Despite the hours we spend workshopping the ladies' chain, we spend virtually no time collectively addressing how to teach gents' (left-handed) chains. As a consequence, male dancers miss out on opportunities to twirl; understanding of the importance of cues and flourish best-practices (as opposed to cranking ladies around) remains spotty; and some great dances* rarely get called.

but address gender issues where they originate, in the expectation that

I'll look again at the left hand chain choreo, but as I remember it,

Hi Tavi et al, I have to challenge you on your history. As a lover of chestnuts, in which the vast majority of courtesy turns are same gender as the dances are proper, and a one time historical dancer, I find your conception of the history of courtesy turn flawed. In the 18th and 19th century, there was no right hand touching any part of the lady during the historical versions of these moves. A Chaine Anglaise (English chain) is the precursor to a right and left through, and was done with a right hand half turn across or pull by, and then an open left hand turn, with the gent swiveling to face in at the last moment. The courtesy being that the lady did not have to alter her body position. Chaine des dames, ladies chain, entailed the gents casting out over their left shoulder to loop into a position to left hand turn the ladies who had turned half by the right. No leading. Just everyone attending to their place in the dance. Eventually, gents began doing what looked more like an escorting of the lady, holding their right arm in a non touching curve behind the ladies backs. I promise you, in the contredanses and quadrilles, there was no more active role for the gents than the ladies. The dances were often complex and every dancers had to know all the details if the set were to succeed. So this whole courtesy turn as we know it is a 20th century thing, and the hyper flourishing a phenomenon of the last decade or two, which seemed to me to have come in about the time swing had a renaissance in the late eighties. Till then, if any flourish occurred, it was a single twirl to the right hand dancer. And I have a theory for its existence. In many old halls, space is at a premium, and lines were crowded. Doing the twirl allows couples to slot through a narrow gap one at a time, no elbow jostling in the attempt to turn as a joined couple. Fundamentally, historically, chains and R&L thru, are symmetrical, move as a unit, with the CT action in the joined left hand. There is no scooping or leading in that right hand, and in fact attempting to do so tends to unbalance the couple, allowing neither to retain a nice upright posture. Let's not conflate squares and contras either. I'd have to agree that squares have frequently been taught and called, by men, as if the men were leading. Which if you dance them, is utter nonsense. If the ladies aren't fully in chArge of where they have to go, the square will break down. In a singer, language like put her on the right is just filler, not an indication of what's actually happening. For sure perpetuated by what was once, and may still be, a male dominated calling culture, I still think we ought to discuss squares separately from contras. I'm all down with you that the dance has become very /lead left, follow right/ in recent times. But let's not blame the dance form itself. Do I think that habitual gent/left dancers would be more courteous about flourishes if they were flourished more often themselves? Sure! We could easily write dances that put them on the right and do courtesy turn moves from there. Or just dance chestnuts, with same gender rights and lefts. But do them in a modern flourishy style. Beyond that, the aspect of the culture which is most to blame is the idea that it matters which sex person stands on the right. If we all danced both sides, and no one thought a thing about it, everyone would learn to flourish and be flourished, and it wouldn't be seen as the province of men to twirl women, or even of left to twirl right dancers. I'll look again at the left hand chain choreo, but as I remember it, none of it is particularly exceptional and worthy outside of the left chain, which right now seems novel, but if we did it all the time, would not seem special at all. You have not persuaded me, Tavi, that there's a compelling reason to add left chains to the repertoire, especially considering many people have trouble with R vs L already, and new dancers doubly so as they are busy absorbing so many new concepts. Talk to me about flow and moving people around or something, but address gender issues where they originate, in the expectation that men dance left, women right. Cheers, Andrea Sent from my external brain On Sep 3, 2016, at 1:45 PM, tavi merrill via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote: Per Richard's excellent point about separating the courtesy turn from the chain, an approach i too use, i want to address the related questions of - lack of attention to chains beyond the beginner level, resulting in - bad/injurious flourishing, partly due to - gendered dynamics in the standard (New England-style) promenade turn - the rarity of gents' LH chains - a call for choreographers to help address all the above We callers spend plenty of time dissecting how to teach the ladies' chain... and almost never address a corollary issue dancers repeatedly bring up in online forums, largely leaving flourishing as a foregone conclusion. We spend precious little stage time delivering the sort of style points that can help dancers flourish safely, courteously, and with consent. I would argue one reason we don't address that enough is that we are either approaching the courtesy turn from a bare-bones beginner angle, or as a foregone conclusion wherein advanced dancers require no additional teaching. A few callers