Yes, I do. I, too, was quite surprised, especially given how cultured some of these people are. Maybe it's a DC thing, perhaps given that we don't have a major ballet company here.

I understand your explanation of why you think, as a result of your government work, you would think operationally about some things differently, even though we don't know the nature of that work. But to anyone outside this, the phrase 'harasser identified as society as a whole' doesn't mean anything. I do not see that society as a whole is harassing male dancers except by being the particular shape of society with its codes of masculine or feminine which vary according to which society it is. Agree with kfw on some of this part. As such, it could be said to be harassing everybody in some way or another.

And it's hardly a stretch to see Radetsky's article as a homophobic bit of business, telling straight people who have wrong ideas about ballet that it isn't 'about gay men'.

Tights as business suit.

And even if I think there are more straight male stars than gay in this period, that doesn't change the fact that ballet is often identified with women as ballerinas and many gay male dancers (I don't know if there are more than in the gypsy Broadway chorus lines where I worked, but they were literally all gay in one of the ones I worked with.) That should be the thrust of any grievance, whereas this article is really an attempt to point out how Radetzsky was always interested in the girls. It's definitely an attempt to distance himself from any gay attitudes, which implies that he must be on the defensive about this--whereas that has never mattered before as any important issue, people just live with it. And Radetzky has to live with the fact that what he's said doesn't change the fact that a lot of male dancers are gay. And yet with this article he has chosen to speak for the 'straight ballet dancer'. He is not speaking for the 'male ballet dancer'. I don't find the article anything beyond narcissistic, and fail to see it as being like Vilella's old speeches in the Bronx. That was the way to do it. This reads like a feature from an old Modern Screen more than some plea for tolerance. The way people were going on about it, I didn't read it only because I got the feeling ballet must have finally gotten a surprise cover story. It turned out to be a couple of paragraphs, mostly self-promotion from what I could tell.

Long-winded this time, but I see it as Aurora does. The glass ceiling is sexism and bigotry and discrimination, but sexual harassment is something more specific in the way not only I understand it, but in the way it is popularly understood.

Hans, I hadn't thought of the D.C. tie-in, I guess that could be possible. But I would never ever have guessed it, and it may have to do with contemporary gay attitudes both about image and culture. Contemporary gay culture is a lot more (at least from what I see in New York) about doing the most superficial trendy things--so that may exist here in the gay community more than I've realized. But since I probably have more straight than gay friends, I might not know it; but I think I can tell that there are fewer gay people interested in traditional classical cultures across the board, not just ballet, than there were 30 years ago. Don't know if that speaks to what you were talking about exactly, but I do think much contemporary urban gay culture is all pop all the time, and it gives it this hyper atmosphere combined with a lot of campy silliness.

I had quite forgotten that the visible profiles on this board differ somewhat from the ones at Ballet Talk for Dancers, but for the sake of information, I am employed by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. I occupy the curatorial position at a museum operated by that agency, and have a responsibility to interface with all inquirers of information derived from the collection and equipment at my disposal. Ever try to explain a flintlock to a six-year-old? I've done that. Or try to explain the sequence of treadle/shuttle/heddle/harness to a retired weaver who worked on power looms? I've done that. Want to know what George Washington wore for underwear? I've answered that. How do you dress wood for housewrighting? I've demonstrated that. How do you know if a diamond were cut in the eighteenth century? etc. etc. etc.

But now, with moderator hat in hand, I submit that we are way, WAY .

Is it too much to ask how we were off-topic? We followed from your statements and made interpretations of the article, didn't we? If related matters of this sort of obviously controversial things cannot be discussed here, I'm going to just stick to the strict information swapping, and forget about any opinion posts.

How are we ? Here's how:



which is an ad hominem attack on the credentials of the poster even to comment on the mighty issues before the House. Such discourse is not in accordance with the basic rule of discussion on the Ballet Talk boards, in which matters of evangelical religion, proselytizing politics, sexual practices and the other things you don't bring to the dinner table are discouraged. They always lead to a thread going to hell in a handbasket.

Do ask you like with posting etiquette, but kindly remember that controversy does not have to lead to one poster disparaging another.

It was no such thing. Not even minutely was I trying to disparage you. I was even showing respect to whatever this work might be by saying that you got your definitions for 'sexual harassment' from a source that is not known to me and it is not the popular understanding of the term, i.e., if anything, that work, whatever it was, gave you the credentials to call it something the rest of use would not. But in nothing I wrote did I say you should not have reason to operate with that in mind, only that most were not going to understand it that way. I was not trying to disparage you as a poster and tell you you 'didn't have proper credentials' to discuss this. I do disagree with the phrase of 'society as sexual harasser', which you may think I criticized too brutally, but I fail to see how it can mean much in such a general form.

In fact, if you haven't been convinced by the above, I thought surely it must be somehow something about how I interpreted Radetzky's article that had been off-topic, but the matter of an 'ad hominem' being derived from what I wrote is a wrong interpretation. I was not doing it. I probably just hate the article.

