pretty simple really, heard lots of talk of sexism and ageism in their decision to replace Arlene. It just occurred to me that at the age of 66 ( retirement age in the uk of 60 for females) Arlene has not had her contract renewed. This is a contract the BBC gave her when she was 59/60 and she first started on the show, where was the ageism in that ? she has been replaced with another female.. where is the sexism in that ?
how can the BBC be ageist and sexist ?
1 of 2
Originally Posted by yelsel:
“pretty simple really, heard lots of talk of sexism and ageism in their decision to replace Arlene. It just occurred to me that at the age of 66 ( retirement age in the uk of 60 for females) Arlene has not had her contract renewed. This is a contract the BBC gave her when she was 59/60 and she first started on the show, where was the ageism in that ? she has been replaced with another female.. where is the sexism in that ?”
“pretty simple really, heard lots of talk of sexism and ageism in their decision to replace Arlene. It just occurred to me that at the age of 66 ( retirement age in the uk of 60 for females) Arlene has not had her contract renewed. This is a contract the BBC gave her when she was 59/60 and she first started on the show, where was the ageism in that ? she has been replaced with another female.. where is the sexism in that ?”
Because it fits with peoples arguements. They can't use racism in this instance so have to try to hang it on something else.
Because if we are going by the law then Bruce and Len should have retired
The problem is combination- look at the likes of Moria Stuart, Anna Ford and Kate Adie- all perfectly capable of doing their job but traded in for younger models
Converse is Bruce is 81- has there been anything to suggest this will happen
The problem is combination- look at the likes of Moria Stuart, Anna Ford and Kate Adie- all perfectly capable of doing their job but traded in for younger models
Converse is Bruce is 81- has there been anything to suggest this will happen
Because Len is a similar age and Bruce is far older. If they don't want to be accused of age/sexism they too should be replaced for bright young pretty things.
Originally Posted by Quizmike:
“They can't use racism in this instance so have to try to hang it on something else.”
“They can't use racism in this instance so have to try to hang it on something else.”
Personally I see it as an appalling case of alliterationism- discrimination against people who alliterate (awfully)
I don't see it as ageist or sexist- just stupid!
If you wanted to I do think you could make a case for ageism/sexism in the following way:
-The panel will now consist of three men who know the technical stuff, and a girl who will just be saying "I know how hard you're trying", and "wow that was a great performance". So all the small children who watch this show now get a subtle impression that men know the important things and women just sit looking pretty. Sexism
-To "refresh" the panel, Arlene was replaced with someone half her age and with less than half her knowledge. So we get the impression knowledge is less important than age. Ageism
-The panel is now considered "refreshed" with three middle-aged men and one young attractive female. The older men don't need replacing but the older woman does. Ageism and sexism
I don't particularly see it that way because I thought Arlene was a liability long before the JS affair, and I'm glad she's gone even if her replacement is ridiculous. I particularly remember her awful "Pole dancer" comment to Ola. But I don't think it's completely absurd to be offended by the implications of this decision.
-The panel will now consist of three men who know the technical stuff, and a girl who will just be saying "I know how hard you're trying", and "wow that was a great performance". So all the small children who watch this show now get a subtle impression that men know the important things and women just sit looking pretty. Sexism
-To "refresh" the panel, Arlene was replaced with someone half her age and with less than half her knowledge. So we get the impression knowledge is less important than age. Ageism
-The panel is now considered "refreshed" with three middle-aged men and one young attractive female. The older men don't need replacing but the older woman does. Ageism and sexism
I don't particularly see it that way because I thought Arlene was a liability long before the JS affair, and I'm glad she's gone even if her replacement is ridiculous. I particularly remember her awful "Pole dancer" comment to Ola. But I don't think it's completely absurd to be offended by the implications of this decision.
Originally Posted by katie_p:
“Personally I see it as an appalling case of alliterationism- discrimination against people who alliterate (awfully)
I don't see it as ageist or sexist- just stupid!”
“Personally I see it as an appalling case of alliterationism- discrimination against people who alliterate (awfully)
I don't see it as ageist or sexist- just stupid!”
I like alliterationism. Good word. May I put forward Manusvoculism (predujice against people who talk about hands)?
