Ship of Fools: Is Strictly sexist?

Thread: Is Strictly sexist? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029558

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

There is a wider question here, but for a start, I watch Strictly Come Dancing, and it strikes me that the whole premise of it is stereotyping the genders.

The men are all expected to be strong, macho types. The women are all skimpily dressed and expected to be helpless. They are also expected to flash their pants during the dance.

And, of course, this applies to the whole of the ballroom/latin dancing world. The stereotyping is inherent, not just a part of a world.

I think what really got me is in one Strictly dance, the man lifted the ladies skirt. I thought that was inappropriate, and it got me thinking. So this is where my thoughts have led me, and I am interested in other peoples insights.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

And, of course, this applies to the whole of the ballroom/latin dancing world. The stereotyping is inherent, not just a part of a world.

Ballroom dance, and many other dance forms, have distinct "male" and "female" parts, and tend to force people into one of those roles - just as if you went to the ball, your choice would be tailcoat or ballgown. So in that sense, gender roles are inherent in the format.

"Strictly", and perhaps Dancesport in general, is a whole different ballgame (ballroom?), with, as you point out, all the skimpy costumes and knicker-flashing and so on.

Latin dance is more overtly sexual than ballroom, which is part of it. The general sexualization of modern society, and particularly women therein, is part of it - the competitors on Strictly flashing their gussets aren't doing anything that the likes of Rihanna or Katy Perry don't do.

And yes, it's overtly sexist in a way that goes far beyond the conventional gender roles present in the structure of many dance forms.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It reminds me of Judith Butler's idea that gender is performance, and something like Strictly is high camp performance. It's also highly sexualized, witness knicker flashing. Hmm, I feel ambivalent about this. Is sex sexist?

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Didn't I read somewhere that a certain Scottish sect didn't approve of sex because it could lead to dancing? When I catch the last few minutes of Strictly before watching Dr Who, I am weekly reminded of that.

I used to think apache dancing was sadistically sexist, but it seems to have crawled all over Strictly - is that why the word has crept into the title?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, you could see Strictly as a kind of sexual pantomime, but with a kind of safety factor, thus, knicker-flashing and men's bare chests, but no dicks and tits. Something that granny and the kids can all enjoy.

But the question as to whether this pantomime is sexist, is very interesting. It's certainly sexy, in a certain kind of camp performance style.

Also interesting that gay stuff is included, witness the two gay judges, who sort of camp it up also.

We are lacking some lesbians and trans people.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

I had a similar reaction to SC at the bit I think he's alluding to, but ... ISTM that it's not an entirely straight-forward situation.

On one level, yes Strictly is deeply, inherently sexist. The dances promote exaggerated hetero-normative gender roles, the costumes are often very T&A, everything is highly sexualised; the men get fawned over for being macho and trad handsome, the women complimented for being visually attractive etc.

On another, the men and women are essentially on a level playing field[1], the pros are all treated as acknowledged experts and valued for their skills regardless of gender, there's as much "Phwoar" style behaviour at some of the men as the women[2], and whilst the dances are all highly cis, nobody's under any particular illusions about Craig, Bruno and some of the dancers (albeit I think mostly in the past, off the top of my head). And the female pros are quite clearly the boss of the male celebs, and respected as such, at every point other than during the dance when the man is supposed to lead.

So it is sexist, but I'm not entirely sure it's sexist in a bad way, for the most part.

Even the skirt-lifting vignette had a knowing element of "We can only get away with this in the context of the dance" - and possibly then only because of which couple it was, playing up to all manner of stereotypes.

And they have bust stereotypes before, e.g. some of the little narratives in the dances, and things Alison Hammond doing the lift rather than her partner (which I thought was done nicely rather than nastily, although that could fall either way, potentially).

Or maybe those are just thin excuses because of my culture and background, and I should be voting with my off button ...

[1]Allowing for the vagaries of public opinion and the editor's splice ...

[2]Within trad parameters

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I don't watch, so maybe I should jsut mind my own business, but the connection of no trans people and all very gender roles seems to fit remarkably well. I'd be interested to see if they could include a trans person and still keep tightly defined normative gender roles. (Not say they should keep said roles, mind.)

