Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Cara Sawyer via Callers]

Regarding Chicago's Queer Contra: The principal organizer moved away and a few 
folks are trying to revive it. 
There they were using bands and bares and I spoke with many that, though the 
gender-neutral tone was awesome, as a general consensus the words bands and 
bares sound exactly the same thru a mic. 
Cara
(Chicago)

Sent to you using thumbs. 

> On Feb 1, 2017, at 10:09, Donna Hunt via Callers 
> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> 
> Amy, that's exactly why I'm wondering from those of us on sharedweight who 
> might be reluctant to reply.  If there's not enough folks willing to post 
> their information then it's probably not worth putting in the effort to 
> create the document.
> 
> I agree with you completely about the "pressure".  There's a lot of push back 
> on this list when we voice concerns and opinions.  Personally I think we 
> should be kinder with those who are responding.  There are many people who 
> don't reply on this list and I personally believe it's because of the 
> "pressure" and aggressive replies when different opinions are raised. 
> 
> 
> Donna
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Amy Wimmer <amywim...@gmail.com>
> To: Donna Hunt <dhuntdan...@aol.com>
> Cc: jeff <j...@alum.swarthmore.edu>; Dave Casserly 
> <david.j.casse...@gmail.com>; callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> Sent: Tue, Jan 31, 2017 12:32 pm
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"
> 
> Donna,
> I can imagine a scenario in which organizers would be shy to share this 
> information for fear of retaliation or pressure from those who want them to 
> change their practices. Having received such pressure, personally, I am sure 
> it will happen to others. I'm not saying all pressure to change is bad, but 
> that some people don't like being pushed. It is a (smallish) issue around the 
> term "gypsy" in my neck of the woods.
> -Amy
> 
> On Jan 31, 2017 6:39 AM, "Donna Hunt via Callers" 
> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> If we were creating a doc for attendance and opening it up to the "world of 
> contra dances organizers" to comment why not add some other categories that 
> we've been discussing?  
> 
> Linda Leslie suggested the Organizers group might have stats.  I'm wondering 
> if CDSS keeps any?
> 
> When Jeff replied to my query about LGBTQ dances and groups using non-gender 
> terminology I wasn't at all surprised to see the list (since I know most of 
> those groups), but I was surprised to realize that there were no groups in 
> other major cities throughout the country.
> 
> Topics that might be on the Doc:
> Dance Organizations that use non-gender terminology 
> Dance Organizations that have considered but decided not to use non-gender 
> terminology
> Dance Organizations that have decided to use a non "gypsy" terminology
> Dance Organizations that have considered but decided not to use non "gypsy" 
> terminology
> 
> There could be a write in section where Dance Organizations could state which 
> terms they use.
> 
> I would request that the attendance be under 25, 26-50, 51-75, 76-100, etc.  
> Or even increments of 20.  There are several small groups in this country 
> that survive with under 20 attendance and other groups where a drop in 25 
> dancers means serious financial hardship.  
> 
> Dave is concerned that groups might be wary about posting such information.  
> Are there groups represented on this list that might NOT participate in this 
> information gathering?  Seems useless to even create the Doc unless folks are 
> willing to post the data.
> 
> Donna Hunt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Casserly via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> To: Jeff Kaufman <j...@alum.swarthmore.edu>
> Cc: callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> Sent: Mon, Jan 30, 2017 4:12 pm
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"
> 
> What if we made a Google doc with more vague categories where dances could 
> self-report their attendance?  Something like, a column for the state where 
> the dance is located, a column for 2015 average attendance, all done in 
> ranges of 1-50, 51-100, etc, and another column for 2017 attendance, with the 
> same ranges?  I think that would be useful for purposes of knowing how many 
> dances are suffering declining attendance, and where those dances are, but 
> wouldn't give out enough specific information to make organizers queasy about 
> publicly releasing data.
> 
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Jeff Kaufman v

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Donna Hunt via Callers]

Amy, that's exactly why I'm wondering from those of us on sharedweight who 
might be reluctant to reply.  If there's not enough folks willing to post their 
information then it's probably not worth putting in the effort to create the 
document.

I agree with you completely about the "pressure".  There's a lot of push back 
on this list when we voice concerns and opinions.  Personally I think we should 
be kinder with those who are responding.  There are many people who don't reply 
on this list and I personally believe it's because of the "pressure" and 
aggressive replies when different opinions are raised. 


 

Donna




 

 

-Original Message-
From: Amy Wimmer <amywim...@gmail.com>
To: Donna Hunt <dhuntdan...@aol.com>
Cc: jeff <j...@alum.swarthmore.edu>; Dave Casserly 
<david.j.casse...@gmail.com>; callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
Sent: Tue, Jan 31, 2017 12:32 pm
Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"



Donna,
I can imagine a scenario in which organizers would be shy to share this 
information for fear of retaliation or pressure from those who want them to 
change their practices. Having received such pressure, personally, I am sure it 
will happen to others. I'm not saying all pressure to change is bad, but that 
some people don't like being pushed. It is a (smallish) issue around the term 
"gypsy" in my neck of the woods.
-Amy



On Jan 31, 2017 6:39 AM, "Donna Hunt via Callers" 
<callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

If we were creating a doc for attendance and opening it up to the "world of 
contra dances organizers" to comment why not add some other categories that 
we've been discussing?  

Linda Leslie suggested the Organizers group might have stats.  I'm wondering if 
CDSS keeps any?

When Jeff replied to my query about LGBTQ dances and groups using non-gender 
terminology I wasn't at all surprised to see the list (since I know most of 
those groups), but I was surprised to realize that there were no groups in 
other major cities throughout the country.

Topics that might be on the Doc:
Dance Organizations that use non-gender terminology 
Dance Organizations that have considered but decided not to use non-gender 
terminology
Dance Organizations that have decided to use a non "gypsy" terminology
Dance Organizations that have considered but decided not to use non "gypsy" 
terminology

There could be a write in section where Dance Organizations could state which 
terms they use.

I would request that the attendance be under 25, 26-50, 51-75, 76-100, etc.  Or 
even increments of 20.  There are several small groups in this country that 
survive with under 20 attendance and other groups where a drop in 25 dancers 
means serious financial hardship.  

Dave is concerned that groups might be wary about posting such information.  
Are there groups represented on this list that might NOT participate in this 
information gathering?  Seems useless to even create the Doc unless folks are 
willing to post the data.

 

Donna Hunt





 

 


-Original Message-
From: Dave Casserly via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
To: Jeff Kaufman <j...@alum.swarthmore.edu>
Cc: callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
Sent: Mon, Jan 30, 2017 4:12 pm
Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"




What if we made a Google doc with more vague categories where dances could 
self-report their attendance?  Something like, a column for the state where the 
dance is located, a column for 2015 average attendance, all done in ranges of 
1-50, 51-100, etc, and another column for 2017 attendance, with the same 
ranges?  I think that would be useful for purposes of knowing how many dances 
are suffering declining attendance, and where those dances are, but wouldn't 
give out enough specific information to make organizers queasy about publicly 
releasing data.


