One of the problems with the politically-correct “everyone is equal” world is that everything is nice. Just nice, no better. So when you dance with the charming lady, with whom you had and engaging conversation earlier, and you find her to be technically perfect, a joy to dance with but… well, nice and nothing more, it’s a real disappointment. Yes it’s great to have someone float like a leaf in your embrace. But when you know that there is something more… well you know that there is something more.
The one good thing about machismo is that it can ignite the feistyness in a follower. Awaken the part of her that will engage and not just follow. Now I’m not talking about missplaced feminism or the followers empowerment movement, the inappropriately chosen counter-barida or adornments done to beat the band. I mean moving beyond cold technique and becoming involved in your movements. Equally when I say machismo I am not giving carte-blanche for her to be clubbed over the head and dragged off into the bushes. A soupçon of arrogance, just enough to let her know that you’re loking for something other than nice.
You can do all the fancy ochos you like but if you are not going to engage well then “frankly my dear I don’t give a damn”.
I am going to be ornery and ask you to explain what you mean when you say that ,”The one good thing about machismo is that it can ignite the feistyness in a follower.” How does that happen? Why machismo?
My inclination is to disagree. What you say about being feisty, or engaging … that sounds like musicality to me. And engaging musically, for me at least, has nothing to do with the leader’s machismo. It has much more to do with the leader’s own musicality, his own engagement in the music, the embrace, etc. It isn’t about being a macho leader, per se, but about being attuned to the music and carrying that into the quality of your movement.
Hi Limerick,
This is one of those double-edged topics that tends to stir up the restless natives. Or at least the terminology does, since I totally understood both what you meant, and MT’s reaction
Personally, I think there is a fear/concern/dislike/worry that any differences between genders somehow translates to “unequal”, and thus “lesser”. I almost exclusively hear this argument from women. Which is the entire thesis of my book.
While we should indisputably be allowed to decide whether we want to lead or follow, regardless of our gender, it is also indisputable (at least to me) that each role has very specific parameters. When we fudge those boundaries too much, we get murkiness.
I was given a comment last week (about which I am writing a post) that speaks specifically to this issue , and could be interpreted as either a compliment or a dig, depending what side of the WEM fence you are on
a.) On musicality. Yes it is a factor. You’d be an ass to seek fiery engagement in a sweet and soft tune. But what I am writing about will cut in before musicality. It depends on the tone set on the initial embrace.
b.) Why machismo? Well it made you ornery, didn’t it. It challenged you and called you to step up to the plate and engage. Yes in the old world machismo implied a quiet and submissive female. But, in our new world of equality, what says that this must be so?
I must add that what I write with regard to the dance floor only.
It’s nice when you realise you’re not just talking to yourself.