Macho Culture in Dance

[Brummbaer]

I bring this thread to the table because of the dismissive and challenging attitude the male forum members had toward the female experience.

#MeToo started in 2018 (roughly) although it had justified rumblings long before. 'Back then', and now, many aspects weren't understood or even appreciated. Are those, hopefully former, attitudes to be held against perpetrators forever?

Are you just referencing some posts as examples from the past?

Hopefully there have been changes, although specific parts of society do seem to have deteriorated.

 

[Cerinthe]

I bring this thread to the table because of the dismissive and challenging attitude the male forum members had toward the female experience.

A woman tells a man (men, really) that their remark was inappropriate and instead of taking personal responsibility, it gets turned into a dozen-page long thread about misogyny in dance and arguments about whether women should feel offended by being referred to by their hair color in pursuit of sex.

 

[itwillhappen]

I bring this thread to the table because of the dismissive and challenging attitude the male forum members had toward the female experience.

I think one reason could be that such a forum is an outlet or a projection surface for thoughts, while one relates any criticism directly to one's own behavior on the dance floor. Regardless of the gender, of course.

So I'll say clearly here that I'm not surprised that the "female experience" is quite miserable. Couple dancing is much more attractive for women (would anyone dare to change that?) than for men, who mostly simply withdraw because it is not really interesting for them. Not a good prerequisite for women (just in case they prefer to dance with men).
In dance reality, I also get few points when I praise the "fact" that my current dance partner is "quite objectively" the best "dance sport attachment" that I danced with that(!) evening. The ladies want "more".

 

[Brummbaer]

A woman tells a man (men, really) that their remark was inappropriate and instead of taking personal responsibility, it gets turned into a dozen-page long thread about misogyny in dance and arguments about whether women should feel offended by being referred to by their hair color in pursuit of sex.

So hope they learned something and improved their education. You think this should be an intrinsic morality without teaching and discussing it? It was the culture their parents had, and they experienced. It overturns life as they'd known it.

 

[fiesta0618]

So hope they learned something and improved their education. You think this should be an intrinsic morality without teaching and discussing it? It was the culture their parents had, and they experienced. It overturns life as they'd known it.

I am sympathetic to this opinion.

Where I agree with @Cerinthe, though, is impatience with the skepticism, qualification, and dissent required before some folks finally entertain the idea that maybe--just maybe--the woman telling them that there is a problem isn't being oversensitive or just mistaken.

By all means, discuss and learn. But must the learning process be such an ordeal every. single. time? It frequently looks and sounds like an effort to rationalize the status quo, to *not* learn in order to maintain one's own comfort.

 

[madmaximus]

IMO
Matters like these must always be viewed from a cultural perspective.

Until there is CULTURAL CONSENSUS, conversations around such topics will always be partisan, multi-faceted, sometimes vitriolic, and often devolutionary. Denigrating, invalidating, or dismissing another’s contrary perspective—no matter how right and indignant one may feel—does not do anything but antagonize and corner the other, and create needless barriers towards something better.

We cannot hope to effect change—whether in equality, politics, freedoms, feminism, machoism, racial bias, bigotry, and so on—unless we change the systemic mechanisms that support and perpetuate two (or perhaps more) conflicting cultures’ or subcultures’ points-of-views, attitudes, and thinking.

Cultural consensus cannot even begin to occur until we learn to recognize, respect, value, and validate the other’s sensibilities no matter how contrary those may seem to our own.

Only when we learn that lesson as a collective of humans (as opposed to membership in a tribe, gender, community, political party, etc.) will we perhaps have a path that opens towards a better outcome.

In the meantime, we, all of us, are simply blind obtuse fools trying to define what a blue sky is.

m2cw



m

 

[Brummbaer]

But must the learning process be such an ordeal every. single. time?

It shouldn't be, but then some never learn to dance AT well. Am I allowed to objectify men and say it's taken centuries of this, and you expect it to be changed for men instantly? Especially when it sometimes seems difficult to ascertain what's the precise criticism? As an example, one day topless images of women are not allowed as 'objectification'; next there's a campaign from some women to allow them, and indeed insist upon it, for their 'freedom of expression' (but only in some countries). Yes, context is everything, but you can appreciate how some poor males find this, let's say, confusing. And sometimes we're very simple beings.

I'm certainly not supporting clear, unwanted 'harrassment', but it's legitimate to question when an intended compliment is 'harrassment', if you're trying to understand that culture and its evolution. Nevertheless there are clear examples where this has gone too far.

So, yes, sometimes it's going to have to be explained every. single. time until it gets understood and accepted. A century perhaps given differing cultures across the world? The US attitudes, nor those of any other cultural bloc, are not uniform nor universally accepted.

 

[fiesta0618]

but it's legitimate to question when an intended compliment is 'harrassment', if you're trying to understand that culture and its evolution.

I'm not sure I would agree with this. "Harassment" essentially boils down to "unwelcome interaction." The person who gets to determine whether an interaction is unwelcome is the recipient, not the initiator (it can be assumed the initiator welcomed the interaction). If the recipient says that something is unwelcome, I would argue that it is not legitimate to respond in a way that essentially questions whether they were correct or justified for feeling that way.

That doesn't mean all unwelcome interactions should result in punishment! People are allowed to make mistakes. But people should also be able to acknowledge that they made a mistake, and apologize. Especially if it is a well-intended mistake made in ignorance, rather than a purposeful harm.