do teach how to signal and interpret signals indicating a desire for or granting consent for flourishes, and i tip my hat to them. But to the issue many (female) dancers raise: too many male dancers don't ask, and either fail to recognize or fail to respect cues around flourishing. Why? Probably because many male dancers much less regularly end up on the twirling (as opposed to facilitating) side of flourishes. Dancers are going to flourish whether or not we teach them how to do it well. But we can help alleviate rampant bad and/or injurious flourishing if we choose. How? By more frequently adding style points in intermediate settings, and by giving dancers an opportunity to experience the other side of the equation. [Now, many of us agree that contra is not a lead/follow dance form, and some go so far as to suggest that in the traditional promenade and courtesy turn, dancers move as a unit that lacks any lead/follow dynamic. I disagree there: placement of the gent's hand behind the lady's back puts the gent in a position to propel the lady. No interpretation of this dynamic is accurate without considering the historical context our dance form emerges from, in which a gendered imbalance is unmistakably present. Consider the gendered language of singing squares recorded by Ralph Sweet. I say this not to criticize Sweet, or any caller who uses such language (eg "put her on the right" or "chain the ladies," the latter an expression i once unquestioningly used in my own calling), merely to point out that traditionally, the gents' role has been considered the more "active" one, and that this gendered sense of agency is reinforced by the ubiquitous and overwhelmingly lopsided promenade and courtesy turn. Contra dance has historically been a gendered form; to deny this is to perpetuate male privilege - the source of bad/injurious flourishing - by denying its presence in the form. In that many contemporary dancers choose to play both roles on the floor, and in that there is a broad consensus among callers that lead/follow terminology is not appropriate to describe an ideal expression of our dance's contemporary practice, a shift is occurring. Nonetheless this is an active shift. To pretend that contra has always lacked a lead/follow dynamic is ignorant of even recent history.] Despite the hours we spend workshopping the ladies' chain, we spend virtually no time collectively addressing how to teach gents' (left-handed) chains. As a consequence, male dancers miss out on opportunities to twirl; understanding of the importance of cues and flourish best-practices (as opposed to cranking ladies around) remains spotty; and some great dances* rarely get called. As with right-handed chains, getting to a flourish requires first mastering the directional flow of the reversed courtesy turn (right with right in front, left hands behind, lady backs up and the gent goes forward). But whether it's boiling the reversed courtesy turn down to an allemande right or writing gents' RH chain dances, it seems precious few callers care enough to bother with teaching and using the LH chain. We have it, for frell's sake, let's USE it. Dancers CAN and WILL gain familiarity if we do, but such progress can occur only if a critical mass of callers are on the same page. Why does this matter? Because if indeed we believe our tradition to be one in which both roles are equally active, we shouldn't have ladies being twirled against their wishes. Addressing that would be simpler if we agree to stop shortchanging the one move in our choreography that truly challenges the historical gender dynamic. Want to innovate in choreography? What about featuring promenades in reversed hold, or left-and-right through?! Though they exist, rarity renders them the province of advanced dance sessions. Yet every second we spend teaching standard promenade hold turns is something dancers could easily generalize to isomers, if the isomers were on a more equal footing. Because they share a common backbone in the reversed hold (a la Rich's point about the standard RH chain) increased frequency of such isomers would raise dancers' familiarity with the reversed hold, reducing our need to teach it, or isomeric moves, as "unusual," while adding variety to evenings of dance. Should folks indeed be writing them, I am eager to collect such sequences. It struck me a few months ago that, while i have some fantastic dances in my collection involving the gents' LH chain, i knew of none involving a gents LH chain over and back. So here y'all go. This isn't a beginner dance. It's intended for remedial education. Should you use this, I am eager to hear how it is received. "You've Got To Be Carefully Taught (To Twirl)" becket R A1. Partner balance & swing A2. Gents pass L half hey, ladies pushback; Neighbor swing B1. Gents LH chain over & back B2. RH star to meet NEW neighbors in a wave (GR, NL); waves balance, spin right *great gents LH chain dances: "Swain the Hey" by Chris Page, "The Broken Mirror" by Bill Olson, "Rollaway Sue" by Bob Isaacs, "The Curmudgeon Who Ruined Contradance" by Eileen Thorsos, "Generation Gap" by Thankful Cromartie, and the obvious reverse-engineered variation on "Secret Weapon" by Lisa Greenleaf Please note: The preceding theory arguments are premised on a notion that to survive, traditional forms evolve. Some elements of the form - the ubiquity of a historically gendered dynamic that drives problematic dance behaviors - could stand to be lost in this process. I believe that a truly equal dance dynamic would preserve the best elements and tendencies of the form and increase the safety, joy, and appeal of community dance. Practically speaking, we'd be doing all the same moves, just without the lopsidedness, by widely adopting both isomers. In curmudgeonliness, Tavi _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net