sorcyress | Need a dance icon again, sigh.

Entry tags:

Need a dance icon again, sigh.

So, let's talk a whole bunch about dancing, now that I have ranted at Marc some, and so I have removed all the anger and returned to just frustration.

First off, and mostly unrelated, I feel there ought to be a seminar at things like NEFFA and Flurry which just goes through some of the beginning dance things that can apply to multiple dance forms. Things like "Give weight" or "the most important part of a figure dance is ending in the right spot". Also, up is towards the music, down is away from the music, heads are the people facing or backs to the music, sides are the people with their sides to the music.

Though in all honesty, I can distill all of dancing into three things that everyone should know: Get to the right spot. Give weight. If you're not having fun, you're doing it wrong.

***

Second off...heh. Yeah.

So, today was the Regency tea dance, where I was again specifically asked by one of the local¹ dance historians/teachers to never dance the lady's role while dressed as a gentleman (or perhaps to never have a male partner dance the lady's role while I danced gentleman, which is a problematic distinction, so out of charity I will assume I was asked the first²). The reason is for the sake of the newbies --fine, whatever, it is indeed easier for a new dancer to identify the gentleman and lady's sides of the dance when the people on them are appropriately garbed.

However, if you are going to require me not dance in the lady's role while a gent, then I am going to require two very important things from the dance community at large.

First of all, I require gentlemen to stop asking me to dance. This happens at least once at every ball I go to, and tonight it happened three times for the same dance, which is exasperating, offensive, and time-consuming. If a gent asks me to dance, I must politely explain that I am a gentleman³, disentangle myself from him, and find an eligible lady. This wastes my time, and it wastes the time of my fellow gentleman.

To the end of the dance masters and mistresses, perhaps the best thing you can do to discourage this is to refer to me properly, as a gentleman, when explaining dances. Saying something akin to "and then you will dance with the gentleman across from you --or the lady dancing the gentleman's role" while referring to me⁴ does not encourage your dancers to treat me as a gentleman.

In more blunt terms, when I put on the full tailcoat et al, I am not a lady dancing the gentleman's role. I am a goddamned gentleman, and I will dance the gentleman's role, except in the most dire or intriguing circumstances.

The second thing I require is that, if you insist that gentlemen may not dance together, ladies may not be permitted to ask one another to dance until and unless there are no unpartnered gentlemen.

Oh no! This is terribly sexist, isn't it? Why can't ladies ask each other to dance? Well, because if all the ladies on the floor are dancing with each other, and I am left alone at the end with another gent, our choices are to not dance, which goes against every reason I am here⁵, or to split up another couple, which always feels *terribly* rude to me. Perhaps the other couple is a pair of old friends, who do not see or dance with one another near oft enough. Perhaps one of the other couple is not comfortable dancing with men. Perhaps one is trying to learn how to dance the role of a gent, or is more comfortable doing such. Certainly, they may be quite pleased to be split apart, but especially when they flocked to one another in the early stages of choosing partners, it feels cruel to demand they separate.

So, if gentlemen are not allowed to dance together, then the ladies must wait until all the gents who wish to dance have partnered before joining hands. And certainly, a lady may ask a gent (and I am always honoured and pleased when it occurs to me) in order to expedite this process, but she may not be allowed to ask another lady until there are no unpaired gentlemen.

Now, for what it's worth, I think that second rule is complete and utter bullshit. When I am clothed as a lady, or clothed gender neutrally, I often ask other women to dance, in either role, because there are many people I like dancing with, and not all of them happen to dance the gentleman's role. I am fond of this ability.

Furthermore, I am perfectly willing to dance with another gentleman. Honest. I won't freak out or feel I've lost out on an important flirtation⁶, or feel otherwise cheated. I know many gentlemen --male, female, or queer identified-- who feel the same way, and are perfectly willing to dance either role with another gent.

And no, I'm not even encouraging male/male dancing⁷ (though I will happily get argumentative about that as well). I am simply pointing out that you cannot insist gentlemen not dance together unless they are in surplus, and still allow the ladies to dance together whenever they please, thereby potentially locking gentlemen out of the dance entirely.

