Tango and Gender Issues

Part One

A reader commented: "I have enjoyed reading your other thoughts so much that I am very sad to read about your view of gender roles in tango. In my view, tango, like any art, is a subjective and living thing. The ability to reassign roles, to me, is a progression. It affirms that the art can and does live and breathe in our contemporary world—a world which, for most of us anyway, rejects misogyny, rejects homophobia, and encourages empathy. The art will continue to be shaped by those who choose it. I agree completely that there is much that could rightly be considered bastardization, but the exchanging of gender roles and the influence of LGBT, this represents the beauty of the art—not some kind of decay. It shows that tango lives in our time of changing gender roles and progress in human rights and understanding. And, in wonderful irony, it reflects tango revisiting its roots (see The Alienation of Tango)."

While I appreciate the comment, I disagree with the commentator and would like to clarify my perspective. In my opinion, gender roles are among the most important elements in tango. Tango would not remain the same dance if gender roles were changed or reversed (see The Gender Roles in Tango).

I don't think the influence of LGBT and the transformation of gender roles can simply be seen as progress. Trend and progress cannot always be used synonymously. Although feminism and homosexuality are widely accepted in many Western societies today, blindly following trends may lead to unintended consequences. The fact that tango stands at odds with this trend might actually be a blessing for the Western world, as it offers a way to understand how men and women can coexist in peace and harmony—at least for most people. This doesn't mean that individuals cannot make their own choices, nor does it mean that the majority should reject them. However, it is important to recognize that one person's choice need not define the choice of all. It is simply untrue to claim that those who do not make the same choices are necessarily misogynistic or homophobic. Similarly, it is incorrect to suggest that those who choose not to dance tango in a particular way are anti-progressive.

The central issue under discussion concerns the purpose of sex. Those who believe that sex is solely for pleasure argue that individuals can engage in sexual activities with any consenting partner, regardless of gender. From the perspective of liberalism and individualism, this is seen as a matter of personal freedom. Consequently, they advocate for society not only to recognize this as a right but also to establish legal frameworks that enable individuals to freely adopt this lifestyle.

On the other hand, those who view sex as a responsibility tied to procreation and raising the next generation argue that the aforementioned perspective and lifestyle are not beneficial for society and humanity as a whole. They contend that individualism is a flawed ideology, as humans are not isolated, autonomous entities but interconnected and interdependent social beings. The pursuit of unrestricted personal freedom at the expense of society ultimately proves detrimental to individuals themselves. The way we approach tango is not merely about experimenting or exploring new ideas. It is about choosing a way to dance that reflects our values and way of life (see Tango and Individualism).

Part Two

Although humans possess the intelligence to intervene in and manipulate nature, their short-sightedness often hinders their ability to comprehend the long-term effects of their actions, a limitation rooted in their brief lifespan. Modern humans lack the capacity to recall events from tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years ago. Monogamy, defined as the union of one non-blood-related man and woman, serves as a eugenic mechanism that aligns with humanity's best interests. This institution is the product of millions of years of human evolution, shaped by countless positive and negative reproductive experiences. However, modern society appears to have lost sight of the validity of this institution, with alternative forms of marriage becoming fashionable. Yet, no matter how intelligent humans may be, what is rooted in nature remains the soundest, most proper, and most fitting outcome. Natural systems have undergone extensive evolutionary processes, perfected incrementally through natural selection over millions of years. In contrast, human interventions often take the form of experimental and revolutionary changes, which frequently result in catastrophic consequences.

Modern contraceptive technology exemplifies such human interventions. Contraception shifts human sexual behavior from being primarily for reproduction to being primarily for pleasure. Once this shift occurs, a series of ramifications follows. Contraception leads to sexual freedom, which fosters the spread of pleasure-oriented sexual behaviors, including homosexuality. This, in turn, contributes to the alienation of traditional marriage, the disintegration of monogamous families, and the erosion of the family-centered value system—a process already underway in Europe and North America. As the saying goes, one small ant hole can cause an entire dyke to collapse. If sex is solely for pleasure, there is no rationale for banning homosexuality. If the ban on homosexuality is lifted, then why not lift restrictions on bisexuality, transgender sexuality, group sex, incest, pedophilia, sodomy, adultery, prostitution, and other forms of pleasure-oriented sex? In many Western societies, legislation has been enacted to allow same-sex marriage, transforming marriage from a union between a man and a woman for reproduction into a union between same-sex partners for sexual pleasure. If sexual pleasure is a valid reason for marriage, then why should marriage be restricted to non-consanguineous adults? Why should brothers and sisters, brothers and brothers, sisters and sisters, fathers and daughters, fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, mothers and sons, or other close relatives not form sexual relationships for the same reason? Furthermore, why should marriage be limited to two individuals? Why are polygamy, polyandry, and group marriages outlawed? In fact, why is marriage even necessary at all if it is not for the reproduction and the best interests of the next generation? As long as procreation and children are not involved, the choice of whom and how many people one engages with sexually becomes a personal matter. Following this logic, advocates of sexual freedom argue that sex is a natural right that should not be confined to a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman. Such claims undermine the institution of marriage built upon millions of years of human reproductive practices.