On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Jeff Kaufman via Callers 
<callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

For attendance, what I would love to see is dances making their
attendance numbers fully public.  Something like a googledocs
spreadsheet that anyone can view where you put in attendance numbers.

(I've advocated for this, internally to BIDA, for years
(unsuccessfully).  We do have a sheet like this, but it's not public.)


On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Linda Leslie via Callers
<callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> It may be that the Organizers’ List for Shared Weight may have this kind of
> data.
> Linda
>
> On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:51 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers
> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> No, I haven't seen statistical analysis of this. Maybe it's worthwhile for
> this to be polled out to various dances.
>
> Best regards,
> Ron
>
> On Jan 30, 2017 10:54 AM, &quo

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Meg Dedolph via Callers]

Champaign-Urbana may be switching over to gender-free, though not LGBTQ, as
well - check with them to verify?
Meg
(Chicago)

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Alexandra Deis-Lauby via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> There's also a gender free LGBTQ dance in Chicago.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 30, 2017, at 11:10 AM, Jeff Kaufman via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Donna Hunt  wrote:
>
> Is there any data
>
> that reflects where in the country the LGBTQ gender-free dances are and
>
> where the communities that use gender-free terminology are?
>
>
> The gender free dances are split into explicitly LGBTQ ones and ones
> that are gender free but not explicitly LGBTQ.
>
> I believe it's:
>
> LGBTQ:
> * Oakland CA
> * Aptos CA (camp)
> * Woodstock CT (camp)
> * Becket MA (camp)
> * Boston MA
> * Montague MA
> * New York City NY
>
> Other gender free:
> * San Jose CA
> * Berkeley CA
> * Hayward CA
> * Portland ME
> * Montpelier VT
> * Amherst MA
> * New York City (NY)
> ___
> 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
>
>

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Alexandra Deis-Lauby via Callers]

It seems to come and go

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Jeff Kaufman 
wrote:

> Looking at https://www.facebook.com/ContraChicago and
> http://lcfd.org/queer-contra-dance-chicago.html it looks like the
> Chicago dance is defunct?
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Alexandra Deis-Lauby
>  wrote:
> > There's also a gender free LGBTQ dance in Chicago.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2017, at 11:10 AM, Jeff Kaufman via Callers
> >  wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Donna Hunt 
> wrote:
> >
> > Is there any data
> >
> > that reflects where in the country the LGBTQ gender-free dances are and
> >
> > where the communities that use gender-free terminology are?
> >
> >
> > The gender free dances are split into explicitly LGBTQ ones and ones
> > that are gender free but not explicitly LGBTQ.
> >
> > I believe it's:
> >
> > LGBTQ:
> > * Oakland CA
> > * Aptos CA (camp)
> > * Woodstock CT (camp)
> > * Becket MA (camp)
> > * Boston MA
> > * Montague MA
> > * New York City NY
> >
> > Other gender free:
> > * San Jose CA
> > * Berkeley CA
> > * Hayward CA
> > * Portland ME
> > * Montpelier VT
> > * Amherst MA
> > * New York City (NY)
> > ___
> > Callers mailing list
> > Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Amy Wimmer via Callers]

Donna,
I can imagine a scenario in which organizers would be shy to share this
information for fear of retaliation or pressure from those who want them to
change their practices. Having received such pressure, personally, I am
sure it will happen to others. I'm not saying all pressure to change is
bad, but that some people don't like being pushed. It is a (smallish) issue
around the term "gypsy" in my neck of the woods.
-Amy

On Jan 31, 2017 6:39 AM, "Donna Hunt via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

If we were creating a doc for attendance and opening it up to the "world of
contra dances organizers" to comment why not add some other categories that
we've been discussing?

Linda Leslie suggested the Organizers group might have stats.  I'm
wondering if CDSS keeps any?

When Jeff replied to my query about LGBTQ dances and groups using
non-gender terminology I wasn't at all surprised to see the list (since I
know most of those groups), but I *was* surprised to realize that there
were no groups in other major cities throughout the country.

Topics that might be on the Doc:
Dance Organizations that use non-gender terminology
Dance Organizations that have considered but decided not to use non-gender
terminology
Dance Organizations that have decided to use a non "gypsy" terminology
Dance Organizations that have considered but decided not to use non "gypsy"
terminology

There could be a write in section where Dance Organizations could state
which terms they use.

I would request that the attendance be under 25, 26-50, 51-75, 76-100,
etc.  Or even increments of 20.  There are several small groups in this
country that survive with under 20 attendance and other groups where a drop
in 25 dancers means serious financial hardship.

Dave is concerned that groups might be wary about posting such
information.  Are there groups represented on this list that might NOT
participate in this information gathering?  Seems useless to even create
the Doc unless folks are willing to post the data.

Donna Hunt





-Original Message-
From: Dave Casserly via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
To: Jeff Kaufman <j...@alum.swarthmore.edu>
Cc: callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
Sent: Mon, Jan 30, 2017 4:12 pm
Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

What if we made a Google doc with more vague categories where dances could
self-report their attendance?  Something like, a column for the state where
the dance is located, a column for 2015 average attendance, all done in
ranges of 1-50, 51-100, etc, and another column for 2017 attendance, with
the same ranges?  I think that would be useful for purposes of knowing how
many dances are suffering declining attendance, and where those dances are,
but wouldn't give out enough specific information to make organizers queasy
about publicly releasing data.

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Jeff Kaufman via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> For attendance, what I would love to see is dances making their
> attendance numbers fully public.  Something like a googledocs
> spreadsheet that anyone can view where you put in attendance numbers.
>
> (I've advocated for this, internally to BIDA, for years
> (unsuccessfully).  We do have a sheet like this, but it's not public.)
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Linda Leslie via Callers
> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> > It may be that the Organizers’ List for Shared Weight may have this kind
> of
> > data.
> > Linda
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:51 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers
> > <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> >
> > No, I haven't seen statistical analysis of this. Maybe it's worthwhile
> for
> > this to be polled out to various dances.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Ron
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2017 10:54 AM, "Donna Hunt" <dhuntdan...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > Just getting back to this thread, lots to catch up on.
> >
> > Jeff and Ron:  You both seem like the statisticians here.  Is there any
> data
> > that reflects where in the country the LGBTQ gender-free dances are and
> > where the communities that use gender-free terminology are?
> >
> > Just curious.
> >
> > Ron:  When you say that local dances attendance is down is there data
> about
> > that compared to dances where attendance is not down?  Again, looking for
> > information country wide or even geographic area.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Donna Hunt
> >
> > ___
> > Callers mailing list
> > Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
> >
> >

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Jeff Kaufman via Callers]

Looking at https://www.facebook.com/ContraChicago and
http://lcfd.org/queer-contra-dance-chicago.html it looks like the
Chicago dance is defunct?