Very good!The whole thing is also inappropriatist- they are just biased against Arlene because she makes inappropriate lewd comments about married men on live TV. And also once announced well before the watershed that she wanted raw sex.
Originally Posted by katie_p:
“ Very good!
The whole thing is also inappropriatist- they are just biased against Arlene because she makes inappropriate lewd comments about married men on live TV. And also once announced well before the watershed that she wanted raw sex.”
“
Very good!The whole thing is also inappropriatist- they are just biased against Arlene because she makes inappropriate lewd comments about married men on live TV. And also once announced well before the watershed that she wanted raw sex.”
Poor Matt Dawson will probably never forget that
Originally Posted by Quizmike:
“
I like alliterationism. Good word.”
“
I like alliterationism. Good word.”
Long live the
Alliance Against Anti-Alliterationism.
I'm glad some people in here see the funny side of the ageism/sexism argument.. : ) i guess it's just a handy hook to hang some blame on.
but just thinking that the argument re Brucie still being there at 80.. does this become reverse ageism as they have favoured an OLDER person ?
Personally i blame it on the Alliterationism alliance
but just thinking that the argument re Brucie still being there at 80.. does this become reverse ageism as they have favoured an OLDER person ?
Personally i blame it on the Alliterationism alliance
I'm afraid Brucie's being there is part of the point yelsel...the rule being interpreted as applying mostly to women 
Originally Posted by katie_p:
“ Very good!
The whole thing is also inappropriatist- they are just biased against Arlene because she makes inappropriate lewd comments about married men on live TV. And also once announced well before the watershed that she wanted raw sex.”
“
Very good!The whole thing is also inappropriatist- they are just biased against Arlene because she makes inappropriate lewd comments about married men on live TV. And also once announced well before the watershed that she wanted raw sex.”
and that she had a little but!
I did sometimes find myself agreeing with Arlene though when she wanted the guys to sex it up.
Especially Gethin. That's probably sexist as well though. Do they ever tell the female contestants they have the sex appeal of a wet flannel?
Hello all, new to the strictly forum. Just heard the news 
I strongly believe that the move to replace Arlene could be to replicate the success of Xfactor when Cheryl Cole replaced Sharon Osbourne, even though Sharon chose to leave (not sure about Arlene).
For 5 years the show has been successful with the original line-up, so I'm confused as to why they would want to change, unless for the above reason, and possibly to revamp or refresh the show. I have a feeling ageism does come into it, especially when you look at the knowledge of Arlene and Dixon when it comes to dancing. Nonetheless, it is an entertainment show, and I'll be interested to see how it turns out with the new lineup of judges.
As for Brucie, isn't he considered a national treasure? For me he is part of Strictly!
perhaps that is how other people feel. He, along with the older judges appeal to the older audience I assume, as the young female ones will draw women and hormonal boys .
Anyway, that's my oponion, apologies if it's been said time and time again. Enjoy the show.
I strongly believe that the move to replace Arlene could be to replicate the success of Xfactor when Cheryl Cole replaced Sharon Osbourne, even though Sharon chose to leave (not sure about Arlene).
For 5 years the show has been successful with the original line-up, so I'm confused as to why they would want to change, unless for the above reason, and possibly to revamp or refresh the show. I have a feeling ageism does come into it, especially when you look at the knowledge of Arlene and Dixon when it comes to dancing. Nonetheless, it is an entertainment show, and I'll be interested to see how it turns out with the new lineup of judges.
As for Brucie, isn't he considered a national treasure? For me he is part of Strictly!
perhaps that is how other people feel. He, along with the older judges appeal to the older audience I assume, as the young female ones will draw women and hormonal boys .Anyway, that's my oponion, apologies if it's been said time and time again. Enjoy the show.
Dannii Minogue replaced Sharon Osborne, not Cheryl Cole. Cheryl Cole's arrival was actually to facilitate a more ageist decision even than that - the splitting of the younger person category to give them even MORE chance of winning.
And if this decision is sexist and ageist (which I don't think it is) maybe they're just reflecting the core values of their audience? Last year was a litany of talented older people (Cherie, Don, even arguably Gillian) being eliminated before their time and nobody giving a shit. And if you go by public vote alone it's highly probable that the last 4 winners would have been men and only 1 woman would even have made the top 2.