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I don't watch, so maybe I should jsut mind my own business, but the connection of no trans people and all very gender roles seems to fit remarkably well. I'd be interested to see if they could include a trans person and still keep tightly defined normative gender roles. (Not say they should keep said roles, mind.)

I'm not sure if everyone keeps tightly defined roles. For example, when Bruce Forsyth left, some people argued that they should keep a male/female balance, but thank the heavens, that the utterly divine Claudia was retained as co-host. Hence, two women run the show.

As to whether the dancers themselves keep to tightly defined roles - that's very interesting, and would require some micro-analysis, which I haven't done.

It seems that both male and female bodies are being displayed, in terms of glamour, sexuality, and so on, but you would have to do some detailed study beyond that.

Of course, people like sex, and like public enactments of it, with a bit of concealment.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

As Snags pointed out, it is not entirely clear, which is why I wanted to know what others thought.

Yes, having two female presenters is a real positive. Not having Brucie is also a positive, IMO.

The fact that 2 judges and a number of the pro dancers are non-cis is a real positive for the show, and is part of what makes me question how negatively sexist it is. Incidentally, I had to check that Bruno identified as gay, because I would have suggested that he might be bi. That would make one of each on the panel.

On that point, they have had very gay people on the show, and very un-sexy people too.

What is more, I would totally acknowledge that there is a link between dancing and sex - it is deliberate and explicit. Dancing with someone, in a non-professional way, is a little like saying "I might be interested in having sex with you". So having sexy dances, and sexy costumes is part of the game - I think more so for latin than ballroom, but only because latin is more explicit. I think Pride and Prejudice makes it clear what ballroom was about.

But it is a show. Ladies will do well in ballroom if they glide elegantly and are submissive to their partners. Even when they are the pro, they pretend to be submissive, which sends the message, I think, that good women are elegant and submissive to their male partners.

Men will do well if they take control and drive the dance, which is enforcing a stereotype of men as strong, in charge, defending the helpless women. The message is that this is what good men do, whether they are acting it or not.

I would offer in comparison contemporary dance styles, where there is far less gender definition or stereotype. Where there are male and female roles, they are far less likely to slip into the "weak female/strong male" idea. I think, in terms of dance, this is a better set of imagery - and against which, Strictly seems particularly dated in attitudes.

Not that I won't be watching, of course.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

This article raises a few more issues that are sure to raise their heads in due course. Trad ballroom, it seems, is rooted in a stylistic interpretation of traditional male-female relationships. So seeing it as a kind of pantomime equivalent of dance entertainment seems like a good fit. A lot of it is exaggeration, for both sexes; including the costumes, make-up, tans etc. So the elements that are anchored in traditional sexist views of men and women, are no doubt very exaggerated.

Of course, the superb physicality of all performers - well, the professionals anyway! - rather belies the 'men-strong, women-weak' argument, no matter what the story is being acted out.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Schroedinger's Cat wrote:

But it is a show. Ladies will do well in ballroom if they glide elegantly and are submissive to their partners. Even when they are the pro, they pretend to be submissive, which sends the message, I think, that good women are elegant and submissive to their male partners.

Does it? I'm not convinced about that, or at least, it can be interrogated. However, this takes us into issues to do with fiction, performance, as if, and so on, which might go o/t a bit.

I see the female professionals as phenomenally athletic, strong, sexy, and so on. However, I don't think that that means that good women should be athletic, strong, sexy, and so on.

I started thinking about ballet, but I need to draw breath. It's all those prominent penises in tights, heavens.

[ 29. October 2015, 14:11: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Schroedinger's Cat wrote:

But it is a show. Ladies will do well in ballroom if they glide elegantly and are submissive to their partners. Even when they are the pro, they pretend to be submissive, which sends the message, I think, that good women are elegant and submissive to their male partners.

Does it? I'm not convinced about that, or at least, it can be interrogated. However, this takes us into issues to do with fiction, performance, as if, and so on, which might go o/t a bit.