***

Mostly unrelatedly, I also refuse to ever follow the rules of gentlemen not dancing together when it comes to couple dances at balls or other dances where there are very few of such, like only a single "last waltz". Nine times out of ten, the person I bring to dance with me is male identified, so I am _damn well_ going to dance the "special" dance with him. There is no gentleman's or lady's side to throw off the newbies with, and if it's a special important "dance the last waltz with your sweetie" dance, I see no reason why charity towards an inexperienced or unpartnered lady is more important than me getting to dance with my special important sweetie. If that makes me cruel, I happily accept the title⁸.

***

Almost entirely unrelatedly, it makes me weary that I so often get into conversations about costuming, and someone assumes that I am clearly looking for advice or resources to put together a proper lady's ballgown and corsetry. Um. No, I'm sorry, I am wearing this tailcoat and waistcoat because I prefer to ~~dance the gentleman's role~~⁹ identify as a gentleman at Regency events. It is not some sort of hand-me-down "pity" garb, that I am only using until I can get an appropriate gown. I know this is a huge gender-issues clusterfuck of a thing, and will probably not be fixed in my lifetime, but man, it hurts so stupid much every time someone invalidates my masculinity by insisting or implying that I am clearly a lady, I just happen to be wearing guy's clothes.

Um, beyond that, the tea dance was fun, albeit simple, and I should never be the best dancer¹⁰ at a Regency event, that is just heinously wrong. There were delicious cookies. People complimented me on my garb, and my ludicrous non-period hat (FEATHERS).

Also, word on the rumour mill is that maybe there might be some sort of Regency-for-Scottish-dancers in Boston sometime (knock on wood), so hopefully that will happen and more of you will be available. If not, I will just have to dance with you otherwise, huzzah!

~Sor
MOOP!

1: Where local covers the upper half of the east coast

2: If you are saying that I *may*, when dressed as a gentleman, dance in the lady's role without that being problematic in terms of confusing newbies, where a cisgendered male dressed as a gentleman dancing the lady's role *would* be problematic in terms of confusing newbies, then you are NOT ALLOWED to use any variation on "because newbies cue off costumes" for why gentlemen and ladies should stick to their own sides. Because my costume is decidedly and distinctly male.

I don't know that this happened. But I also don't know that it wouldn't happen, and I find that offensive as a genderqueer person in general, and as a male-identified dancer specifically.

3: It _maddens_ me that I have to do this. It is not like I am wearing a relatively genderneutral t-shirt and jeans. I am in knee breaches, hose, a shirt, waistcoat, cravat, and tailcoat, and somehow people still assume I am dancing the lady's role? I am not talking about friends wanting a dance with me, I am talking about complete strangers who come up and ask me. What. The. Hell.

4: I'm not clear if this actually happened today, but it has certainly happened before, and even if the teacher was referring to one of the lady-identified people dancing the gentleman's role, I got more than a few glances from around the room.

5: I go dancing to dance. Everything else is secondary. I don't give a shit about your costumes, your food, or your gender roles, all I want is music and a dance.

6: I have been made livid about certain conversations in which it was pointed out that you can't have genderbalance by having a fem/fem couple, one of whom always dances the gentleman's role, because the women who danced with that female-as-gent would feel "cheated" out of a dance with a "real" male. Which is one of the reasons I've been told I can't go to Newport as a boy (in order to increase my chances of getting in). I shit you not, that is some queerphobic bull-fucking-shit right there, and I don't pander to *phobes.

7: As in, men specifically making a point of asking other men to dance, at the beginning of the "finding partners" portion of a dance, (as opposed to the end when there are no other available partners) which, yes, I suppose could technically deprive two whole ladies of dancing. Because they can't possibly dance together. Because --I shouldn't start this rant. Basically, it boils down to "everyone should learn every part, because then everyone can dance more".

8: Is Kat perhaps bitter about two assemblies ago? Noooo, how could such a thing be true!

9: I feel I should point out that in all truth, for all dancing, I prefer to be as ambidancetrous as possible --dance as evenly split down the lead/follow (or lady/gent) line as possible. However, if I am formally dressed in the costume of one gender or another, that means I am much more inclined to be dancing the role I'm presenting.

And I do really love dancing the gent in Regency. There's a lot of flirtation, gentlemen get more and better solo sequences, and I happen to prefer vests to basically every dress ever. Now that I think of it, I should change the wording up there --regardless of what role I dance, I vastly prefer to dress the gent.

