Thanks Jeff for putting together this survey! This is all really interesting information.
On Feb 12, 2017 9:03 AM, "Jeff Kaufman via Callers" < [email protected]> wrote: > As part of thinking about how whether non-gendered terms would work for > mainstream contra dances, I thought it would be good to ask callers what > they thought. Is it something where most callers were only willing to call > Gents/Ladies, or are they more flexible? Do they generally support this > sort of change, or do they think it's a bad idea? > > I wrote to people who have called BIDA in the last year, plus the ones who > are currently booked, to ask them whether: > > > - A dance like BIDA switching to gender free terms is better, worse, > or about the same. > - They have a preference between Larks/Ravens and Jets/Rubies. > - They would be willing to call Larks/Ravens or Jets/Rubies if a dance > required that. > > Of the 18 callers I wrote to, 17 responded. Of them, all but one was > willing to call Larks/Ravens or Jets/Rubies, though several said (without > my having suggested it) that they wouldn't be willing to call Lead/Follow. > > Many of the respondents didn't say whether they were in favor of the > switch. Of the 11 who did respond, it was 5x yes, 3x ambivalent, and 3x no. > > Nine callers preferred Jets/Rubies because they find it easier to say, but > no one so much that they were willing to call Jets/Rubies but not > Larks/Ravens. > > Some freeform responses, lightly edited: > > - > > "I prefer Jets/Rubies, but only slightly. I can see the benefit of > 'L'/'R' matching the default swing ending position with the initial letters > but I think I'd make fewer mistakes with Jets/Rubies. Not enough to sway a > decision though. > - > > "My personal preference is for Jets/Rubies, but that's just because > it's easier for me to say right now. I'm sure that if I practiced > Larks/Ravens would be fine too. If the point of using gender free terms is > to distance the roles even further from gender, than I'd go with > Larks/Ravens. Jets/Rubies sounds very similar to Gents/Ladies, and some > callers slip up and say 'Gents' for 'Jets'." > - > > "The birds are arbitrary terms and seem to have fewer unwanted(?) > associations than the rock terms. So I'm for the birds." > - > > "I'm not wildly positive about either Larks/Ravens or Jets/Rubies, but > if I had to choose one set, it would be Larks/Ravens. To me, Jets/Rubies > carries a lot of baggage: It sounds enough like Gents/Ladies that it > invites the reaction 'Who are they trying to kid?' The lack of logical > association between jewels (inanimate objects) and dancing (an intimate > human activity) makes the use of Jets/Rubies feel as if the series is being > run by an in-group with a secret language. (I realize the two foregoing > reactions are contradictory, but these are gut reactions, not necessarily > rational ones.) Also, 'Jets' makes me think of the gang in West Side Story, > and also of airplanes (more inanimate objects). To sum up, the word in a > dance context has no positive associations for me, and some negative ones. > Larks/Ravens has no baggage for me, doesn't reinforce gender stereotypes, > and has a built-in mnemonic with the L/R initials." > - > > "Enough people are offended by 'Jets' sounding too close to 'Gents' > that I think Larks/Ravens is a much easier sell." > - > > "My preference would be Jets/Rubies, because the sound similarity to > traditional terms make the transition easier. (I understand that that very > feature makes it the less desirable choice in some people's view.)" > - > > "As a caller who learned with Gents/Ladies, I find Jets/Rubies the > easiest to use." > - > > "I've never used Larks/Ravens. I've used Jets/Rubies, and felt fairly > comfortable with it. Larks/Ravens makes more sense to me. Definitely happy > to use either one." > - > > "I have a preference for Jets/Rubies but the only terms I *will not > use* are Leads/Follows." > - > > "I don't have a preference between those two sets of terms. I am also > comfortable with Lead/Follow, but know that this is also a challenging > choice for some people and I understand why it's maybe not the best pick. I > like it because those terms have dance connotations" > - > > "I like Jets/Rubies because 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/Ladies. Also, Larks/Ravens > sounds a little silly." > - > > "As far as Jets/Rubies vs Larks/Ravens, I like using Jets/Rubies > because they sound almost the same as Gents/Ladies. For my rhymes and > patter, it's a pretty easy substitution. But my first impression of the > terms is that they are still kind of gendered, or at least can be > interpreted that. 'Jets' sounds aggressive and masculine, and 'Rubies' are > definitely feminine. " > - > > "I can't imagine trying to turn a singing square gender free." > - > > "From the point of view of a caller trying to get a new set of words > out of my mouth when significant chunks of my teaching and prompting are > automatic, I think that I would prefer Jets/Rubies for a few reasons. > First, I think that I would manage to confuse myself and stumble around > switching 'Gents' to 'Larks', which starts with the same letter as > 'Ladies', and might be more likely to flip-flop the two. Also, I know that > it has been successfully used, but the initial consonants of Larks/Ravens > aren't nearly as contrasted as are those of Jets/Rubies (or of > Gents/Ladies)." > - > > "Not really a preference, although as a caller perhaps Jets/Rubies is > a slightly easier transition." > > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > >
