12 Mar
2024
12 Mar
'24
6:38 p.m.
Since "ageism" has been mentioned, I'd like to share an idea I've often
had. I wonder if anyone thinks it's a good idea, or if it's already done at any
contra dances. What if one dance per evening, perhaps in the first half, were done at a
slightly slower tempo, and featured choreography that allowed for some standing around.
Perhaps a dance like Chorus Jig, where some folks could choose to join at the end. Or a
more recent dance that still features down time, for example one where the 1's and
2's have separate swings. I think that might be helpful to some elderly dancers, if
you have them, and to others who may not have a lot of stamina, or who get dizzy easily,
etc. It might be a way to make contra dancing even more welcoming than it already is.
Richard
in Arlington, MA
On Mar 12, 2024, at 1:36 PM, Julian Blechner via
Contra Callers <contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
I'm nodding with a lot of comments from the last couple days. Louise articulated some
base concepts clearly, which a lot of y'all expanded on.
There are some contradictory ideas about gender and sexuality with dance, and I think we
in general tend to shy away from delving too deeply in public discussion. I've been
accused of "shaming" people for asking why a man may prefer dancing with women.
The thing is, I've also said what I think nearly everyone - including most/all of the
strongest advocates for genderfree contra - has said: its OK to have preferences for
partners. I think it is sometimes hard to presume these discussions are done assuming the
benefit of good intent, given how much gender and sexuality is an enormous political and
civil rights topic in the US and most Western nations. But, I presume this good intent,
and I think nearly everyone here does, too, so, I'm taking another stab at this
topic.
Here's some ideas I've been chewing over in an attempt to dig into this more
deeply:
- dance is often a courtship ritual
- despite this, inter-gender set dancing has a long tradition in Western dance, and
partnering with someone hasn't really ever been a "oh, I am attracted to
them". To use the overused example of Jane Austen novels, even then it's clear
family dance together, friends dance together, and strangers dance together just to have
any partner.
- children are at our dances. So if a person is choosing partners based on heterosexual
tradition, why, um: EW
And thus is where the conversation often stops. But to break it down more:
- So, when someone says they prefer to dance in non-genderfree dances, with a partner of
a different binary-presenting gender person, in trad roles, there's 2 possible,
non-exclusive reasons:
1. That their choice is about courtship, but "make exceptions" for people
you're not attracted to. Which, I guess is fine in and of itself, but I think people
with this preference often may not consider _just how many exceptions_ there are.
2. Their choice is more about embracing traditional gender roles. I'll get back to
this.
So, in the case of #1, the problem isn't just about "what do we do with the fact
that about 5% of people aren't straight". (And realize the number being 3 or 4
times as high among surveyed youth, with numbers lower in areas where anti-lgbtq law and
sentiment pervades).
The problem is also about fat phobia. And bias against people who aren't
"conventionally attractive". And ageism. And disability phobia. Then there's
the even worse case of when a person both claims attraction is their main factor for
partner preference ... and also has a preference for much younger dancers. :|
Pushing back on the idea of "partner preference because of sexual preference"
is about all these issues - fatphobia, ageism, disability phobia, beauty-bias, etc. Now,
maybe these things aren't a priority to everyone, but, I'm going to assume that
the overwhelming majority of people on Shared Weight are interested in most, if not all of
them. And, inevitably, remember - youth, beauty, and able-bodiedness all will fade for
everyone.
In reality, I think partner and role preference for trad-gender-partnering actually has
to do more with gender norms. So insofar as sexual-attraction for partner preference, I
think pushing back, openly, against this, can benefit dance communities in many ways. And,
ultimately if that's not actually the main reason, then it isn't really harming
anyone if we present it and deal with it with compassion and patience for those having
difficulty with the change. It's not like people aren't going to flirt and meet
sexual partners anyway; we simply don't need to establish dance as a
courtship-by-default space.
Which leads to look at the other reason, #2: wanting trad gender partnering because you
just like trad gender roles.
In and of itself, that's fine. If you like ways of having your binary gender
reinforced, there's nothing wrong with that. And while I'm not transgender, my
friends who are and have shifted/come out as a different binary gender identity deserve to
have their gender affirmed, too. While me, personally, I don't need reinforcement
about being man (which is its own privilege), I respect people's desire for their
gender to be respected and celebrated.
So, what does that mean for dancing?
- Ultimately, as long as people are finding partners and having fun and people are
respectful of anyone they meet in line, great!
- As noted, splitting up people because of gender is disrespectful on several levels.
- That complaining about "ah, so many neighbors are my same gender" is setting
one's own preference above everyone else's. In short: it's selfish.
- If someone refuses to dance with someone of the same gender (or nonbinary/agender folks
who "don't look like the opposite gender") then that's selfish. It's
not _as_ selfish as the last item, and, generally, if this is what they choose, I
don't see the positive outcomes from pushing it.
So, if someone wants to just dance trad gender preference in partners, that's fine to
me.
There is, though, the big Catch 22:
If someone believes gendered roles "are just role names", while simultaneously
have a strong/sole preference trad-gender-partnering, this is self-contradictory. That
person is trying to have it both ways.
And so, I leave with the thought: this last bit I see as a core sticking point to more
equality and inclusion at dances.
How do we address this?
Can we start looking at this more openly in a way that is compassionate buy also more
direct that we have been?