10:

genarti may very well have had the footwork and figures better than me, and there were certainly a few of the EA/CVD folks who both knew what they were doing, and had the springyness to support it. But I was decidedly in the top tier, and that is _insanely_ inappropriate for my skill level, and that of the people I know.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

In response to all of this, I have only to say that I have some experience with the New England Vintage Dance Crowd, and they strive to emulate the time period of their dances and costumes with more than just dances and costumes. (With some of them there's not even any striving involved, it just comes naturally.) Thus for example, men did not dance with each other in the 19th century, and so it is not condoned at these events. You can't expect modern sensibilities to prevail.

The fact that these people are working to be so 19th-century in our 21st century society pretty much guarantees you will run into contradictions and frustrations. You might as well learn to deal with it with patience and grace, because it's not going to stop, and patience and grace are the only weapons you have with any chance of being effective.

Good luck!

Edited 2010-12-20 02:33 (UTC)

Except men did dance with each other, according to at least two dance historians I've talked to. If there was an abundance of men at a dance, they were welcome to dance together, rare though that might be. If there were *no* women (see also gold rush towns), then they would certainly dance together, half in drag.

Additionally, we have already warped so many vintage conventions --see also racial diversity, the fact that we use speakers, dance instructors choosing the dancers rather than first lady, and the fact that sets tend to be four or five couples rather than ten or twelve-- that the "oh we must do it to be HISTORICALLY ACCURATE" just doesn't hold water with me.

I refuse to be patient or graceful with people who behave in manners that demean me as a human being. That being said, I also choose not to interact with them as much as possible, which is why you will probably never see me at a Newport.

~Sor

Er, choosing the dances, not choosing the dancers.

I was given to understand that men only danced with each other in the context of lessons back then. New England Vintage dancers are not generally emulating gold rush towns, but elite East Cost High Society.

As for already warping so many vintage conventions--yeah, like I said, contradictions.

In any case, I'm sure you're running into at least some folks who feel that if you're going to be a genderqueer (is it OK for me to use that term, or it reserved only for genderqueer themselves?) at a historical recreation event, you should behave as a genderqueer would have back then--pretending to be content in his/her born gender.

I'm not saying they're right, they just are there. Period. Some of them may not be not so much intolerant as thrown for a loop and at a loss when confronted with someone like you for the first time. Those have some learning to do. Others may indeed be intolerant. And I'm sure I'd be pissed as you are--I probably would seek other dance venues more tolerant of modern mind-sets. Ranting in LJ is a healthy oulet. But for both groups, if you insist on hanging with them, the education will probably be more effective (though not quick, sorry) if you demonstrate by action that they could stand to widen their point of view a bit.

Part 1: add. "You have thumbs. Do NOT use them."

That is one of the specific causes for the irritation that lead to my elbow surgery.

Part 2: No public comment.

Yeah, thumbs are bad. Squares had a couple of classes where we were specifically urged not to use our thumbs even once, which made me happy --I love training people to not have bad habits.

No public comment? I don't know if you're inclined to write at length, but my e-mail is kdsorceress at gmail dot com, and I would enjoy hearing them, if you're willing to say.

(My usual disclaimers, I am a gossip vacuum --ie, I gleefully like learning everything about everyone but won't pass information on unless told it's okay-- and I will not at all be offended if you don't want to talk about things(or to me), regardless of fora)

~Sor

First of all, I require gentlemen to stop asking me to dance.

I would reserve your frustration for the teachers and organizers, who should know better, and not the random dancers, who may or may not have the same idea as you about what clothing means. Assume good faith; there's no payoff in getting angry at someone who's just showed up to their first dance, seen a girl in men's clothing, and picked up on "girl" and not "men's clothing". Now that you've told me, I'll try to remember not to ask you to dance if I see you in a tailcoat, but I can't guarantee I won't forget. People come from different backgrounds; different signals convey different meanings.

The "don't confuse newbies" argument is bullshit, for the reasons you point out — if women are dancing together, that's just as confusing as a man dancing on the woman's side. (I'm frequently confused in corner figures when I'm in an all-women-except-me set, and I've been dancing for 20 years.) It's a fig leaf for a gender-normative attitude, and is unwelcoming to queer dancers.

