As Gript’s resident wishy-washy liberal, at least on some issues, I am, of course, opposed to the Rose of Tralee.
For all the claims that organisers make to the contrary, it is, in fact, just a lovely girls competition. We are told that this is not true, and that the Rose of Tralee actually celebrates the talents and skills and achievements of Irish women around the globe – but I’d put it to you that there are no circumstances in which a young man would be interviewed by Daithi O’Sé, explaining that he is a qualified brain surgeon, or whatever, and have O’Sé react with “ah isn’t that great, your mammy must be so proud, now, are you going to read a poem for us?”
It is, and has ever been, a celebration of loveliness. A festival of dimpled cheeks and shy smiles and charming recitals. The women on stage are the show. As a viewer our job is to inspect them and admire them.
It’s a free country, though, and some people adore it. Some women seem to adore participating in it. There is no need for killjoys like me to seek to have everything we don’t like banned or abolished. The Rose of Tralee is what it is, and if you like it, great.
It would be a mistake, I think, for the Rose of Tralee to change just to try to appeal to people who do not like it and would not watch it. When you do that, you tend to forget that you exist because of the people who do like your show and watch it every year.
The Rose of Tralee exists and thrives primarily because it appeals to nostalgia – not just here at home, but in Ireland’s diaspora populations, around the world. It is probably a much bigger deal, for example, in the Irish community in Ohio or Texas than it is for the Irish community in Sligo: For us, it’s an event that happens once a year, for two nights, on television. For them, it’s an invaluable connection back to “the old sod”.
Which is why all of this seems like more than just a simple mistake:
The Rose of Tralee will return this month after a two-year break, with new rules to reflect a ‘diverse and inclusive’ festival.
Married women will be able to enter the festival, as well as transgender women and the maximum age for entries will be raised to 29.
The rule changes, which were announced last December, are the first time the age limit has been changed in the festival’s 62-year history.
The age limit was increased slightly from 28 to 29.
Under the new rules entries must be 18 years of age by January 1st and will not have reached their 30th birthday on or prior to September 1st, 2023.
Transgender women are also now eligible to apply for the festival and the new rule state entries must be “female or identify as female”.
One common error that organisations make, in the twenty first century, is to try to become what their critics say they should be. The reason that this is an error is that their critics are usually lying: Take, for example, those ex-Catholics who profess that they would go back to mass if only their church allowed women to become priests. Those people are, almost always, lying, perhaps even to themselves: If they believed in God, and that mass was necessary for their salvation, they would be in church regardless of the gender of the priest. They are not staying away because the church isn’t sufficiently progressive – they are staying away because they don’t believe mass is a religious obligation for them. If there were women priests, some of them would come back for a few weeks, maybe, and then find another excuse to stay away.
So it is with the Rose of Tralee. The first trans Rose, when he or she appears, will garner a big television viewership. The event will garner a few gushing tweets – and as many calling the whole thing nonsense, but those will be from the wrong kind of people, and therefore ignored and denounced. There will be a few newspaper columns celebrating modern Ireland and telling the cranks to shut up. And the cranks will shut up, and turn off their televisions.
Because here’s the thing: Progressives are not, truly, chasing “inclusivity”. They are chasing power. The thrill for them is not really in seeing a married rose, or a trans rose, on the stage in Tralee for the sake of celebrating “inclusivity” – the thrill is in seeing the Rose of Tralee festival bend to their wishes and command. The thrill is in the two words “we won”. Once victory has been achieved, interest fades, as it always does. There’s a reason why “get woke, go broke” has become a popular saying on the internet – and that reason is that it is true. If you pander to an audience that hates you, chances are they still won’t watch even after you have made changes. Meanwhile, your traditional audience, which just wants to watch lovely girls, switches off.
One of the problems, of course, is that the cultural rot has become so entrenched that we now live in a world where many of the people who organize events and shows would sooner not be watched than be watched by the wrong kind of people. You can sense the pride, for example, in some sporting circles that some fans have switched off over the “taking a knee” practice that appeared from thin air 18 months ago: “We don’t want those fans anyway”. You hear it from the more progressive Bishops, about people with traditional religious views. You hear it from movie producers and film critics, about the fans who “just don’t appreciate” the latest star wars movies, or whatever, with their emphasis on diversity.
The married and trans rose move is in this family. They would much rather have the approval, even if it’s only for a year or two, of the right kind of people, than they would have the loyal viewing of the wrong kind of people. It will be the death of the festival, eventually.