Hans, thanks for posting. If you don't mind, would you please tell us what they say? I think of male heterosexual contempt for ballet as homophobic. What in the world do gay males find beneath their respect about it? You say some of these men are pretty cultured --- are they victims of self-hatred, absorbing and mirroring the judgments of straight males who confuse ballet manners with effeminacy? Is it, as papeetepatrick suggests, just that their sensibilities are limited by pop culture? But then why the actual derision instead of just indifference or polite curiousity?

I think it is some of both. Generally men of my own generation (mid 20's) and younger seem to find it interesting that I am involved in ballet, although there are the inevitable stupid comments about what one can see beneath the tights, but I know how to handle that sort of remark graciously. It's men who are a little older who are really disparaging, and I wonder if it's perhaps because they grew up in an era in which it was not really ok to be gay. These are also people who work in very conservative office environments, so I suppose that could be a factor too.

It's not necessarily exactly what they say as how it's said--referring to the classes I teach as "floating lessons," for example, or implying that I must prefer a particular sexual position because I was a ballet dancer (that's one that comes from all age groups). There is this attitude that ballet is silly and inconsequential, and it is different from the way they talk about other art forms (opera is taken more seriously, for example, and people seem to downright enjoy the national galleries).

I hope this isn't getting too far off topic, but I think this is tied to the idea that in this part of the country it is not really ok for gay men to be noticeably gay--there is this idea that if you act more like a straight male, you're somehow a better person. Since ballet is not recognized as a masculine pursuit, male ballet dancers are disparaged as being more feminine and therefore less deserving of respect and admiration.

One more
There are 13 copies available at Amazon (link at top of this page), starting at 34 cents, and a whole whack more if you go to AddAll.com. I have the book and enjoyed reading it and referring back to it. While Mazo focusses on a few dancers to the exclusion of many others, it's always fascinating to get a behind the scenes look at a ballet company, and for me especially, the NYCB that I knew.

I think that's quite early. Off the top of my head, I'd put the date closer to 1978, +/-.

At risk of raising a few hackles, I think there's an elitist slant in this discussion. It's all been about professionals. What about the young boy who wants to take ballet because, well, just because he likes it? Should he receive any less encouragement and support than say, the Ethan Stiefels who, from the start, are pegged as future stars? The ones that will never get into the elite academies. What about the ballet equivalent of the Little League second-stringer? They're as marginalized in this discussion as they (likely) are in the school yard. And I think Sascha had these fellas in mind as well as the grown-up pros.

Thanks for making this point, Hans. I wonder if that is due to the popular image of the art as a stage full of females? Or more so, getting back to the folks who see only their daughters' recitals and Nutrackers, a stage full of very little females in pink frills? We know that's not the case, but as said just a few posts above, changing public perception is no easy task.

Carbro, you make an excellent point. To me, this thread is for all male ballet dancers, regardless of age, ability, and sexual orientation.

I also agree that ballet is looked upon by many people as a pastime or social club for little girls, not a profession for grown women and not males of any age.

As Hans mused earlier, there could be something in the regional differences. While I find much contemporary urban gay culture purely fashion-oriented, the generation prior to mine, pre-Stonewall and in the closet, definitely was full of its 'ballet queens' quite as much as 'opera queens'--at least in New York. They were so many gay Suzanne Farrell fans you couldn't even count them. But this can vary from place to place, and Hans's observation about it 'still not being okay to be gay' may be true in D.C., although I can't see how it follows that they find ballet 'silly' (although I don't dispute that they do so if that's what the evidence is, and Hans would know), i.e., the closeted gays of the 50s and 60s in New York were very involved in ballet-going (although if they were in New York in the closet periods, they were still only semi-closet--that's why they came here, so they wouldn't have to be.)

"Ironically, the stereotype of the sissy male dancer has given rise to a male dancer who is anything but."

This is the kind of thing that some can overlook in the article and some can't. After having already declared his own sexual preference, he is making a statement which doesn't make any sense, because there is no evolution from the 'stereotype of the sissy male dancer' to the 'anything but sissy male dancer' any more than there is from the 'sissy male in general' to the 'anything-but-sissy male'. One would be able to derive that this new masculine non-sissy dancer in fact, owed a great debt to this very stereotype of the sissy male dancer, since that is from what this new dancer rose phoenix-like.




