of disastrous ratings may themselves be a form of motivated attack. Audiences now have many more viewing options than the original live transmissions, and the BBC has persistently asserted that audience figures are higher than some surveys suggest.

Q&A is in much the same situation: while Sky claims the lefty lovefest has scored as low as 228,000, the ABC estimates the regular following through 2021 at more than 400,000. But thats still quite a drop-off since the programs heyday.

Are we just jaded with celebrity opinion shows, especially those founded in the leftright dramaturgy? The predictability is at times exhausting.

Macdonalds best episode was his first, in February 2020, when he chaired a session on the bushfires with a panel that included Kirsty McBain, then mayor of Bega, and Andrew Constance, Liberal MP for the area. The panel sat on office chairs in a semi-circle, genuinely sharing what they had all just been through, including Macdonald himself, who had reported from an evacuation centre as the fire front approached.

A few weeks later, though, it was back to business as usual, with the presenter in a glossy suit fielding the play of leftright argy-bargy in the studio.

We dont need this anymore. In many ways, the conventions of robust disagreement and both sides-ism are no longer a positive feature of civil society but rather a threat to it. As Republican Liz Cheney put it in a recent statement to the January 6th Committee, the normal sort of vitriolic, toxic partisanship has got to stop. And we have to recognise what is at stake.

Stan Grant has several times taken the helm as guest host of Q&A since Tony Joness departure. He prompted a furore in March this year when he expelled an audience member who expressed support for Putins invasion of Ukraine, asserting the program was contributing to media bias against Russia. There were calls of propaganda from the audience as the speaker proceeded to claim that Ukraine was responsible for all the violence.

Aired in the second week of the Russian invasion, this episode included speakers and audience members with family in the war zone. We encourage different points of view here, Grant said. But we cant have anyone who is sanctioning, supporting, violence.

Clearly caught off guard by an unscheduled audience intervention, Grant may have missed the essential point: that the statement, intentionally or not, was Russian propaganda. It was a critical moment for many reasons, one of which is that Grants subsequent appointment as host could signal a change in direction for the program.

That moment also raised the question of when we should call foul on claims about the right to express opinion, especially in a media culture increasingly subject to influence from organised, even state-run, propaganda. And what is propaganda? How does it manifest and how should we respond?

This, surely, would be a good focus for a Q&A program. Peter Pomerantsev, who has studied Russian propaganda for decades, would be the perfect guest. These are times in which we need sustained, forensic focus on complex issues. We need insight and analysis from people with knowledge and experience, not extemporised opinion from celebrities.

The Ukraine invasion is the starkest manifestation of the transformed geopolitical environment. With Donald Trump already moving to gather support for another tilt at the presidency, and the US justice department taking its time over the evidence against him, the future of American democracy is in jeopardy. In Australia we have a leader of the opposition who talks openly about war with China.

Jones, Macdonald and Grant have all had extensive experience as foreign correspondents. With domestic politics increasingly dwarfed by the massive geopolitical tensions of our era, those issues should be to the fore. Q&A, which originated as a premier platform for the opinion wars, now has an opportunity to lead the way out of them.

See original here:
Can Q&A lead us out of the opinion wars its helped to fuel? - The Conversation

Putin is continuing Russian Imperialism

Dear Editor:

A recent letter calling for negotiations between Russia's invading armies and a peaceful Ukraine is ridiculous and uninformed.

Russia breaks international laws and treaties. The latest examples are: Putins statement, Ukraine does not exist, and Russias shelling the seaport, Odessa, despite the just-signed treaty allowing the export of Ukrainian grain to starving populations.

Putin is continuing Russian imperialism and Ukraine is fighting for its existence. Ukraine has survived the Holodomor (a genocide by an artificial famine) inflicted by the previous communist regime and is now fighting an invader accused of war crimes and genocide.

Taras Makar

Penticton

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it

Dear Editor:

It was very disappointing to read the Time for the Ukraine to negotiate with Russia (Herald,July 22).

If Russia was attacking Canada would the letter writer be giving the same advice? Ukraine is fighting for their very existence and he is grumbling about war profiteering. Shouldnt our government address the price gouging, rather than abandoning the Ukrainians?

Appeasing Russia through negotiations will just encourage further Russian adventurism. Remember how effective appeasement was with the Nazis. It did not lead to peace in our time.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it and Winston Churchill knew what he was talking about.

Steen Petersen

Nanaimo

Putin, like Pope Francis should offer an apology

Dear Editor:

Russias Putin could do well to follow the example of Pope Francis penitential pilgrimage to Indigenous Canada and Putin apologize and seek forgiveness and reconciliation from the Ukraine people for his slaughter of the Ukraine innocents.