I'm sorry, I meant both my requirements to come across as more tongue-in cheek than that.

I usually have no problem with gentlemen asking me to dance. I *certainly* have no problem with my friends asking me to dance, and would be sad and disappointed if you especially stopped.

My frustration was meant a little more towards the organizers et al, especially in terms of treating me as a lady playacting gentleman instead of as an actual gentleman¹. To my fellow dancers, I am generally perfectly happy to say "sorry, I'm a gentleman, or some variation" --it's only when it has to happen multiple times in rapid succession (like today) that it gets frustrating. It's a bit one of those situations where multiple people accidentally bump into you --the last did not bump you any harder than the first, but because it keeps happening, it makes you want to snap at them more than the first.

Certainly I wasn't angry at anyone who asked me to dance, and I didn't mean to indicate so strongly I was. The maddening comment should probably be read less as "that asshole how dare he" and more as "and there is another person assuming female body = female, which is depressing but normal." Perhaps read as the same sort of maddening I find it when people blink at me and say "you have two boyfriends? Do they know about each other?"

~Sor

1: Seriously, this _bothers_ me, and should probably just lead to an uncomfortable conversation along the lines of "you do know I am identifying as male right now, and not just wearing boy clothes" which...I don't know. I hate having to explain my gender, in parts because I worry about it seeming (being?) like I am doing it for the attention, and in part because genderqueer individuals Just Don't Exist.

*nods* That makes sense.

Glad I still get to ask you to dance. :)

And that is one reason I love upper level Square Dancing (and IAGSD dances). The rule is 8 dancers. Period.

Tech Squares is far and away the best dance group I'm currently a part of in terms of gender roles and dancing archy. Among other things, they seem to have the highest general level of people going "I want to be a better dancer so I want to know both roles", which is the very core of why I dance both, and I *love* seeing it in other people.

I am so scared of going to a non-MIT, non-queer mainstream/plus group sometime.

~Sor

I... feel like I ought to have something to say in response to this, but my brain is just not stringing the thoughts together coherently.

So while I'll be back if I get a few free minutes and actual words into which to put my thoughts, for now I'm just going to say that you were a dashing and charming gentleman and I am very glad I got the chance to dance with you. Thank you for getting me to come dancing today.

...Actually, that should say "are a dashing and charming gentleman." I'm sure your charm hasn't evaporated and you certainly are going to be a gentleman in future as well. Pardon the use of past tense.

I don't even know if what I just said made any sense. I'm going to go back to yawning and curling up under blankets until I feel marginally more eloquent.

I *adore* you for changing the tense on that. I don't think it's a thing that I would've even noticed otherwise, but I really appreciate it.

I'm glad I got to dance with you too! And I must say, it is exciting to regularly bring someone dancing who I can actually dance with. ;D

*hugs and brings you hot cocoa for under the blankets*

~Sor

Well, leaving it that way seemed to sort of reinforce the things that were frustrating you so much in this post, which would at least partially invalidate the sentiment. Once I noticed the way I'd said it, it needed fixing. (If I were a less shy person, though, here's where I'd strike a silly dramatic pose and say that adoration is always welcome.)

I'm glad I go dancing at all. Any regrets I have tend to be the people or things I've allowed to slip out of my life. Dancing was one of them, and you've helped me get it back. You're probably going to hear about a million times more how much I appreciate that.

Yay! Hugs and cocoa! Two wonderful things.

Re 3: What if I'm asking you to lead? :-p

I know I already apologized for being one of the three (and more for my comment afterwards then the actual asking), so I won't again. I'll do my best to respect the role you've chosen to dance on a given evening in the future, and ask when I'm not sure.

I suppose as a) a relatively new person in the dancing community and b) someone who shares your sentiments on just wanting to -dance-, the whole issue of having Clearly Defined Gender Roles at a dance seems, and you'll pardon my bad teenager accent and pun, "Sooooo last century." We're there to dance, so sticking in arbitrary rules (and they were arbitrary back then too, "just because something is time-honored tradition doesn't make it Not Stupid!") that just lead to some people not dancing is completely counter-productive. If they (the ambiguous they) want period accuracy, then I will learn the ladies part, put on a most -lovely- gown and dance with style. I mean, I'm wearing a dress, I can't possibly confuse the new folks! (*beep* sarcasm warning). Which is as j7y said a dumb argument, because ladies get to dance together and also because people should learn to dance their steps and get to know the folks they are dancing with, not just idly slot them into preconceived roles based on something so silly as - the particular spot they are standing in -.