I see the female professionals as phenomenally athletic, strong, sexy, and so on. However, I don't think that that means that good women should be athletic, strong, sexy, and so on.

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Of course, the superb physicality of all performers - well, the professionals anyway! - rather belies the 'men-strong, women-weak' argument, no matter what the story is being acted out.

I suppose a lot of it is relating to the judges comments - they are always telling the men to "lead", the women to be beautiful and elegant. The point is, irrespective of their personal strength etc, the way to win, to be judged well, is to fit into the required roles in terms of the dance.

I know that there is a lot of physical skill and strength required by the women in a lift. But the underlying message seems to be that the "strong" man lifts the compliant woman. It may not be there if you analyse it, but as a popular entertainment show, most people won't analyse it.

This is one of the issues with sexist messages - they can be very subtle, and not stand up under any sort of scrutiny, while still be accepted by many people.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

Not necessarily disagreeing with anyone, but it’s worth saying that possibly the most popular contestant the show has ever had was… Anne Widdecombe. She really wasn’t the knickers-flashing type. But maybe the reason public was so fond of her was because she upset the usual modus operandi?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Schroedinger's Cat wrote:

I know that there is a lot of physical skill and strength required by the women in a lift. But the underlying message seems to be that the "strong" man lifts the compliant woman. It may not be there if you analyse it, but as a popular entertainment show, most people won't analyse it.

This is one of the issues with sexist messages - they can be very subtle, and not stand up under any sort of scrutiny, while still be accepted by many people.

But you seem to be arguing that viewers will therefore believe that men should be strong, and women should be compliant. I'm not convinced that that's correct, and also, I wonder how you know that.

One of the problems is with as-if presentations, or performance really. Thus, you talk of an underlying message - how do you know that there is one?

Viewers might believe that professional women are very tough, athletic, well-trained, and so on. But I don't know if they do or not, as I don't have enough information about the interface between performance and people's beliefs.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

In quite a number of "contemporary" dance pieces (not ballroom), men lift other men, women lift women and, sometimes, women lift men. I've seen that on stage just in the last couple of weeks. But this dance genre is not so steeped in tradition and rules, though it is (often) built on solid ballet principles.

Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on :

I can't see the appeal of the programme, but then, I don't like any blood sport.

Cheers, PV.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
We are lacking some lesbians and trans people.

The US version, Dancing With the Stars, had Chaz Bono one season, and was pursuing Caitlyn Jenner. Chaz was not very good as a dancer, and Caitlyn was busy with her own new reality show. If her career tanks, no doubt she will be more interested...

One thing I’ve noticed in the US version is that it is more likely to be ageist--they will put 15 year old kids in with 75 year old men and women. The older people are always gone first--they aren’t physically capable of the kind of lifts and displays that seem to be required as the competition progresses.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

It could IMO be easily as construed as sexist against the men: Claudia and Tess have made a number of 'leering' comments at one or two of the male contestants and pros eg: "Cor! Aliaj got his shirt off!" in a way that if a man had made a similar comment about a female contestant/pro (especially if it was Bruce) it would have been deemed to be socially unacceptable.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is sex sexist?

Yes, people who date members of only one sex are sexist. That's the way the world mostly seems to work, though.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

I know that there is a lot of physical skill and strength required by the women in a lift. But the underlying message seems to be that the "strong" man lifts the compliant woman. It may not be there if you analyse it, but as a popular entertainment show, most people won't analyse it.

This is one of the issues with sexist messages - they can be very subtle, and not stand up under any sort of scrutiny, while still be accepted by many people.

I suppose that's why the point about it being a kind of pantomime is important. Does the entertainment of pantomime compel us, however sutbly, to believe that female characters are only funny if they're only actually men dressed as a frock? Or that leading men are only romantically viable if they're really girls pretending to be Prince Charming?

Certainly some people might read into trad ballroom their own prejudices of women=submissive followers, men=strong leaders. But to translate that, in this day and age, into therefore women should only ever be subordinate to men in all walks of life, suggests a level of sexism that goes well beyond the camp rhinestone glitter of Strictly.