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Alexandra Deis-Lauby
 wrote:
> There's also a gender free LGBTQ dance in Chicago.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 30, 2017, at 11:10 AM, Jeff Kaufman via Callers
>  wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Donna Hunt  wrote:
>
> Is there any data
>
> that reflects where in the country the LGBTQ gender-free dances are and
>
> where the communities that use gender-free terminology are?
>
>
> The gender free dances are split into explicitly LGBTQ ones and ones
> that are gender free but not explicitly LGBTQ.
>
> I believe it's:
>
> LGBTQ:
> * Oakland CA
> * Aptos CA (camp)
> * Woodstock CT (camp)
> * Becket MA (camp)
> * Boston MA
> * Montague MA
> * New York City NY
>
> Other gender free:
> * San Jose CA
> * Berkeley CA
> * Hayward CA
> * Portland ME
> * Montpelier VT
> * Amherst MA
> * New York City (NY)
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Alexandra Deis-Lauby via Callers]

There's also a gender free LGBTQ dance in Chicago. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 30, 2017, at 11:10 AM, Jeff Kaufman via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Donna Hunt  wrote:
>> Is there any data
>> that reflects where in the country the LGBTQ gender-free dances are and
>> where the communities that use gender-free terminology are?
> 
> The gender free dances are split into explicitly LGBTQ ones and ones
> that are gender free but not explicitly LGBTQ.
> 
> I believe it's:
> 
> LGBTQ:
> * Oakland CA
> * Aptos CA (camp)
> * Woodstock CT (camp)
> * Becket MA (camp)
> * Boston MA
> * Montague MA
> * New York City NY
> 
> Other gender free:
> * San Jose CA
> * Berkeley CA
> * Hayward CA
> * Portland ME
> * Montpelier VT
> * Amherst MA
> * New York City (NY)
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Donna Hunt via Callers]

If we were creating a doc for attendance and opening it up to the "world of 
contra dances organizers" to comment why not add some other categories that 
we've been discussing?  

Linda Leslie suggested the Organizers group might have stats.  I'm wondering if 
CDSS keeps any?

When Jeff replied to my query about LGBTQ dances and groups using non-gender 
terminology I wasn't at all surprised to see the list (since I know most of 
those groups), but I was surprised to realize that there were no groups in 
other major cities throughout the country.

Topics that might be on the Doc:
Dance Organizations that use non-gender terminology 
Dance Organizations that have considered but decided not to use non-gender 
terminology
Dance Organizations that have decided to use a non "gypsy" terminology
Dance Organizations that have considered but decided not to use non "gypsy" 
terminology

There could be a write in section where Dance Organizations could state which 
terms they use.

I would request that the attendance be under 25, 26-50, 51-75, 76-100, etc.  Or 
even increments of 20.  There are several small groups in this country that 
survive with under 20 attendance and other groups where a drop in 25 dancers 
means serious financial hardship.  

Dave is concerned that groups might be wary about posting such information.  
Are there groups represented on this list that might NOT participate in this 
information gathering?  Seems useless to even create the Doc unless folks are 
willing to post the data.

 

Donna Hunt





 

 

-Original Message-
From: Dave Casserly via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
To: Jeff Kaufman <j...@alum.swarthmore.edu>
Cc: callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
Sent: Mon, Jan 30, 2017 4:12 pm
Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"



What if we made a Google doc with more vague categories where dances could 
self-report their attendance?  Something like, a column for the state where the 
dance is located, a column for 2015 average attendance, all done in ranges of 
1-50, 51-100, etc, and another column for 2017 attendance, with the same 
ranges?  I think that would be useful for purposes of knowing how many dances 
are suffering declining attendance, and where those dances are, but wouldn't 
give out enough specific information to make organizers queasy about publicly 
releasing data.


On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Jeff Kaufman via Callers 
<callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

For attendance, what I would love to see is dances making their
attendance numbers fully public.  Something like a googledocs
spreadsheet that anyone can view where you put in attendance numbers.

(I've advocated for this, internally to BIDA, for years
(unsuccessfully).  We do have a sheet like this, but it's not public.)


On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Linda Leslie via Callers
<callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> It may be that the Organizers’ List for Shared Weight may have this kind of
> data.
> Linda
>
> On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:51 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers
> <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> No, I haven't seen statistical analysis of this. Maybe it's worthwhile for
> this to be polled out to various dances.
>
> Best regards,
> Ron
>
> On Jan 30, 2017 10:54 AM, "Donna Hunt" <dhuntdan...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Just getting back to this thread, lots to catch up on.
>
> Jeff and Ron:  You both seem like the statisticians here.  Is there any data
> that reflects where in the country the LGBTQ gender-free dances are and
> where the communities that use gender-free terminology are?
>
> Just curious.
>
> Ron:  When you say that local dances attendance is down is there data about
> that compared to dances where attendance is not down?  Again, looking for
> information country wide or even geographic area.
>
> Thanks
> Donna Hunt
>
> ___
> 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







-- 

David Casserly
(cell) 781 258-2761

___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Rich Sbardella via Callers]

In the New England MWSD Community, there is one weekend a year that dances
collect data.
This method, although it has problems, is probable good at seeng long term
trends.
Rich Sbardella

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> No, I haven't seen statistical analysis of this. Maybe it's worthwhile for
> this to be polled out to various dances.
>
> Best regards,
> Ron
>
> On Jan 30, 2017 10:54 AM, "Donna Hunt"  wrote:
>
> Just getting back to this thread, lots to catch up on.
>
> Jeff and Ron:  You both seem like the statisticians here.  Is there any
> data that reflects where in the country the LGBTQ gender-free dances are
> and where the communities that use gender-free terminology are?
>
> Just curious.
>
> Ron:  When you say that local dances attendance is down is there data
> about that compared to dances where attendance is not down?  Again, looking
> for information country wide or even geographic area.
>
> Thanks
> Donna Hunt
>
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Dave Casserly via Callers]

What if we made a Google doc with more vague categories where dances could
self-report their attendance?  Something like, a column for the state where
the dance is located, a column for 2015 average attendance, all done in
ranges of 1-50, 51-100, etc, and another column for 2017 attendance, with
the same ranges?  I think that would be useful for purposes of knowing how
many dances are suffering declining attendance, and where those dances are,
but wouldn't give out enough specific information to make organizers queasy
about publicly releasing data.

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Jeff Kaufman via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> For attendance, what I would love to see is dances making their
> attendance numbers fully public.  Something like a googledocs
> spreadsheet that anyone can view where you put in attendance numbers.
>
> (I've advocated for this, internally to BIDA, for years
> (unsuccessfully).  We do have a sheet like this, but it's not public.)
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Linda Leslie via Callers
>  wrote:
> > It may be that the Organizers’ List for Shared Weight may have this kind
> of
> > data.
> > Linda
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:51 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers
> >  wrote:
> >
> > No, I haven't seen statistical analysis of this. Maybe it's worthwhile
> for
> > this to be polled out to various dances.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Ron
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2017 10:54 AM, "Donna Hunt"  wrote:
> >
> > Just getting back to this thread, lots to catch up on.
> >
> > Jeff and Ron:  You both seem like the statisticians here.  Is there any
> data
> > that reflects where in the country the LGBTQ gender-free dances are and
> > where the communities that use gender-free terminology are?
> >
> > Just curious.
> >
> > Ron:  When you say that local dances attendance is down is there data
> about
> > that compared to dances where attendance is not down?  Again, looking for
> > information country wide or even geographic area.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Donna Hunt
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>



-- 
David Casserly
(cell) 781 258-2761

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Jeff Kaufman via Callers]

For attendance, what I would love to see is dances making their
attendance numbers fully public.  Something like a googledocs
spreadsheet that anyone can view where you put in attendance numbers.