Joe Schwarz

Penticton

Health-care workers in B.C. deserve our highest praise

Dear Editor:

We recently used the ambulance service, and one of us is now an inpatient in Victoria. I worked for more than 30 years in a regional referral hospital, so I know what the workload used to be.

I am astonished that hospital staff are able to retain their composure and kindness given the overwhelming workload that they now experience.

At least in my day we had peaks and valleys of workload and were given time to relax and breathe; not any more.

My thanks and my best wishes to health-care workers everywhere in B.C. in these troubled times.

Clifford Dezell

Victoria

No desire to engage in personal attacks

Dear Editor:

While I may not agree with others opinions, I do respect the right of individuals to hold an opinion and to express that opinion. I therefore will continue to present facts, but I have no desire to engage in personal attacks.

The majority of professional people who read about or listen to Jordan Peterson realize that he has gotten his reputation by stating the obvious. No more, no less. Google: What do people think of Jordan Peterson? Read his professional peers comments. As Peterson himself stated, I am an academic persona non grata.

Peterson has been suspended from Twitter for fat-shaming a lady and refusing to apologize. This is completely in character. Carry out some critical analysis of his comments and views. Read his 12 rules that are just common sense and ridiculous.

Pierre Poilievre is a Stephen Harper protg, but I understand the current anxiety of Canadians who are concerned about global inflation and the cost of living, but to continuously blame the Liberals for global inflation is not justifiable. And investors reluctance to invest in fossil fuels is global not just a Canadian Liberal problem.

If you support Pierre Poilievre, then at least admit that you prefer: a balanced budget over social safety nets; freedom from mandatory mask wearing no matter the danger to others; freedom to protest no matter the disruption of peoples lives and traffic movement; freedom from mandatory vaccinations no matter the health risks to others; freedom for unqualified (cannot meet Canadian standards) immigrants to practice their professions; freedom for oil companies to drill without meeting environmental standards; and the list goes on.

If you support the foregoing that is your choice and I respect your right to have that preference; however, I do not support your choice.

As a Humanist, that is my right, and I defend that right.

I cannot imagine the attack-dog antics of Pierre Poilievre as the Canadian prime minister, and certainly not on the world stage.

Patrick MacDonald

Kelowna

When you worry, you make it double

Dear Editor:

Most people, especially those on fixed incomes, have every right to be incensed about the unprecedented high cost of groceries and gasoline.

Recently my wife and I went grocery shopping and then filled up the gas tank of our 1998 Buick.

On the way home I listened to myself moaning and groaning about the rapidly rising prices for almost everything. Little by little I came to the realization I shouldnt let things I have no control over ruin my day. I decided to look on the bright side and figuratively put on rose-coloured glasses.

Immediately I realized the groceries and gas were an investment, not an expense.

The groceries in the trunk and the gas in the tank had doubled the value of our car. You can call me a cockeyed optimist but my frown instantly turned upside down.

Thats when I recalled those insightful words in the 1988 hit song, Dont Worry Be Happy, by Bobby McFerrin namely, In every life we have some trouble but when you worry you make it double.

Lloyd Atkins

Vernon

Pamphlet an attack on Canadas history

Dear Editor:

As a Canadian citizen I am absolutely appalled to learn that The Hon. Ahmed Hussen, the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion found it appropriate to spend $268,400 taxpayer dollars to develop and distribute the document titled Confronting and Preventing Hate in Canadian Schools. This document labels the Conservative Party as racist and directly attacks the Canadian Ensign, to list only a few.

It is true that the Canadian Ensign bears the crosses of Saint George, Saint Patrick and Saint Andrew. Yes, it bears the crests of France, Scotland, Ireland and England all Christian countries reflective of Canadas founding as far back as the early 1600s.

Members of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Army fought with distinction and died under the Canadian Ensign in both World Wars and the Korean War.

I and my classmates sang God Save The Queen and Oh Canada while the Canadian Ensign was raised.

Mr. Hussen owes Canadian veterans who are buried overseas and who fought and died for his freedom an apology.

Bill Shumborski

Kelowna

Many reasons to stop feeding the ducks

Dear Editor:

When I was a kid, I remember seeing signs in Beacon Hill Park telling people why it was a bad idea to feed the wildlife (especially the ducks). This led me to not feed the ducks anymore.

I know a reason why feeding the ducks is a bad idea, a reason not listed on the sign: feeding endangers the ducklings.

When mother ducks see birdseed, they often get distracted by the food and leave their ducklings alone in the water (the ducklings seem to mostly prefer bugs). This leaves the ducklings unprotected.