The thread is, but the article is not, IMO. He would have needed to say explicitly that "gay does not equal sissy" as well, which he does not do--especially if he needed to proclaim his heterosexuality as well. Without including 'gay masculine dancers' explicitly, he puts them back in the closet. He says 'some of my colleagues are gay' and adds 'Can we move on now?' which is like saying 'That's the bad news. Now here's the good news.' It also brings up the even more difficult matter of 'does sissiness exist?' People usually don't want to answer this, as it involves political correctness. Sissiness means male effeminacy (which can be straight or gay, by the way), and it does exist. There is plenty of it everywhere, so it must exist in the dance world--I've heard that it does. So that some of the forms of effeminacy among males--someone mentioned that there is problem 'trying to act masculine' and that gays often want to do this to make them feel a 'better person'--are considered not very desirable. I think all these points of view are fair. I know I want to 'seem masculine', not effeminate, and don't care what the verdict on that is (I certainly am under no obligation to do so in the environment in which I live.) But there are some very famous male dancers who are what I would term 'very feminine' in some ways which I find attractive and that adds to their art as ballet dancers--and seeing 'the feminine' in males is not the same thing as 'effeminacy' (or not exactly the same and/or not nearly always the same), although most don't make the difference, and it does need to be made, as does the fact that there are many effeminate straight men as well.

papeetepatrick raises some great points. Never, for instance, will we see a mainstream article on men in dance in which a male dancer says "I signed up for ballet because of meeting all the boys" or "I like moving gracefully to music" or "Ballet helps me to bring out my feminine side" or even "my mom didn't want me to grow up to be a jerky straight guy." Ballet companies drool over loudly straight men (think Ethan Stiefel revving his motorcycle in Center Stage); articles/press material about gay male dancers are less likely to discuss the dancer's personal lives than materials about "straight" ones, which love to trumpet marriages and children. And yes straight in quotes b/c there are loudly straight male dancers--as in any profession--who are deeply closeted. BTW the notion that male ballet dancers can be closeted never ceases to be a point of amusement among my non-dancer friends--in fact, they can't believe the closet exists in the dance context at all, and giggle that the ballet world gets so excited over what they see as rather rigid ideals of masculinity. (But some of these friends also can't believe dancers smoke and do drugs.)

I always shake my head when I hear that America, meaning US, (and sometimes North America) is the country (place) that admires individualism, because schools are equal to the military in their demand for behavioral conformity -- and I mean outside the classroom.

That any student is in physical danger for what s/he is and wants to become is appalling.

As for Russian reverance for male dancers, it is no less homophobic: there is great prestige to lose, compared to the meant-to-be dismissive assumption that "they're all gay."

If acknowledgment of a common problem means 'dismissal,' then that's what it was, I suppose.



Indeed.

Helene's post reminds me that Russian respect for ballet dancers does not go so far as to include a societal acceptance of homosexuality.

Papeetepatrick, I think the regional difference is due to DC not ever having had a major ballet company. The Washington Ballet, and previously the National Ballet, were nothing more than chamber companies until Septime Webre came on board. Even now, TWB is very small, WSB has a tiny male dancer population at the upper levels, and Suzanne Farrell's company uses imported dancers. The Kirov Academy is isolated in an inaccessible neighborhood, and although companies often tour to the Kennedy Center, that is very different from having a "home" company regularly performing a familiar repertoire with familiar dancers fed from a school. Thus, a love for and appreciation of ballet has not developed here the way it has in, say, Manhattan, where Lincoln Center is easily accessible by foot in a bustling part of town. (I don't know as much about the development of opera here, but as the Baltimore-Washington area has--and has had for some time--some prestigious music schools, I would think music would have an easier time.)

I also think papeetepatrick and Ray make very good points regarding male effeminacy and ballet.

Perhaps a story from work would clarify what I intended here.

We aren't the French Academy, where in Pre-Revolutionary days (and somewhat after), you could find duels all over the countryside, as the Academicians took umbrage against refutations of their theories by resorting to sword and pistol against their opposition in debate. At least modern peer review in journal articles, while still sometimes scathing, does not often end in letter-bombs and drive-by shootings.

In March of 1783, a movement arose among the officers of the Continental Army to go on an actual strike against the government unless they received a retirement package that they wanted for after the war. The author of the scheme was John Armstrong, Jr., the son of a Pennsylvania Congressman, and a principal aide-de-camp to Maj.-Gen. Horatio Gates, Washington's second-in-command in terms of seniority. Washington convened his officers and gave them one lulu of a pep talk, which ended in the measure not even being seconded when it was moved.

Armstrong was not himself deeply emotionally attached to his idea, but was concerned that Washington had meant to lambaste him personally, and sent a letter some years later, asking his late commander if that had been his intention. Washington replied to the effect that he had not known whose writing it had been, and that no personal animosity had been inherent in his denunciation. (Actually, in GW's delivery text, he used phrases like "My God! What can this writer have been thinking? Can he not be an insidious enemy from (enemy-occupied) New York?" Those sound pretty personal to me.)

Many years later, about 50 to be more precise, Timothy Pickering, who had been deeply emotionally invested in the idea, wrote to Armstrong, asking, "C'mon, now, you and I are old friends, it's been a long time. Did you actually write those proposals or not?" Armstrong wrote back, apparently still smarting under the idea that he had been laid out by GW himself, "Yeah, I wrote it, but the Boss said that he didn't know it was me, and was just going after the ideas." He wrote, by the way, in a disguised hand, and signed the answer, "John Montgars", thus seeking still to maintain his anonymity.

I think that people do get involved with their ideas, so much so that they are a personal extension of the self into the wilderness of dispute, and I, here am as guilty as anyone. In a connected world, impartiality toward one's own mores and thoughts is more difficult than in the days when a letter did not have immediately to be sent, and taken back to the desk for a second, or a third massage for clarity and impersonality before sending.

Therefore observing the limitations and drawbacks of the medium in which we communicate, I apologize to those to whom I have given offense, and to those to whom I have not, for wasting your time.
Sincerely,

So much has been discussed on this thread that has occupied my mind often, and I love the different perspectives. When I was growing up, we really thought in terms of four sexes, not two, teen years were very interesting sorting all that out, and as Ray so very rightly points out, it doesn't always get fully sorted then. I have to say when I read this article I did not at all think of it as an article about men in ballet, I saw it as an article about straight men in ballet. I figured that was why he was bothering telling us he was. I could have been wrong. I have always felt that ballet was an incredibly tough profession and each sex had their own issues to deal with. For instance:

Gay girls: ok, where I live this is the absolute worst. Shunned by the ballet world and "the community" which in my area is a very closed set of people with a very militant core who do everything short of write a handbook on what gay women must and must not do. Gay women must dance modern. Possibly street dance, maybe jazz, NEVER classical ballet.

Straight girls: very competitive, can be very degrading and humiliating, forced to suck up to men of both orientations, putting (usually straight it seems) men in a position of ultimate power over your entire life including what / whether you eat, full license to criticize your body, your mind, your soul, ... aaaaghhh!

Gay boys: can have an awful lot of the same issues as the girls, the glass ceiling mentioned here that I've wondered about as well, dealing with possible effeminacy in their dancing and criticism for it (something perceived straight dancers are not nearly as often criticized for ... and as pointed out, it can be there in both cases). (Hans, I was very shocked to hear of criticism of ballet from the male gay community in DC - I think here a lot of the gay male dancers prefer jazz, at least when they are younger, but the male gay community is very supportive of ballet. It's the women that trash it constantly.)

Straight boys: it can sometimes be a little hard to feel sorry for the straight boys, but they obviously do have their issues (which get more air time than anyone else's) and I think confusion may be a major one. And maybe the assumption that they are gay when they haven't figured it out yet gets very annoying and may lead to things like Ethan Steifel saying he "likes to dance balls out" and the constant talk of how he would have destroyed the house if his parents hadn't put him in dance. Here's an article where Rex Harrington says “My mother enrolled me in the National Ballet School because she knew before I did that I was a little bit tipped.” http://archives.xtra.ca/Story.aspx?s=1444957. I can't count how many times I have heard variations on that from boys in jazz or ballet. I think it might be ok sometimes, but most of the time people like to figure things out for themselves and announce it themselves without the adults taking that over ... yeeesh.

Anyway, the reason I am writing this is not because I expect anyone to agree with my perceptions or think that they are in any way complete, but because I would love to hear more discussion on gender politics in ballet, I think there is an enormous amount to be sorted out and I don't think it's an old story at all. Barely scratched in fact.

Great comments, CeC! I think gay women's relation to ballet is woefully under-discussed; the gay ballerina qua lesbian won't appear in Newsweek anytime soon. For those so inclined, the dance theorist/historian Susan Foster, who self-identifies as queer, writes extensively on ballet in a positive vein.

I wanted to reply to this too--very observant as to the kind of narratives that people like to hear about men in dance. As opposed to, say, "I got hooked on dance because I watched Busby Berkeley movies and wanted to be a petal on one of the human flowers"; or, "I wanted to get AWAY from the boys who were tipped and trying to burn down the house"; or "I wanted to see those boys in tights."

Ray, this is my all-time personal favorite reason for going into ballet!

And this is my second
Thank you.

As a heterosexual and therefore a member of a perceived minority in his profession, could this be nothing more than his version of "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!"?

Ironic, isn't it, that this article whose purpose was to debunk stereotypes has evoked so many on this thread?

OMG I'm not special anymore!

No -- you ARE! I've never heard these before, and am absolutely delighted at even the small possibility that someone, having read them here, will use them in real life.

Since he wrote such an unintelligible sentence in the first place, in which the sissies give rise to the 'anything but sissy' male dancer--but doesn't know he wrote such a sentence and the editor didn't catch it--I would imagine it could be his version of almost anything he wants it to be. And certainly the 'some of my colleagues are gay. Can we move on now?' can be anything he wants it to mean too. It could be the Rush Limbaugh version of 'We're here, we're queer, get used to it', which is just as tiresome as the original one. One deals with black or white racism as it comes up, or female spousal abuse when it comes up too--the fact that only 5% of spousal battery is from the female doesn't make each individual case any the less serious.



Not really, considering how the 'stereotype-debunking' is so limited, is parasitic on stereotypes itself for its very existence, and is written in so colloquial a voice that it sounds like something in a high school paper (even if that is the one in 'Fame'.)

Yes, articles of this type cannot help making being gay sound like being an ex-con, or something, as if Radetsky is indeed working with these disreputable types, but he himself has never been to jail. (Yes, I know he doesn’t mean it that way.)

