2810 Tango leading-following
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:32:29 -0700
From: Julian Centella <tangotiger888@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Tango leading-following
Tango has two roles quite defined, the man role and the woman role.
We would all be happier if we believed that all so-called masculine and feminine characteristics such as left/ right brain thinking, intuition, physical activities, vulnerability, competitiveness, anger, grief, nurturing abilities, etc. were possible characteristics for everyone. I would agree that anyone who totally denies any of these traits is not fulfilling his/ her potential . That does not imply, however, in some hypothetical perfect society that women and men would display equal quantities or qualities of these characteristics. Instead, there is much evidence to suggest that there are inherent tendencies caused by hormones and genes that promote or inhibit these qualities.
What are the psychic forces that compel persons to engage in
endless debates in order to determine which psychic functions are masculine
and which femine?
I suspect that it is the same approach that drive a lot of behavior, the
desire to avoid something. Perhaps the desire to avoid the acceptance of man
and woman's inherent bisexuality leads some to seek out the masculine versus
the feminine. Freud addressed this issue in his New Introductory Lectures
when he states that it is not masculine and feminine but instead active
versus passive and both of these belong to both sexes.
Why do some people have a stronger masculine side while others have a stronger feminine side? It depends to some extent on whether you are a man or a woman, because hormones do play a role, but it also depends a great deal on who you are as a Being. That is, both the masculine and feminine sides depend on what your Inner Being has learned to become.
If you have a strong masculine side, you are in charge of your own life because you are internally controlled. You tend to look people in the eye. You stand straight, and you usually command attention when you walk into a room, whether you say anything or not. This happens because of the strength within. If you have a weak masculine side, you also have a lot of doubts. You doubt yourself, your abilities, your capability to do things. Things intimidate you and you don't move forward well. You are afraid to put yourself out there because you know you are going to fail, so you don't even try to accomplish things. If you have a weak masculine side, you often feel the need to show off your attributes and accomplishments, whereas if you have a strong masculine side you are self-confident, and don't feel it is necessary to show off.
The feminine side includes having enthusiasm and zest for life, and recognizing what things are worth getting enthusiastic about. And it includes having the persistence and tenacity to stay with things to the end, while still knowing when to give up on something if your energy is better used elsewhere. In addition, the feminine side also includes being kind, compassionate, patient, responsive to the needs of others, and it includes knowing how much energy you can put into each of these without hurting yourself by draining your own energy.
If the masculine side is much stronger than the feminine side, you tend to be pushy and take unfair advantage of people. On the other hand, if the feminine side is much stronger than the masculine side, you tend to let others take advantage of you, and you become a doormat for people.
Liberation and the Developing Masculine Side in Women: Women have also been working on developing the masculine side, sometimes at the expense of the feminine side. Liberation has helped many women develop the masculine side by teaching them to stand up for their rights and not be coerced in any way. This has gone a long way in changing the old traditional viewpoint in which the man was the boss and the woman was the slave. The problem is that, in some areas, liberation has placed men in the role of the enemy, and this has prevented many women from using their feminine side in interacting with men. This is because liberation has taught some women to feel free to choose only to withhold from men, but not to feel free to choose to give unselfishly to men. True liberation for a woman is freedom to choose how to operate her own life. This includes the freedom to choose to give unselfishly to another person as well as to withhold giving from them.
Make no mistake when you are leading you adopt a masculine role, when you are following you adopt a feminine role.
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:29:18 -0700
From: Ricardo Tanturi <tanturi999@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Tango leading-following
Julian Centella wrote:
> <a BUNCH of stuff>
> Make no mistake when you are leading you adopt a masculine role, when you are
> following you adopt a feminine role.
So in life, so in tango, right Julian?
I can see this leading to a lengthy, heated discussion, and I really hope that
doesn't happen. I am so much in disagreement w/ Julian's post that it's
difficult for me not to be insulting in replying to it, so let me just say that
I think classifying traits into masculine and feminine in this way is a gross
oversimplification. More importantly, I don't think it has much to do with
tango.