(I've advocated for this, internally to BIDA, for years
(unsuccessfully).  We do have a sheet like this, but it's not public.)

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Linda Leslie via Callers
 wrote:
> It may be that the Organizers’ List for Shared Weight may have this kind of
> data.
> Linda
>
> On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:51 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers
>  wrote:
>
> No, I haven't seen statistical analysis of this. Maybe it's worthwhile for
> this to be polled out to various dances.
>
> Best regards,
> Ron
>
> On Jan 30, 2017 10:54 AM, "Donna Hunt"  wrote:
>
> Just getting back to this thread, lots to catch up on.
>
> Jeff and Ron:  You both seem like the statisticians here.  Is there any data
> that reflects where in the country the LGBTQ gender-free dances are and
> where the communities that use gender-free terminology are?
>
> Just curious.
>
> Ron:  When you say that local dances attendance is down is there data about
> that compared to dances where attendance is not down?  Again, looking for
> information country wide or even geographic area.
>
> Thanks
> Donna Hunt
>
> ___
> 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
>

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Amy Wimmer via Callers]

My husband keeps attendance records for our weekly dance in Seattle, and
has done so for ~16 years. What sort of info do you seek? Just an overall
trend, or numbers, or something else?
-Amy

On Jan 30, 2017 10:07 AM, "Linda Leslie via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> It may be that the Organizers’ List for Shared Weight may have this kind
> of data.
> Linda
>
> On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:51 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> No, I haven't seen statistical analysis of this. Maybe it's worthwhile for
> this to be polled out to various dances.
>
> Best regards,
> Ron
>
> On Jan 30, 2017 10:54 AM, "Donna Hunt"  wrote:
>
> Just getting back to this thread, lots to catch up on.
>
> Jeff and Ron:  You both seem like the statisticians here.  Is there any
> data that reflects where in the country the LGBTQ gender-free dances are
> and where the communities that use gender-free terminology are?
>
> Just curious.
>
> Ron:  When you say that local dances attendance is down is there data
> about that compared to dances where attendance is not down?  Again, looking
> for information country wide or even geographic area.
>
> Thanks
> Donna Hunt
>
> ___
> 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
>
>

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Linda Leslie via Callers]

It may be that the Organizers’ List for Shared Weight may have this kind of 
data.
Linda

On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:51 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers 
 wrote:

> No, I haven't seen statistical analysis of this. Maybe it's worthwhile for 
> this to be polled out to various dances.
> 
> Best regards,
> Ron
> 
> On Jan 30, 2017 10:54 AM, "Donna Hunt"  wrote:
> Just getting back to this thread, lots to catch up on.
> 
> Jeff and Ron:  You both seem like the statisticians here.  Is there any data 
> that reflects where in the country the LGBTQ gender-free dances are and where 
> the communities that use gender-free terminology are?  
> 
> Just curious.
> 
> Ron:  When you say that local dances attendance is down is there data about 
> that compared to dances where attendance is not down?  Again, looking for 
> information country wide or even geographic area.
> 
> Thanks
> Donna Hunt
> 
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

No, I haven't seen statistical analysis of this. Maybe it's worthwhile for
this to be polled out to various dances.

Best regards,
Ron

On Jan 30, 2017 10:54 AM, "Donna Hunt"  wrote:

Just getting back to this thread, lots to catch up on.

Jeff and Ron:  You both seem like the statisticians here.  Is there any
data that reflects where in the country the LGBTQ gender-free dances are
and where the communities that use gender-free terminology are?

Just curious.

Ron:  When you say that local dances attendance is down is there data about
that compared to dances where attendance is not down?  Again, looking for
information country wide or even geographic area.

Thanks
Donna Hunt

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Tony Parkes via Callers]

Jeff Kaufman wrote:

> The gender free dances are split into explicitly LGBTQ ones and ones that are 
> gender free but not explicitly LGBTQ.

I trust that the series in the second category are careful to mention their 
gender-free policy when (if) they invite new-to-the-series callers to come. No 
one likes awkward surprises.

Tony Parkes
Billerica, Mass.
www.hands4.com
New book: Square Dance Calling (ready Summer 2017)

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Tony Parkes via Callers]

I second Donna’s request for hard data, particularly on rising/falling/static 
attendance. Let’s remember, too, that there are many factors involved in 
attendance, and also that a series can buck the general trend. The church I 
attend, part of a national body that has seen steep declines in my lifetime, 
has grown 30 percent over the last five years – for the right reasons, one 
hopes.

Tony Parkes
Billerica, Mass.
www.hands4.com<http://www.hands4.com>
New book: Square Dance Calling (ready Summer 2017)


From: Callers [mailto:callers-boun...@lists.sharedweight.net] On Behalf Of 
Donna Hunt via Callers
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 10:55 AM
To: j...@alum.swarthmore.edu; contra...@gmail.com
Cc: callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

Just getting back to this thread, lots to catch up on.

Jeff and Ron:  You both seem like the statisticians here.  Is there any data 
that reflects where in the country the LGBTQ gender-free dances are and where 
the communities that use gender-free terminology are?

Just curious.

Ron:  When you say that local dances attendance is down is there data about 
that compared to dances where attendance is not down?  Again, looking for 
information country wide or even geographic area.

Thanks
Donna Hunt

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Jeff Kaufman via Callers]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Donna Hunt  wrote:
> Is there any data
> that reflects where in the country the LGBTQ gender-free dances are and
> where the communities that use gender-free terminology are?

The gender free dances are split into explicitly LGBTQ ones and ones
that are gender free but not explicitly LGBTQ.

I believe it's:

LGBTQ:
* Oakland CA
* Aptos CA (camp)
* Woodstock CT (camp)
* Becket MA (camp)
* Boston MA
* Montague MA
* New York City NY

Other gender free:
* San Jose CA
* Berkeley CA
* Hayward CA
* Portland ME
* Montpelier VT
* Amherst MA
* New York City (NY)

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Donna Hunt via Callers]

Just getting back to this thread, lots to catch up on.

Jeff and Ron:  You both seem like the statisticians here.  Is there any data 
that reflects where in the country the LGBTQ gender-free dances are and where 
the communities that use gender-free terminology are?  

Just curious.

Ron:  When you say that local dances attendance is down is there data about 
that compared to dances where attendance is not down?  Again, looking for 
information country wide or even geographic area.



 Thanks

Donna Hunt







-Original Message-
From: Jeff Kaufman via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
To: Ron Blechner <contra...@gmail.com>
Cc: callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
Sent: Fri, Jan 27, 2017 2:26 pm
Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Ron Blechner <contra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If that's the case, one would assume there are also plenty of traditional
> venue dancers who don't care either way. To that effect, genderfree roles
> are not as scary as some have claimed.

Sure, I think that's probably true.  But I think the most likely
possibility is "most people don't care that much" not "several
thousand dancers want it".

>
> Dances using gents/ladies up and down the East coast are dwindling in
> attendance. I'm hearing that from nearly every organizer I speak with.

I'm not disputing this (though I also don't have firsthand evidence of
it) I just don't think gender free terms are *causing* the attendance
change, as opposed to both attendance changes and gender free naming
being caused by an underlying factor.

> I don't understand discounting new dances at all. If there was a demand for
> a genderfree dance, and it was filled, how is that not proof of growth of
> overall genderfree dancing?

The dances that have been gender free for decades and the dances that
have recently one gender free are pretty different.  The older dances
have a community, culture, and core that formed several decades ago to
be LGBT/queer spaces, while the newer gender free dances are mostly
mainstream dances in a modern mainstream that is much more queer
friendly.

Jeff
___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Angela DeCarlis via Callers]

*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"

[Jacob or Nancy Bloom via Callers]

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"

[Chet Gray via Callers]

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 <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 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 c

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Chet Gray via Callers]

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
>

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Michael Barraclough via Callers]

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

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Jeff Kaufman via Callers]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Ron Blechner  wrote:
>
> If that's the case, one would assume there are also plenty of traditional
> venue dancers who don't care either way. To that effect, genderfree roles
> are not as scary as some have claimed.

Sure, I think that's probably true.  But I think the most likely
possibility is "most people don't care that much" not "several
thousand dancers want it".

>
> Dances using gents/ladies up and down the East coast are dwindling in
> attendance. I'm hearing that from nearly every organizer I speak with.

I'm not disputing this (though I also don't have firsthand evidence of
it) I just don't think gender free terms are *causing* the attendance
change, as opposed to both attendance changes and gender free naming
being caused by an underlying factor.

> I don't understand discounting new dances at all. If there was a demand for
> a genderfree dance, and it was filled, how is that not proof of growth of
> overall genderfree dancing?

The dances that have been gender free for decades and the dances that
have recently one gender free are pretty different.  The older dances
have a community, culture, and core that formed several decades ago to
be LGBT/queer spaces, while the newer gender free dances are mostly
mainstream dances in a modern mainstream that is much more queer
friendly.

Jeff

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Hi Jeff,

Some points:

"You're classifying everyone who attends a dance with gender-free
calling as having wanting it to be gender free, but I'm sure some are
attending in spite of it being gender free, and many more don't care
either way."

If that's the case, one would assume there are also plenty of traditional
venue dancers who don't care either way. To that effect, genderfree roles
are not as scary as some have claimed.

"The particular dances that have
been gender free for a long time are mostly doing fine, but it doesn't
look to me like they're growing tremendously.  Instead, newer
fast-growing dances are either started as gender free or are switching
to it.  I don't think the causality goes the way you're suggesting."

Dances using gents/ladies up and down the East coast are dwindling in
attendance. I'm hearing that from nearly every organizer I speak with.

I don't understand discounting new dances at all. If there was a demand for
a genderfree dance, and it was filled, how is that not proof of growth of
overall genderfree dancing?

"Some pushback seems reasonable to me.  Just like I think people should
be able to dance either role at any contra dance, I think all contra
dances should move to being gender free.  Not immediately -- it's fine
to take some more time to consense on terms, have some brave dances
try them out, have callers get used to calling them -- but I do think
moving entirely to gender free terms is what we should be doing as a
community."

That may be in many peoples' beliefs, but I hadn't seen it specifically
brought up by anyone in this email discussion until now. I might have
understood pushback had it been brought up, but it wasn't.

Best,
Ron

On Jan 27, 2017 12:58 PM, "Jeff Kaufman"  wrote:

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers
 wrote:
> To answer your question, though, about how many dancers want genderfree
> terms, at least ten dances are genderfree, and I bet we can poll those
> dances and find out how many active dancers they have. While the Western
> Mass one by me is a little low, dances like Brooklyn, Portland Maine, and
> Montpelier second Saturday boast very large crowds, and that's just ones
> I've personally attended. There's queer dance camps, too. Clearly there's
a
> demand. I realize "huge" is a relative number, but we can safely agree on
> several thousand dancers as a safe low estimate of dancers who want gender
> free roles.

You're classifying everyone who attends a dance with gender-free
calling as having wanting it to be gender free, but I'm sure some are
attending in spite of it being gender free, and many more don't care
either way.

> These genderfree dances exist, some for 39 years, they've grown
tremendously
> in the last 5 years *while many traditional dances are losing attendance*.

That's not what it looks like to me.  The particular dances that have
been gender free for a long time are mostly doing fine, but it doesn't
look to me like they're growing tremendously.  Instead, newer
fast-growing dances are either started as gender free or are switching
to it.  I don't think the causality goes the way you're suggesting.

> This isn't some existential threat to non-genderfree
> traditional dances. Let us talk.

Some pushback seems reasonable to me.  Just like I think people should
be able to dance either role at any contra dance, I think all contra
dances should move to being gender free.  Not immediately -- it's fine
to take some more time to consense on terms, have some brave dances
try them out, have callers get used to calling them -- but I do think
moving entirely to gender free terms is what we should be doing as a
community.

Jeff

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

; 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 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 
>>>>&g

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Jeff Kaufman via Callers]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers
 wrote:
> To answer your question, though, about how many dancers want genderfree
> terms, at least ten dances are genderfree, and I bet we can poll those
> dances and find out how many active dancers they have. While the Western
> Mass one by me is a little low, dances like Brooklyn, Portland Maine, and
> Montpelier second Saturday boast very large crowds, and that's just ones
> I've personally attended. There's queer dance camps, too. Clearly there's a
> demand. I realize "huge" is a relative number, but we can safely agree on
> several thousand dancers as a safe low estimate of dancers who want gender
> free roles.

You're classifying everyone who attends a dance with gender-free
calling as having wanting it to be gender free, but I'm sure some are
attending in spite of it being gender free, and many more don't care
either way.

> These genderfree dances exist, some for 39 years, they've grown tremendously
> in the last 5 years *while many traditional dances are losing attendance*.

That's not what it looks like to me.  The particular dances that have
been gender free for a long time are mostly doing fine, but it doesn't
look to me like they're growing tremendously.  Instead, newer
fast-growing dances are either started as gender free or are switching
to it.  I don't think the causality goes the way you're suggesting.

> This isn't some existential threat to non-genderfree
> traditional dances. Let us talk.

Some pushback seems reasonable to me.  Just like I think people should
be able to dance either role at any contra dance, I think all contra
dances should move to being gender free.  Not immediately -- it's fine
to take some more time to consense on terms, have some brave dances
try them out, have callers get used to calling them -- but I do think
moving entirely to gender free terms is what we should be doing as a
community.

Jeff

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

. 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 moreexcept this:  Please, let'

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

 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 moreexcept this:  Please, let's not start an
>>> argument over whether it's pejorative to use the term Luddite!
>>>
>>> Barbara Groh

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

ith 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 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

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Angela DeCarlis via Callers]

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 d

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Jim Hemphill via Callers]

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 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
>>> ma

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Cognitively, it's not as complex as you make it out to be, Donna. (With all
due respect)

Roles are used almost entirely as the first word in a prompt. For dancers,
it's not a new vocabulary, it's a prefix change. That's a lot easier, and
I've heard *lots* of feedback from dancers of "I stopped noticing after the
first dance" and I have not heard any "even at the end of the night I still
had issues".

