nanushka

Welcome, @TeriAnne!

Welcome, @Dégagé E.!

"Tape" a "broadcast"? Nope — I can't, at least! I vote for streaming (pretending I have a vote).

I suspect this is at least part of what's going on (though I'm sure there are some who, as @Balletwannabe suggests, are "fully aware" of what they're doing). I think it would be a good idea — even, I'd say, an important responsibility — for SAB and other schools to offer clear instructions for how to ensure privacy, for those who want it.

Even the New York Times has this problem in many older articles now archived on their website, I've found. It's usually pretty easy to figure out how the original text read. Small price to pay for the massive availability of past print sources.

Cissexism, cisgenderism or cisnormativity are perhaps more apt terms. See here.

Yeah, I really can't say that I blame Roman Mejia for not going there (or Fairchild for not asking — which they may have agreed upon before the interview). He wasn't there, it wasn't his relationship, it was a complicated situation, and there are plenty of good reasons why it's probably best for him to leave it to others to address publicly. Self-censorship, maybe — but I think probably just common sense.

Are there Black women in the top ranks in much greater numbers? My sense is that it's a problem across the board.

These are the statements that, to me, suggested that: I apologize if I misconstrued the sentiment that these all seemed to me to be expressing.

Indeed. I rewatched the interview and although the segment wasn't apparently made at Edwards' instigation he seems to me very much a subject with agency, not an otherized and exoticized object. Suggesting that he shouldn’t appear in media still sounds to me like a troubling move of erasure. Similarly, a straight/non-queer person may be totally unaware of how their dismissing of gender queer people (e.g. by suggesting they should not appear in media representations) is perceived. They may disagree and not understand how their words could be perceived in that way, but when queer people s

I guess the impact of your words (on me personally) was not the same as their intent. I quoted one of the parts that made me think what I described. It wasn't a conclusion, just a concern.

I understand your concerns, but I guess the problem is that sounds an awful lot like telling queer people (using the term in its broadest, non-derogatory sense), "Do what you want, but just don't flaunt it" — don't make us look at it, don't advertise yourself, stay in the shadows. Which is yet another classic form of oppression.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but presumably being "emasculated" is only a problem if one wants to be perceived as essentially masculine — which this dancer apparently does not. Is the implication that he should personally make himself more traditionally masculine to prevent other Black men in the arts from being emasculated?

I don't think that "it has been decided that it might offend Japanese people"; it does offend. The weight one should give that and the action (or inaction) one should take in response may well be up for debate. But that the work is offensive to some (whether understandably or not, depending on your perspective) is not. "To each their own" may work in the abstract, but ballet companies have to make concrete decisions about which works to stage and how.

Same. It’s fantastic.