Pennsylvania Ballet puts the ballet-haters in their place

[sandik]

I think it's important to remember that most commenters here speak from various insider perspectives -- the author of the original comment is not, I don't think, speaking from that pov.

I think their remark was an unfortunate one, in a couple of ways. It trades on an old-school stereotype ('your father wears a dress and your mother wears army boots') to make a disparaging comparison. It's borderline homophobic, and implies that the speaker comes from a heteronormative bias.

Tangentially -- take a look at the Amazon pick box below -- right now it's full of "The Tao of Chip Kelly: Lessons from American's Most Innovative Coach" and other football items.

[kfw]

dirac and sandik, I appreciate your comments. Without denying that you make good points, I would say that while it’s true that male dancers are often considered effeminate, it’s probably not true that the football-fan poster has ever heard of the Trocks. So the comparison was probably between men in a masculine sport to women in a feminine role – between men epitomizing a particular kind of masculinity, to women epitomizing a particular kind of femininity. And neither on the football field or the ballet onstage are the two interchangeable and of equal worth.

It’s also true that football is more highly valued in this culture than ballet, but I think that’s a question of taste rather than of morality or of attitudes toward women.

Also, I suspect the original comment comes from what we might call a football-normative perspective, which is that players are supposed to be tough and bruising and intimidating, not light and delicate and entrancing and other such qualities which tutu-wearing dancers strive to embody on stage (as opposed to the qualities it takes to appear so).

Also, while I'm sure it's hard for the marginalized not to presume offense in many cases, sensitivity can also be used as a political weapon, as a weapon not just for justice and equality, but for score-settling. It's unfair, but real justice and equality require a lot from the historically marginalized too.

[Drew]

Personally I think the original FB comment was a polite way of saying the Eagles were playing like P*****s and/or [insert derogatory epithet for gay men]. Expressions I have heard sports fans use on rather more than one occasion.

"...wearing tutus" is less offensive wording, but uh...especially with that larger sports-fan context in mind, I would say it is definitely a "dis" of ballet dancers however indirect. Honestly, I don't much care, and I don't take everything said in the heat of sports-fan disappointment all that seriously. But I also don't think the FB poster was thinking about the "light" "delicate" and "entrancing" qualities of the players as they lost the game. The point was to insult not to analyze.

But whether or not I'm right or wrong and whether or not one finds the original comment offensive or not, appropriate or not, amusing or not...I think the Pennsylvania ballet response is still both smart and funny. I certainly wouldn't describe it (to take a phrase from kfw above) as a "political weapon." Clever PR is more like it!

That is, even if you take the original remark as the most innocent, un-sexist, un-homophobic way of saying that the football players weren't doing their jobs--even so, it's still fair game and (I think) good natured fun for ballet lovers to point out the ironies.

As for taking offence too easily...probably the person who wrote the original comment can take some ribbing from the PA ballet and other ballet fans on social media. But if s/he can't...well, at least I wouldn't call him/her a ballerina...or a football player .

[kfw]

I also don't think the FB poster was thinking about the "light" "delicate" and "entrancing" qualities of the players as they lost the game. The point was to insult not to analyze.

I didn’t say he was analyzing or thinking of specific qualities. I think he was referring to a stereotype.

But whether or not I'm right or wrong and whether or not one finds the original comment offensive or not, appropriate or not, amusing or not...I think the Pennsylvania ballet response is still both smart and funny. I certainly wouldn't describe it (to take a phrase from kfw above) as a "political weapon." Clever PR is more like it!

No, I don’t accuse them, or anyone here, of that. But I'm saying it happens a lot.

[Kaysta]

Personally I think the original FB comment was a polite way of saying the Eagles were playing like P*****s and/or [insert derogatory epithet for gay men]. Expressions I have heard sports fans use on rather more than one occasion.

"...wearing tutus" is less offensive wording, but uh...especially with that larger sports-fan context in mind, I would say it is definitely a "dis" of ballet dancers however indirect. Honestly, I don't much care, and I don't take everything said in the heat of sports-fan disappointment all that seriously. But I also don't think the FB poster was thinking about the "light" "delicate" and "entrancing" qualities of the players as they lost the game. The point was to insult not to analyze.