It shouldn't be, but then some never learn to dance AT well. Am I allowed to objectify men and say it's taken centuries of this, and you expect it to be changed for men instantly? Especially when it sometimes seems difficult to ascertain what's the precise criticism? As an example, one day topless images of women are not allowed as 'objectification'; next there's a campaign from some women to allow them, and indeed insist upon it, for their 'freedom of expression' (but only in some countries). Yes, context is everything, but you can appreciate how some poor males find this, let's say, confusing. And sometimes we're very simple beings.

I don't expect instant change. And I recognize that, for many, these are new and odd ideas, which may challenge hitherto unquestioned cultural mores. Of course there is a need to explain, and often. I'm a teacher--I've got no objection to explaining things!

Mere explanation and repetition is not the barrier I'm referring to. The issue I'm talking about is the seemingly-default defensive response to the subject, which I would generally summarize as, Surely *I* am not part of the problem?

It's an understandable emotional reaction, and not unique to this subject matter. The problem with it is that it is impossible to learn in this emotional posture, because all one's reasoning is bent towards absolving oneself. Which renders all the following explanation and discussion useless.

 

[Brummbaer]

I'm not sure I would agree with this. "Harassment" essentially boils down to "unwelcome interaction."

I agree, but sometimes that 'unwelcome' isn't obvious (maybe someone trying to calm the situation), or it's just accepted in that culture, or that's home life.

The issue I'm talking about is the seemingly-default defensive response to the subject, which I would generally summarize as Surely *I* am not part of the problem?

We all think we're right and defend that, even when wrong. The UK had a Prime Minister who is now a clear example.

And so, there will be argument and discussion.

As an example, we're essentially talking about sexual harassment of women. Now, suppose we look at gun control from European and US perspectives? (Let's not go there, but hope you see the point)

 

[Steve Pastor]

A reminder that most of you have been around long enough to start threads if you want to branch off a discussion.

 

[fiesta0618]

I agree, but sometimes that 'unwelcome' isn't obvious (maybe someone trying to calm the situation), or it's just accepted in that culture, or that's home life.

You are right, it isn't obvious. I'm not questioning the general assertion that "it's hard to know what is right sometimes." We are all muddling though life, in the end, doing our best. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt here.

What I am saying is that an appeal to cultural norms or long habits is not a valid justification for continuing a behavior after someone has pointed out that it is unwelcome.

In other words, it's ok to make the mistake. It's not ok to insist on continuing to make it after the mistake is pointed out.

We all think we're right and defend that, even when wrong. The UK had a Prime Minister who is now a clear example.

And so, there will be argument and discussion.

This, too, I think is normal. But there is a qualitative difference in domains like this one.

If the question at hand is a matter of policy or concept that has a third-party effect on everyone, debate takes the form I think X is better vs I think Y is better.

In cases like the subject of this thread, though, we are not discussing a neutral policy. This is a person or people asserting treating me as X is unwelcome. Dissent, therefore, takes the general form too bad, I think X is fine. If we agree that it is preferable to treat people with kindness and respect (which I believe everyone here does), then we should also listen when people tell us what they find to be unkind and disrespectful.

Now, merely questioning is perfectly reasonable -- e.g., Why is X unwelcome? What Y would you prefer? But as soon as we end up back in the territory of X is fine, something has gone wrong.

 

[David_In_CA]

It begins on page 3 with Pygmalion’s comment. She shares her personal experience about avoiding eye contact with men in daily life and is interrogated by Steve about it. It devolves even more from there, with men telling women they shouldn’t be offended with unsolicited comments about their body, despite Oliver pulling up statistics about women’s discomfort with these situations.

I think there are perhaps multiple lines there. I took Steve's to be primarily linguistic about what the word 'piropos' means. Whereas Lilly seemed to be more arguing that the action is ok? I do think there is some cultural relativity happening in the thread; I'd bet good money that Steve hasn't catcalled anyone he's not very good friends with this century.

 

[David_In_CA]

A reminder that most of you have been around long enough to start threads if you want to branch off a discussion.

Discussion of youth in Tango has been moved here:

Getting youth into Tango

I know the subject of the presence of minors is off topic, but I’m surprised by your answers. I’ve known a good number of kids dancing AT over the years. Not all milongas are late, but if you tend to go to late ones in big cities, no wonder you haven't seen many kids. All the ones I’ve known...

www.dance-forums.com

 

[itwillhappen]

I was looking for something unrelated and stumbled on this related thread today: https://www.dance-forums.com/threads/been-dissed.43199/

similarly dismissive of harassment and objectification

The term "dissing" is interesting. I hardly experienced it in the aggressive meaning. Well, I think in the first year one(!) tanguera left a tanda early, but I was not sure, there were not cortinas. Well, and when I was having trouble with my jealous ex-girlfriend, but that's a special case.

"Shunning" seems to be meant in the passive sense. Of course, that's quite common in tango, if you're sensitive to it, you have a big problem. After years without any eye contact, I sometimes get one, sometimes one falls away, sometimes one comes back. If I took every look away from a woman I'd like to dance with as an attack, I'd be in a constant state of war.

And I will usually never know what the background is. Of course I can imagine something, maybe they don't like my dancing or my behavior, age or looks, there is a partner or no longer, the ladies have learned how to lead or not, there are perceived hierarchies or groups, but all of that is finally of no value.

 

[Cerinthe]

I think there are perhaps multiple lines there. I took Steve's to be primarily linguistic about what the word 'piropos' means. Whereas Lilly seemed to be more arguing that the action is ok? I do think there is some cultural relativity happening in the thread; I'd bet good money that Steve hasn't catcalled anyone he's not very good friends with this century.

The argument regarding cultural relativity seems moot when statistics are presented that show women within said culture overwhelmingly feel uncomfortable with the behavior. Defending the behavior with semantics instead of acknowledging that women fear for their safety is gross.