Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"
*applause*
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 9:37 PM, Jacob or Nancy Bloom via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> I'll echo this viewpoint. I value the opportunity to go different places
> and learn different ways of doing things. I feel that much more is lost in
> uniformity than is gained.
>
> Jacob
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Chet Gray via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> In regards to the present variety in role terminology, I may be fairly
>> alone in this opinion, but I hope we never intentionally arrive at a grand
>> consensus.
>>
>> I love that different terms for roles have sprung up in different
>> communities, just as I love that so many wonderful terms have sprung up for
>> eye-turn/shoulder-turn/spiral. I love hearing "allemande", "hand turn", and
>> "hand 'round" in different communities. I love that "dosado" means
>> drastically different things in different long-lived community ("square")
>> dances. I love that some communities default to hands-across stars while
>> others default to wrist-hold stars. I love that there are at least three
>> different promenade positions, and each is default in different
>> communities. As much as my engineer brain would enjoy it, I hope we never
>> have a CALLERLAB to strictly define terminology and steps for contra dances.
>>
>> — Chet Gray
>> dance caller
>> Louisville, KY
>> (502) 419-7008 <+1-502-419-7008>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Donna Hunt via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>
Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"
I'll echo this viewpoint. I value the opportunity to go different places
and learn different ways of doing things. I feel that much more is lost in
uniformity than is gained.
Jacob
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Chet Gray via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> In regards to the present variety in role terminology, I may be fairly
> alone in this opinion, but I hope we never intentionally arrive at a grand
> consensus.
>
> I love that different terms for roles have sprung up in different
> communities, just as I love that so many wonderful terms have sprung up for
> eye-turn/shoulder-turn/spiral. I love hearing "allemande", "hand turn", and
> "hand 'round" in different communities. I love that "dosado" means
> drastically different things in different long-lived community ("square")
> dances. I love that some communities default to hands-across stars while
> others default to wrist-hold stars. I love that there are at least three
> different promenade positions, and each is default in different
> communities. As much as my engineer brain would enjoy it, I hope we never
> have a CALLERLAB to strictly define terminology and steps for contra dances.
>
> — Chet Gray
> dance caller
> Louisville, KY
> (502) 419-7008 <+1-502-419-7008>
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Donna Hunt via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"
In regards to the present variety in role terminology, I may be fairly
alone in this opinion, but I hope we never intentionally arrive at a grand
consensus.
I love that different terms for roles have sprung up in different
communities, just as I love that so many wonderful terms have sprung up for
eye-turn/shoulder-turn/spiral. I love hearing "allemande", "hand turn", and
"hand 'round" in different communities. I love that "dosado" means
drastically different things in different long-lived community ("square")
dances. I love that some communities default to hands-across stars while
others default to wrist-hold stars. I love that there are at least three
different promenade positions, and each is default in different
communities. As much as my engineer brain would enjoy it, I hope we never
have a CALLERLAB to strictly define terminology and steps for contra dances.
— Chet Gray
dance caller
Louisville, KY
(502) 419-7008 <+1-502-419-7008>
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Donna Hunt via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> 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
> To: Barbara Groh
> Cc: callers
> 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 moreexcept 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" >> > haredweight.net> wrote:
>>> > > This conversation exhausts me, even though I know and accept it's
>>>
Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"
Michael, is there any real reason to maintain the conflation that a male person ends a swing on the left and a female person ends a swing on the right? I see none. Nobody is proposing "funny terms for people when [...] we already have perfectly good terms". There aren't *any* terms for people. Just those dang terms for dance positions that happen to have historical conflation with genitalia. Far too many new (and even not-so-new) dancers of whom I've asked "do you have a preferred role for this dance?" have never even considered the possibility that role has *absolutely nothing* to do with one's gender. They have never considered dancing the "non-traditional" role because of the subtle (and sometimes, regrettably, overt) reinforcement of the male-dancer="gent"-position female-dancer="lady"-position. Why reinforce that conflation at all? On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 2:26 AM, Michael Barraclough via Callers < callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 09:04 -0500, Angela DeCarlis via Callers wrote: > 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? > > I understand that from your perspective we would be more inclusive if > we used gender-free terminology. It is my belief, however, that the > majority of the population would see the use of gender-free terminology > for roles as something that 'excluded' them - additional terms used by > a private club of people with their own rituals, kind of like masonry. > They can understand why we might need funny terms for the moves. They > cannot understand why we need funny terms for people when (as far as > they are concerned) we already have perfectly good terms - > men/gents/blokes and women/ladies/sheilas etc. From their perspective > it is definitely not 'inclusive'. > > Michael Barraclough > www.michaelbarraclough.com > > ___ > Callers mailing list > Callers@lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >
