Karan Hardy: An Example of Ageist Attitudes

Karen Hardy, at 39, has been accused replaced by two dancers in their twenties.  This apparently is an attempt by the BBC to keep things “fresh” and “exciting” but according to many people, it is a clear example of ageism.  One reason was that they want to make the audience younger, to try and take some of the x-factor audience.  However, younger people can have older role models to aspire to, and especially if such models are talented and successful, and she has been.  She was described by a source as “one of the best dancers.”  Now she is being replaced by Katya Vishilas, a 25 year old from Lithuania and Natalie Lowe, 28 from Australia.  Previously Arlene Philips was considered past it at the age of 66 and was replaced by 30-year-old Alesha Dixon, a former winner of the show, but with no dancing background.

The problem with all of the above is that as usual, things have been decided for us.  The BBC has decided that Karen is too old, and has also decided that we want to watch younger dancers.  Did they ask us what we want first?  No.  It certainly does not seem that so many people are particularly bothered about her age, she is merely entertaining them by dancing.  After all, we would not know her age at all if it were not told to us, and she is not wielding a passport and birth certificate while dancing and does not have 39 strapped to her forehead.  It does become frustrating when a person cannot just be more than a number – a representation of age.  Not all people of a certain age are the same.

Ageism seems to come into effect as soon as a person turns eighteen and probably even before then as well.  As a young Ethiopian woman in her mid twenties informed me, after trying to apply for housing, “they said they cannot help me because I am not under 21.  Life continues after 21.  If you need a house, you need a house, it is not about age.”  The problem is that many organisations and associations operate on an ageist basis.  Approaching the till in Tesco is a sign that demands ID if you approach the till while appearing to be under the age of 25.  There does not seem to be any logical reason why just coming with ID to show that you are twenty-five or twenty-six is going to mean that whatever you buy and whatever you do, it will be good, lawful and responsible.  In fact we often witness the contrary.  Aside from this, if a person drinks at eighteen or at twenty-five, they will still get drunk and behave in an irresponsible way, therefore, the issue is not with the age, but a persons actions, their attitudes and mindsets.  A person can be quite mature and responsible at twenty – more so than another at thirty and so forth.  Therefore, such ageist restrictions are becoming a little ridiculous.