nanushka

Agreed. This was definitely the way to go, if they want to move forward and beyond these problems. Of course, a lot more time will have to pass, changes be made, and events transpire before that will be possible; but this is an important start.

They can, but they would likely have no power to act on that judgment. That would be up to those with real power in the company. Some have said that dancers of a certain rank would have power to determine with whom they dance. I’d be interested in seeing any real evidence that that is the case.

Certainly, though they may have professional obligations that prevent them from doing so in this case.

I completely agree on the gender point, and tend to use "ballet dancer" myself for that and other reasons. But unfortunately for both of us, the role of common usage in determining language meaning (and therefore in determining appropriate language usage in common contexts) is not really a matter of personal "mileage," as I believe most linguists would agree.

That interpretation doesn't seem to fit at all with what @Olga above quoted Lovette as writing in the comments on her post:

While some particularly discriminating balletomanes insist that "ballerina" has only a more specific meaning, in common usage this more general definition of the term is widely accepted (and much more familiar to most) — highly unlike those uses of "general" — and so its use is, I believe, completely appropriate. (Whether it's appropriate in reference to Waterbury is of course a separate matter — though it's been pointed out earlier in this thread that she is in fact still active as a dancer, though it is not her primary profession).

I completely agree. I've been pretty unexcited about ABT's fall seasons for a number of years now (with certain individual pieces as important exceptions), but this one really hits a new low. Every ballet I want to see is on a program with one or more I really don't want to see. As a result, I'm not going at all. I'll see Symphonie Concertante at City Center and leave it at that. As messed up as NYCB may be, they have many more appealing programs this fall, and a substantially higher standard of performance. TG for them.

Yeah, I do think in some bureaucratic way Stafford is first among equals — I've never been exactly clear on the particulars. So that does add a further hesitancy to my reading of Bouder's post. Here's how one of the company webpages explains the setup: And here's how they're listed on another: Do they have different titles?

It probably doesn't. But I also wonder if she's really blaming the interim team as directly and harshly as Helene's phrase suggests. Her statement could be read with an understanding that the interim team may not have the bandwidth, authority (in a variety of senses), ability, etc. to adequately address the situation. As others have suggested here, that's on the NYCB board as much as it's on them. When there are four leaders, all of whom have "interim" in their title, the company is in some sense left in a "leaderless state." Read in one way, she didn't directly address the role of interim team at all; she pointed out that the current structure is one that leaves the company without a true leader — not due to any fault of the team, but due to the structure itself. Obviously, if she'd wanted, and if that's even what she thinks, she could have spelled all that out more explicitly in order to more directly clear them of responsibility. But she also could have been more direct and explicit if she'd wanted to throw them under the bus. She neither accused them nor excused them. Maybe all that's too big a stretch; but I keep thinking of it as one way to read her post.

YES. I really appreciate having this space.

Yes and that's precisely the point. It's about autonomy. That's what Finlay allegedly robbed his girlfriend of. That's what Bouder is exercising when she posts photos of herself.

Yes, she says, "it was allowed to fester in our current leaderless state." That's not necessarily a comparison to when Martins was in charge; it could be a comparison to the tenure of any hypothetical leader who would have had the ability to address the problems.

I didn’t understand your point because you were talking only about what Waterbury knew and did, or should have known and did — not about what NYCB knew and did, or should have known and did. That’s why, to me, your comments have come across as victim-blaming.

This. 100%. Thank you for this clarity.

I fail to see how any of this is at all relevant to the question of whether Finlay is liable for the harm he allegedly caused her — not to mention to the question of whether he may in fact have broken the law in the act of causing her that harm.

Just a note, though, that Catazaro’s IG is (now) private, so he has some control over who sees and comments on his posts.

I understood that. I was raising a question in response to the Paglia quote. It was a genuine one.

Bingo. There doesn't seem to me to be anything at all about the present case that's mitigated by the fact that work in a ballet company naturally (and appropriately) involves more physical interactions with one's coworkers.

What are the specific restrictions against workplace sexual harassment and abuse that impinge in any way on the appropriate, professional and necessarily physical interactions between dancers, and how do they do so?

But I thought that was the point that some were making: that his family wealth may indeed be relevant precisely because some of it may now be in his name?

Many people get text messages on their laptops, as well as on their phones. My understand is that she was given access to Finlay's laptop (by Finlay) and one or more text message threads popped up (which could happen whenever a new message came in on that thread). Is that others' understanding?

The correction only applies to what images Catazaro and Finlay specifically exchanged. This is what the corrected version of the article now says about Catazaro's actions:

But would a lower-level donor be repeatedly invited to make speeches — especially if he had a habit of doing so while drunk? (Non-rhetorical question.) I suppose the speeches may not have been invited, but it sounds like there was tolerance of the behavior. Edited to add: I see Kathleen has filled in more details. Thanks!

It depends what "cast list" is being referred to. Was it a list of performers for that one evening, or a list of performers in the show generally?

Yes, just because she was no longer affiliated with NYCB doesn't necessarily mean that the organization is no longer responsible for what happens to her.