Also, the birdseed seems to attract crows and seagulls, which both prey on ducklings. I recently saw a family of ducklings eating seeds dangerously close to a group of crows and a seagull.

I also saw another mother who only had one little duckling left (she had around 10 earlier in the week).

Something to think about the next time you want to feed the ducks.

Emma Dingman

Victoria

Link:
Letters to the Editor: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 | Opinion | pentictonherald.ca - pentictonherald.ca

Last summer, I wrote about how Portnoys particular brand of transgressive boorishness served as an inspiration to Republican politicians eager to capitalize on the backlash to newly established progressive social norms around things like gender pronoun usage and diversity, equity and inclusion practices. But that alliance was never ideological it was aesthetic. To a certain kind of secular, mostly apolitical Barstool bro, the party of evangelical pro-lifers might not have been an ideal fit, but it was certainly more appealing than the party of woke scolds and stuffy bosses across the aisle.

Now that the Supreme Court has handed social conservatives their most significant ideological victory of the modern political era, those voters will have to choose: Is it worth giving sanction to an overtly religious, mostly unpopular political project simply to own the libs? Portnoy himself explicitly says no. But cultural backlash is as unpredictable as it is powerful, and its place at the heart of the modern GOP means that how a particular type of independent, attitudinally conservative voter responds could shape America for years to come.

To look at the empirical evidence in so much as it exists around opinion on abortion rights, one might think that Republicans victory over Roe is somewhat Pyrrhic. The most recent data from the Pew Research Center, collected at the beginning of July after the Dobbs decision, shows that 57 percent of the population disagrees with the decision itself (including a not-insignificant 29 percent of Republicans); the only group expressing overwhelmingly strong approval is white evangelicals. Sixty-two percent of Americans say abortion should be legal in most or all cases.

But dig deeper into the data and youll find that support for abortion varies considerably based on the duration of pregnancy, especially taking into account voters geographic distribution. There are also, of course, the inherent limitations of public opinion polling, as well as the relative rarity of single-issue voters (among whom anti-abortion voters outnumber their counterparts). Its not quite accurate to say the GOP has summarily alienated an electorate that otherwise seemed prime to embrace it in this falls midterms.

So one might look to another indicator, albeit one lacking the veneer of empiricism that polling maintains: The opinions of thinkers and leaders in the conservative movement. What actual politicians say is unreliable, as beholden as they are to pesky primary voters and wealthy, ideological donors. What about those responsible for curating the vibes of the modern conservative movement?

At the beginning of June, the National Review fellow and social-conservative wunderkind Nate Hochman wrote an op-ed for the New York Times titled What Comes After the Religious Right? In it, he expanded on the somewhat declinist view of the conservative Catholic writer Matthew Walther, who coined the term Barstool conservative in a 2021 op-ed for The Week writing that, While the old religious right will see much to like in the new cultural conservatism, they are partners, rather than leaders, in the coalition. Hochman argues that although a figure as non-pious as Trump (who could plausibly claim the mantle of the Barstool president) might have empowered social conservatives, theyre too much of an electoral minority to succeed without their comparatively libertine coalitional partners.

Hochmans insight invites a similar reflection from the other side of the aisle. Once upon a time, as the writer Matt Yglesias recently pointed out in response to Portnoys pro-Roe stance, chauvinistic bros were reliable Democratic voters, who made common cause with realpolitik-ing feminists willing to overlook the Clinton-era partys affective cultural conservatism in exchange for political wins. Both were opposed to the Moral Majority-era sanctimony of the Reagan-Bush GOP, the ethos of the alliance perhaps best summed up by a notorious quote regarding Clinton from the former Time White House reporter Nina Burleigh: Id be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.

For various reasons beyond the scope of this essay, the salience of cultural politics has increased in American life to an extent that makes that alliance impossible. Conservative thought leaders now find themselves at the same crossroads liberals once did: What price are they willing to pay what are they willing to sacrifice, or excuse to keep such fickle, secular, Portnoy-like independent voters in the fold?

What are conservative thought leaders willing to sacrifice, or excuse to keep such fickle, secular, Dave Portnoy-like independent voters in the fold?|Michael Reaves/Getty Images

As the GOPs most reliable and motivated voting bloc, the anti-abortion movement is clearly not going anywhere. To the chagrin and fear of liberals, and the hope of the would-be New Right, theres some evidence that they might not have to. Looking at the replies to Portnoys initial post-Roe tweet, alongside the criticism from hard-right figures like Dan Bongino (as well as Hochman himself), one can see a slew of comments from average, non-blue-check-sporting Barstool fans, protesting that all the Supreme Court did was let it be a state issue, or that he should simply stick to sports.

