3 Jan
2013
3 Jan
'13
11:29 a.m.
I'm trying to make sense of the discussion of this and another forum I
frequent. When did gender terminology become a "problem"? And, is it a problem
that is this serious?
I have been dancing and playing for dances since 1979, and calling since
1981. I "get" referring to "actives" and "inactives" as
"ones" and "twos", or
something similar, since modern contras tend to have both couples active
most of the time. This I can deal with. I have run a family dance series since
1990 and also have led many school-age dances. Most dances I use for these
events can easily be danced without reference to gender. This makes dancing
much more easy for children to buy into. Leading historical dancing as part
of learning about history does tend to go best if boys and girls dance the
part of their gender.
So, when did referring to males and females as something gender-neutral
become the fashion? I've called many dances that had gender imbalances. Heck,
one almost-a-dawn-dance I led had twice as many men to begin with. Those of
us who wanted to dance danced the women's part. It wasn't a big deal. A
popular square and contra dance I ran for many years had 80 or so women from a
sorority show up one night. They were dressed in western attire. We just
adapted the program to make them feel comfortable. (A side note to those who know
our Pittsfield Grange. The band counted 15 squares this dance. The hall
usually feels crowded with 8 squares.)
The first time I remember resistance to gender roles was during the early
90s. Two of my female caller friends tried to change traditional square dance
calls to more gender-free ones. This didn't work well at all for most
singing squares! One of them wrote an article for the CDSS News that shared her
viewpoint. I wrote a response that the editor heavily edited so that my point
was completely missed. A caller/morris dancer from Minneapolis then
"roasted" me in his response. This from a man who danced in an all-male morris
side
that women weren't allowed to join! This whole process forever soured me on
the CDSS.
I learned from many older callers, both square dance and contra, who
followed the traditions of the communities they called for. To use artificial
terms for communities that had no problem with gender terms was just wrong. I
was especially offended by "outsider" callers trying to change things that had
worked for sometimes generations. Who the heck are we to force our views
on others? Things will change if there is a reason for them to change.
Dancing is PLAY, not a means for social engineering.
John B. Freeman
3 Jan
3 Jan
12:23 p.m.
These concerns are expertly addressed by Chris Ricciotti in his marvelous 2006
publication, A Manual and History of Gender-Free Dancing, introduced at
http://lcfd.org/Articles/GFManual/ and freely available at:
http://lcfd.org/Articles/GFManual/GF-Manual.pdf
As Chris writes, there are a number of gender-free styles of dancing and calling from
which to choose. The subheading "Programming an Evening of Gender-Free Dancing,"
which begins on page 18, may be of particular interest here. Gender-free dancing is quite
in agreement with your final comment that "Dancing is PLAY, not a means for social
engineering." Chris cites the late Carl Whittman, who said: "The country dance
form can be thought of as an exquisite vessel, in itself beautiful in shape, yet highly
abstract. We can choose to fill this vessel with whatever meaning we like. If we like, we
can pursue a particular friendship; we can rejoice in a sense of community; we can see in
the music and the dance the highest of spiritual values; we can see it as good fun. The
dance is all of those and greater than all of them."
In the 1970s Carl Whittman developed a role-free system, and later Chris Ricciotti, Carol
Ormand, and others offered their own methods and styles. In his History, Chris shows how
earlier styles and methods developed for groups as diverse as nineteenth-century frontier
cowboys, men in western mining camps, and the Mormons (who in the mid-1800s held teenage
dances segregated by gender), and twentieth-century participants in New York City drag
balls and tenement dances, as well as war year dances of the 1940s.
All of these efforts were intended to build inclusivity where it was challenged by
circumstances, and not to force views on others. Role-free dancing, and indeed all
community dancing, is likely to flourish when keeping this in mind.
I think everyone who has an interest in these things will benefit from reading Chris's
manual and history, as well as looking into other materials available at Lavender Country
and Folk Dancers: http://lcfd.org …. Bob
On Jan 3, 2013, at 11:29 AM, JohnFreem(a)aol.com wrote:
I'm trying to make sense of the discussion of this
and another forum I
frequent. When did gender terminology become a "problem"? And, is it a problem
that is this serious?
I have been dancing and playing for dances since 1979, and calling since
1981. I "get" referring to "actives" and "inactives" as
"ones" and "twos", or
something similar, since modern contras tend to have both couples active
most of the time. This I can deal with. I have run a family dance series since
1990 and also have led many school-age dances. Most dances I use for these
events can easily be danced without reference to gender. This makes dancing
much more easy for children to buy into. Leading historical dancing as part
of learning about history does tend to go best if boys and girls dance the
part of their gender.
