It's a bit early in the year to be discussing Strictly Come Dancing, a show that's essentially one long sequined advent calender for Christmas, but I could not resist discussing news that Alesha Dixon is to take over from Arlene Phillips on the judging panel.
You can read an entire article about it here, which includes a nice little trailer for the BBC Autumn schedule featuring blog honey David Tennant if you get bored.
The essence of the story is that Arlene Phillips (66, professional choreographer, wrinkly, much given to making comments about male dancers' hip movements) has been sacked from Strictly and replaced by Alesha Dixon (30, singer, the winner from a couple of years ago, flawlessly beautiful, no real knowledge of dancing at all) in order to "refresh the brand". The "brand" took a nasty knock last season when John Sergeant walked out mid-series, a decision which may or may not have been related to the judging panel's bullying comments, many but by no means all of which were ascribed to Arlene. Alesha is likely to be a nicer presence than Arlene. But lots of people could be a nicer presence than Arlene, and there are things Arlene brought to the table that Alesha can't provide, the most obvious one of which is having any proper understanding of ballroom dance technique.
It doesn't take the most paranoid of feminists to ask questions about an older, opinionated woman being knocked out of the panel in favour of a younger, more agreeable one, particularly when that panel is already weighted 3 to 1 male to female. Last season, Strictly fell behind in the ratings against X Factor, who had "refreshed" their brand by replacing older, opinionated Sharon Osborne with younger, more agreeable Cheryl Cole. The obvious difference is that Cheryl Cole, no matter what you might think of her, is a working professional singer, whereas Alesha Dixon, charming as she is, is just someone who once won a reality dance show, with a lot of help from her professional dance partner.
Ah yes, the professional dance partner. If they really did want to appeal to the Cheryl Cole demographic, why not move one of the professional dancers across, who is young and sympathetic but who can also provide informed commentary to the audience and advice for the contestants?
But Jay Hunt, the controller of BBC1, batted away accusations of ageism by saying "the average age of the BBC1 viewer is 52, so why would I take older women off the channel?" (although what exactly is the average age of the Strictly viewer - and what age would they like it to be?) - so it must just be coincidence that the new judge is so young and gorgeous. If Alesha Dixon has not been chosen because she's young and beautiful, what has she been chosen for? Hunt says: "Alesha has lived through it, we've still got all the experts who understand the technicalities of the Argentinian tango."
In other words, she's been on the show herself, so she understands what it's like, and she hasn't been chosen for her expertise but for her empathy. Which means she's there to be the most sympathetic, likeable and uncritical of judges.
But having the only woman on the panel be the one who is there to be sympathetic, likeable and uncritical is just as bad as having one there for eye candy. It's 2009. Are we still so frightened of a woman with an opinion?
Posts
29 comments:
I am an infrequent flyer on Air Strictly, and my snap thoughts are: I would have sacked Arlene forever ago because although all of the prepared judgements are a bit grim, the content and delivery of hers make me want to eat my feet; yes, though, once you get rid of her, I couldn't agree more that you should get in a female choreographer, and preferably a spiky one.
Well I suppose that in some ways, I feel that Arlene brings the least to the table when it comes to the current judges.
Len knows more about ballroom dancing.
Bruno is funnier.
Craig is perhaps better at being mean but incisive.
But I do think there's a lot of truth in the suggestion that they've managed to hit both sexist double standards about the way we perceive men and women...
He is craggy and distinguished; she is wrinked and old.
He is assertive and outspoken; she is aggressive and a bitch.
...both in their choice of who to get rid of and perhaps, more importantly, in their choice of who to replace her.
I always thought there was a bit of the latter (outspoken women being badly perceived) in the treatment of Heather Mills. I'm not saying she's an angel nor that Paul isn't a saint; but I think her attitude and demeanor would have been interpretted quite differently if she were a man. (Anecdotal aside: me, my wife, and our dog took a long walk along the Brighton sea front yesterday and ended up at her new cafe in Hove where we got chatting with the head chef, who was very complementary about her, and how good she is to work for).
As a second aside, one thing I love about writing is that in contrast to pretty much every other entertainment form, you can debut in it at pretty much any age, whereas with things like pop music, acting, tv presenting and so on, if you haven't made it by time you're 30, it's generally too late to start.
Which is a good feeling when you're 40, and just starting to get going.
What's frustrating is that whenever something comes up like this, both men and women turn around and say "it's a sexist double standard, we'd rather watch a woman with something to say, no matter what she looks like" (not suggesting that Arlene is such a woman, just that her replacement might have been) - so who is making these sexist decisions, and whose interests do they think it serves?
both men and women turn around and say
Well this is anecdotal and possibly irrelevent evidence, but in the case of Heather Mills, who I'm not necessarily a fan of but who I think has been badly treated, it usually seems to pan out as me defending her against *women* who quite passionately dislike her.
I'm not saying that all women dislike her, but men don't seem to have an opinion on her, while a lot of women seem to really not like her.
In a similar vain, more than one woman I know (I think all older) really, really didn't like Lisa Snowdon from last series, where I thought she seemed quite nice.
Respectfully, I think that's a sexist double standard in itself. When women don't like women, it's cited as some kind of catfighting / internalised sexism / proof that women are the true misogyninsts / etc. When men don't like men? Nothing.
Respectfully, I think that's a sexist double standard in itself. When women don't like women, it's cited as some kind of catfighting / internalised sexism / proof that women are the true misogyninsts / etc.
That is a seriously good point, and one I hadn't previously considered. Yes, that is a double-standard.
But I think in this case I wasn't saying simply that when women take a dislike to other women they're automatically being sexist. I was more saying that if a woman takes a dislike to another woman because of reasons that she wouldn't apply if the other woman were a man, then it's sexist.
i.e. If a woman boss sacks all women over the age of 50 because she thinks 50+ women look "old" but keeps all the men over the age of 50 because she thinks 50+ men look "distinguished" then those women concerned are still being sexually discriminated against, despite the fact that the person doing the discriminating is also a woman.
In the case of Heather Mills and Lisa Snowdon, the feeling I got (and I'll admit that I could be completely off-base here) was that the women concerned were judging them differently than they would have judged men. (i.e. They didn't like them because they felt they were aggressive and opinionated and thought too highly of themselves, and I feel they might not have come to that conclusion had Heather and Lisa been men).
But I'll concede that not only is my evidence anecdotal, quite possibly biased, and heavily guessed, I've also got to be very careful that I'm not falling into the trap you've just highlighted - attaching a significance to women-women disputes that one fails to notice when considering men-men disputes.
I'm hope I'm not coming across as one of those men who attempts to divert arguments about sexism by saying, "Hey you women are the worst!" Instead, I'm trying to state my feeling that prejudicial attitutes are so ingrained that all of us can often find ourselves treating people differently, without even knowing about it.
In this case, I do think there is quite a bit of sexism involved in the Alene Phillips case - on I think a lot of different levels. People will always say that older women shouldn't be moved aside like this, but what they say and what they do (i.e. what television channels they watch) might be different.
I think that the X-Factor's producers were possibly sexist in replacing Sharon Osborne with the younger Cheryl Cole, but if audience figures then went up you might argue that the viewing public were sexist also.
Not sure if any of that makes sense...
Or a less verbose way of saying it would be to say that:
Society itself is sexist against women, so when decisions are taken that sexually discrimate against women, those decisions are often driven/forced by society's sexism and not by the personal wishes of the person taking the decision; as such, it's often therefore the case that the person taking the decision is themself a woman."
Which I should stress isn't intended to give those people who make discriminatory decisions some kind of moral, get-out-of-jail-free card.
And equally I should reply by saying: yes, women can be just as bad as men. Certainly.
Here's another thing to consider: I didn't like Lisa Snowdon, because she reminded me of the kind of girl who was bitchy to me at school. That's not how I would have judged a man, but then again there weren't bitchy boys at my school, and men wouldn't judge her that way either because fewer of them would have been bitched at by girls at their schools. So it's gender-situated. But is it sexist?
Arlene is an institution and the BBC go and treat her like she should be in an institution, and wheel in the harmless young skin in the shape of Elysha.
Certainly she is very lovely but the whole point of Strictly is surely that celeb non dancers get scrutinised by PROFESSIONAL dancers. The winning trophy has still got Elysha's fingerprints on it so in my view she doesn't have enough dance know how to offer - YET - to be a judge.
Arlene was dumped because she's crotchety and has to spend too long in make-up
Anna May x
It's simply an outrage. The BBC is constantly using copycat tactics to try and catchup with ITV's success and it really looks a bit pathetic.
Have a backbone BBC!
So it's gender-situated. But is it sexist?
That's a very good question, so much so that I'm going to have to go away and think about it.
:)
....and one more thing. Lisa Snowdon was convinced she was the most gorgeous, interesting creature on the planet. She would be a rubbish friend - the sort who only ever wants to talk about herself - that's why women didn't like her on Strictly.
I've thought for a long time that the "women vs women" issue is neither a sexist issue nor a gender-related one, but a symptom that women still have a ways to go in the journey from being second-class citizens. The late comedian Freddie Prinz had a routine where he wondered why Hispanics had it in for Afro-Americans. "It's because they know they're next," he'd declare, meaning that if blacks weren't there to take the brunt of things, it would be worse for other minorities. I think a similar thing happened in Poland and occupied Slavic countries during the Second World War where the Nazis were sometimes saved the trouble of persecuting Jews themselves by the next group up the liquidation ladder. Sure, there's a long history of anti-Semitism in those countries, but I think there was also the sense of "We're next."
What I'm trying to say, very badly, is that it's a sad fact that oppressed people tend to mistreat each other. Most black men murdered in the United States are murdered by other black men. And women, instead of supporting each other, often drag each other down: married vs singles, stay-at-home mums vs work-outside-home mums, skinny vs fat, pretty vs ugly, young vs old. I can't help but think that if we really were liberated, we wouldn't need to put each other down. I guess we're not out of the woods yet.
So it's gender-situated. But is it sexist?
Okay, I think that's difficult to answer because I think as a society we've (de facto, if not de jure) created too narrow a definition for the word sexist.
Warning: possibly pompus lecture mode follows... :)
We decided that sexism and racism are always morally wrong, from which it follows that if something isn't morally wrong then we won't call it sexism or racism.
But I would say that for an action to qualify as sexism or racism (or perhaps strictly speaking as sexual or racial discrimination - which possibly are slightly different things) it merely has to deliver a discriminatory outcome. Being conscious and deliberate is what makes that action immoral in addition to being racist or sexist.
I think this was where people were coming from when they created the concept of institutional racism, which was that idea that if an organisation has policies and practices that deliver a racially non-neutral outcome, then that organisation is, as an institution, racist, even if no one person ever set out to be racist.
The best example I ever read about was some special training that was being given to magistrates to explain the differences between the ways young black boys and young white boys are raised to behave while being told off.
Basically, young white boys are expected to show contrition by looking at their feet (i.e. they're too embarrassed to meet the gaze of their accuser). However, young black Afro-Caribbean boys were taught to look their mothers straight in the eye when they were being told off. (i.e. "You look at me when I'm telling you off").
Magistrates give longer sentences to defendents who don't show contrition for the crimes they've committed and shorter ones for those that do. So...
- the deeply contrite white youth who looked down at his feet while the magistrate was summing up might get away with a community service; but
- the equally deeply contrite black youth who looked straight at the magistrate thoughout the summing up, never once looking away, would go down for a prison sentence - because the magistrate thought he was an arrogant little sod who was giving him the eye.
No-one set out to be racist, but the effect was; young black men were more likely to be sent down by white magistrates because those magistrates were ignorant of the culture with which they were dealing.
So I think that there are some areas where we can only fully eliminate sexism and racism by changing our underlying attitudes as a culture, and educating ourselves as to how we think. As long as we have sexist attitudes about women, beauty and age, then we're going to (subconsiously) prefer to watch younger women on TV, and as long as we prefer that, older women will get moved out.
As to you and Lisa Snowdon, I still don't know. Personally, I went to a co-ed school, was bullied by both sexes, and as a result was mistrustful of pretty much *everyone* until my mid-to-late twenties. (When a boy hits you to impress a girl, and she coos and laughs with admiration when he does it... well it's difficult to work out which gender you're going to be most screwed up about). So I was pretty gender-neutral in my screwedupness.
:)
I suppose I would say that it isn't sexism, because it's driven by your individual personal circumstances which in this case aren't really gender-related. (i.e. It's not that she's a girl, it's that she reminds you of a certain type of person, but since that certain type of person was a girl, then by definition, only girls will trigger that response).
I fear I'm coming across as horribly serious. You wouldn't believe I claim to be a humour writer, would you? :)
"It's 2009. Are we still so frightened of a woman with an opinion?"
I think to a certain extent it's the nature of almost all the talent shows to have either no extremely opinionated people or just one person who is the licensed bastard/bitch, and everyone else semi-sympathetic, whether that's X-Factor, Dancing on Ice, Strictly, America's Got Talent, Pop Idol, America's Greatest Inventor and so on. Whether that person is male or female isn't the issue - eventually, it gets whittled down to that formula (although you could argue there aren't that many licensed bitches). If you watch America's/Canada's/Britain's Next Top Model, though, the licensed critic who lets rip is always the woman, and even when they get rid of one (eg Janice Dickinson, Twiggie, Pauline Whatserface), they always replace her with another critical woman (although Twiggie was nicer. Which is probably why they got Pauline P on).