But contrary to this liberal view, marriage is not an inherent right but a privilege granted exclusively to non-consanguineous adults of the opposite sexes, for it is related to the reproduction and upbringing of the next generation, hence the well-being of society as a whole. Various unconventional sexual relationships are contrary to the best interests of the species and have therefore been prohibited by law—first by natural law during the prehistoric period for at least tens of thousands of years, and later by statutes during the historical period for thousands of years. Societies that failed to adhere to this law were ultimately eliminated through the process of natural selection.

In modern times, contraceptive technology has enabled humans to engage in non-consequential sex purely for pleasure. As a result, open-minded individuals have begun advocating for the removal of longstanding bans. In the United States, the LGBT and gay rights movements have gained significant momentum. To date, sixteen states have passed legislation legalizing same-sex marriage. Behaviors such as homosexuality, bisexuality, adultery, sodomy, and incest—which have existed throughout history but were previously practiced covertly—are now beginning to gain legitimacy and popularity due to these legislative changes. As these liberal ideas become widely accepted norms, they bring about a series of profound societal changes: sexual freedom, the alienation of marriage, the dismantling of the human eugenic institution, the disintegration of traditional families, a decline in both the quantity and quality of the population, and, ultimately, the replacement of the population by another that adheres to natural law. These developments are leading to a moral decay of biblical proportions, a phenomenon now unfolding in societies that embrace liberalism, individualism, and feminism. Modern Western societies seem to have forgotten the lessons of history—that civilizations which ignored these principles ultimately withered and disappeared.

Part Three

While homosexuals are entitled to their basic human rights, including the freedom to choose their sexual partners, it is important to recognize that the widespread adoption of homosexuality could potentially impact a population's ability to reproduce. Marriage equality—i.e., treating heterosexual and homosexual relationships equally, thereby blurring the distinctions between the two—is not, in my opinion, a good idea. It represents another significant human intervention against nature. As mentioned earlier, marriage is a eugenic institution shaped by millions of years of human reproductive practices. It is a privilege granted exclusively to non-blood-related adult men and women for the purpose of procreation. For the benefit of the human species, this privilege must be safeguarded by law. Failure to do so could have serious repercussions.

The notion of "marriage equality" suggests that gender and bloodline are irrelevant in forming a sexual partnership, that marriage need not be confined to a union between a man and a woman, and that every individual is entitled to engage in sexual relationships with anyone, including those of the same gender or family. It implies that it is ethical to have same-sex or bisexual relationships with multiple partners, that marriage is not a eugenic institution but merely a lifestyle choice, and that sex is solely for pleasure with no associated social responsibilities. This perspective also suggests that procreation and the upbringing of the next generation are not integral to the institution of marriage, that the healthy development of children does not depend on the joint efforts of both a father and a mother, and that welfare incentives designed to encourage opposite-sex marriages for procreation should also be extended to same-sex partnerships. Moreover, it emphasizes that individual rights, personal freedom, self-indulgence, and self-interest are all that truly matter. Can you imagine the impact such ideas—if promoted by the state, enforced by law, and amplified by politically motivated media coverage, TV shows, movies, popular literature, school curricula, and workplace regulations—could have on young minds and the future of humanity?

We know that introducing alien species may endanger native species, marketing genetically modified food may reduce the availability of natural food supplies, promoting tango Nuevo may inhibit traditional tango, and implementing affirmative action may result in reversed discrimination, among other examples. Instances like these are too numerous to count. It is human nature to be drawn to the new and to abandon the old. People often rush to embrace what is fashionable while disparaging what is traditional. Those who question new trends are criticized, as though what has stood the test of time is no longer valuable, while experimental ideas are praised as cutting-edge and progressive. If monogamous marriage, as a eugenic institution, were not protected, the consequences would be profound: the disintegration of traditional families, the rise of same-sex marriages, gay families, and single-parent families, the proliferation of reversed discrimination, and a decline in both the quantity and quality of the population would become inevitable.

More significantly, failing to protect traditional marriage will undermine the family-based value system upon which human civilization is built. The inherent, natural, interdependent, complementary, mutually supportive, and cooperative relationship between the opposite sexes forms the cornerstone of all human relationships. From this relationship arise children, families, societies, and the moral and political systems that form the foundation of civilization. In other words, it is through the most intimate reproductive relationship that people learn to love, trust, cooperate, and coexist harmoniously. The decline of the family will have a disruptive impact on society, as weakening family ties exacerbates the spread of individualism. This shift emphasizes personal freedom, independence, and self-interest while dismissing the interdependence and cooperation necessary for societal harmony (see Tango and Family Values). Feminism, as a parallel to individualism in gender issues, challenges the interdependence of the sexes. It advocates for women’s independence, encourages them to emancipate from family structures, to fight for their rights, to be strong and assertive like men, to compete with men, and not to be outdone by men. Such radical propositions intensifies, rather than alleviates, the confrontation and antagonism between the sexes, undermining social harmony (see Tango and Gender Interdependence). The way to improve the relationship, as tango demonstrates, is to be friendly, acceptant, kind, respectful, cooperative, agreeable, yielding, loving and accommodating to each other rather than being rejective, resentful, hostile, confrontational, aggressive, and uncompromising to each other. The recent government shutdown, caused by a refusal to make concessions, serves as a stark example of the damage inflicted by such extremist ideologies.