In dance,
Julian Blechner
He/Him
Western Mass
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024, 12:24 PM Tanya Merchant via Contra Callers
<contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
<mailto:contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote:
I’m bumping this for folks who want to talk about gender preference in dance partners.
And while I understand the valid social and historical context that would make inactive
roles a good thing for the social part of social dancing, like Jeff, I’m also really glad
we don’t do that much anymore.
Tanya H. Merchant
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 06:01 Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers
<contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
<mailto:contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote:
"The whole point of moving away from Proper to First Couples Improper
or Becket was that you then had people of the opposite gender on both
sides of you in your minor set, so that all Neighbour and Partner
interactions were with the opposite gender"
That's one advantage for some people, but another advantage of
Improper and Becket is that they make it much easier to have
equal-turn dances, where everyone is 'active' simultaneously. No more
waiting fifteen times through for a chance to be a "one" and then only
getting to dance it twice before the music stops.
Jeff
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 8:54 AM Katherine Kitching via Contra Callers
<contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
<mailto:contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote:
On the topic of a comfortable swing that maintains the ballroom hold, i'll repeat the
suggestion I offered a few months back.
As part of our transition to promoting a culture of "we encourage everyone to dance
with everyone else, regardless of gender, age, level of experience or any other
factor" - and also as a reaction to covid, we've started designating the standard
neighbour swing (and default partner swing, if you don't know your partner and
don't want to experiment), as a "modified ballroom hold" - which we call the
"elbow hold".
This swing gives a little more space between the couple, without in any way compromising
the effectiveness of the swing in my opinion. (Though I am sure there will be some other
opinions out there ;). )
Ballroom hands same as always.
Other hand cupped around the back of the upper arm of your partner, just above the
elbow.
Taller person's arm goes above the shorter persons arm.
The more I practice this hold, the more I like it.
I find it makes me more comfortable with everyone (and in fact, as a cisgender woman I
find it makes the most difference to me when dancing with men, I have found I like having
a bit of extra space between me and any man who is not my spouse :) )
I offer this in the spirit of "something my group finds effective".
KK
Mar 12, 2024 7:18:46 AM John Sweeney via Contra Callers
<contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
<mailto:contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>>:
Hi all,
I once called Chris Page’s dance where the dancers scatter individually and
find someone with whom to do a Gypsy Meltdown (Gypsy & Swing). Many of the ladies got
together leaving two men alone in the middle of the dance-floor. There was absolutely no
way that those two men were going to Swing each other in a Ballroom Hold.
There was an article in the EFDSS magazine not so long ago about this very
challenge. The author was concerned that by going gender-free they would lose many good
male dancers who weren’t comfortable with the situation.
Someone in these threads said that, if you prefer dancing with ladies, then
there is nothing preventing you from only asking ladies for a dance. But what happens
when you get in the set and find that every Neighbour that you meet is a man!
I and my wife dance many styles, West Coast Swing, Blues, Ceroc, Modern Jive, Tango,
Salsa, etc. 99% of the time it is one man with one lady (OK, I specialise in dancing with
two ladies at once, but that is another matter!). Occasionally there will be same-sex
pairings, and nobody thinks anything of it. But it is not being forced on them in the way
that contra dancing is forcing same-sex pairings as you meet and interact with all your
Neighbours.
The whole point of moving away from Proper to First Couples Improper or Becket was that
you then had people of the opposite gender on both sides of you in your minor set, so that
all Neighbour and Partner interactions were with the opposite gender!
I think part of the challenge is the very close Ballroom-Hold Swing which many men find
too intimate with another man. Of course there are lots of symmetrical holds that don’t
have the same challenge – you are further apart. They don’t have the “Pointy Hand” to
help you remember which side to finish on. I often use these myself in contra dances when
I have a good partner, doing a different Swing each time through the dance, but I know
which side to finish the Swing on. I suspect the Ballroom-Hold Swing is too embedded in
Contra Dance culture to change now, though, of course, it was not always so.
The communities that I call for all want men dancing with ladies. I use geographic and
positional calling where it helps. I start most sessions by saying, “Find a partner,
traditionally one man and one lady, but anyone can dance with anyone.” 99% of the time
they will dance with the opposite gender.
Personally I have a real problem with Larks & Robins since I use Men & Ladies in
my calling. For me the L in Lark makes me think of Ladies, not Left. It really hurts my
brain!
I am all for anyone dancing with anyone. I dance the Lady’s role and will Swing anyone.
I love Chaos Lines! (And please don’t assume that you know anything about my sexuality!)
I feel that it is very sad that the traditional and historic concepts are being lost.
Our culture has always been very inclusive, with everyone welcome and anyone dancing with
anyone they want. I am not at all convinced that any benefits outweigh the losses.
Happy dancing,
John
John Sweeney, Dancer, England john(a)modernjive.com <mailto:john@modernjive.com>
01233 625 362 & 07802 940 574
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk <http://www.contrafusion.co.uk/> for Dancing in Kent
_______________________________________________
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
<mailto:contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net
<mailto:contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net>
_______________________________________________
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
<mailto:contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net
<mailto:contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net>
_______________________________________________
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
<mailto:contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net
<mailto:contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net>
_______________________________________________
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave(a)lists.sharedweight.net