This conversation exhausts me, even though I know and accept it's all part of the folk process.
So I will make my one contribution... two terms I thought of a couple weeks ago. Mun and Wem. They sound enough like the current terms that the brains of both callers and dancers can make an easy transition. They're made-up words, so they have no gender. And they're short. And easy to say. Mun and Wem. Okay, I've done my bit. Keith Tuxhorn Springfield IL On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Dugan Murphy via Callers < [email protected]> wrote: > Since it was an article about my dance series that started this > conversation about role terms, I'll offer that the primary reason we chose > "jets" and "rubies" as gender-free terms is so that regular contra dancers > from other places can come in and dance without needing anything to be > explained to them since the terms are pretty similar to "gents" and > "ladies." > > We also took a look at this graphic of Ron Blechner's analysis of > gender-free role terms people have been talking about: > http://amherstcontra.org/ContraDanceRoleTerms.pdf > > We may not use "jets" and "rubies" forever, but we figured we'd give it a > try. There didn't seem to be any reasons not to try and there are > certainly plenty of reasons to try. > > Most men at our dance dance as jets and most women dance as rubies, but > for the few who dance opposite, switch around, or whose gender expression > doesn't fit the man/woman binary, I'd like to think that formally > separating dance roles from gender is validating in a meaningful way. > > Dugan Murphy > Portland, Maine > dugan at duganmurphy.com > www.DuganMurphy.com > www.PortlandIntownContraDance.com > www.NufSed.consulting > > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > >
