Mini & Macho, Small & Sexy: The Perpetuation of Heteronormativity, Hegemonic Masculinity, and Femininity Within the Culture of Competitive (Jazz and Hip-Hop) Dance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper critically assesses the expectations of competitive jazz dance adjudicators and the effects of these expectations on the presentation of gendered and sexualized dance choreographies by private dance studios. Expectations for competitive dance students with regard to technical ability, execution of choreography, and age/gender (in)appropriateness are unclearly articulated by competitions and adjudicators throughout Canada and the United States. Nevertheless, parents and students enter into private dance studios with pre-conceived notions of what it takes to “win” at competition and demand that their training and choreography reflect this. The onus is on dance teachers and choreographers, then, to adhere to this rapidly evolving culture of dance competition, or otherwise risk losing customers and funds. This paper critically examines current trends in competitive jazz and hip-hop dance through interviews and conversations with three professional competition dance adjudicators. As a competitive dance studio choreographer and researcher, I question the role that competitive dance culture plays in the gendering and sexualization of amateur dancing bodies. Ultimately, what are the implications of the perpetuation of heteronormativity, hegemonic masculinity, and femininity through the dances created for competition on adolescent dancing bodies? What other options are available for private competitive dance studios wishing to simultaneously participate in and disrupt this culture without losing their businesses?
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".