But in answer to your question, yes, almost certainly if we go by the panels they invite onto Question Time, not so much if we head over to Late Review territory (is that still on?), and the papers, particularly, The Sun, the Daily Mail, The Mirror (3am girls in particular), The Star and the assembled women mocked by Private Eye collectively as "Glenda Slag".
I did have some female friends at uni and we'd watch Question Time together. I remember a special "all female" panel (because, you know, all-male panels are such a rarity on QT there wasn't much point highlighting them) where all the women were nice and cooperative and didn't say anything disrespectful to one another. My friends all collectively went "Oh, get some men on", because they were so bored and wanted some fighting. And they were card-carrying, women's-group attending feminist members of Newnham College, too.
So there's oddness in attitudes everywhere.
Forgot to point out that over on Dragons' Den, where everyone is a licensed bastard, the younger, more photogenic, slightly passive Rachel Elnaugh got replaced by the older, less photogenic, very outspoken Deborah Meaden. So it might just be a BBC1 trend since BBC2 is bucking it.
And who doesn't love Margaret on The Apprentice?
Well on Dragons Den, Rachel only got kicked off because her company, Red Letter Days, went tits up and she lost most of her money (I believe one of the other Dragons stepped in and bought it).
Well, the thing that most struck me when I read about this story in today's paper was the language used by Jay Hunt - to such an extent that I blogged about it here: http://charles-lambert.blogspot.com/2009/07/face-of-factual.html
True - Peter and Theo now joint run Red Letter Days. But the producers could have hired a Rachel clone (not sure what the online dragon is like. Same age as Rachel and set up that dotcom networking thing First Tuesday or whatever it was called)
It is probably about time Strictly had a bit of a revamp and Arlene is, by far, the weakest judge. Her awful scripted comments will not be missed and, as I recall, she would rarely offer any technical advice at all.
I don't think it is a sexist decision at all but one made to get rid of a weak element of the show.
As the programme is built around voting off the worst performers it makes perfect sense to me.
Perhaps, Scott, but you haven't addressed the question of her replacement. Though really we should reconvene once Alesha's had a chance to show what she can do. She might just surprise us.
Her replacement is probably the most popular contestant in recent years.
Makes perfect sense to me.
This could quite possibly a sexist and/or ageist move but they are two accusations that you could levy at numerous changes in all sorts of walks of life. Sometimes you'd be right, sometimes you'd be wrong.
What would be just as bad would be not making changes purely to avoid such accusations.
If Arlene were the best and most entertaining judge then my suspicions would be raised. She isn't, so they aren't.
I like Alesha, and as you say she's hugely popular. I think she would have been a natural to take over from Tess "Dead Eyes" Daly, whose role - not always convincingly performed - is to be warm and empathetic to the nervous celebs backstage. But the role of judge does imply some judgement. No matter how charming Alesha is, I'd still rather have someone with something to say.
Two "older ladies" in our shop were discussing a friend yesterday. She was going on a "Len Goodman weekend" and they were speculating with some relish on what that might involve...
"But the role of judge does imply some judgement. No matter how charming Alesha is, I'd still rather have someone with something to say."
I'm actually quite pleased by this decision. Arlene's cringeworthy alliterations were getting beyond parody, as were her comments about male contestants' bottoms (which would have been unacceptable from a male judge about a female contestant, surely?).
As for Alesha's judgement, don't we all, as unprofessional viewers, judge Strictly every week? Our opinions fill the chat forums, message boards and blogs. I can't help but feel that Alesha will reflect that public opinion on the panel, leavened by her own experience on the show.
And, Marie, it is NEVER too early to speculate about the next series of Strictly! Bring it on! :)
Well this is one of those situations where I'd prefer to be wrong, so I'll keep some humble pie aside just in case Alesha turns out to be brilliant.
Arrivederci to Arlene's atrocious alliterations.
Aloha to Alesha's acerbic and assiduous aphorisms.
(Apologies!)
I think this is a pretty strange decision - the balance of the show is good, that's why it's popular.
Marie, as you say, Alesha would be a perfect replacement for Tess Daley (the sooner the better - did you see her on Children In Need last year? I was begging for Fearne Cotton to come back on screen - COTTON!) but I have always liked and appreciated the fact that the panel is made of people who have spent their entire working lives in dance.
Another point of view:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2009/jul/10/strictly-come-dancing-arlene-phillips
Post a Comment