Just kind of ironic that the audience is coming out so strongly against the BBC being ageist and sexist when they as a body are both.
And if this decision is sexist and ageist (which I don't think it is) maybe they're just reflecting the core values of their audience? Last year was a litany of talented older people (Cherie, Don, even arguably Gillian) being eliminated before their time and nobody giving a shit. And if you go by public vote alone it's highly probable that the last 4 winners would have been men and only 1 woman would even have made the top 2.
Just kind of ironic that the audience is coming out so strongly against the BBC being ageist and sexist when they as a body are both.
I thought Danni Minogue was a judge with Sharon before she left? Nonetheless, it is clear Cheryl Cole's introduction was a business move.
I don't believe the situation is sexist, but influenced by ageism. Then again, I have no idea whether Arlene wanted to leave, or that producers felt it would be good for business to input some younger blood to balance the judging panel.
You are right IMO. The Xfactor gained more success after Cole was introduced. Natasha Kaplinksy, well she probably didn't encourage the resignation of her successor but she brought some success to 5 news. If the formula didn't work, it wouldn't be used to attract an audience. I doubt most viewers will boycott strictly because of Arlene's leave - I won't. I'm gonna give it a chance and see what happens.
I don't believe the situation is sexist, but influenced by ageism. Then again, I have no idea whether Arlene wanted to leave, or that producers felt it would be good for business to input some younger blood to balance the judging panel.
Quote:
“Just kind of ironic that the audience is coming out so strongly against the BBC being ageist and sexist when they as a body are both.”
“Just kind of ironic that the audience is coming out so strongly against the BBC being ageist and sexist when they as a body are both.”
You are right IMO. The Xfactor gained more success after Cole was introduced. Natasha Kaplinksy, well she probably didn't encourage the resignation of her successor but she brought some success to 5 news. If the formula didn't work, it wouldn't be used to attract an audience. I doubt most viewers will boycott strictly because of Arlene's leave - I won't. I'm gonna give it a chance and see what happens.
Originally Posted by SideshowStu:
“I'm afraid Brucie's being there is part of the point yelsel...the rule being interpreted as applying mostly to women”
“I'm afraid Brucie's being there is part of the point yelsel...the rule being interpreted as applying mostly to women
”
see what you mean, but law of averages and all that, she had a 1 in 4 chance of going under any change to the judging panel, she had a 100% chance of going if they wanted to replace her because she was female or old female, and she had a cat in hells chance of staying after last years debacle...
Why are all the judges being lumped together age wise, to say sexist ageism has been applied? Ok Arlene and Len are close together age-wise, but Bruno is a few years younger now than Arlene was when she was first hired, and Craig is young enough to be her son.(, what a strange thought!) The fact that Craig & Bruno have stayed and Arlene has gone may be an argument for ageism, but not sexist ageism surely!
, what a strange thought!) The fact that Craig & Bruno have stayed and Arlene has gone may be an argument for ageism, but not sexist ageism surely!
Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that this was in any way some sort of payback for the JS saga...If things were so bad as to merit sacking Arlene at the time I think they would have done there and then.
Originally Posted by SideshowStu:
“Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that this was in any way some sort of payback for the JS saga...If things were so bad as to merit sacking Arlene at the time I think they would have done there and then.”
“Sorry, I don't buy into the idea that this was in any way some sort of payback for the JS saga...If things were so bad as to merit sacking Arlene at the time I think they would have done there and then.”
I so agree with you Stu. I think all the judges were bad to JS and I agree if they had wanted to make an example of Arlene they would have done it then or at the end of the series. No this is about refreshing the show and trying to get the younger age group watching re: X.factor however do not think it will work as SCD probably does not appeal to 16-23 age group and most of them will be out anyway!!
When contestants are eliminated from The Apprentice Adrian Chiles always gives them a leaving present for which they are famous.
For Arlene it should surely be a good lustful alliteration -- a prize for your best effort. I would enter myself but unfortunately I have been
against alliteration all along, almost always.
For Arlene it should surely be a good lustful alliteration -- a prize for your best effort. I would enter myself but unfortunately I have been
against alliteration all along, almost always.