So, when did referring to males and females as something gender-neutral
become the fashion? I've called many dances that had gender imbalances. Heck,
one almost-a-dawn-dance I led had twice as many men to begin with. Those of
us who wanted to dance danced the women's part. It wasn't a big deal. A
popular square and contra dance I ran for many years had 80 or so women from a
sorority show up one night. They were dressed in western attire. We just
adapted the program to make them feel comfortable. (A side note to those who know
our Pittsfield Grange. The band counted 15 squares this dance. The hall
usually feels crowded with 8 squares.)
The first time I remember resistance to gender roles was during the early
90s. Two of my female caller friends tried to change traditional square dance
calls to more gender-free ones. This didn't work well at all for most
singing squares! One of them wrote an article for the CDSS News that shared her
viewpoint. I wrote a response that the editor heavily edited so that my point
was completely missed. A caller/morris dancer from Minneapolis then
"roasted" me in his response. This from a man who danced in an all-male morris
side
that women weren't allowed to join! This whole process forever soured me on
the CDSS.
I learned from many older callers, both square dance and contra, who
followed the traditions of the communities they called for. To use artificial
terms for communities that had no problem with gender terms was just wrong. I
was especially offended by "outsider" callers trying to change things that had
worked for sometimes generations. Who the heck are we to force our views
on others? Things will change if there is a reason for them to change.
Dancing is PLAY, not a means for social engineering.
John B. Freeman
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
4 Jan
4 Jan
5:47 p.m.
Perhaps this very discussion/movement is a sign that there is a need for
change. While I respect the value of the traditional terms, and how much
easier they make things for everyone, I certainly understand how they can
be constraining and frustrating for those of us who like a) switching roles
and/or b) switching gender/gender presentation.
Perhaps this is a minority forcing their views on others. But I see it as
small potatoes compared to said majority constantly forcing their views on
us. Sometimes it's a pain to be gender- or role-noncomformist in this
society. The feeling of being a young woman at a dance, following the lead
of a man who dances far too close for comfort, or being a man who dances
follow and is constantly told that he's in the wrong place, or partnering
with your same sex friend only to be told "there are two men dancing
together over there, why don't you just split up and dance with each
other!" as if no one would want a same-sex dance couple if there were any
other option available, or being a transperson who is intrusively asked
their sex when they ask someone to dance. And yes, I've made this point
hyperbolically, but my point is: if a minority seems to be "forcing" its
views on a majority, it is often just push-back for 99x that
forcing-of-views from the past, that doesn't seem like view-forcing
precisely *because* it comes from a majority. But in a certain sense, the
use of gendered contra terms is just that, we've just ceased to notice it
as such.
A last thought: everything is social engineering, because social forces are
at work in everything.
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:29 AM, <JohnFreem(a)aol.com> wrote:
Who the heck are we to force our views
on others? Things will change if there is a reason for them to change.
Dancing is PLAY, not a means for social engineering.
5:54 p.m.
Where are you? You in nyc or mass?
On Jan 4, 2013 5:47 PM, "Maia McCormick" <maia.mcc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps this very discussion/movement is a sign that
there is a need for
change. While I respect the value of the traditional terms, and how much
easier they make things for everyone, I certainly understand how they can
be constraining and frustrating for those of us who like a) switching roles
and/or b) switching gender/gender presentation.
Perhaps this is a minority forcing their views on others. But I see it as
small potatoes compared to said majority constantly forcing their views on
us. Sometimes it's a pain to be gender- or role-noncomformist in this
society. The feeling of being a young woman at a dance, following the lead
of a man who dances far too close for comfort, or being a man who dances
follow and is constantly told that he's in the wrong place, or partnering
with your same sex friend only to be told "there are two men dancing
together over there, why don't you just split up and dance with each
other!" as if no one would want a same-sex dance couple if there were any
other option available, or being a transperson who is intrusively asked
their sex when they ask someone to dance. And yes, I've made this point
hyperbolically, but my point is: if a minority seems to be "forcing" its
views on a majority, it is often just push-back for 99x that
forcing-of-views from the past, that doesn't seem like view-forcing
precisely *because* it comes from a majority. But in a certain sense, the
use of gendered contra terms is just that, we've just ceased to notice it
as such.
A last thought: everything is social engineering, because social forces are
at work in everything.
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:29 AM, <JohnFreem(a)aol.com> wrote:
Who the heck are we to force our views
on others? Things will change if there is a reason for them to change.
Dancing is PLAY, not a means for social engineering.
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
5:54 p.m.
Epic fail replyall. :)
On Jan 4, 2013 5:54 PM, "Ron Blechner" <contraron(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Where are you? You in nyc or mass?
On Jan 4, 2013 5:47 PM, "Maia McCormick" <maia.mcc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps this very discussion/movement is a sign
that there is a need for
change. While I respect the value of the traditional terms, and how much
easier they make things for everyone, I certainly understand how they can
be constraining and frustrating for those of us who like a) switching
roles
and/or b) switching gender/gender presentation.