Part Four

The gay rights movement, feminism, and individualism have undeniably influenced tango. Feminism challenges the notions of surrender and obedience of women to men in tango, advocating instead for the woman to maintain her independence. It proposes that the man should offer suggestions rather than take the lead, that the woman should have the freedom to decide how, when, or whether to accept his proposal, that she is free to express herself and initiate her own steps, that the man must respect her autonomy, and even that the woman may lead the man or another woman. Some authors have written books promoting such ideas, and like-minded teachers incorporate these perspectives into their instruction. Students, often mistaking radicalism for progress, blindly follow these trends, transforming tango from a dance where the two sexes collaborate to achieve unity and harmony into one where the sexes become alienated and antagonistic, focusing primarily on individual performance.

I believe most people are not extremists. However, living in a society that “rejects misogyny, rejects homophobia, and encourages empathy,” it is difficult for anyone to remain entirely immune to this kind of indoctrination. Beginners often cling to attitudes they have developed over a long period of time, perceiving themselves as independent individuals rather than being part of a relationship with others. They tend to see themselves not as part of a whole but as separate entities and regard others as rivals. Most people, after a period of learning, gradually overcome this self-centered mindset and adopt a cooperative attitude that aligns with the essence of tango. However, there are some who are unable to transcend their individualistic mentality even after years of practice. Contemporary students need to understand that learning tango involves adopting a set of values that differ fundamentally from those of the modern world. The world prioritizes competition and victory, whereas tango emphasizes cooperation and harmony. The world teaches that balance is achieved through strength and power, but tango teaches that balance is attained through collaboration and accommodation. Tango is not about personal autonomy, independence, individual liberty, or self-interest; it is about achieving unity, harmony, and the common good of the partnership through cooperation (see The Freedom in Tango). The principles of tango—such as surrender, obedience, yielding, agreement, collaboration, accommodation, complementarity, and love—not only enable the two partners to dance in unison but also offer universal values for living together in peace and harmony.

Whenever cooperation is involved, a division of labor becomes necessary. For example, in families, men typically take on more physically demanding tasks, while women tend to handle lighter chores. Such a natural division of labor is based on the physiological differences between the sexes and is in no way a form of discrimination. In tango, the man leads, and the woman embellishes the dance—this, too, is a natural division of labor rooted in the biological characteristics of the sexes, and it does not imply gender inequality. Does it seem natural to you for a woman to lead a man while he embellishes the dance? When you see a woman leading a man, with the man wriggling his body and twisting his hips in an attempt to appear feminine, does that look beautiful to you? When observing same-sex couples dancing, where there is only femininity and no masculinity, or vice versa, does that feel aesthetically appealing? Tango is governed by the principles of dance, not by ideologies. I need not repeat what I have elaborated on in my other articles regarding gender roles. Please refer to the following articles if you haven’t already read them: The Gender Roles in Tango, Femininity and Feminism in Tango (I), Femininity and Feminism in Tango (II), Tango and Gender Equality, The Gender Expression in Tango, The Chivalty of the Milongueros, Tango and Gender Interdependence. I firmly believe that those who are not influenced by narrow-minded or extremist ideologies will not see such a division of labor as discriminatory against women. Male chauvinists might use the division of labor as evidence to claim male superiority and female inferiority, which is absurd. Feminists, in turn, aim to abolish or reverse gender roles, which is equally unreasonable.

I believe tango is a positive influence on the Western world. Real social progress is not radical but rational, moderate, gradual, and peaceful—much like nature itself. In its essence, nature is not revolutionary but evolutionary, fostering coexistence, balance, and harmony. It encourages the recognition of connections among various elements and the abandonment of radical ideologies such as individualism, feminism, egocentrism, and power politics. Nature calls for prioritizing communal interests over self-interest, integration over segregation, adaptation over antagonism, moderation over extremism, compromise over obstinacy, love over hatred, and peace over war. In other words, nature stands in opposition to the extremist tendencies often found in Western ideologies that go against its principles. Tango embodies these natural principles, illustrating how the two sexes, as a unity of opposites, can coexist harmoniously through mutual attraction, interdependence, complementarity, accommodation, collaboration, and love. These qualities are key to its enduring popularity. Tango helps individuals understand the harm of hostility and the benefits of cooperation. It offers valuable lessons on living together in peace and harmony, making it a meaningful contributor to true human progress (see The Spirit of Tango).