Thanks for posting, CeC. You are quite right about the non-presence of gay women in the discussion (of course, that's also reflected in their mostly under-the-radar society at large, I think).

The last I looked there were hetero and gay cops, firemen, baseball players, politicians, teachers and ballet dancers fathers, bus drivers and cowboys...

And there are stereotypes and there will always be stereotypes and hopefully people are moving past bigotry. I don't see how sexual/gender ID has anything to do with those or other occupations.

Who really cares?

I've been trying to make personal sense of this long and convuluted thread. I should say, "threads." Some are discussing Radetsky's article and their own responses to, and assumptions about, it. Others are discussing the objective situation -- often demeaning and even threatening -- faced by many young ballet dancers. It's a complicated topic, and I have to admit some distress at some of the comments about Radetsky, his language, his possible motives, and all the things he didn't bother to include.

I agree with dancesmith and others who take both aspects of the discussion and try to learn from them.


I have difficulty understanding those who say "this is old hat" and "who cares?," positions have been articulated more than once on this thread. It's clear that the people doing the insulting --and they are legion -- care enough about the threat of gayness (whatever that means to them) to do some pretty nasty things. One assumes that the victims -- and they are legion, too -- care as well.

Radetsky, writing from his own personal experience, cares and is trying, for whatever reason, to influence others to care with him. He says: I find this both true and admirably put.

And what about the young people who are being laughed at, demeaned, insulted, and sometimes bullied and shoved into hiding? Radetsky's situation may not be precisely their own. But I'll be they identify with him on many levels and are glad that he spoke up. Many young dancers and students lack the ability or platform to articulate their experiences. Few are invited to write for national media. Radetsky is speaking for more than just himself. Until something better comes along, I'm glad he did.

Yes, SanderO, there are gay people in every profession, but they aren't generally perceived to be gay because of their profession, whether they really are or not.

It is indeed quite a complex issue. I think that once people stop defining what is "masculine" so narrowly and stop using "gay" as a derogatory term, we will be all right. Easier said than done....

I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. If gays and lesbians were suddenly as accepted and respected everywhere as straights, wouldn't most remaining closeted gays and lesbians still rush out of the closet to declare their sexual identity? And when they did, would we presume they were implicitly putting down straights? Why should we judge Radetsky by another standard? People want to be known for who they are; St. Patricks' Day parades are not about putting down the French and the Germans.

Radetsky writes well for a man who spends his working hours in a dance studio and not at a keyboard, but we shouldn't expect the same clarity we'd expect from a professional. If the subtext of the article was "I'm not one of those disreputable gays," why would he mention Nureyev as one of the "pioneers" who "opened minds"?

No, but the St. Patrick's Day Parade in New York could be said to be about putting down gays, although I have little interest in that and never cared about it. Likewise, since I have so little gay identity, I can see when someone wants to proclaim straight identity, and I find both pretty boring. I think Radetsky wants to get the privileges he perceives in the straight establishment by making sure to identify himself as 'not gay'.



Because Nureyev managed to become famous despite a gayness and even outrageous promiscuity that was even flaunted, and that's what's crucial. He certainly didn't mean Nureyev 'opened minds' toward accepting anybody's sexuality, but rather opened up ballet to bigger audiences--especially though that he was hugely successful. I know plenty of people who don't spend their time at a keyboard, including dancers, who write decently and often very well. I don't think he writes well by any standards, so that it has to be accepted that some want to take a somewhat Christian-compassionate attitude toward it, and some are not going to. Almost any quoted remark by Suzanne Farrell, without any forethought, is better, when she talks about 'fantasy and how she likes it, that there's little enough of it in the world' when she was doing 'Cinderella' in Chicago years ago, or just even talking about how 'I like dancing with Peter, it's a pleasure.' It sounds banal and nothing, but it always rings true and makes you rethink that very simple thing. I use that example only because she, so silent and reserved, is not even one of the ones we usually think of as being the most verbal, but every time she opens her mouth, there is something there that is not advertising itself. And the many others who speak a lot more, like Melissa Hayden, really tell you something about how dancers can articulate and speak truly: Nobody was better than Hayden at explaining certain things about Balanchine's musicianship, for example. There are even some dancers and dance writers here at Ballet Talk that really write, and not just the fine professionals like Alexandra but also just dancers themselves posting like we are. People who are literate and know how to compose a sentence that makes sense, not sentences that people have to contrive and work at and give 'extra credit' to force them to make sense they don't have as written. I parsed several of his 'sentences', and some of them are not even grammatically decent, much less in a decent spirit. As a writer myself, I can tell you something about what writing is and is not.