But whether or not I'm right or wrong and whether or not one finds the original comment offensive or not, appropriate or not, amusing or not...I think the Pennsylvania ballet response is still both smart and funny. I certainly wouldn't describe it (to take a phrase from kfw above) as a "political weapon." Clever PR is more like it!

That is, even if you take the original remark as the most innocent, un-sexist, un-homophobic way of saying that the football players weren't doing their jobs--even so, it's still fair game and (I think) good natured fun for ballet lovers to point out the ironies.

As for taking offence too easily...probably the person who wrote the original comment can take some ribbing from the PA ballet and other ballet fans on social media. But if s/he can't...well, at least I wouldn't call him/her a ballerina...or a football player .

Well said!

And it's been liked by 20,000 people and shared almost 10,000 times, so the original commenter actually did PAB a favor with the publicity!

[Drew]

No, I don’t accuse them, or anyone here, of that. But I'm saying it happens a lot.

By "it" I think you mean over-sensitivity or assuming the worst when it comes to sexist/racist/homophobic attitudes or other kinds of comparable injustice--e.g. calling people out when they don't deserve to be. I understand why you are concerned about that, but I would add that what also "happens a lot" are accusations of over-sensitivity that unfairly shut people down or put them in an easy-to-dismiss category when they are being mistreated in all kinds of ways--some more visible than others. There is more than one way to assume the worst and more than one kind of over-sensitivity.

[miliosr]

Is it true that Eagles fans booed Santa Claus? Or is that just an urban legend??

[Drew]

Is it true that Eagles fans booed Santa Claus? Or is that just an urban legend??

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/04/philadelphia-eagles-santa-dead_n_7202414.html

[miliosr]

Poor Santa!!!!!

[dirac]

dirac and sandik, I appreciate your comments. Without denying that you make good points, I would say that while it’s true that male dancers are often considered effeminate, it’s probably not true that the football-fan poster has ever heard of the Trocks. So the comparison was probably between men in a masculine sport to women in a feminine role – between men epitomizing a particular kind of masculinity, to women epitomizing a particular kind of femininity. And neither on the football field or the ballet onstage are the two interchangeable and of equal worth.

It doesn't matter if the poster had ever heard of the Trocks or not, because the association of dancing with effeminacy has little if anything to do with cross-dressing or the sources of the Trocks' humor generally.

[kfw]

Drew, I certainly agree.

It doesn't matter if the poster had ever heard of the Trocks or not, because the association of dancing with effeminacy has little if anything to do with cross-dressing or the sources of the Trocks' humor generally.

Women in tutus are supposed to be feminine, not effeminate. In fact, being female, they can’t be effeminate in a negative sense. The Trocks are funny when they impersonate women. Their comedy depends in part upon a common difference in male vs. the female mannerisms. If it’s alright for them to derive humor from that, why is it not alright for the poster to refer to it to? Effeminacy is a liability on the football field.

[dirac]

Effeminacy is a liability on the football field.

Damn straight (as it, uh, were).

On second thought…..a concerted display of effeminacy by the O-line coming at a time when the defense expects a passing play might well temporarily paralyze the defenders, leaving the field open to a limp-wristed, twinkle-toed, invisible tutu-clad run, maybe by one of those guys who sell Waterford Crystal on Evine. I hereby christen it the Swish Option.

[kfw]

Uh huh. Not bad, but my question stands unanswered. As does the question of how a feminine manner is an asset on the football field. That Facebook poster sure doesn’t know.

[sandik]

The original Facebook post (that PB replied to) was not meant ironically, nor was it meant humorously. It was an insult, using a stereotype that I would, at this point in our history and in this particular community, think would be disdained.