This is where Barstool per se ceases to be a useful framework through which to understand the shifts occurring in American politics today. (As with any brand with as massive a reach as Portnoys, its fans are more ideologically diverse than a liberals snap judgment would assume.) The angst inspired by Portnoys pro-abortion rights turn reflects a much broader phenomenon: Just as secular and religious GOP voters are split, theres an even narrower division among those who are simply alienated by the modern left and those who are outright anti-feminists, especially among young voters.

The anti-feminism of todays young conservatives takes a few different forms. There is, of course, the outright hate spread on forums like 4chan and by trolls like Nick Fuentes; the casual, fratty misogyny of more mainstream figures like Trump White House aide Garrett Ziegler, who in a live streamed rant after his Jan. 6 committee testimony called his female former coworkers thots and hoes; and the faux-erudition of New Right leaders like Sen. Josh Hawley, who in a keynote address to the National Conservatism Conference decried the lefts attack on men in America. (Its not just America, either: In South Korea, youth anti-feminism helped propel a conservative president to the Blue House.) Young anti-feminists see a world where women are at least notionally more empowered than ever, yet no one seems to be happy about it. They look to the past for solutions in lieu of inventing new ones for the moment.

And there are plenty of historical examples, both religious and secular, to draw from. In her 1991 book, Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, the feminist writer Susan Faludi described a taxonomy of anti-feminist reaction to the advances of the Equal Rights Amendment era, from Christian leaders like Paul Weyrich who promised to overturn the present power structure of the country to the quasi-paganism of the poet Robert Bly, who encouraged real men to reclaim their cultural birthright by psychologically isolating themselves from women. Faludi sums up their shared philosophy as the belief that the very steps that have elevated womens position have actually led to their downfall.

One might wonder what Faludi, in an era where Weyrich and Bly have inspired successors in figures like the (now-disgraced) megachurch pastor Mark Driscoll and the Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, would have to say about the backlash to womens more recent advances. To borrow a rhetorical move from Woody Allen, whom Bly especially hated, we dont have to wonder; I happen to have Ms. Faludi right here: Writing in the New York Times in response to Roes overturning, she argues that feminisms growing entwinement with celebrity culture is a primary culprit in making it more vulnerable than ever to a more pernicious backlash, one that has never relented, one that has brought us the calamity of the Alito draft opinion.

This is why social conservatives find themselves at a moment of not just dog-that-caught-the-car peril, but potential promise. The Courts ruling was only made possible by the combined forces of secular conservatism, via Trumps mass heterodox appeal, and the decades of concentrated effort by a minority of religious activists. Like with Weyrich and Bly, or Driscoll and Peterson, anti-feminism can take many forms and have many motivations, but the basic ressentiment it taps into transcends religion, class or partisanship, and is stubbornly persistent. By subsuming life-or-death social issues under the auspices of Lean In moments and social media slap downs over whether Taylor Swift is or isnt a feminist, as Faludi wrote, liberals and feminists have risked erasing the distinction in the publics mind between serious material outcomes and such symbological slap-fights.

That possibility conjures a world where arguments about womens health outcomes, or whether theres a feminist case against abortion, or over pro-family Republican economic policies might become immaterial as abortion becomes an entirely different, more recognizably modern kind of culture-war issue. We simply dont know yet whether the Barstool cohort of the modern GOP will look around at a post-Roe world and decide their party has gone too far. But if they dont, and Trumps coalition holds, it will be the most powerful symbol yet of Americas transition to a symbolic mass politics of cultural grievance.

Those politics still can have very real policy consequences, as millions of women in red states are now discovering. Improbable as it might seem, whether or not said consequences endure or even spread might depend on what occurs in the hearts and minds, and on the ballots, of men like Dave Portnoy.

Read the rest here:
The Barstool Bros' Split Over Abortion Could Determine the Future of the GOP - POLITICO

I

My preference for female artistes (outside groups) has two sides in a balance. On one side there is Joan Baez, Janis Joplin, Carole King, and Joni Mitchell. On the other, there's Ella Fitzgerald, Billie Holiday, and Nina Simone.

There are others like Olivia Newton John, Mary Hopkin, and Sarah Vaughan, but I listen to the above seven more.

Baez, Joplin, King, and Mitchell pushed the boundaries of songwriting for women. They were storytellers telling their own stories, and stories of their time.