Still, it is a good OP to consider. Strictly is a phenomenal icon of current pop-culture. And pop culture is by its very nature not likely to stay standing still for very long.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Of course, people like sex, and like public enactments of it, with a bit of concealment.

Good statement there quetz.
That's why I prefer figure skating/ice dancing . All that spinning and swirling around, with scant garments flowing freely in the breeze.

I just don't get all this beef with sexism. So long as sexuality is being celebrated in a controlled way without oppression to any gender or person, then what's the problem? Don't even know why miss World got the push once things had been evened up with mister World.

Not that I watched miss World, never really 'got it' you might say. Neither do I watch SCD so can' t comment much there.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is sex sexist?

It can be, although it isn't always. I think you should really ask whether sexualization is sexist, because that's what we're talking about. And in that context, I don't see the gusset flashing on Strictly as being any different from the antics of basically every female pop singer.

And yes, I see that as sexist:

Whilst both male and female acts use sex to sell themselves, it's almost universal with female acts: one gets the impression that if you're a woman and want to be successful, you have to get your tits out.
The sex portrayed is generally het-male porn-fantasy

Now, perhaps I'm biased because I'd, personally, prefer to see emotionally-charged glances rather than thrusting groins.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I think you can make a clearer case for sexism in the presentation of gymnastics.

Just llok at the kit differences and the posturing.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think you can make a clearer case for sexism in the presentation of gymnastics.

Just look at the kit differences and the posturing.

I was just watching that, but the focus of gymnastics is the ability. They are awarded for being strong and flexible, whether male or female. The message that comes over is that physical prowess is rewarded.

But yes, the kit differences are rather sexist. But I think there is a more positive message underneath.

The thing about Strictly is that what is rewarded - the underlying message - is that being pretty or elegant or whatever is rewarded for the ladies. It is macho posturing that is rewarded for the men.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Re Chaz Bono:

That's what got me to watch DWTS one season. (I'd avoided all but clips.) And also the veteran whose face had been horribly burned, but was making a career as an actor.

IIRC, Chaz was still getting used to his reformatted body, and I think that interfered with his dancing. But he and the vet were both great.

What was especially good was that Cher, Chaz's mom, sat right down front. When Chastity came out to her mom as a lesbian (early in the whole process), Cher kicked her out of the house! Amazingly, it was Sonny Bono, Chaz's dad, who'd gone back to his Catholic roots, who accepted her!

IMHO, the British judge from back then was a jerk. He loudly pushed dancers to be more flamboyantly sexy--as if the show weren't overly sexy already. Yet I hear some people think it's a family show!

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think you can make a clearer case for sexism in the presentation of gymnastics.

Just llok at the kit differences and the posturing.

I heard a conference paper presented on this. Girls are allowed to wear a costume which covers the thighs, but lose points if they do so. The outfits are difficult to manage for a menstruating teen. Wearing a cycling short type of outfit would be easier, but loses points. I will dig out my notes, but the general gist was that gymnastics is not a healthy sport for teenage girls because it is not just about technical ability but also about body image.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Snags said: On another, the men and women are essentially on a level playing field[1], the pros are all treated as acknowledged experts and valued for their skills regardless of gender, ...

Well said, snags, in your post. I think you have it spot on there. Whether one thinks of the show as being sexist or not, as the series progresses, it is clear to all that the celebs have to work hard to acquire even a fraction of the fitness of the professionals and maybe, just maybe, this might encourage men who would not consider going dancing with their wives that actually it demands a good level of fitness!

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Didn't I read somewhere that a certain Scottish sect didn't approve of sex because it could lead to dancing? When I catch the last few minutes of Strictly before watching Dr Who, I am weekly reminded of that.

Tangent/
I wish I could remember the whole quote. A piping school was to be held on the Isle of Skye, and the local elders did not welcome it (not sure if they succeeded in having it cancelled) because it would lead to dancing,...., and immorality .
The story was around in the fifties when I was in those parts, and I'd be delighted if someone could fill in the missing word.