[dirac]

Your questions went unanswered because the first one didn't initially make a lot of sense to me and the categorical statement about effeminacy and football was -- forgive me -- funny, to me anyway. I will try to respond to your first question. The Trocks and the Facebook poster have nothing to do with each other. The Trocks make witty, knowledgeable, and affectionate parodies of classical ballet using the comic possibilities inherent in men going on pointe. The joke is with them, not on them. The Facebook poster was making casual use of a stereotype and not at all ironically. Not even close to being the same thing.

[alexaa1a]

The original Facebook post (that PB replied to) was not meant ironically, nor was it meant humorously. It was an insult, using a stereotype that I would, at this point in our history and in this particular community, think would be disdained.

I strongly disagree. I see no difference between a football team being criticized for playing like ballerinas or a ballet company being criticized for dancing like football players. Ballet dancers are generally known for their grace and delicacy and football players do not play touch football. They tackle and hit hard. They do not apologize if they hit too hard.

[kfw]

The original Facebook post (that PB replied to) was not meant ironically, nor was it meant humorously. It was an insult, using a stereotype that I would, at this point in our history and in this particular community, think would be disdained.

sandik, if you’ll note, I didn’t say the poster meant it ironically. I said he referenced a stereotype which the Trocks also reference. They use it ironically, yes. He meant it as an insult, yes – to the football team. That much is clear. Apparently you also think that to say men are acting like women when the context is a sport where men are called for is an insult to gays. But you offer no evidence for that, and there is a simple and therefore more likely reason, which I have offered. I’m sure that in the history of homophobic insult-throwing someone somewhere has used the word “tutu,” but it’s not exactly a common stereotype, nor do we have any idea of the poster’s background, knowledge of or interest in ballet, or feelings about gays. Without all that, I think it's a mistake to presume the worst. I don’t see what that accomplishes, except to make straights walk on tenterhooks around gays. You don’t seem like the kind of person who would want that, and I believe the Facebook poster deserves the same benefit of the doubt.

[dirac]

Internet attention is paid:

Philadelphia fans are affectionately known across multiple sports as what is technically referred to as the worst. They have a rich history of acting all sorts of terrible, so it’s never a surprise when they do.

Recently, an Eagles fan carried on this tradition by leaving a disparaging Facebook comment, saying the team “played like they were wearing tutus!!!”

[Drew]

sandik, if you’ll note, I didn’t say the poster meant it ironically. I said he referenced a stereotype which the Trocks also reference. They use it ironically, yes. He meant it as an insult, yes – to the football team. That much is clear. Apparently you also think that to say men are acting like women when the context is a sport where men are called for is an insult to gays. But you offer no evidence for that, and there is a simple and therefore more likely reason, which I have offered. I’m sure that in the history of homophobic insult-throwing someone somewhere has used the word “tutu,” but it’s not exactly a common stereotype,

I think it's a commoner stereotype than you imagine. Sports fans and players are not exactly wallowing in political correctness.

Here are some articles on a recent incident dealing with the "ballerina" insult in male sports (I assume "ballerina" & "wearing a tutu" are more or less equivalent)--and giving some context for why one might, without much in the way of paranoia, want to raise a flag--or offer (as PA ballet did) a clever riposte.

http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/14414750/cmon-josh-norman-best-got

"In addition to using the word "ballerina" as an insult, Norman (and perhaps Beckham, too) supposedly also used phrases questioning Beckham's heterosexuality, as well as repeated use of the word "bitch." In fact, all of the insults had the same common denominator: being female, or like female, is the absolute worst."

On the same incident:

http://www.outsports.com/2015/12/22/10643980/carolina-panthers-josh-norman-giants-odell-beckham-gay-slurs

Below is a different perspective focused on the accusation of direct homophobic slurs that was part of same episode. My point here is only that when there is a homophobic slur (as there may have been in this case) or sexist slur (as, I would say, there certainly was) and "Ballerina" is added--it doesn't take a genius or an "overly sensitive" person to suspect homophobia and/or sexism lurks behind "ballerina" as well.

http://bossip.com/1265296/stop-saying-josh-norman-insulted-odell-beckhams-manhood-by-calling-him-gay/