Fitzgerald, Holiday, and Simone were singers who gave life to the great American songbooks and composer-songwriters of their time. However, Fitzgerald had her fair contribution to songwriting. Holiday also wrote a few songs.

When I reached the end of my formative years, these seven female voices became my lighthouse.

II

Aman Bhai, a friend who happens to be a child psychiatrist once told me, if you treat a child as an adult, they'll respond back as an adult. I remembered this. When I became a father, I would encourage serious and open discussions with my daughter, Annapurna. Whether because of this or not, Annapurna has shared things with me ever since she and I can remember. This gave both of us a portal to transcend a generation divide.

A couple years ago, I asked Annapurna to give me a list of some albums I could present her in vinyl (LP). A few days later she gave me her list. The second serial was circled. It was Amy Winehouse's Back to Black.

Annapurna told me, "Listen to this album. You'll like Amy."

I had no idea who Amy Winehouse was. The only guess I could make was from her surname. It was evident she was Jewish and white. I now had to listen to the "Back to Black" single.

The 10-second intro sent shivers down my spine. The moment Amy started to sing, I was blown away. Had I listened blindfold, I'd have thought I was listening to a black voice. When she spoke, I was even more surprised. She had a British accent. London Cockney to be precise.

The seven female voices that tuned my ears are all from the USA, with Joni from Canada. I never came across one British female voice worthy to be inducted into my personal "hall of fame". And here I was listening to such a voice that was full of power and majesty.

My curiosity didn't end here. Amy's voice was tearing emotions out with honesty. The lyrics were unexpectedly explicit, but honest. The voice was raw, natural, and full of melancholy. In the melancholy there was an emptiness.

I never heard a female voice with this emptiness. I had to find out more.

III

Back to Black has eleven songs. Each song is different, but they all string into a common thread. Like Joni Mitchell's Blue (1971), Back to Black is an autobiography of a young girl trying to understand relationships. Like Carole King's Tapestry (1971), the album navigates through different experiences of a young girl.

Back to Black songs are songs of love and betrayal. They're not sugary. If love can kiss, it can also bleed. This is the freshness and honesty I never found in depth in the song writing of Baez, Joplin, King, and Mitchell.

There was still something different with Amy. In her voice, you can feel blues, gospel, and jazz oozing. However, it wasn't polished. It was raw. Only Billie Holiday, in the seven female voices that were my lighthouse, had that raw voice.

Once you hear a voice like that, you know there's a story behind all this.

IV

The more I explored Amy through her studio albums and live performances, the more it became evident, that she wasn't listening to sugary pop while growing up. Coming from a musical family, and her paternal grandma Cynthia knowing the jazz musician Ronnie Scott, intimately told you what type of songs her young ears were subject to.

Frank Sinatra's "Fly Me to The Moon" was one of the first songs Amy listened, at the age of two. She would sing the song to cheer her up.

While growing up, she listened to Motown girl groups. She listened to gospel voices in Mahalia Jackson and Aretha Franklin. She listened to the jazz of Sarah Vaughan, Dinah Washington, and Thelonius Monk. Ella Fitzgerald and Billie Holiday also trained her ears. Carole King, Madonna, Michael Jackson, Alanis Morissette, and others were also with her in her formative years.

Amy only wanted to be a jazz singer. When she applied to the Sylvia Young Theatre, she wrote in her essay, she wanted people to hear her voice and forget their troubles. Many certainly did. She also wrote songs to forget her troubles. Sadly, she failed to make ends meet.

Growing up near and later settling in Camden in London exposed Amy to the bright and dark sides of popular culture. Camden is a place that makes dreams. And dreams can go either way. They can be fairy tales or can end up in nightmares. When you live between the two in a place like Camden, you need to be managed well. Sadly, that wasn't the case with Amy, before or after her fame. Her death was just the end, but her troubles started well before that fateful day, July 23, 2011, when she never woke up.

V

Amy Winehouse was the missing link in my balance of seven female voices. The balance needed a voice that would resemble both its sides. Amy was that voice. Through Amy I explored Adele, Fiona Apple, Billie Eilish and some others. Somehow, they lack that raw, honest, and sincere emotion in their voice, and the lyrics came so naturally with Amy.

Although Amy is no longer with us, "I'm not ashamed even if the guilt kills me" to say that she was a breath of fresh air while she sang, and fresher now as we look back with a smile on our faces on an artiste who was honest and natural.

Asrar Chowdhury is a Professor of Economics at Jahangirnagar University. He is the author of Echoes in SHOUT of the Daily Star. Email: asrarul@gmail.com; asrarul@juniv.edu

See more here:
Remembering the honest and natural voice of Amy Winehouse - The Daily Star