So far as asking you to dance (and this is meant in a general sense as well as the specific), my sentiments echo j7y again, both in trying to remember to ask what role my friends who are dancing may be using (as appropriate) and that I may forget in the future >.> (Apologies in advance). Besides it being -complete scandalous to certain parties, I'd also echo sparr here, and ask if I can ask you to lead as the gent, given of course the fact that it wouldn't otherwise raise a hew and cry.

Eek, double post but I can't edit (I should fix that). What do the "thumbs are bad" comments refer to? I'm fairly certain it's about giving weight but would be curious as to specifics (in case I am doin' it wrong!)

When holding hands with someone, please do not use your thumbs to hold on to them. Doing so means that they cannot release the hold if they have a problem, and can lead to strains & sprains. Instead, form your hand into a hook, which will allow you to give weight and lead or follow, but which will not trap your partner.

Happy dancing!

I think I said something similar the last time you made a rant like this, but this is again making me a lot less inclined to attend formal Regency/vintage events. Which is a shame, as I like dressing up, but I also like dancing with whomever I feel like, whatever gender they happen to be or are presenting as. And while I have more than enough cred at Scottish to prevent being broken up, and it's not even usually an issue at English or contra (I think I danced more dances with men than with women last night), I don't think I would have the ability to do that at a Regency/vintage event.

Yeah, really, and it makes me sad. It's a completely legitimate choice on your part, of course, I just find it personally disappointing.

I do have one small sliver of hope, in that the Regency community is so helplessly small that it's constantly on the verge of collapse . . . which is terrible in a lot of ways, but does mean that a small number of voices might actually be heard.

I mean, imagine if

kdsorceress,

rm,

mnemex, you, and I all agreed, well in advance of an event, that we would make reasonable efforts at opposite-gender-clothing partners in general, dancing with new dancers, and generally not being a clique, but we would no longer be absolutely bound by it, and would dance with one another or other willing men if we felt like it or would otherwise be left out. What if we made this decision clear to the event organizer, and said that we really wanted to attend because we valued the event, but weren't comfortable attending if we couldn't dance with male partners.

Wielding our male privilege for good against ingrained homophobia, or overdeveloped entitlement? I'm not entirely sure at the moment, but I think the former. (In a context where footnote 6 officially applies, I think unquestionably the former, with fun homo/transphobia blend)

FWIW, they frequently cover things like "end on time, bitches" in teh beginning contra sessions.

While it may be wrong of people to assume that "girl in gentleman's clothes" means just that instead of "gentleman," it's not an unreasonable assumption, especially within the context of a striving-to-be-semi-period-correct 19th century art form. In society at large, cis-women/girls/females/etc. wear masculine clothing without so much as a sideways glance unless it's something elaborate like a tailcoat (and elaborate dress of all kinds gets noticed, so the notice might often be simply because it's unusual, not because it's gender-unusual). Cis-men/boys/males/etc., on the other hand, almost never wear feminine clothing unless it is specifically to play a part (comedy, drag show, etc.). So then the obvious assumption is, "girl in gentleman's clothes" = girl in gentleman's clothes, and "boy in lady's clothes" = boy playing a girl, temporarily. Now of course I'm not saying this is the way it should be, only that it is.

Basically you'll probably need to repeat this line: //In more blunt terms, when I put on the full tailcoat et al, I am not a lady dancing the gentleman's role. I am a goddamned gentleman, and I will dance the gentleman's role, except in the most dire or intriguing circumstances// over and over until they get it and keep it, because it's nonstandard.

It was a perfect, eguogors day Suzanne! Thank you so much for your calm nature and perfect organizational skills. It was intimate, emotion-filled, and eguogors and we will never forget it. All of the vendors were amazing as well thank you againLove, Kristin + Corey

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Need a dance icon again, sigh.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Thumbs

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

eLzuAqwizsfHWOkmR