Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    I think many organizers of social events try to have a mixture of
    male and females only because their past experience suggests that
    people are comfortable and tend to have a good time in a mixed 
    group.  That in turn signifies the success of the gathering.
    
    What I have done, is to let the attendees know what is happening
    as far as the registration is concerned.  I have noticed that many
    women will then become no-shows if they know they are in the majority.
    The problem is solved.

    
    God help me the day I don't show because there aren't enough men
    around...[sigh]
    
    Anyway....
    
    My initial thought about .0 is that the action was one of "habit"
    rather than intent....that people in general tend to stack the people
    in pairs...male/female...works better around the table and all that
    garbage...
    
    My second reaction is a slow simmer over the whole idea of people
    manipulating attendence to meet such a ridiculous and artificial
    standard....
    
    My third reaction was unprintable for even me....[grin]
    
    Finally....I guess I would settle for a modified first opinion.
    Perhaps there was no intent, but I still feel that we should call
    attention to such stereotypical actions to prevent them from
    continuing. Determination of attendence by gender seems tacky in
    the extreme...Hmmm?
    
    Melinda

I missed the part about 'no longer accepting females'.  Are you sure you
got that right?

That aside, I don't see anything wrong with saying 'there's a lot of women & few
men'.  That lets people know what the situation is, and lets them handle the
situation the way they choose.  Some women will drop, and more men will join,
and the alternative people will do what they think is best for themselves.

Jim. 

    
    	This is a good example of what's called "forcing an outcome",
    which is a typical American Social habit, vs simply "letting it
    happen" in the way that it will. It cracks me up that people think
    they can actually influence the outcome of something as intangable
    as "another's meeting the _right_ other" or whatever.
    
    	I wish people would stop struggling so hard and just let go.
    It'd probably set a good example...
    
    	Joe Jas

    I can see their reason for wanting to balance the ratio's a bit.
    I have been taking ballroom dance lessons for the last several months
    and ALL i mean ALL of the dances I have been to the men have been
    greatly out numbered. Now this may sound like a great chance for
    a single guy like me but most of the women are 30-50 years older
    than I at the tender age of 29. There have been nights that I have
    left a dance early because I'm simply "danced out". I love to dance
    but the men get danced into the ground simply because they are so
    out numbered. I guess it's not really all that bad 8^)
    
    -j

    
    
    Let's please distinguish between dance CLASSES and dance EVENTS.
    
    At classes, it's more important to have an even mix, so that for each
    class exercise everyone can dance.
    
    Actually, when there are too many men at my class, I ask the male
    instructor to dance with me during an exercise.
    
    I'd feel comfortable enough asking another male student, except that
    we male students haven't been learning the woman's steps in the dances,
    so the instructor is the only male who can do the female steps.
    
    However, for EVENTS, I'd agree with previous poster that it isn't
    important to force the outcome.
    
    /Eric

    I like a mix of what Joyce (.1) and Melinda (.2) said.  I think 
    Melinda's right that the major mechanism here is habit - a variation
    on the old saw "Never ascribe to malice that which can be as easily
    explained as ignorance and/or stupidity".  This isn't to imply
    that the organizers are either ignorant or stupid; while it may
    be an attempt to "force the outcome", I think it probably wasn't
    consciously so.  Dancing has long been a form of male-female 
    socialization in this country and it therefore seems reasonable
    to believe that one expectation of the participants will be to
    do some of that socializing (as well as dance).  Offhand, my guess
    would be that that's still a fairly well-grounded belief.
    
    But Joyce's suggestion offers a nice solution - let the sign-up
    list or the mix of participants be public; that way people's 
    expectations can more accurately match reality.
    
    re: .0
    
    � In your opinion, is this an "over reaction" or do you suppoes that
    � people who organize public events should have the right to determine
    � the sexual mix (biologically wise) at a psuedo-public gathering? 
    
    I think that they should (and do) have the right to determine the
    mix of people because, given a first-come-first-serve basis, no
    one is discriminated against.  In the end, it's a private, social
    event and the organizers have the right (at least in today's legal
    environment) to invite whomever they want.  Whether it's a *wise*
    practice or not is another question.  In this particular instance,
    knowing the desires of the customers would seem to make sense; if
    the only motivating force for most is simply to dance, then not
    inviting potential dancers would seem to cut down the chances for
    future successful dances.  If, however, a number of dancers are also
    there to do some m-f socializing, then maybe it makes sense to try
    and even out the mix a bit.
    
    Which is why Joyce's idea is attractive to me - let the dancers
    design the dance.
    
    Steve
    

    re:.4
    
    � It cracks me up that people think they can actually influence
    the outcome of something as intangable as "another's meeting the
    _right_ other" or whatever. �
    
    Agreed. Especially given that for all they know, the "right other"
    for some of the women may well be another woman.
    
