Hi everybody:
I wonder is anyone into folksdancing?
Here is the debate that confuses me:
Social constructionism vs. Essentialism in Gender.

The Social Constructionist academic position argues that we are all the same, and children learn gender "constructs" from a young age. By that arguement "gender" concepts and behaviors change over history, and are learnt by example.
That begs the question why we have those "examples" in the first place - where do female voices come in eg. in anthems? Seemingly never at first.
The Essentialists argue that gender is biologically determined, and male vs. female roles will always be different and never change significantly.

I used to second the first opinion of constructivism in gender.
But then I look at folks-dancing (German in my examples), and the male dance is almost archetypal in its ritualized violence and physical expression.
Do people fall into dances like this? Do they exclude people who don't fit in?
Are there dances from around the world that have third genders or other possibilities?
Despite the bad name of pop music in conservative circles, doesn't it perpetuate conservative gender roles?
This is also confusing, because in some religions and cultures the genders may not mix at all. How does the West interpret this? Is it homoerotic?

Similarly I'm wondering about the moves and verses allowed for each gender - are they imposed false musical consciousness, or inherent displays of difference?

it's the three stooges meets the rough riders
I've never seen anything quite like it.
Half polka and half vaudeville.

I actually laughed during
a lot of it, so human.


David Grouchy

I believe that gender differences are largely biological, but accentuated by social and cultural factors.

However, I think this folks-dancing example doesn't necessary stem from biological, rather than cultural, factors.

The men would grow up with this dancing being the norm, and it does not mean that they all willingly took part, due to its violent nature.

If anything, the exaggerated violence and physical expression in the dance, is most likely done to impress the chicks.

Originally posted by halfoldman
Which begs the question - what came first?
Women's soprano voices or the notes in the song?

Well, for some reason everything shuts down for me when I just click on the beautiful song.
I hope somebody can post a free-use choral version.

I think it was the notes in the song, which was actually originally a British drinking song ( with different words ), which would have probably had an entirely male ''choir'' drunkenly singing it.

When they were arranging it to be sung by a mixed choir, the first part was most suited to a male's range, and the middle part was best suited to showcase the female's voice, while the rest of it is usually sung by both males and females in unison.

Originally posted by halfoldman
My parents thought this gender austerity made it a "cult", but it appears most religions are gender segregated, including Islam and many churches.
I suppose I must decide: is that part of the attraction, do I want to change gender, or choose something more liberal?

Yes, most religions tend to have some form of gender separation in their teachings, or in the culture of their adherents.

A few years ago I went to a Sikh wedding, and after the actual marriage ceremony, the man stayed in one room, while the women all went off to another.

Which was a shame, as I think that Indian women are amongst the most naturally beautiful in the world !


When you ask whether you want to change gender, I am guessing that you are not referring to physically, but rather as in willingly accepting, and adopting the role that a society, or culture, would expect the female to fulfil ?

I'd personally say that you should do your own thing, mate, and not yet any societal or cultural dogma get in the way of you living your life, and being who you want to be.

[edit on 5-9-2010 by Sherlock Holmes]