Bake-Off’s Ruby should ignore the rotten eggs and keep baking

Plus, we should accept that Halloween is a sickening occasion

Grace Dent
Wednesday 23 October 2013 19:16 BST
Comments
The finalists (left to right): Ruby, Kimberley and Frances
The finalists (left to right): Ruby, Kimberley and Frances (BBC)

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Great British Bake-Off finalist Ruby Tandoh had so many excellent lines in her response to the sexist feedback the show got. Any woman who shows her face on television knows exactly how she feels. “The criticism ranged from the gently cynical,” she said, “to the downright obnoxious. But as the series went on I noticed an increasing degree of personal vitriol and misogyny. We (female) finalists are supposedly too meek, too confident, too thin, too domestic, too smiley, too taciturn…”

Tandoh was accused of flirting with Paul Hollywood to gain favour, of manipulating with her tears, of not doing “real cooking” like male chefs would, and of course, just being a “filthy slag” for daring to appear publicly anyway. Keep making the meringues, Ruby, and ignore the rotten eggs. You’re amazing.

We cannot police what people wear at Halloween

Sad news for any of you planning to dress up as a zombie Jimmy Savile on 31 October – tacky tracksuit, cigar, blood-stained mouth – because the costume has been withdrawn from Amazon. The decision followed a flurry of complaints by people who felt that someone, somewhere who they didn’t know might waggle said cigar at a house-party, do the “jewellery, jewellery, jewellery” catchphrase, and by default offend them.

Savile was a genuine monster, stuff of horror fiction, a beloved children’s entertainer with a grim secret life. But we cannot police what people want to put on to scare their friends in their own homes. Personally I don’t want to dress up as Savile – nor do I want to dress as a slutty witch, a beheaded Queen or a zombie Miley Cyrus – but I accept that Halloween is about celebrating ghoulishness, and revelling in distatefulness. If I can suspend my tedious feminist academic bleatings about “witches being a 15th-century patriachal construct” or “Henry VIII’s murdered wives not being a laughing matter”, then hopefully others can appreciate that one person’s hilarity is another person’s jarring problematic hobby-horse.

We either ban Halloween and its entire concept of laughing at ghoulish misfortune or we accept that most scary things are a tad sickening and remember that it’s only for one day.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in