Really Angela? Huge numbers are offended by "gents/ladies"? I'll happily call with whatever the community uses, though I may avoid a community using lead/follow as I think it perniciously encourages passivity in half the dancers, which I object to. And I was vocal in earlier discussions about positional calling being a preferable alternative. (Alan, I'll get back to you about short calls). But where are the stats? I believe there may be some objectors. And some who support them. But vast numbers? Clear majority? Don't see it. I'm willing to be wrong, but I call all over the country and have not seen this. -Andrea
Sent from my external brain > On Jan 27, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Angela DeCarlis via Callers > <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > For what it's worth, "Larks" and "Ravens" were terms designed to correlate > with "Left" and "Right". > > There are plenty of moves we do in contra with names that have nothing to do > with anything. Like "Swat the Flea," or even "Chain". Head over to Square > Dancing, and the vernacular is so huge that plenty of the names for moves > fail to describe the exact movements in question. > > Here's the thing, y'all: a huge number of dancers feel alienated by gendered > terms. This is the same issue seen in major politics with regards to gendered > restrooms: many people (gay, straight, and otherwise) don't feel comfortable > or happy being forced into a dichotomous gender binary when, in actuality, > many of us exist somewhere between two points in a spectrum. [1] Notably, > it's different to feel "offended" than to feel "unwelcome." Many of you claim > to feel the former, but that's a privilege compared to feeling unwelcome or > even shunned from a community. > > And many people are fine with things the way they are! I get that, and that's > great for you, but why on earth wouldn't you change things if it meant being > more inclusive, more just? If you're a dancer who's afraid that things will > be more confusing for you...try dancing at a genderfree dance! Not only have > I found that the dancers at those dances are not any more confused than at > regular dance series, I've found them more competent, and happier. They have > this amazing ability to embrace the unexpected and smile and dance with > whoever's coming at them. I've seen first-time dancers dancing together and > accidentally switching roles every time through the dance, and nobody told > them they were doing it wrong. They just danced with them, and it was great! > In short, they are better dancers. > > And since most of us here are callers: Yes, it's on us to put in a bit more > work. I've now called using Jets/Rubies and Bands/Bares, and while I prefer > the former set, neither was impossibly challenging. Neither was as difficult > as walking through a new dance for the first time. > > If you care for the health of our shared community, I implore you to do the > work. Read the materials, especially the research that Ron, Jeff, and others > have linked to here. Investigate the politics around gender and genderfree > restrooms. Try dancing or even calling for a genderfree series. > > Thank you all so much for taking the time to participate in this conversation > and for taking the energy to consider both sides. I'll look forward to seeing > you all on the dance floor. > > Angela > > [1] > http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2011/11/breaking-through-the-binary-gender-explained-using-continuums/#sthash.M8yxvCQ1.dpbs > >> On Jan 27, 2017 3:08 AM, "Jim Hemphill via Callers" >> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >> You can teach and call contra dances positionally without hurting anyones >> feelings. We are all human beings, I find it objectionable to be referred to >> as some form of rock or bird or whatever. >> >> The role a dancer chooses is really defined by which side of their >> partnership they choose to start the dance or end a swing on. Working from >> that basis just about any contra move can be taught or called without >> reference to gender. >> >>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:01 PM, via Callers >>> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >>> I have been calling at many venues over the years and using the role terms >>> "gents" and "ladies" has NOT been a problem. When teaching, I explain >>> these DO NOT refer to gender but rather to the role you are dancing. >>> Beginners seem to understand and not have any problem. The experienced >>> dancers are very helpful as well. I agree with Donna in the aspect of >>> teaching a new vocabulary that goes with a movement with new words that >>> don't have any relationship to the moves is confusing enough to me, who >>> understands the process. Throw all this at new dancers who move from venue >>> to venue where the terms change, makes my head hurt as well. There is an >>> old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" Maybe we should all rethink >>> this. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Donna Hunt via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> >>> To: contraron <contra...@gmail.com>; babsgroh <babsg...