One can't just ignore the context of these kinds of episodes when hearing/reading another insult involving "tutus." (A quick search turned up another recent "ballerina" insult w/o context, though I personally think the code is no mystery): https://www.facebook.com/BrianCushing56/posts/1174529502562092

As it happens I'm not all hot under the color about what some disappointed fan writes on Facebook even if I'm not crazy about it either. But I thought the PA ballet response was smart and funny--and especially enjoyable for ballet fans! Some of us anyway. And it did not question the motives of the person who wrote the remark; it just took him/her up on it literally: "Ballerinas eh...?" So I am kind of puzzled that it would be read any other way or, even if not read any other way, still taken as an occasion for finger wagging about "over sensitivity" to sexist/homophobic slurs. This response seems to me exactly the sort of humorous riposte that, while it may raise further issues for some readers, actually takes the sting out of the discussion. Bravo Pennsylvania Ballet--

[kfw]

Drew, yes the tone of the Pennsylvania Ballet Facebook post was great. They didn’t question the motives of the Eagles fan – that's been done here. As I’ve said, I see no evidence, as opposed to suspicion, that the remark was either sexist or homophobic. Some of the links you posted no longer work, but do you really think it’s fair to judge someone you’ve never met and know nothing about by a few other people’s behavior?? Would you want to be judged by that standard?

As for “finger wagging,” my tone has ranged from incredulous in my first post to just plain conversational later. I explicitly said I’m not accusing people here. Other people are doing to accusing, and people making accusations should expect to be challenged.

[Amy Reusch]

I have a problem with "womanly" being an insult, regardless of the context. I appreciate that football requires more strength than most men posess, but calling a weak man "womanly" does a disservice to strong women everywhere.

[Helene]

I will give the poster the benefit of the doubt: he is either so out-of-touch with his own culture that he didn't realize how prevalently his metaphor is used as an insult, and he used it guilelessly, or he is from another country and doesn't yet understand the context in which he made the comment.

[Drew]

As for “finger wagging,” my tone has ranged from incredulous in my first post to just plain conversational later. I explicitly said I’m not accusing people here. Other people are doing to accusing, and people making accusations should expect to be challenged.

"Finger wagging" was snider than I meant to sound--apologies for that.

I don't think I'm judging any person--in fact, I've been pretty explicit in saying I don't take football fans lashing out too seriously one way or the other. But I do think my judgment concerning language usage is well within norms: that's nothing to do with what's in a person's heart--or whether a person is a jerk for that matter. When people call football players "ballerinas" or allude to tutus etc., I firmly believe they're in a tradition of insult that carries plenty unpleasant connotations whether the person speaking gives them a second thought or not. And a lot of them do (I speak from direct knowledge of sports fans--attendance at live games etc.). Enjoy that tradition if you will--dislike it if you will--remain indifferent if you will. Every individual will make different calls about that...But it exists. (My links were meant to give evidence of what I mean by tradition or, as said above, context--but anyone interested can do a google search on football players calling each other "ballerina.")

By the by, some decades ago I was at a Yankee game at Yankee stadium with a friend who was loudly cheering for the other team while I stayed quiet. Among other things we were accused of being communists. I don't think it was a comment on our commitment to the class struggle--I assume it was a way of saying we were the enemy. But now I wish we had thought to turn around and say (more or less) "Every baseball player should contribute to the game according to his ability--and get his team's support making plays...according to his need."

[sandik]

By the by, some decades ago I was at a Yankee game at Yankee stadium with a friend who was loudly cheering for the other team while I stayed quiet. Among other things we were accused of being communists. I don't think it was a comment on our commitment to the class struggle--I assume it was a way of saying we were the enemy. But now I wish we had though to turn around and say (more or less) "Every baseball player should contribute to the game according to his ability--and get his team's support making plays...according to his need."

Alas, the perfect retort usually comes just after you can no longer use it!

[Drew]

Alas, the perfect retort usually comes just after you can no longer use it!

In this case decades after! It was this thread that got me remembering the whole thing...