I think so too, especially in small communities. But the in my opinion relevant point is that no one is prevented from taking beginner's classes with the guy next door. and if the guy next door isn't interested, then that's tough luck, for both men and women.
For consolation, here's an interview with a couple who are significantly more successful as event organizers. They started with the first "Totally in Tango" about ten years ago; today they organize professionally 14(!) such events per year, from a weekend to a full week, equipping and catering some others. Very friendly, there's no selection process, but more space because many participants are relative beginners in the "other" role.
I'm not sure that "more successful" is fair. As you say yourself, Totally in Tango prides itself on being open to all, so there is no required standard for either role. I'm not sure whether Melina's events have any formal entry requirements, but certainly my impression is that most participants are competent in both roles. They are targeted differently, and it's no surprise that one would have more events than the other.
Wow, how refreshing an attitude! I must see if I can fit one of their events into my schedule!
One of my friends went to a festival in Oklahoma last year called the Open Role Tango Festival and really had a great time. One of the organizers is doing another one in Boston in March. It's just called the Boston Open Role Tango Festival
One of my teachers said in an after class tea session that with more women leading she kinda needed to also learn to adjust her following. In the sense that with a bulkier male lead she felt very comfortable and safe giving up her whole axis and doing things like leaning in more but with a lot of the female leads she couldn’t. She said that when she was learning to lead the metaphor her teacher used to always say was “channel your inner man” which probably isn’t very acceptable nowadays.
I would say it's for sure true for milonga. Tango and vals, I don't know, but we certainly shouldn't underestimate the massive benefit of knowing how a great lead feels.
Well, then she is likely rather petite, if this is new to her. Us tall followers, who are not twiggy-thin, we are constantly making significant adjustments according to the anatomy of the leader.
I was discussing leading with a female friend, learning to lead. She noted the obvious fact that women are built differently and 'they get in the way' when leading other women.
I don't think they are equivalent, though. Sure, experienced followers still have to learn leading skills, including navigation, but I think following experience is more valuable in learning to lead than leading experience is in learning to follow.
I also think so. I had to learn both roles simultaneously 26 years ago. My first teacher, who came from Uruguay, insisted on it. But every time I switched roles, my perception switched as well. I was never able to apply insights from one role to the other. For me, leading and following are two completely different animals. I therefore consider it nonsense when leaders are advised to learn the following role in order to optimize their leading skills. And one last thing: of course, I much prefer following to leading. But that might also be because I'm not a fan of that modern "active following" (Naveira). As a leader, I project (that is, I remotely control the partner's moves), and equally, in the following role, I want to be remotely controlled. Only then can I switch off my visual cortex and feel like foam on the ocean. I don't have to worry about anything then; I just float through the waves as if sedated.