We've had arguments over this topic before, and I don't think they add much to
the content of the list. I hope we can just drop it.
"Ricardo"
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:20:51 +0000
From: Jay Rabe <jayrabe@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Tango leading-following
Ricardo,
Kudos to you for your discipline and sticking to the issues rather than
succumbing to your passion and degenerating into insult. Excellent role
model. Thank you, sincerely.
However on the issue, I happen to agree with Julian. I am a student of
Taoism and Tai Chi, and in those fields, yang/yin energies, also called
masculine/feminine, are key to effective and efficient moements like tango
leading and following. That's the interpretation that I put onto Julian's
message. I thought he did a good job of listing the "masculine"
characteristics that are important in leading: assurance, confidence,
projection; and the "feminine" characteristics of patience, trust,
receptivity. Frankly I'm at a loss to understand what you, an experienced
tanguero, would find to disagree with. I hope you'll take the time to
explain.
The excellent litle book "The Tao of Tango" by Johanna Siegmann
describes some the applications of these ideas (masculine/feminine energies)
to tango.
This is a cut-paste from my TangoMoments.com website explaining my
beliefs on the subject:
In order to lead every step successfully, the leader must fully exert
his Masculine tendencies. He must be Clear-minded and Unwavering in his
Intention, he must lead with Sureness, with Conviction, with Authority.
These are core masculine traits.
In order to follow, a woman must be fully invested in her Femininity,
her Receptiveness, her Patience. She must be Open to his lead. She must
Trust and be willing to Let him have control. She must respond to his lead
without thinking, without analysis, without judgment.
So in order to dance tango, a polarity must develop. The man must
become the epitome of Masculinity, and the woman in her turn must be the
embodiment of Femininity.
But then it gets more complicated. In the spirit of the Eternal Tao,
where all things are composed of both halves of every polarity, so in Tango,
just at the moment when the leader has exerted his masculine intention and
signaled his lead, he must shift, he must become patient, he must wait, he
must exert Feminine aspects of his own personality as he waits for his
partner to respond. To do otherwise is an affront, a disrespect of his
partner's autonomy and sovereignty, not to mention her balance. He must make
this shift to avoid throwing her around or worse, stepping on her.
And the follower, in her turn, after she has received the lead, must
respond. She must step with Conviction and Confidence, stepping large and
dramatic when asked. These forceful, dramatic steps, taking Action, are
Masculine aspects of her personality.
In sum, Tango requires both leader and follower to get in touch with,
and to exercise, Both parts of their own personalities, both halves of the
whole that they are.
This exercise, this opportunity for both leader and follower to be
Whole, is Healing and ultimately Joyful in a deep sense.
Jay in Portland
----Original Message Follows----
From: Ricardo Tanturi <tanturi999@YAHOO.COM>
Reply-To: Ricardo Tanturi <tanturi999@YAHOO.COM>
To: TANGO-L@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: [TANGO-L] Tango leading-following
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 09:01:20 -0700
From: Carlos Lima <amilsolrac@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Tango leading-following (not really)
Julian Centella <tangotiger888@YAHOO.COM>:
"Tango has two roles quite defined, the man role and the woman role."
Ricardo Tanturi <tanturi999@YAHOO.COM>:
"I am so much in disagreement w/ Julian's post that it's difficult for me not
to be insulting in replying to it, ..... We've had arguments over this topic
before, and I don't think they add much to the content of the list. I hope
we can just drop it."
About Julian's postings, it is not, as postings often are here, "un chorrillo
de pavadas" (a flood of nonsense), though I find his approach to sex
differences unsatisfactory, and his interpretation of the recent history of
the "battle of the sexes" simplistic ... well, too generous. Even though, for
many reasons (primarily lack of interest) I have no intention to debate his
contribution, I respect it, and I feel no impulse to kid him about it in my
usual manner (which would still be quite respectful enough), let alone insult
him, which I do not believe it is my custom to do, at least knowingly. The
subject is not a frivolous one, and its connections to tango are no more
tenuous than that of a sizable proportion of postings here. I would say,
probably less tenuous than average. In short, it has content, however
unpalatable to some, and it is relevant.