It is obvious that one can give anybody the benefit of the doubt. It is something some here want to do, it can feel generous but it needs to be sincerely believed, so these do believe it. I don't. I think it rings false, and so do others here. While it is true, as Hans says, that one is often assumed to be gay because of being in the ballet profession, it is also true of pianists, in the exact same way--I have been through this myself and been called sissy years ago when I was a budding pianist, been beaten up by rednecks in Alabama, been thought sissy because a pianist and thought gay for not dating girls in high school (they don't know that I then started dating them and having sex with them as well as men). I then toughened myself and nobody fooled with me. Radetsky seems to have as well ('we need to go outside', my version was 'meet me after school'), but wants to talk about it and get special sympathy, which he has found somehow. Frankly, he sounds a little like a sissy to me in some ways--you know, if you've been through that, it doesn't necessarily mean an insult. Perhaps I should phrase it: 'Some of my colleagues are straight sissies. Can we move on now?' Of course, by 'sissy', I do not mean 'gay'. That is what he meant. He wrote: "Ironically, the stereotype of the sissy male dancer has given rise to a male dancer who is anything but." By 'sissy', he clearly meant 'gay', and he meant the established perception of 'ballet sissy' to mean 'gay'--there is no way to mean 'sissy' without meaning 'gay'. He was not thinking of 'straight sissies.' Ballet has as much to do with gay male ballet dancers as it does with straight male dancers, no matter what anyone wants this to be. He was talking about straight male dancers as opposed to gay male dancers.

I'll admit, as a current member of a ballet company and being long-involved with all things ballet, this article was a bit of the 'same-old, same-old' for me. As has been already noted on this thread, this article isn't particularly ground-breaking or shocking.

HOWEVER. While we, as a small population of balletomanes, feel that we have heard this argument again and again, the American population at large has not. The fact is, most of these types of articles appear in ballet-related magazines, websites, etc. So I think we should be happy that ballet, in ANY shape and form, is being subtly advertised. I know that I need to explain to my boyfriend over and over that no, not all of they guys I dance with are gay. In fact, gay dancers are actually the minority in the company I dance with. The problem that I see with these so-called "macho dancers" is that they are also reinforcing a stereotype--if a male dancer isn't gay, he's sex-crazed. Of course they don't say it like that, but it is certainly implied. Again, if I tell my boyfriend that a guy I dance with is straight, he automatically assumes that he must be hitting on me. Part of this is of course is him being petty and jealous, but the other part is the fact that articles like this convey that straight male dancers are just in it for the girls. If these sorts of articles continue, I just wish that the "I got into ballet for the girls in tight clothes" excuse would be phased out.



-Carmen

I disagree with much of what you've said. First of all, I think the majority would agree that he is arguing that, due to the stereotype of sissy male dancers (which IS separate from sexuality), and the need of many male dancers to defend themselves, their masculinity and their chosen area of interest, male dancers have been toughened up as a result.

I also take issue with you saying that Radetsky is "seeking special sympathy." This isn't an "oh woah as me" article nor is it a plea for pity or recognition.

And while this article could be taken apart and analyzed to death, I agree with Sascha Radetsky's overall approach to the issue at hand, which is getting respect for male ballet dancers. His approach is very pragmatic, though I doubt he consciously made the decision to go about it in such a way. Let's be honest, ballet does not, and frankly will not ever appeal to certain portions of the overall population, which is fine with me, because in the same manner, I will NEVER understand the appeal of baseball. I will however, readily admit, that baseball is difficult and that if I went up to bat I would inevitably injure myself before the first pitch was thrown (I think ballet is much more difficult, but perhaps that's just my personal bias ). What Radetsky is trying to do is get a respect for the art of ballet, specifically for male dancers.

Articles like this are necessary, but to make them nuanced to the degree that some here seem to expect is not practical or realistic. If he launched into a discussion about the various natures of heterosexual and homosexual dancers and the stereotypes surrounding both and what both bring with them to the stage etc., not only would he have strayed entirely from his purpose, but the majority of the people reading would glaze over, if Newsweek had even printed something like that. One could draw a comparison to today's news. Most shows have 30 second clips of inflammatory remarks and then 4 minutes of 16 people giving opposing viewpoints all the while the camera is constantly changing angles with graphics gone wild. If you want insightful discussion, you have to go to some obscure public broadcast channel or seek out unbiased web pages. The 30 second clips draw the most viewers, and I see this article as the male ballet dancers' 30 second clip.

I question how many Newsweek Readers gave it more than a glance. I certainly doubt it will be a catalyst for some kind of mass cultural shift, but I think this articles net impact will be positive. If nothing else, I have no doubt that more than a few aspiring male dancers felt encouraged by the article.

Some thoughts on this thread.

Rudi was universally accepted as a great dancer and a gorgeous man. he also was perceived to have bravely stood up to the USSR at a time when the cold war was a very hot item and he was thrust into the spotlight at the time as much for his defection as for his skill which was not well know in this country.

Publishing an article about ballet in a national news weekly must be seen as an overall marketing attempt to bring the mainstream to ballet. As others have pointed out, the stereotype issues are well known and often discussed within the ballet community and their publications. So the content of the Sasha's article doesn't brave any new territory.