Further, there are dance communities experimenting with different terms -
Brooklyn, Hampshire, Village as examples - I've yet to hear that their
dancers are all messed up. I've heard the contrary, in fact.

Further, there are dancers who dance in multiple communities with different
terms. If your hypothesis were true, we'd expect that these people would be
having difficulty. They're not.

In addition, I find it funny how no one complains how hard it is to switch
between the very different sounding words "gents" and "men" / "ladies" and
"women". Again, if this "oh no, different terms are hard" hypothesis were
true, we'd already hear complaints. Plenty of dances have callers that use
either / or / both. No big deal.

>From a caller's perspective, I absolutely appreciate that it's harder. I'd
like to see a standard genderfree set of terms be adopted, absolutely. I'm
also glad we're moving away from bands/bares, if only because the words
sound too similar. That was a good solution for many years, but it's time
to move on.

For me personally calling, I find swapping terms isn't *that* bad, but I
know I don't represent everyone. Some callers need a second set of dance
cards with the terms. If a caller isn't up for a requirement of a
community, then, I guess they don't need to call there.

Change meant to broaden inclusion may pose challenges, but I for one think
they're worth it when dancers are requesting it in large numbers.

Best regards,
Ron Blechner

On Jan 26, 2017 11:42 AM, "Donna Hunt" <dhuntdan...@aol.com> 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 <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 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 3

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Donna Hunt via Callers]

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 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" <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 pr

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[John W Gintell via Callers]

Thanks Ron for this point.

A bit of history.

In the ‘70s Carl Wittman created a non-gendered method for English Country 
Dancing while in Oregon.  It is currently used by several organizations, 
Heather and Rose in Oregon which he was part of, Sun Assembly in North Carolina 
- where Carl moved to later, Lavender Country and Folk Dancers at camps, Gender 
Free English in Jamaica Plain, and perhaps others. It uses positions instead of 
role  names and sometimes is called Global Terminology.

  http://lcfd.org/gf-ecd-calling-conventions.html 


In 1981 a gender free contra dance series called Les be Gay and Dance started  
in Minneapolis / St Paul that used a method similar to Carl Wittman’s. It was a 
bit problematic for some dances.

In 1988 Chris Ricciotti started a Gay and Lesbian Contra Dance series in 
Jamaica Plain and used conventional terminology. In 1989 one of the dancers 
said it was insulting to be labeled a lady or a gent and out of that came the 
Arm Bands and Bare Arms system. Calling a lesbian a guy or a gay man a girl was 
a too often used insult. One of the points about arm bands is that by wearing a 
marker it is easy to see what role a person is - sometimes  useful to help 
redirect beginners. (I note that these days many people don’t wear arm bands - 
especially because of role setting during a dance. 

Chris then started running weekend dance camps and the organization Lavender 
Country and Folk Dancers was created to run them and serve as an umbrella for 
the JP dance and several others.)

In those days these were essentially the only places where men could partner 
with men with out being insulted - or sometimes assaulted. and terms like queer 
were used as insults.  We have come a long way since then. Same-sex marriage, 
nondiscrimination laws,  acceptability in many venues, etc.  We’ve adopted 
queer as one of the self-referential terms.  At many dances same-sex couples 
dance freely, role reversal is a lot more common (I recommend to people to try 
the other role because it helps make you a better dancer).

Chris Ricciotti created  a very interesting historical document on gender free 
dancing.

http://lcfd.org/GF%20Historical%20Manual.pdf 




> On Jan 26, 2017, at 12:32 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> 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" 
> > 
> 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 
> > 
> 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 

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

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
>> > > 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 > > > 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 

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Barbara Groh via Callers]

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
> > > 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  > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Michael Barraclough via Callers]

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
> > 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  > 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

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

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.sharedweight.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://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
>> 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
>
>

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Keith Tuxhorn via Callers]

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://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
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Dugan Murphy via Callers]

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

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Cara,

Further reading:

http://contradances.tumblr.com/post/132380206885/lead-and-follow-as-styles-not-roles-in-contra

Best,
Ron Blechner

On Jan 18, 2017 11:03 PM, "Cara Sawyer via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Hi everyone again,
> Angela, Jeff thank you.
> I appreciate knowing the emotional attachment many had to the history of
> these calling terms. I had no clue. From where I was coming from, it was
> more of a logistical question for my calling aspirations, trying to figure
> out what is easiest for the dancers to understand. I have had personal
> experience with it being difficult to remember if I was a Band or Bare, it
> seems arbitrary and now I see that this is intentional. It is good to hear
> some of the rationale and what others have experienced.
>
> Best,
> Cara
>
> Sent to you using thumbs.
>
> On Jan 18, 2017, at 18:59, Jeff Kaufman  wrote:
>
> Hi Cara!
>
> There is definitely a history! Many dancers don't like lead/follow as
> terms because they either don't think contra has a lead/follow dynamic or
> they don't want to encourage lead/follow dancing.
>
> Some dance series, primarily ones with younger dancers, do use those
> terms, but there are enough dancers opposed to them that I don't see them
> as a potential community-wide replacement the way rubies/jets could be.
>
> Jeff
>
> On Jan 18, 2017 7:53 PM, "Cara Sawyer via Callers" <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>> I am quite new to the list and am only now embarking on learning to call,
>> but I have to ask a question I have had for awhile as a dancer that I now
>> need to understand as a caller: is there something wrong with Lead and
>> Follow?
>>
>> When I first encountered the creative alternatives in contra, I wasn't
>> sure what to think. I came to contra from a swing background and that is
>> what is used in workshops (and sort or in general now), since many people
>> switch in that dance style as well.
>>
>> Besides being an obvious description for the dancer role, it had the same
>> 1/2 syllables rhythm as Gent/Lady. And it seems to me to have the advantage
>> of being intuitively linked to how the dancer is thinking about
>> his/her/their role.
>>
>> Just curious if there is a history, I'm sure I am not the first person to
>> think of this.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Cara
>>
>> Sent to you using thumbs.
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2017, at 10:40, Angela DeCarlis via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>> When I called at PICD (the Portland ME dance), I really enjoyed using
>> Jets and Rubies. One silly thing I enjoyed any the terms during the
>> beginners' lesson was coaching palm direction based on the terms: "Jets'
>> palms face up, towards the sky; Rubies' palms face down, towards the
>> ground."
>>
>> And yes, I realize that *both* are gemstones and that some feel strongly
>> that we should steer away from the "airplane" association, but it did make
>> for easy teaching.
>>
>> Jets and Rubies is also more forgiving for callers new to gender-neutral
>> language, since the terms are so linguistically comparable to Gents and
>> Ladies.
>>
>> That all said, I also like Larks and Ravens fine.
>>
>> Happy calling, everyone!
>>
>> Angela
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2017 11:30 AM, "Aahz via Callers" <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Not that Portland, the other Portland.  ;-)
>>>
>>> http://bangordailynews.com/2017/01/09/news/portland/contra-d
>>> ancing-takes-a-gender-neutral-spin-in-portland/
>>>
>>> I personally would prefer to settle on "larks" and "ravens" because that
>>> seems to have more traction -- but it doesn't matter as long as we get
>>> away from "bands" and "bares".
>>> --
>>> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
>>> http://rule6.info/
>>>   <*>   <*>   <*>
>>> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
>>> ___
>>> 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
>
>

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Cara Sawyer via Callers]

Hi everyone again,
Angela, Jeff thank you. 
I appreciate knowing the emotional attachment many had to the history of these 
calling terms. I had no clue. From where I was coming from, it was more of a 
logistical question for my calling aspirations, trying to figure out what is 
easiest for the dancers to understand. I have had personal experience with it 
being difficult to remember if I was a Band or Bare, it seems arbitrary and now 
I see that this is intentional. It is good to hear some of the rationale and 
what others have experienced. 