GG

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
It is macho posturing that is rewarded for the men.

I haven't watched it for some time, but I found it all highly homoerotic, with very revealing costumes for the men. At least one of the professional men is an out gay.

I'd have thought it is getting straight men to act in a way that a generation ago would have been regarded as hopelessly unstraight.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

I'd have thought it is getting straight men to act in a way that a generation ago would have been regarded as hopelessly unstraight.

Yeah.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I asked my wife about it, and she immediately said that she thought Strictly is empowering for women. I don't that's 'correct', since I don't think there is a correct or single interpretation of things like this. It's another view.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

The American version is full of paradoxes, which makes the show fun.

You could say that ballroom is a hetero-normative activity, but they have openly gay professionals and judges, and the show definitely has a gay-positive bent. As mentioned above, they have also had trans-gendered contestants.

You could also say that ballroom is over sexual, but many of the best American born professionals were raised LDS- check out those bios, lots of people from SLC, Sandy, and other parts of Utah. So kids in the most conservative part of the country are dominating the ballroom dance scene.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

Until this year when Len Goodman finally bowed out, he has been one of the American judges, as has Bruno Tonioli. Len was always very good at reigning in the pros, who sometimes let the flash of a routine get in the way of the actual dance.

I don’t know how Strictly actually works out, but on DWTS it isn’t always just about dancing. If you don’t have a strong fan base, or a strong representation of fans in the demographic that watches the show, you’ll probably wash out fairly quickly. It’s usually pretty easy to guess the first 3 or 4 sacrificial lambs before you’ve seen a single dance step.

In the US, at least, it is first and foremost a TV show and only secondarily a show about good ballroom dancing.

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :

Complete tangent, but does anyone know where the 'Strictly' bit of the name came from? 'Come Dancing' was an old TV show (that I never watched) but why 'Strictly' Come Dancing?? What are they being strict about?

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

I always assumed it was a reference to Strictly Ballroom - which is a great movie btw.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
Complete tangent, but does anyone know where the 'Strictly' bit of the name came from? 'Come Dancing' was an old TV show (that I never watched) but why 'Strictly' Come Dancing?? What are they being strict about?

I did watch "Come Dancing" which was a sort of Bake Off for ballroom - ordinary people performing their hobby, for which they practiced the 10 000 hours to do the traditional ballroom, sequence dancing and Latin, and synchronised group ballroom, with the women decked in dresses they had made themselves with myriads of sequins sewn on by hand. It was skillful, but not sexy - except the Latin. It was the sort of dancing people did at dances in those days, except that if someone took the floor dancing to that standard, everyone else would stop and applaud at the end.

I think it is a pity that ordinary people are not shown achieving things more in the "reality" strand of TV.

And I have been internally irritated with the title which doesn't mean anything grammatically sensible for ages.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

SC - has this discussion clarified anything for you? Just out of interest - I'm not a "Strictly" watcher myself.

I'm a bit puzzled by some of the discussion though that may be down to terminology being used.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Is suppose it wasn't as much for me to understand, more to see if there was any substance to my thoughts.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

I think it is a pity that ordinary people are not shown achieving things more in the "reality" strand of TV.

Ordinary people are boring.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

There are quite a few reality shows that use ordinary people: The Great British Bakeoff, Masterchef, The Great British Sewing Bee, The Naked Choir, all those quiz shows,

In fact, if you want to apply there are sites asking for participants: the BBC site includes the next Naked Choir, Bake Off and Sewing Bee and there's another list on the SRO site.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Apologies, Ms. Stewart, I'm printing the legend.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There are quite a few reality shows that use ordinary people: The Great British Bakeoff, Masterchef, The Great British Sewing Bee, The Naked Choir, all those quiz shows,

In fact, if you want to apply there are sites asking for participants: the BBC site includes the next Naked Choir, Bake Off and Sewing Bee and there's another list on the SRO site.