However this is the opinion of a mere tango dancer without great (or even
puny) Tango-L political ambitions -- though an opinionated one. If the
moderator system comes back I will not be running for office. I would be a
highly incompetent censor / inquisitor -- a name that one almost hears
applied to the unfortunate volunteers that put in a great deal of time and
effort into successfully changing the Tango-L from a cesspool to the
tolerably clean thing that it became, and got no thanks, and worse. I would
not tolerate unprovoked personal attacks, or any kind of deliberate insults
from anyone, regardless of rank. That would be bad; but worse, I would let
through all kinds of wrong opinions, impertinent disagreements, including
disagreements with the list leadership, over-strenuous use of logical
argument, overuse of inconvenient facts, excessive imagination and
originality, babblings by unqualified people, people of the wrong party,
nationality, reputation, rank etc opinionating about things that they are not
privy to, and so on ... In short, I would let them all mear fuera del tarro.
I am the first to admit that this would be terrible. Disagreement,
particularly with an authority, is the most offensive form of insult. Much
more, of course, than calling somebody stupid to his face, or some such,
particularly if the addressee is a low ranking member. And the worse form of
disagreement is the dreaded so-called "reasoned disagreement", complete with
elaborate justifications and "clever" sophistry. One must realise that
addressing (or even just reading through) somebody else's long hand arguments
can be an extremely unfair burden to the people who have got the right
opinions. Modern life leaves little room for such waste of time,
necessitating the much quicker and effective method of attacking and
disqualifying the people responsible for the whole problem to begin with. Aa
a censor, I just would not be sharp enough to cut them quibblers off at the
pass.
Fortunately the moderator system may never ever be needed, if the flower of
the list take the cue from "Roberto Tanturi" as exemplified above, and steer
the list contributions in the right direction through gentle, paternal,
advice. Self censorship works. It has been the method that long-standing
disciplined regimes have eventually settled for, since it is a democratic
form of censorship. On the whole, people are a more reasonable and
disciplined than it is generally believed. If by mistake they say something
that somebody of higher standing is violently in disagreement with, and has
no time or desire to refute, a mere hint will silence most violators, and
keep at bay any temptation others might have to join in.
Things work best if one figures out ahead of time what the regulators have in
mind. That way potential offenders need not even get to the point of
submitting their stuff for judgment. To this end I have looked up the last 6
postings by "Ricardo", written over the last three weeks or so. I came to
some preliminary conclusions, which I will omit here, since this is already
quite long as it is.
Cheers,
To "Ricardo": please forgive me, and try not to be too upset with me. You
were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. What I am really hitting here
are profound maladies of the list as a whole, above all some of the worst
defects in group discussions: intolerance of disagreement, ad hominem
"arguments", ignoring other people's arguments, big egos, "politics". I am
not even saying that I have not been guilty myself here and there :);):). As
to your contributions, I actually like them as a rule, and do not seem to be
in such disagreement with you. But I am going to post this anyway.
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:07:01 +0200
From: "Christian Lüthen" <christian.luethen@GMX.NET>
Subject: Re: Tango leading-following (not really)
> Julian Centella <tangotiger888@YAHOO.COM>:
> "Tango has two roles quite defined, the man role and the woman role."
I would see it more general:
a leader and a follower! not binded to any gender!
;-)
christian
--
christian@eTanguero.net
https://www.eTanguero.net/
+++ GMX DSL Premiumtarife 3 Monate gratis* + WLAN-Router 0,- EUR* +++
Clevere DSL-Nutzer wechseln jetzt zu GMX: https://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:25:35 -0700
From: Carlos Lima <amilsolrac@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Tango leading-following (really)
This is about some important tango tautologies.