Not being a ballet dancer I have no idea of what it is like on a day to day basis to deal with the stereotypes of the male dancer as gay. Obviously this is less a problem within the dance world than it would be for the male dancer when he has to interface with those outside of the dance community. But I don't think such an article would have much effect at tearing down these stereotypes.

There are really two over arching approaches here. Get society to accept homosexuality and give up their bigotry. And this would apply to all professions. Or introduce the world to the fact that there are plenty of straight males in ballet and crash thew stereotype that all males in ballet are gay. Sasha seems to be working on the second on and chose a well read national news weekly to stage on battle in the struggle.

Someone above raised the notion that it is ballet itself which fosters, encourages and embraces gay males and hence is, ironically, part of the the myth creation that if a male is a ballet dancer he must be gay. That is the area where some light needs to focused. Is there any basis to make such a connection?

I suppose some might argue that the attraction to "beauty" is something that straight males seem not to be interested in. But surely this doesn't apply to painting or sculpture. While there have been many brilliant gay artists, there are many straight and this stererotype, the gay artist, thought it may exist is hardly as strong as it is for ballet. It doesn't seem to apply to Tango or Flamenco, break dancing, hip hop, ballroom or tap dancing just to name a few dance genres where they stereotype seems not to apply.

So where does the stereotype come from? Is it the men in tights thing? Tights are women's clothing and so men who work in and feel comfortable in must be gay. I have no idea how the stereotype is built, so I am speculating. But there are other professions where macho type males are wearing skin tight clothing such as triathalon and luge suits. Could the stereotype come down to what dancers wear in some ballets and in rehearsal? It seems irrational but that's how bigotry works - non rational thinking.

And how about this. What is the big deal that ballet might attract more gay than straight men? Are there more gays proportionately who are attracted to careers in the arts as opposed to macho professions such as race car drivers or soccer players, or carpenters or masons? There are lots of stereotypes out there and some represent short cuts in thinking and though not universally applicable they they have elements of truth to them. Think of the the lithe bun head with a big dance bag over her shoulder. That a stereotype of a female dance student, ain't it?

The fact is, that whatever the percentage of gay males in ballet and the arts in general, there are straight ones, married ones with children and so forth.

So in the end, what is the impact of the stereotype? Is it affecting the attendance at ballet? Is it experienced as discrimination by dancers both gay and straight inside or outside of dance? Are dancers such as Sasha being hit on my gay males all the time and are weary from turning away advances? Are they subject to ridicule? On the face being a straight male in a ballet seems like a great gig, don't it? You work with lots of beautiful women (and men) all day long and you don't have to sit at a desk and peer into a computer screen. If I could change presto into a straight ballet dancer from my own profession, I would do it in a New York minute.

Does any of this make sense?

Thanks, Petite-Arabesque, or putting your position so clearly. (I'm envy the gift of keeping things succinct. )

It's especially good to hear from young people actively engaged in the profession -- as dancers, teachers, etc. You are the people who the most affected. As an older person, a non-dancer, and an outsider, I often find myself turning these issues into something a little too hypothetical.

I was going to quote the exact same lines of Petite Arabesque that you did, bart.

I guess I should identify myself as a member of the "American population at large" who hasn't "heard the argument again and again". My overall reaction to the article was positive - "hey, something about ballet in Newsweek!" That doesn't happen every day. As a parent of a dancer my appreciation for ballet is relatively new, so this wasn't a stale topic at all for me.

In some areas there is a dearth of male dancers of whatever orientation.... where I come from, if you're a guy that wants to dance, you'll be welcomed and befriended. Anything that could possibly spark or support the interest of a young man seems like a positive to me. And that was my second response to the article. The gay/straight comments.... I guess I glossed over them. Or maybe they really weren't that important. It seems to me they have been blown a little out of proportion in this thread.....

Well, they are among the first words in his article, and I think b/c one hasn't encountered an "argument" before doesn't mean that it's unimportant. Sexuality is a big part of the practice of dance--for better or for worse--and I don't think we need to run away from it. Also, I think that the article speaks to young men in different ways. Had I read that as a young man, for instance, I might have been attracted to dance b/c of the picture of Sascha, but also potentially worried by the anxiety that gayness seems to inspire in the article.

Here's another incarnation of the "argument," from a news clip on the NZ Ballet (pertinent part comes at the end): Royal New Zealand Ballet

I don't disagree with you Ray, he certainly did mention stereotypes and sexuality (or orientation) within his first few sentences. Nor do I think we need to run away from these issues.

I just think that his main intention for writing was to further the prospect that ballet can be a masculine pursuit, "in order to move toward an appreciation of the athleticism and artistry involved in this line of work".

Of course one person's writings are going to be based on their own perspectives and experiences. Just as we readers tend to react and make interpretations of those writings from our own personal perspectives. And maybe because I am less representative of the "small population of balletomanes" and read the essay more from the perspective of the general public, I got a different message.

The message I got didn't have much to do with sexual orientation, but was more focused on the athleticism and art that male dancers in general bring to their work. And that seems to me, is a very positve message to be found in the mainstream press.