I did think of that after posting! But I had been diverted from it by thinking of Geordie Shore, The only way is Essex, and the poverty porn strand. What I liked about Come Dancing was the numbers concerned - it was local teams, with the audience including the participants, not just a pre-selected few.

I notice there are some ordinary potters competing soon.

I also note that the shopping channels have a lot of ordinary presenters who are there because they have skills in crafts, not because of their appearance.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

You can apply for the free tickets to Strictly Come Dancing along with lots of BBC programmes - some are on the same links as I gave you for applying to be in the shows. There will be some production guests* but the majority of the 400 guests will have applied to be included in the ballot and been allocated tickets. This process starts early - the tickets went up in August this year and the ballot closed on 10 September. The BBC release 800 tickets for each show, so getting there early is essential - people start queuing the night before for the final. For most of the shows you'd have to be there from mid morning as only the first 400 hundred in the queue will be let in and the validation process starts at 12:00 noon. Production guests are put in specific places in the audience.

I was told how many people applied for the Strictly tickets last week† but other than registering that it was huge it went in one ear and out the other - I think he said 4 million this year. The only figure quoted on line is 1.8 million for one of those 800 tickets in 2014.

* one of the Hancock's Half Hour recordings had 90 production guests in the BBC Radio Theatre that only seats 300, but that's exceptional. Mind you, it was fun seeing who was there - lots of well-known faces.
† As I was queuing to go into a recording of Room 101, also at Elstree - it doesn't go out until March, but it will be the one with David Tennant in the next series.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There will be some production guests* but the majority of the 400 guests will have applied to be included in the ballot and been allocated tickets. [..] The BBC release 800 tickets for each show, so getting there early is essential - [..] only the first 400 hundred in the queue will be let in

Is this accurate? You apply for a ticket, get allocated a ticket, and still have a 50% chance of being sent home because other people got there before you?

Is there any reason why this is not the behaviour of a bunch of complete arseholes?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I'm not sure how many are really allocated, I found that figure on line when I looked, but it's a real thing that you get turned away from shows if you turn up too late and it's a popular show. The BBC does deliberately over allocate and the tickets do make it clear that they do not guarantee entry because of this over allocation. The rationale is that the tickets are free and many people don't turn up - as many as 40%.

I wouldn't be surprised if they do allocate double the tickets they want in as I know the numbers I get and it's way over the capacity of the venue, usually.

It's not just the BBC - Hat Trick run Room 101. I was on a priority ticket and it looked as if just the priority ticket holders were going to make it in, all the guest ticket holders were going to be turned away. The same is true of Applause and SRO - it's a regular that guest tickets aren't worth having for popular shows.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Is suppose it wasn't as much for me to understand, more to see if there was any substance to my thoughts.

Ah - OK. The thing that kept throwing me was what different people meant by sexism. Some seemed to mean just "sexed up" or the like. Which isn't sexism, though in any particular circumstance it might become so.

It occurred to me that being a bit more rigorous and separating those two things out might have led to a more fruitful debate.

But back to your ticketing discussion!

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
… Anne Widdecombe. She really wasn’t the knickers-flashing type.

For which I was eternally grateful.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
… Anne Widdecombe. She really wasn’t the knickers-flashing type.
For which I was eternally grateful.

Thank you ever so for your example of sexism.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

The sexism on Strictly works both ways.

It isn't just the female dancers flashing their gussets, but Darcey Bussell commenting on the male dancers with their shirts off.

If this is sexism at least it it is inclusive sexism.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I think it is definitely both ways. It is not just the women who are sexualised, the men are also judged, to an extent, on whether they are strong, get their shirts off, how nice their butts are.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

I think that two things are being conflated: sexism and rigidity of gender roles. To my mind, there is a certain amount of playing around the edges, particularly the peacocking the men go in for with sequins, etc. I'm not sure that there is sexism in the sense of privileging of one gender at the expense of the other, in that each is dependent on the other to be there, but this rigidity and the extent to which it excludes all but the most superficial questioning of gender roles is notable. If there is sexism, then it is detectable in the different rates of attrition between the male and female celebrities (or possibly, of course, male and female professional dancers)...

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0