As Michael Ditkoff kindly told the world, in NY all women lead, all men
follow, and all children dance the tango. (Something like this.) Since I am
in NY, eventually I had to start following; so I did. Took me 5 years, and I
started because I needed to, not because I wanted to. (Practices and
practicas only, but even in an outdoor milonga or two, briefly.) Needless to
tell those who have tried in earnest, I enjoy it immensely.
I follow only women, and not very well at all. Interestingly this is the one
among the 4 role shuffling possibilities that the motherland of tango does
not condone. Man with man and woman with woman go back to the turn of last
century, at the very least, probably all the way back; though man with man
was supposed to be just for practice. (I wonder.)
Since I am not under the Argentine tango purity jurisdiction I can entertain
my illegitimate desires. For some odd reason I prefer BY FAR being led by a
woman to being lead by, or leading, a man. I have no idea why this is so. I
have been doing some soul researching (sic) trying to find an explanation.
Because of a number of inquiries put to me I have just had to think of a
simple formula that I could use as a guide to the aesthetics of non-standard
lead-follow. What kind of dance proposition might yield pleasant results (to
my taste), in the process of being met.
I have already discussed the case of woman leading woman. I know something
about that from experience. What my advice boils down to is: woman leader
remains woman in overall image (unless she does not want to) making only the
necessary posture and motion adjustments to project (to "partner" and to the
world outside) the lead character, technically and aesthetically. A little
vague, but quite enough for me.
After some thought, the principle is more general. Assuming that the couple
do not want to reflect also some role reality outside tango, which may change
everything, a man who follows remains a man in overall image, making only the
minimal changes needed to permit proper following: he is not obligated to
impersonate a woman, unless he wants to, but there must be that surrender to
the lead whenever called for, his ochos, traba, etc, need a male version of
lightness and grace, and so on. (OK, if you are auditioning for the fight
scenes in Forever Tango, forget all this.) Since I am a novice follower of
women, I am still working on the details, but I have no doubts about the
starting point: I am a man being led by a woman. (OK, pass the powdered wig
and the kerchief.) I have seen a fair amount of exhibition tango by two man
to get a feeling for the Argentine manner for a man following, and it
transfers to my "more favorite" configuration.
Now Jay Jenkins contribution on this subject, plus my memories of seeing
Maestro Carlos Gavito do the woman's part in classes have me thinking ...
Hmmm ... could I prance, wiggle, bat my eyelids, and so on and still respect
myself in the morning?
Cheers,
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:37:05 -0700
From: Elemer Dubrovay <dubrovay@JUNO.COM>
Subject: Fw: Tango leading-following
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:00:39 -0700
Subject: Tango leading-following
--------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:39:46 -0700
From: Razor Girl <dilettante666@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Tango leading-following (not really)
--- "Christian L|then" <christian.luethen@GMX.NET>
wrote:
> I would see it more general:
> a leader and a follower! not binded to any gender!
I am inclined to agree with Christian on this one.
I have not studied zen and do not know how the terms
"masculine" and "feminine" are defined. I know only
my own cultural experience of those terms.
My personal experience is that I feel no more feminine
following than I normally would and I feel no more
masculine leading than I normally. At the best, when
dancing I just feel completely like myself.
Leading and following are different forms of
expression but they are both centered around the same
ideas, which are being present in the moment,
listening to your partner, listening to the music,
staying centered and grounded and sharing an
expression together.
I like to think that a leader and follower combined
create one creature. When this creature is formed, it
no longer has two distinct halves. What leader and
follower bring together become intertwined. For me,
when the dance is really good I no longer know quite
who is leading, it is as if the dance is creating
itself and we are reading each other minds.
Regards,
Rose
Portland, OR
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:30:14 -0700
From: Ricardo Tanturi <tanturi999@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Tango leading-following
Jay,
I guess I failed miserably in trying to discourage this discussion - there were
four lengthy posts in response to my own post, and maybe the discussion would
have just died if I had let it alone.