This may be OT, but I wonder if there are any studies of about the non ballet attending audience and why they choose NOT to attend?

It would seem to me, that once you open yourself up to the "beauty of ballet" of males and females who move exquisitely, with extremely well toned, developed and flexible bodies, gay or straight simply does not figure into the calculus.

The love of beauty and movement is not a gay or straight thing. it's a human thing. Ain't it?

Speaking of stereotypes - I don't know what to say about this article ... it's the NY Times, so mainstream?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/sports/o...amp;oref=slogin

From the cited article:

Weir’s outfits often sparkle like disco balls; in his short program he pretends to be a seagull. His total package has not only led to assumptions that he is gay — something not as taboo in figure skating as in other sports — but a controversy over his not being the right type of gay. During a figure skating broadcast last year, the announcer Mark Lund, who is openly gay, said, “I don’t think he’s representative of the community I want to be a part of,” and, “I don’t need to see a prima ballerina on the ice,” before praising Lysacek’s masculinity.

....

Getting more serious, Weir continued: “If I was out to please 10-year-old girls and their 45-year-old mothers in Boise, Idaho, I could play the game and be nice and make my voice deeper. But I don’t see the point. I’m not alive for 10-year-old girls and their 45-year-old mothers in Boise, Idaho — or Colorado Springs, Colo.”

....

I don't know how you'd identify non-ballet goers, but I guess if you stopped people on a random selection of streets, you could get such a group. And my guess is that their answers would be pretty much the same as mine would be if asked why I don't attend boxing matches -- "Simply not interested, better things to do with my time and money."

Speaking of stereotypes indeed! The writer juxtaposes details like Weir's fur coat and Vuitton bag vs. Lysacek's truck.

Thanks, KarenD, for reminding us that not everyone lives in a ballet bubble.

I think the subject of the NYT article is stereotypes. As both Weir and Lysacek are projecting a certain image and style, and consciously so, it seems fair comment.

What did Lund mean by "community"? In the context of the article (or rather maybe this thread), there's a lot of ambiguity. Probably all that Lund meant was the Figure Skating community, period, and Weir's prickly self-righteousness (he's clearly not relying on the power of good public relations) may be a prime reason.

And thank you, carbro, for your kind reply.... let me add there are days that I feel dangerously susceptible to being "sucked into the bubble..."

Not that that would be a bad thing. I just hope to be able to maintain enough of my "outsider's perspective" to help others in the general public understand, appreciate, (and ultimately help support) this wonderful world. That's why I feel that any press about ballet has at least some redeeming quality.

In regards to the NYT article, this piece is clearly about 2 very different styles of performance, that perhaps can fairly be compared to different stereotypes. Although I would prefer not to pigeon hole these two unique individuals into stereotypes, but simply compare and contrast what they offer in their competition/performances. But going back to the original topic of this thread.... that is still a diferent theme from the Newsweek piece, IMHO.

Couldn’t resist posting this one. More sissy stuff, this time via Russell Maliphant.



“The rest of them, yeah, you could call them sissies,” Maliphant did not add.

I've seen both Weir and Lysacek skate a number of times live. Yes, off-ice, Weir wears the occasional dress and heels and makes what are for figure skating outrageous and inflammatory comments, and , his costumes are more ornate than Lysacek's, and Lysacek wears black and skates to macho toreador music -- although Weir's costumes work well in the arena, compared to Lysacek's which are great in close-ups and bland in the arena, and Weir's aren't remotely outre in context (for that see Kevin Van der Perren's embarrassing "Lawrence of Arabia" get-up he wore at the beginning of the season). Lysacek gets props for attempting and sometimes landing the quad -- his strategy is get as comfortable as possible with it in competition in preparation for the Vancouver Olympics, while Weir couldn't get it off the practice ice -- and for coming back fighting and nearly winning bronze in Torino with a blazing free skate after skating very ill in the Short Program and burying himself.

However, watch their movement quality: Weir is more muscular, and he goes deep in the thigh to get speed, flow, and deep edges. He has wonderful height and distance on his jumps -- Worlds Free Skate notwithstanding, as he was a tight, nervous wreck by his own account -- and his landing position is impeccable, in the skater equivalent of plie, with a strong back and great flow. He also has a textbook 3Axel, both solo and in combination, while Lysacek has dodgy technique on his, and has been inconsistent with it. (The 3Axel is a big macho jump, too.) Lysacek is much leaner, and in my opinion. he's a bit gawky. he gains speed with quick, not deep cross-overs, and his jumps, while flashier, don't have the same power or consistency or technique as Weirs', despite the quad hype.

The last time I saw them together was during last year's non-defunct Champions on Ice tour. Weir's skating was virile and alive. I thought Lysacek looked anemic and was a shadow of the skater who put down a bronze-medal-winning freeskate in Moscow in 2005. To me he looks like the kid who's willing to do the Latin dances at a bar mitzvah. Not particularly authentic, but gets points for chutzpah and willingness