Ann Widdecombe - a feminist issue?

[seeker]

I head Ann Widdecombe on the radio this morning saying that she went onto Strictly after she retired because she "no longer owed anyone a duty of dignity".

This got me thinking. From my feminist perspective, she owed women generally "a duty of dignity". It seems to me profoundly anti feminist to put yourself in a position where you are laughed at and ridiculed for being a woman, a large woman and a not conventionally attractive woman.

I know that the conventional view is that the public was laughing with her and admiring her pluck and cheek, but I don't think the vast majority were. I think they were laughing at her, and I think the programme deliberately set out to ridiclue her in a profoundly misogynist way.

I admired her for doing something that she wanted to do, regardless of the opinions of others. That is more feminist to me, not allowing the conventional views of others, or their mockery, to stop you.

Agree with Goblinchild.

Didn't watch Strictly. Cringe at all this 'she's a national treasure' stuff.

She is a bigoted, uber-right wing misogynist who thinks herself an exception to the rule that women ought to be at home, making jam and raising children.

So it was OK for her to perpetuate the myth that older, larger women are intrinsicaly funny and fair game?

I didn't say I liked her, or her political views.

What you've said has reminded me of the RolyPolys - the troupe of overweight, middle-aged dancers who graced our screens to much screeching hysteria in the eighties.

I didn't see any dignity in being hooted at for your age or size then and I don't see it now.

I suppose it its her choice, though - and aren't we all grateful we have the freedom to choose?!

Well John Sergeant did it before her so it may not actually be so specifically about women.

In the same way that John Sergeant did perhaps?

I just can't put aside the fact that I abhor her political views and get all warm and fuzzy and 'didn't she do well?'. No, she didn't as far as I can tell.

Oh God, the John Sergeant thing was unbearable, as well.

Yup, she has the right to choose to do anything she likes within the law - that's feminism as far as I'm concerned. (And breaking it can be a feminist statement too sometimes.)

But agree the nasty attitudes to her and to other older/larger ladies are sexist. Don't like comedians who joke about not fancying her - so what, she doesn't fancy them either, that's why she chooses not to have a sex life.

But giving in to that kind of sexism would be anti-feminist, wouldn't it? Middle aged women who aren't terribly good looking shouldn't hide themselves away just because society doesn't value them.

Oh, I agree. I cannot stand the woman, but I the comments about her appearance are completely unacceptable.

I do wonder why people go on those stupid reality shows...

I don't think anyone's saying she should hide herself away (well, maybe Pressure is!), but is setting oneself up for ridicule the only alternative?

Not sure I could have stomached her public appearances in any capacity tbh, but I agree she has the right not to disappear.

'duty of dignity'
Is that what Aliona was presenting, wearing the little pelmet with fringes as she danced the Austin Powers routine with Matt Baker?
Just seen that on Breakfast news. Now if Widdecombe had worn that, you might have cause to complain.

I didn't say she should hide herself away . Just don't understand why she would want to do it. Each to their own, though.

I didn't watch a second of that stupid programme, anyway. Just wanted to stick my two pennies worth in and say 'Widdecombe' and 'Feminism' should be used in the same sentence only with extreme caution.

I agree that it's good she could choose to go on the programme if she wanted to. But isn't there more to feminism than that? To my mind, a feminist sould consider what impact any decision she makes will have on the perception of women in society. ANd I can't see that her choice to be made a figure of ridicule by the media has done anything but a disservice to women in general.

I think the John Sargent thing was different. The programme did not set out to make him a figure of fun. They did not dress him in ridiculous clothes. They did not make him dance a Di Caprio role, or have his dance partner winking at the audience to show that she was complicit in the ridicule.

YY, the female dancers ain't exactly dignified in those skimpy costumes. Not really a feminist statement but colluding with sexism.

I was once at a conference where the after dinner entertainment was some dancers from Strictly. I have never seen a woman wearing less in public, not even on a beach - basically three cobwebs! Brilliant dancing but bloody hell, all the blokes in the audience had their tongues hanging out.

It'd be fair if the male dancers were only wearing jockstraps. Although I'd pay NOT to see that, tbh.

(Oh, and Anne's definitely not a feminist, so you can't expect her to behave as one. But you can judge the people who slag her off for not being what society says a woman should be.)

Not sure where I read it but AW was supposedly very strict about what she would and would not wear. The impression I was given by the article (sorry I can't find it!) was very much "I'll wear what I'm comfortable in and I won't wear what I consider inappropriate." I have a feeling (not that I ever watched it) that she got more daring as the episodes went on.

What is the solution seeker? No women over a certain age unless they are slim and yummy should accept a place on strictly and the like?

I understand your point though but stick to the line that she can do as she pleases.

As edam said, I don't think she is a feminist, so no obligation on her. Actually, is there an obligation on any of us? Sometimes we have to operate on a principles hierarchy and whilst the personal is the political, it's not easy to live life entirely "correctly". I think with Ann (and John) it was an age and imcompetence thing. The younger ones who can't dance just get kicked off early becauee they are less clown-like.

This kind of question gets me quite discombobulated, given that I was brought up in a choice feminism world but now see the limitations of that stance.

Sorry Pressure, was being flippant.

I agree with notjustapot that the general reaction to AW (and JS) was about age and incompetence, and yes, about not being conventionally attractive - I don't think gender comes into this at all.

I actually think Strictly is perfectly capable of taking older female contestants seriously. Pamela Stephenson is the same age as AW and has been brilliant - the most praised contestant by the judges and not at all a figure of fun.

Bue - I think gender is a huge issue here. People make snide remarks about Anne W all the time - essentially about her being ugly or unsexy. In the media but also IRL. Middle aged to elderly women become invisible and they certainly aren't supposed to attract attention - unless, like Pamela Stephenson or Joanna Lumley, they look conventionally attractive. Then they get praise for not looking their age. (Nowt wrong with Pamela or Joanna, btw, but most old women do not look like them.)

AND she was complicit with the makers of the programme in making it OK to regard older, not conventionally attractive women fair game for ridicule. There is a significant difference between the way she was presented and the way John Sargent was presented. He was entertaining, a good sport, cuddly, and the dances and costumes chosen for him reflected this. She was ridiculous and a figure of fun - and a foil for Pamela Stevenson and Felicity Kandall who "did it right". It was "Look, it's possible for older women to fit the stereotype - so it's fine for anyone who doesn't to be treated as an Aunt Sally"