Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the issue is follower vs leader roles in ballroom dancing, why not admit and limit based on that rather than the somewhat inaccurate predcitor of gender? That way girls who are willing to learn the leading moves instead of the following ones can still attend cotillion.

Because the female does not lead in ballroom dancing. Sorry, Frances. This is not about you and your gender needs.

If you'd read the thread you would know there are plenty of parents who value the non-ballroom dancing aspects of cotillion (manners, etc). Regardless, there may or may not be at least one girl who wants to take the leading role in ballroom dancing and if there is, there are no ballroom police to stop her.

Either way, there is no downside to simply offering leading and following roles and letting students choose the ones they like over offering roles based on gender, but there is one huge benefit, which is that for every girl who's willing to sign up for a leading role, a total of two extra people will be able to participate compared to the current arrangement: the girl signing up for the leading role, and the girl on the waiting list for the following roles.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just transitioned from public to private for middle school, where half the grade is doing Capital Cotillion, and there is general consternation about how new girls can't participate because they don't have enough boys.

This is not an issue for me as we wouldn't be doing it regardless, but it does make me pause and wonder: How does thing remain so popular and yet so totally frozen in amber? I have so many questions... If you are sending your young adolescents, do you worry about how alienating it may feel to LGBTQ adolescents who aren't "out" yet, and how do you handle that?

The website says "While we embrace tradition and the importance it plays in our society, we believe that keeping current with the needs of today’s youth is equally important. We prepare our students with social skills for the “elite experience” without promoting the elitist paradigm of the past."

The fact that they won't deviate from their 50-50 gender ratio just seems AWFULLY out of step. Can someone explain why someone can't do something more inclusive? There are plenty of ballroom dancing studios that manage to do better ....

(Also, a little more snarky now: How DOES "the elite experience" differs from "the elitist paradigm of the past"? Anyone able to explain?)

No I do not worry about how alienating it might be to LGBTQ adolescents because cotillion for kids 14 and under is not an activity where anyone’s sexual orientation would be a factor - if it was even known to the child at this age. It’s dancing and manners and socializing - not about who someone is sexually attracted to. Do I worry about how alienating it might be to children with disabilities? Yes. Kids who have social anxiety? Yes. This is a very weird question and you should remind yourself that children are not sexual beings. Wtf.

Are you insane? Kids know who they’re attracted to from a MUCH younger age than 14.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the issue is follower vs leader roles in ballroom dancing, why not admit and limit based on that rather than the somewhat inaccurate predcitor of gender? That way girls who are willing to learn the leading moves instead of the following ones can still attend cotillion.

Because the female does not lead in ballroom dancing. Sorry, Frances. This is not about you and your gender needs.

If you'd read the thread you would know there are plenty of parents who value the non-ballroom dancing aspects of cotillion (manners, etc). Regardless, there may or may not be at least one girl who wants to take the leading role in ballroom dancing and if there is, there are no ballroom police to stop her.

Either way, there is no downside to simply offering leading and following roles and letting students choose the ones they like over offering roles based on gender, but there is one huge benefit, which is that for every girl who's willing to sign up for a leading role, a total of two extra people will be able to participate compared to the current arrangement: the girl signing up for the leading role, and the girl on the waiting list for the following roles.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just transitioned from public to private for middle school, where half the grade is doing Capital Cotillion, and there is general consternation about how new girls can't participate because they don't have enough boys.

This is not an issue for me as we wouldn't be doing it regardless, but it does make me pause and wonder: How does thing remain so popular and yet so totally frozen in amber? I have so many questions... If you are sending your young adolescents, do you worry about how alienating it may feel to LGBTQ adolescents who aren't "out" yet, and how do you handle that?

The website says "While we embrace tradition and the importance it plays in our society, we believe that keeping current with the needs of today’s youth is equally important. We prepare our students with social skills for the “elite experience” without promoting the elitist paradigm of the past."

The fact that they won't deviate from their 50-50 gender ratio just seems AWFULLY out of step. Can someone explain why someone can't do something more inclusive? There are plenty of ballroom dancing studios that manage to do better ....

(Also, a little more snarky now: How DOES "the elite experience" differs from "the elitist paradigm of the past"? Anyone able to explain?)

No I do not worry about how alienating it might be to LGBTQ adolescents because cotillion for kids 14 and under is not an activity where anyone’s sexual orientation would be a factor - if it was even known to the child at this age. It’s dancing and manners and socializing - not about who someone is sexually attracted to. Do I worry about how alienating it might be to children with disabilities? Yes. Kids who have social anxiety? Yes. This is a very weird question and you should remind yourself that children are not sexual beings. Wtf.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the issue is follower vs leader roles in ballroom dancing, why not admit and limit based on that rather than the somewhat inaccurate predcitor of gender? That way girls who are willing to learn the leading moves instead of the following ones can still attend cotillion.

Because the female does not lead in ballroom dancing. Sorry, Frances. This is not about you and your gender needs.

Anonymous wrote:I sent DD last year and I thought it was worthwhile. We talked about the gender stuff with DD at home, because it is old fashioned, but I also think there's value in knowing the traditional behavior that many people practice and expect, and that includes some gendered etiquette.

As a small example, I'm a woman and will hold the door for people around me. But I work with several men who will move to get the door or let me exit first, and there's value in knowing how to gracefully accept that courtesy instead of being surprised or awkward about it. And someone being gay does not alter the social expectation around who gets the door.

Anonymous wrote:We definitely passed on this. I was surprised it even still exists. We’ve taught manners at home, without the creepy traditional gender roles element.

Anonymous wrote:Just transitioned from public to private for middle school, where half the grade is doing Capital Cotillion, and there is general consternation about how new girls can't participate because they don't have enough boys.

This is not an issue for me as we wouldn't be doing it regardless, but it does make me pause and wonder: How does thing remain so popular and yet so totally frozen in amber? I have so many questions... If you are sending your young adolescents, do you worry about how alienating it may feel to LGBTQ adolescents who aren't "out" yet, and how do you handle that?

The website says "While we embrace tradition and the importance it plays in our society, we believe that keeping current with the needs of today’s youth is equally important. We prepare our students with social skills for the “elite experience” without promoting the elitist paradigm of the past."

The fact that they won't deviate from their 50-50 gender ratio just seems AWFULLY out of step. Can someone explain why someone can't do something more inclusive? There are plenty of ballroom dancing studios that manage to do better ....

(Also, a little more snarky now: How DOES "the elite experience" differs from "the elitist paradigm of the past"? Anyone able to explain?)

Anonymous wrote:If the issue is follower vs leader roles in ballroom dancing, why not admit and limit based on that rather than the somewhat inaccurate predcitor of gender? That way girls who are willing to learn the leading moves instead of the following ones can still attend cotillion.