@gmail.com> >>> Cc: callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> >>> Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 12:37 pm >>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies" >>> >>> I'm sad to hear that so many groups are using different role terms and such >>> a variety to boot. Not only do our beginners have to learn a brand new >>> vocabulary (sometimes in a foreign language) and then remember the movement >>> to go with those new words, but now they have to deal with remembering a >>> role that there's no basis for, and that role term changes at different >>> dance locations. Augh my head hurts just thinking about it. >>> >>> Donna >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ron Blechner via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> >>> To: Barbara Groh <babsg...@gmail.com> >>> Cc: callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> >>> Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 3:37 am >>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies" >>> >>> Let's please not presume to speak for the feelings of marginalized groups? >>> >>> Not thinking something is a problem because it doesn't affect you >>> personally is super privileged. >>> >>> Ron Blechner >>> >>>> On Jan 25, 2017 1:36 PM, "Barbara Groh via Callers" >>>> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >>>> Michael, if this view makes you a Luddite, sign me up as a member of the >>>> Luddite Club. I think it's realistic to say that the members of all the >>>> contra, English, and Square Dance groups will NEVER all agree on which >>>> alternative terms to use for ladies and gents, so all these new terms >>>> being bounced around will only cause confusion (and some eye-rolling). >>>> >>>> You've already made a solid argument for the Luddite position, so I won't >>>> say anything more....except this: Please, let's not start an argument >>>> over whether it's pejorative to use the term Luddite! >>>> >>>> Barbara Groh >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Michael Barraclough via Callers >>>>> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >>>>> I guess that I am a Luddite. Here's how I see it. >>>>> >>>>> Somewhere between 80-90% of the population is 'straight'. Surely, we >>>>> want these people as well to come to our dances. It can be difficult >>>>> enough to get past the dance lingo without adding the complexity of >>>>> renaming labels for people that almost everyone already understands. To >>>>> me, what really matters is that we run dances where everyone accepts >>>>> everyone else's sexuality; where individual dancers can feel free to >>>>> dance either role; where everyone is welcome. I am not convinced that >>>>> 'non-straight' individuals are put off by the historical labels that we >>>>> use, rather the lack of the 3 conditions that I have just outlined. >>>>> >>>>> Census data show the U.S. adult population is about 239m. Searching the >>>>> web I can find around 300 contra dances, 150 English Country Dances and >>>>> 1000 MWSD clubs. My generous guess is that less than 100,000 people go >>>>> to these dances, less than 50,000 if we ignore MWSD. Did you know that >>>>> over 700,000 people in the U.S. own a ferret? That means there are 7x as >>>>> many people in the USA who own a ferret compared to the number of people >>>>> who go to our dances! >>>>> >>>>> Let's put less rather than more barriers in the way of getting those >>>>> who don't dance with us (that's 99.6% of the population) to join us. >>>>> >>>>> Michael Barraclough >>>>> www.michaelbarraclough.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 2017-01-24 at 16:19 -0500, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote: >>>>> > I know I'd appreciate it if people had new suggestions, they'd review >>>>> > existing considerations for what makes terms usable. Things like 1:2 >>>>> > syllable ratio, distinct vowel sounds - these disqualify a lot of >>>>> > terms as being unfeasible for the same reason "bare arms / arm bands" >>>>> > as terms are not preferable. The PDF spreadsheet that Dugan linked is >>>>> > the result of my study with teamwork and sourcing from many dancers. >>>>> > >>>>> > Best, >>>>> > Ron Blechner >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > On Jan 20, 2017 7:28 PM, "Keith Tuxhorn via Callers" <callers@lists.s >>>>> > haredweight.net> wrote: >>>>> > > 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 <callers@ >>>>> > > lists.sharedweight.net> 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://amh >>>>> > > > erstcontra.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 >>>>> > > > Callers@lists.sharedweight.net >>>>> > > > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.n >>>>> > > > et >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > > Callers mailing list >>>>> > > Callers@lists.sharedweight.net >>>>> > > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > Callers mailing list >>>>> > Callers@lists.sharedweight.net >>>>> > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Callers mailing list >>>>> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net >>>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Callers mailing list >>>> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net >>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Callers mailing list >>> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net >>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Callers mailing list >>> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net >>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Callers mailing list >>> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net >>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Callers mailing list >> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net >> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >> > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers@lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