--- Jay Rabe <jayrabe@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
I thought he did a good job of listing the "masculine"
> characteristics that are important in leading: assurance, confidence,
> projection; and the "feminine" characteristics of patience, trust,
> receptivity. Frankly I'm at a loss to understand what you, an experienced
> tanguero, would find to disagree with. I hope you'll take the time to
> explain.
I _really_ didn't want to get into this, but since you asked nicely and you do
seem to want to know, I will try to explain. In short, I think Julian's post
was just another iteration of what I'll call the traditionalist vs feminist
argument which has been discussed at length in many places. What I really
disagree with is the classification of traits as "masculine" or "feminine" and
all the baggage that goes with it.
The traditionalist viewpoint decides that some traits are masculine because men
seem stronger in these traits. Masculine traits are important for leadership
roles - executives, bosses of all sorts, etc. So men, who are assumed to have
the "masculine" traits, are tracked into important, high-paying positions,
while women, who are assumed to have the "feminine" traits, are tracked in
"follower" postions - relatively menial and low paying.
The problem with the traditionalist argument is that it is circular.
"Masculine" traits are considered appropriate for men, "feminine" traits for
women, and the traditionalist cuulture enforces is viewpoint in every fiber of
its fabric. Women who display "masculine" traits are slapped down; men who
display feminine traits are ridiculed or held in contempt. Likewise with
positions and roles - men are given roles that emphasize and exercise masculine
traits and behavior; conversely with women. And then after a lifetime of
conditioning, you look around and find (surprise!) that most men are stronger
in the traits you decided were "masculine", and conversely with women. This
proves your original assumption that some of the traits were masculine and
others feminine.
The reason I _suggested_ that I didn't want to see a big discussion on tango-l
is just that I think that the traditionalist vs feminist arguement has been
hashed over many times in many places, and I don't think more discussion on
tango-l is going to shed additional light or change anyone's opinion. And I
should have said that I didn't think the discussion is _specific_ to tango. If
you decide that men _should_ be leaders because they have more of the
"masculine" traits, well, just apply that to tango.
I guess it was the tone of Julian's post that irked me so much and led me to
say it was difficult not to be insulting. Maybe I over-reacted, but let me
give two expample:
1. Julian wrote:
"If you have a strong masculine side, you are in charge of your own life
because
you are internally controlled. You tend to look people in the eye. You stand
straight, and you usually command attention when you walk into a room, whether
you say anything or not."
As if women, with their predominately "feminine" traits, find it difficult to
control their lives, stand straight, look people in the eye, etc.
2. Julian wrote "Make no mistake..."
This is just a condescending way of saying "I'm right, and anybody who
disagrees is wrong." Reading it last, it gave me a very negative feeling about
the tone of the whole post.
Long post! I hope this will be the last I'll say about it. I don't intend to
follow the rest of the discussion in detail, so if you have anything you really
want to bring to my attention, better put "Hey Ricardo" in the subject line
rather than "Re: Tango leading-following".
"Ricardo"
_______________________________
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:25:27 -0700
From: Rick FromPortland <pruneshrub04@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Tango leading-following (not really)
ok, this is kinda lame-o, to repost something i posted last oct.
i do like the writer, a lot, & seems relevant to this thread...
fwiw...(from "Original Self" by Thomas Moore)
Gender is infinitely more sublte than biological difference & is never static...
.
Generally our thinking moves directly from anatomical difference to psychological differentiation & we assume that there are 2 genders, just as there are 2 biological sexes. But a human being is never reducible to biology. To make that reduction is to enter the fallacy of physicallism--the idea that a human being can be defined & then treated as a material body. This fallacy overlooks a world of emotion, memory, fantasy, & meaning, all of which more directly define a human being than the body pictured on a drs. skeleton chart of bone & organs.
.
Gender is a state of mind, a product of imagination. One man experiences masculinity in a way entirely different than another. The femininity of a particular woman is unique, an aspect of her personality or, even deeper, a manifestation of her soul. . Gender is archetypal & the liberation of women & feminine spirit could save our society from self-destructive violence.
.
