On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Donald Perley <[email protected]> wrote:
> While you're at it you can make them eat Brussels sprouts and bring a white > board so you can give a calculus lesson. Both good things that everyone > should be into. > "Social Engineering" has gotten a bad rep because of its use as a term describing "malicious and deceptive" practices, mostly having to do with computer hacking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_%28political_science%29 Some callers use the term to belittle any of the subtle but effective techniques that make up the toolkit of good callers. Don't assume that "social engineering" is always used to get people to do what they don't want to do...or what they "should" do. As a caller I try to use all of my skills to get people to do what almost all of them already *want *to do...even if they haven't thought it through very carefully. (For example: People don't really *want *to rush to the center sets and jockey to "beat" others to a good position. We all would prefer a dance where the regulars quickly partner with the first-timers and dancing throughout the hall is enjoyable. If I, as a caller, can "engineer" a situation that makes center set syndrome both unnecessary and less rewarding, then all of the dancers benefit from that--even those who say that they "want" to compete on the dance floor.) Anyone engaged in any effort for social change is a social engineer...and that includes those working for acceptance of alternative sexual orientations. As a caller I don't use up too much of my limited capital of influence to promote social change movements. I do think it is essential that all be welcomed and treated with respect. That's very basic to any open, public event. It's also the law. If I want to work against homophobia at dances I would wear a skirt and dance with men more often than I do. I don't see this as a core purpose of my calling , or my dancing. I sometimes dance the lady's part, and it can be an effort to make a point. But I don't often do that at the mike unless it becomes an issue that affects the entire community. Integrating the first-timers into the hall is enough of a challenge. - Greg McKenzie ********************* > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Dave Casserly > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > If men in the UK are so uncomfortable touching another man that they > don't > > want to swing (which is, in its essence, simply placing one hand on the > > man's back and one on a hand, not exactly an intimate embrace), that is > > unacceptably homophobic. I know there are some on this list who don't > > agree that callers have any part in "social engineering" or letting our > > calling reflect our values as humans, but personally, if I were asked to > > call a dance where the men were that afraid of touching each other, I > would > > have no problem with challenging their perceptions by asking them to > swing > > with each other (obviously there are some people afraid of touching other > > people for other reasons, but in that case, their fear isn't gendered). > In > > that situation, a little "stress" is appropriate; I have no problem with > > causing homophobic people some minor stress when it's their own awful > views > > that lead to their stress. >