As a proponent of that theory it's not really about anything as aggressive as "payback" or "making an example of". It's clear the public got out of hand last year - anti John Sergeant people started harassing his wife, and pro John Sergeant people flooded the BBC with complaints, both sides giving the programme lots of negative publicity.
If you soften the panel, you hopefully soften the public. Arlene was by far the biggest target of public vitriol last year (not helped either by all the quotes attributed to her in the press that she both did and didn't say) so we get rid of her, and replace her with a new caring, sharing judge who has been there and can understand and won't judge any of those scary mean technicalities the judges insist on marking.
Personally I doubt the producers see anything wrong with what Arlene did, as it's what she (and Len and Craig) have said about and done towards the worst dancers every year. They're just making a move to prevent the farce of last year happening again, and have chosen the wrong person to do it with. If they'd gone with Darcey Bussell full-time it probably would have paid off - she's popular, "elegant", and the public can kid themselves she has relevant dancing experience to bring to the table.
If you soften the panel, you hopefully soften the public. Arlene was by far the biggest target of public vitriol last year (not helped either by all the quotes attributed to her in the press that she both did and didn't say) so we get rid of her, and replace her with a new caring, sharing judge who has been there and can understand and won't judge any of those scary mean technicalities the judges insist on marking.
Personally I doubt the producers see anything wrong with what Arlene did, as it's what she (and Len and Craig) have said about and done towards the worst dancers every year. They're just making a move to prevent the farce of last year happening again, and have chosen the wrong person to do it with. If they'd gone with Darcey Bussell full-time it probably would have paid off - she's popular, "elegant", and the public can kid themselves she has relevant dancing experience to bring to the table.
Originally Posted by carol north:
“I so agree with you Stu. I think all the judges were bad to JS and I agree if they had wanted to make an example of Arlene they would have done it then or at the end of the series.”
“I so agree with you Stu. I think all the judges were bad to JS and I agree if they had wanted to make an example of Arlene they would have done it then or at the end of the series.”
Or they would have done it later if they did not want the link between the two. Sacking her in the middle of the show or just after it would not be very wise, IMO.
Originally Posted by Monkseal:
“As a proponent of that theory it's not really about anything as aggressive as "payback" or "making an example of". It's clear the public got out of hand last year - anti John Sergeant people started harassing his wife, and pro John Sergeant people flooded the BBC with complaints, both sides giving the programme lots of negative publicity.
If you soften the panel, you hopefully soften the public. Arlene was by far the biggest target of public vitriol last year (not helped either by all the quotes attributed to her in the press that she both did and didn't say) so we get rid of her, and replace her with a new caring, sharing judge who has been there and can understand and won't judge any of those scary mean technicalities the judges insist on marking.
Personally I doubt the producers see anything wrong with what Arlene did, as it's what she (and Len and Craig) have said about and done towards the worst dancers every year. They're just making a move to prevent the farce of last year happening again, and have chosen the wrong person to do it with. If they'd gone with Darcey Bussell full-time it probably would have paid off - she's popular, "elegant", and the public can kid themselves she has relevant dancing experience to bring to the table.”
“As a proponent of that theory it's not really about anything as aggressive as "payback" or "making an example of". It's clear the public got out of hand last year - anti John Sergeant people started harassing his wife, and pro John Sergeant people flooded the BBC with complaints, both sides giving the programme lots of negative publicity.
If you soften the panel, you hopefully soften the public. Arlene was by far the biggest target of public vitriol last year (not helped either by all the quotes attributed to her in the press that she both did and didn't say) so we get rid of her, and replace her with a new caring, sharing judge who has been there and can understand and won't judge any of those scary mean technicalities the judges insist on marking.
Personally I doubt the producers see anything wrong with what Arlene did, as it's what she (and Len and Craig) have said about and done towards the worst dancers every year. They're just making a move to prevent the farce of last year happening again, and have chosen the wrong person to do it with. If they'd gone with Darcey Bussell full-time it probably would have paid off - she's popular, "elegant", and the public can kid themselves she has relevant dancing experience to bring to the table.”
Not in my house she wasn't! That honour went for the second year running to Bruno 'My girls' Tonioli
1 of 2
