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, [email protected] 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 > [email protected] > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
