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

Reply via email to