Best,
Cara

Sent to you using thumbs. 

> On Jan 18, 2017, at 18:59, Jeff Kaufman  wrote:
> 
> Hi Cara!
> 
> There is definitely a history! Many dancers don't like lead/follow as terms 
> because they either don't think contra has a lead/follow dynamic or they 
> don't want to encourage lead/follow dancing.
> 
> Some dance series, primarily ones with younger dancers, do use those terms, 
> but there are enough dancers opposed to them that I don't see them as a 
> potential community-wide replacement the way rubies/jets could be.
> 
> Jeff
> 
>> On Jan 18, 2017 7:53 PM, "Cara Sawyer via Callers" 
>>  wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> I am quite new to the list and am only now embarking on learning to call, 
>> but I have to ask a question I have had for awhile as a dancer that I now 
>> need to understand as a caller: is there something wrong with Lead and 
>> Follow? 
>> 
>> When I first encountered the creative alternatives in contra, I wasn't sure 
>> what to think. I came to contra from a swing background and that is what is 
>> used in workshops (and sort or in general now), since many people switch in 
>> that dance style as well. 
>> 
>> Besides being an obvious description for the dancer role, it had the same 
>> 1/2 syllables rhythm as Gent/Lady. And it seems to me to have the advantage 
>> of being intuitively linked to how the dancer is thinking about 
>> his/her/their role. 
>> 
>> Just curious if there is a history, I'm sure I am not the first person to 
>> think of this. 
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> Cara
>> 
>> Sent to you using thumbs. 
>> 
>>> On Jan 18, 2017, at 10:40, Angela DeCarlis via Callers 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> When I called at PICD (the Portland ME dance), I really enjoyed using Jets 
>>> and Rubies. One silly thing I enjoyed any the terms during the beginners' 
>>> lesson was coaching palm direction based on the terms: "Jets' palms face 
>>> up, towards the sky; Rubies' palms face down, towards the ground."
>>> 
>>> And yes, I realize that *both* are gemstones and that some feel strongly 
>>> that we should steer away from the "airplane" association, but it did make 
>>> for easy teaching. 
>>> 
>>> Jets and Rubies is also more forgiving for callers new to gender-neutral 
>>> language, since the terms are so linguistically comparable to Gents and 
>>> Ladies. 
>>> 
>>> That all said, I also like Larks and Ravens fine. 
>>> 
>>> Happy calling, everyone! 
>>> 
>>> Angela
>>> 
 On Jan 18, 2017 11:30 AM, "Aahz via Callers" 
  wrote:
 Not that Portland, the other Portland.  ;-)
 
 http://bangordailynews.com/2017/01/09/news/portland/contra-dancing-takes-a-gender-neutral-spin-in-portland/
 
 I personally would prefer to settle on "larks" and "ravens" because that
 seems to have more traction -- but it doesn't matter as long as we get
 away from "bands" and "bares".
 --
 Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
 http://rule6.info/
   <*>   <*>   <*>
 Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
 ___
 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
>> 

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Angela DeCarlis via Callers]

Yes, Cara, definitely a history! Thank you for inquiring.

Another argument I've heard against Lead/Follow is that if we change the
role known up to now only as "Gents" to "Leads," and likewise "Ladies" to
"Follows," we could unwittingly be reinforcing the cultural notion that
only men can be leaders and that women can only be follows.  This is not
the most common argument used (see Jeff's comments), but it is the one I
most often cite, since I do prefer contra to include the *option *for a
lead-follow dynamic.  Either way, while most partner dances do have this
dynamic absolutely and inherently, contra does not have to include it and
since we're already using gendered terms that have for generations
described gendered roles that we're trying to move away from, switching to
Lead/Follow has proved a less-popular choice.

Hope this helps!

Angela

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Jeff Kaufman via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Hi Cara!
>
> There is definitely a history! Many dancers don't like lead/follow as
> terms because they either don't think contra has a lead/follow dynamic or
> they don't want to encourage lead/follow dancing.
>
> Some dance series, primarily ones with younger dancers, do use those
> terms, but there are enough dancers opposed to them that I don't see them
> as a potential community-wide replacement the way rubies/jets could be.
>
> Jeff
>
> On Jan 18, 2017 7:53 PM, "Cara Sawyer via Callers" <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>> I am quite new to the list and am only now embarking on learning to call,
>> but I have to ask a question I have had for awhile as a dancer that I now
>> need to understand as a caller: is there something wrong with Lead and
>> Follow?
>>
>> When I first encountered the creative alternatives in contra, I wasn't
>> sure what to think. I came to contra from a swing background and that is
>> what is used in workshops (and sort or in general now), since many people
>> switch in that dance style as well.
>>
>> Besides being an obvious description for the dancer role, it had the same
>> 1/2 syllables rhythm as Gent/Lady. And it seems to me to have the advantage
>> of being intuitively linked to how the dancer is thinking about
>> his/her/their role.
>>
>> Just curious if there is a history, I'm sure I am not the first person to
>> think of this.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Cara
>>
>> Sent to you using thumbs.
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2017, at 10:40, Angela DeCarlis via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>> When I called at PICD (the Portland ME dance), I really enjoyed using
>> Jets and Rubies. One silly thing I enjoyed any the terms during the
>> beginners' lesson was coaching palm direction based on the terms: "Jets'
>> palms face up, towards the sky; Rubies' palms face down, towards the
>> ground."
>>
>> And yes, I realize that *both* are gemstones and that some feel strongly
>> that we should steer away from the "airplane" association, but it did make
>> for easy teaching.
>>
>> Jets and Rubies is also more forgiving for callers new to gender-neutral
>> language, since the terms are so linguistically comparable to Gents and
>> Ladies.
>>
>> That all said, I also like Larks and Ravens fine.
>>
>> Happy calling, everyone!
>>
>> Angela
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2017 11:30 AM, "Aahz via Callers" <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Not that Portland, the other Portland.  ;-)
>>>
>>> http://bangordailynews.com/2017/01/09/news/portland/contra-d
>>> ancing-takes-a-gender-neutral-spin-in-portland/
>>>
>>> I personally would prefer to settle on "larks" and "ravens" because that
>>> seems to have more traction -- but it doesn't matter as long as we get
>>> away from "bands" and "bares".
>>> --
>>> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
>>> http://rule6.info/
>>>   <*>   <*>   <*>
>>> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
>>> ___
>>> 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
>
>

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Jeff Kaufman via Callers]

Hi Cara!