    (Said with tongue slightly in cheek, but still meant seriously.)
    
    --- jerry

as an aside...

I once ran across a flyer for a gay/bi contra dance.  Aside from the obvious
acceptance, I tried to imagine how it might be different.  I guess that for the
bis it would be good because they could dance with both sexes.  For the gay
people I don't see how it's an improvement; you still have a 50/50 shot of
dancing with the 'wrong' sex for you as you dance with different couples in a
line.  I guees the big thing is that you are likely to be of the appropriate sex
for with the people of the appropriate sex for you.  (this is getting
complicated! :-)) 

In any case, I don't see how it makes much difference.  I see women dancing
together at contra dances frequently, men less, and it's no big deal.  I
personally prefer women partners :-), and I'd want to know if there were a lot
more of one or the other sex, but I think that the decision as to what to do
about it should be left up to individuals. 

Jim.

    How might a gay/bi contra dance be different? First keep in mind
    there are *very* few public places where gay people can go to socialize
    (as gay people). For example, in all of Worcester County there are
    two bars (predominantly male) , in the entire state of Vermont there
    is one.
    
    Dances such as the one mentioned in 762.10 offer a welcome alternative
    to the bars. Events such as this which draw both gay/bi men and
    women are generally not divided on gender lines. Gay men and women
    as a rule mix with each other in a very easy and playful manner.
    
    Since gay people are brought up by heterosexuals and taught to become
    heterosexual nearly all are comfortable assuming either role in
    dancing (leading or following). Many gay people love to dance and
    are not hung up over the gender (or sexuality) of their dance partners.
    
    Bisexual people who attend gay/bi events are generally interested
    in the same sex social aspects of the event -- the opposite sex
    socializing is easy enough for them to find elsewhere.
    
    How I wish there were no "differences", alas it jes aint so.

    The following reply has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to QUARK::HR_MODERATOR, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached unless you request otherwise.

				Steve






I'm on the board for the Boston Gay and Lesbian Contra Dance Group 
and I'm also an organizer in the Northeast Gay and Lesbian Country Dance 
Series.  I've been a dancer for 16 years (over half my life!) and I think I
might be able to shed a little light on this subject.

If anyone wishes to send mail, you may contact me through your friendly 
moderator.






.10>I once ran across a flyer for a gay/bi contra dance.  Aside from the obvious
.10>acceptance, I tried to imagine how it might be different.  I guess that 
.10>for the bi's it would be good because they could dance with both sexes.  

The best part about it is that you don't have to worry about being yourself and
what other people are going to think (although most people who see me at 
straight dances wouldn't think this is a problem for me 8-) )  It's really good
for all of us.  I like women.  I dance with women a lot.  I don't mind dancing
with them at a gay dance.  There's more of a reason to go to a gay contra dance
than just to dance with men *only*.  It's the same attraction as going to a
straight dance, but with the social dynamics in line with your orientation.

.10>For the gay
.10>people I don't see how it's an improvement; you still have a 50/50 shot of
.10>dancing with the 'wrong' sex for you as you dance with different couples 
.10>in a line.  I guees the big thing is that you are likely to be of the 
.10>appropriate sex for with the people of the appropriate sex for you.  
.10>(this is getting complicated! :-)) 

It is an improvement because I can dance the leader or follower's part, dance
with whom I wish, and I can bring my boyfriend, dance with him and show 
affection if I wish (try doing *that* at a straight dance!)  Plus, there are 
a lot of great people there.

.10>In any case, I don't see how it makes much difference.  I see women dancing
.10>together at contra dances frequently, men less, and it's no big deal.  I
.10>personally prefer women partners :-), and I'd want to know if there were 
.10>a lot
.10>more of one or the other sex, but I think that the decision as to what to do
.10>about it should be left up to individuals. 

It *does* make a difference!  I'll try to make an analogy.  (Please excuse me
if I step on anyone's toes here)  Imagine you are a heterosexual white male and
you are at a (insert favorite somewhat-exotic foreign culture here) dance.  This
dance requires you to move in certain ways and to relate to others in ways that
are not natural to you.  Would you feel more comfortable if you could do those
same steps and moves and flirts, but in ways that mean something to you?  It
does to me.

(*Warning* This is not antagonistic)  Jim, have you ever danced with a man
at a contra dance?  Did it feel weird to you?  It's seen as okay once in a 
while, and only when there aren't enough women!

(This is not that I don't like the straight contra dances.  I go to them all
the time.  I've got a number of women friends there.  Some know I'm gay, some
don't.  I'm just there to have fun, just like everybody else.)
 
There are quite a number of us that go to the straight dances.  I danced with
two of the women from our group at the dance in Concord this past Monday.  So
we are part of the contra dance community, but we just don't yell it from 
the tree tops (or the stage!)


Re: .11

Some very good points here.  Thanks, Pete!