The variations of gender are infinite, & so it is absurd to reduce gender to 2 categories & insist that everyone fit into 1 or the other. Besides, all dualisms dooms us to division & conflict. They are simplistic descriptions of experience & tend toward easy literalism. Paradoxically, to become less certain about one's own gender may be the turning point at which one beings to discover the richness of one's M or F...
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:29:29 +0000
From: Jay Rabe <jayrabe@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Tango leading-following
Ricardo,
Yes, you failed miserably ;-) And yes, if you really didn't want this
discussion on tango-L, the best would have been to say nothing. But Julian
started it, and the discussion was opened and probably unavoidable
regardless of what you wanted.
So just to continue the discussion you said you didn't want...
Thank you for elaborating on your position. I agree almost completely
with everything you've said about the roles gender has played in our
culture, and the unfairness of many of the constraints and lack of
opportunities for both men and women that have resulted. And I can see too
the hint of gender stereotyping in some of Julian's wording, whether he
truly believes the slant he portrayed or whether it was the result of habits
of thought and speech.
But regardless of the truth that such biases and assumptions and
artificial constraints have had horrible consequences in the history of men
and women, I won't back off on what I see as a valid-to-tango distinction
between masculine and feminine "characteristics."
As I said, my belief structure on the subject comes from Taoism, where
it is accepted that both men and women inherently have both "masculine" and
"feminine" natures. And in Taoism and martial arts, and I submit in tango,
IMO it is productive to differentiate between, OK, let's call them "active"
and "passive" behaviors. Leading (at least the initial markar, the
intention, the impulse) is an active, yang endeavor whether done by a man or
a woman. It's in the nature of the act. It has nothing to do with culture or
gender or upbringing. The English language has found it convenient to
translate "yang" as "masculine." That's fine, but really the core concept
has to do with the nature of energy flows in the Universe and nothing to do
with culture or gender.
You said, "What I really disagree with is the classification of traits
as 'masculine' or 'feminine' and all the baggage that goes with it." I agree
completely with not liking all the "baggage," but if you want to talk about
the concepts of conviction and confidence and intention, or conversely about
patience and trust and receptivity, what words do you suggest to categorize
those principles? I'm personally most comfortable with "yang" and "yin," but
those words seem too un-Argentine to be widely accepted in the tango world.
:-)
J
----Original Message Follows----
From: Ricardo Tanturi <tanturi999@YAHOO.COM>
Reply-To: Ricardo Tanturi <tanturi999@YAHOO.COM>
To: TANGO-L@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: [TANGO-L] Tango leading-following
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 13:35:27 -0700
From: Ricardo Tanturi <tanturi999@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Tango leading-following
Hi Jay,
You didn't put "Hey Ricardo" in the subject line, but I won't be a stickler.
--- Jay Rabe <jayrabe@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> I agree
> completely with not liking all the "baggage," but if you want to talk about
> the concepts of conviction and confidence and intention, or conversely about
> patience and trust and receptivity, what words do you suggest to categorize
> those principles? I'm personally most comfortable with "yang" and "yin," but
> those words seem too un-Argentine to be widely accepted in the tango world.
I just don't think it's necessary to catagorize those principles. If you are
going to catagorize, why do you have to use a dichotomy - masculine/feminine,
yin/yang, black/white, right brain/left brain, logical/emotional, etc? Why not
use a trichotomy, or n-chotomy? Why not use 7 dichotomies, like on some of
those personality tests? And why does masculine/feminine have to be the main
dichotomy you use? That's part of what I meant by saying that this
catagorization is an over-simplification.
I don't object so much to "yin/yang" or "active/passive" - AS you described
them. But once you've decided to use "masculine/feminine" as your main
dichotomy, it's so easy to say that men _should_ be leaders and women
followers, in life and in tango. I don't agree w/ "should" in either case.
I guess the discussion hasn't been so bad. I think everybody who posted on
this topic had something interesting and original to contribute. But no more
questions for me, please.
"Ricardo"