Perhaps this is a minority forcing their views on others. But I see it as
small potatoes compared to said majority constantly forcing their views on
us. Sometimes it's a pain to be gender- or role-noncomformist in this
society. The feeling of being a young woman at a dance, following the lead
of a man who dances far too close for comfort, or being a man who dances
follow and is constantly told that he's in the wrong place, or partnering
with your same sex friend only to be told "there are two men dancing
together over there, why don't you just split up and dance with each
other!" as if no one would want a same-sex dance couple if there were any
other option available, or being a transperson who is intrusively asked
their sex when they ask someone to dance. And yes, I've made this point
hyperbolically, but my point is: if a minority seems to be "forcing" its
views on a majority, it is often just push-back for 99x that
forcing-of-views from the past, that doesn't seem like view-forcing
precisely *because* it comes from a majority. But in a certain sense, the
use of gendered contra terms is just that, we've just ceased to notice it
as such.
A last thought: everything is social engineering, because social forces
are
at work in everything.
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:29 AM, <JohnFreem(a)aol.com> wrote:
Who the heck are we to force our views
on others? Things will change if there is a reason for them to change.
Dancing is PLAY, not a means for social engineering.
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
6:28 p.m.
I think you are probably right about this being a minority numbers thing. My observation
has been that we as callers and administrators tent to make a bigger deal out of things
than the general dance community.
Case in point..
We recently had a very capable caller who just had a really bad night. Other callers were
puzzled and it became a topic among local callers including the one involved. Everyone
wondered how this could happen. It even got to the point the caller sent an email to the
community apologizing for the problems.
The reaction from the community? They had no idea what he was talking about. They had a
great time and don't remember any of the problems.
I try to look at these issues from the point of view of the new/first time dancer. I
doubt any of them are confused or offended by the use of 'ladies' or
'gents'. However, they are confused by couples dancing reversed roles and
aggressive dancers trying to force them into flourishes they don't understand.
If this discussion were only for dance weekend type environments - it would have a lot
more validity. For weekly dances series events - let's keep it simple, have a great
time, enjoy the music and other dancers and, above all make it a positive experience for
all levels of dancers. Most of them would be surprised we were even having this
discussion.
Mac McKeever
________________________________
From: Maia McCormick <maia.mcc(a)gmail.com>
To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2013 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Callers] When Did Gender Role Terms Become a "Problem"
Perhaps this very discussion/movement is a sign that there is a need for
change. While I respect the value of the traditional terms, and how much
easier they make things for everyone, I certainly understand how they can
be constraining and frustrating for those of us who like a) switching roles
and/or b) switching gender/gender presentation.
Perhaps this is a minority forcing their views on others. But I see it as
small potatoes compared to said majority constantly forcing their views on
us. Sometimes it's a pain to be gender- or role-noncomformist in this
society. The feeling of being a young woman at a dance, following the lead
of a man who dances far too close for comfort, or being a man who dances
follow and is constantly told that he's in the wrong place, or partnering
with your same sex friend only to be told "there are two men dancing
together over there, why don't you just split up and dance with each
other!" as if no one would want a same-sex dance couple if there were any
other option available, or being a transperson who is intrusively asked
their sex when they ask someone to dance. And yes, I've made this point
hyperbolically, but my point is: if a minority seems to be "forcing" its
views on a majority, it is often just push-back for 99x that
forcing-of-views from the past, that doesn't seem like view-forcing
precisely *because* it comes from a majority. But in a certain sense, the
use of gendered contra terms is just that, we've just ceased to notice it
as such.
A last thought: everything is social engineering, because social forces are
at work in everything.
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:29 AM, <JohnFreem(a)aol.com> wrote:
Who the heck are we to force our views
on others? Things will change if there is a reason for them to change.
Dancing is PLAY, not a means for social engineering.
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
6:58 p.m.
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013, Richard Mckeever wrote:
If this discussion were only for dance weekend type environments -
it would have a lot more validity. For weekly dances series events
- let's keep it simple, have a great time, enjoy the music and other
dancers and, above all make it a positive experience for all levels
of dancers. Most of them would be surprised we were even having this
discussion.
Well, yes, that's Maia's point exactly. But for the minority of dancers
who are affected by the current situation, it's an important issue. The
question is whether and how the larger dance community chooses to
accomodate the minority (i.e. how inclusive do we want to be).
We should, I think, keep in mind that the affected minority is usually
larger than it appears and includes people who do not have the overt
characteristics of that minority. A good example is that sidewalk ramps
(curb cuts) initially installed to satisfy the demands of disabled people
have proven extremely useful for parents with strollers.
Designing for inclusiveness and accessibility tends to make things better
for everyone.
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
4339
days inactive
4340
days old
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
6 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Aahz Maruch -
JohnFreem＠aol.com -
Maia McCormick -
Richard Mckeever -
Robert Golder -
Ron Blechner