There is definitely a history! Many dancers don't like lead/follow as terms
because they either don't think contra has a lead/follow dynamic or they
don't want to encourage lead/follow dancing.

Some dance series, primarily ones with younger dancers, do use those terms,
but there are enough dancers opposed to them that I don't see them as a
potential community-wide replacement the way rubies/jets could be.

Jeff

On Jan 18, 2017 7:53 PM, "Cara Sawyer via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Hello all,
> I am quite new to the list and am only now embarking on learning to call,
> but I have to ask a question I have had for awhile as a dancer that I now
> need to understand as a caller: is there something wrong with Lead and
> Follow?
>
> When I first encountered the creative alternatives in contra, I wasn't
> sure what to think. I came to contra from a swing background and that is
> what is used in workshops (and sort or in general now), since many people
> switch in that dance style as well.
>
> Besides being an obvious description for the dancer role, it had the same
> 1/2 syllables rhythm as Gent/Lady. And it seems to me to have the advantage
> of being intuitively linked to how the dancer is thinking about
> his/her/their role.
>
> Just curious if there is a history, I'm sure I am not the first person to
> think of this.
>
> Thanks!
> Cara
>
> Sent to you using thumbs.
>
> On Jan 18, 2017, at 10:40, Angela DeCarlis via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> When I called at PICD (the Portland ME dance), I really enjoyed using Jets
> and Rubies. One silly thing I enjoyed any the terms during the beginners'
> lesson was coaching palm direction based on the terms: "Jets' palms face
> up, towards the sky; Rubies' palms face down, towards the ground."
>
> And yes, I realize that *both* are gemstones and that some feel strongly
> that we should steer away from the "airplane" association, but it did make
> for easy teaching.
>
> Jets and Rubies is also more forgiving for callers new to gender-neutral
> language, since the terms are so linguistically comparable to Gents and
> Ladies.
>
> That all said, I also like Larks and Ravens fine.
>
> Happy calling, everyone!
>
> Angela
>
> On Jan 18, 2017 11:30 AM, "Aahz via Callers"  net> wrote:
>
>> Not that Portland, the other Portland.  ;-)
>>
>> http://bangordailynews.com/2017/01/09/news/portland/contra-
>> dancing-takes-a-gender-neutral-spin-in-portland/
>>
>> I personally would prefer to settle on "larks" and "ravens" because that
>> seems to have more traction -- but it doesn't matter as long as we get
>> away from "bands" and "bares".
>> --
>> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
>> http://rule6.info/
>>   <*>   <*>   <*>
>> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
>> ___
>> 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
>
>

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Read Weaver via Callers]

East coast GF English, to the extent it does anything specific, does left 
up/right down. West coast does right up/left down.
http://lcfd.org/gf-ecd-calling-conventions.html 


(I think it’s a really good idea, btw, to avoid the jet = penis analogy. If 
someone wants to buy me one of these, 
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3b/75/c1/3b75c16ce2c7c75f0d2e2dbff2f4eff0.jpg
 

 , I’ll promise to wear it at dances that use jets/rubies.)

Read Weaver
Jamaica Plain, MA
http://lcfd.org

> On Jan 18, 2017, at 11:49 AM, Bob Morgan via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Angela reminded me of a point I've been thinking about for a while.  Why not 
> right palm up, left palm down?  This would be symmetrical and role neutral.
> 
> Bob
> 
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Angela DeCarlis via Callers 
> > 
> wrote:
> When I called at PICD (the Portland ME dance), I really enjoyed using Jets 
> and Rubies. One silly thing I enjoyed any the terms during the beginners' 
> lesson was coaching palm direction based on the terms: "Jets' palms face up, 
> towards the sky; Rubies' palms face down, towards the ground."
> 
> And yes, I realize that *both* are gemstones and that some feel strongly that 
> we should steer away from the "airplane" association, but it did make for 
> easy teaching. 
> 
> Jets and Rubies is also more forgiving for callers new to gender-neutral 
> language, since the terms are so linguistically comparable to Gents and 
> Ladies. 
> 
> That all said, I also like Larks and Ravens fine. 
> 
> Happy calling, everyone! 
> 
> Angela

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Angela DeCarlis via Callers]

Agreed with Jeff totally, on both points.  I teach role swap workshops
periodically, and palm direction is the single best indicator of role there
is.  Ties, bands, pins, etc aren't nearly as versatile or useful,
especially when you intend to switch roles mid-dance.  Because of that, I'm
pretty religious about teaching palm direction early and often.

(Good question, though!)

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Jeff Kaufman 
wrote:

> I really like the current up/down system for (a) remembering which role
> I'm dancing (b) signaling which role to others
>
> On Jan 18, 2017 11:49 AM, "Bob Morgan via Callers" <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> Angela reminded me of a point I've been thinking about for a while.  Why
>> not right palm up, left palm down?  This would be symmetrical and role
>> neutral.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Angela DeCarlis via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> When I called at PICD (the Portland ME dance), I really enjoyed using
>>> Jets and Rubies. One silly thing I enjoyed any the terms during the
>>> beginners' lesson was coaching palm direction based on the terms: "Jets'
>>> palms face up, towards the sky; Rubies' palms face down, towards the
>>> ground."
>>>
>>> And yes, I realize that *both* are gemstones and that some feel strongly
>>> that we should steer away from the "airplane" association, but it did make
>>> for easy teaching.
>>>
>>> Jets and Rubies is also more forgiving for callers new to gender-neutral
>>> language, since the terms are so linguistically comparable to Gents and
>>> Ladies.
>>>
>>> That all said, I also like Larks and Ravens fine.
>>>
>>> Happy calling, everyone!
>>>
>>> Angela
>>>
>>> On Jan 18, 2017 11:30 AM, "Aahz via Callers" <
>>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>>
 Not that Portland, the other Portland.  ;-)

 http://bangordailynews.com/2017/01/09/news/portland/contra-d
 ancing-takes-a-gender-neutral-spin-in-portland/

 I personally would prefer to settle on "larks" and "ravens" because that
 seems to have more traction -- but it doesn't matter as long as we get
 away from "bands" and "bares".
 --
 Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
 http://rule6.info/
   <*>   <*>   <*>
 Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
 ___
 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
>>
>>

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Jeff Kaufman via Callers]

I really like the current up/down system for (a) remembering which role I'm
dancing (b) signaling which role to others

On Jan 18, 2017 11:49 AM, "Bob Morgan via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Angela reminded me of a point I've been thinking about for a while.  Why
> not right palm up, left palm down?  This would be symmetrical and role
> neutral.
>
> Bob
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Angela DeCarlis via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> When I called at PICD (the Portland ME dance), I really enjoyed using
>> Jets and Rubies. One silly thing I enjoyed any the terms during the
>> beginners' lesson was coaching palm direction based on the terms: "Jets'
>> palms face up, towards the sky; Rubies' palms face down, towards the
>> ground."
>>
>> And yes, I realize that *both* are gemstones and that some feel strongly
>> that we should steer away from the "airplane" association, but it did make
>> for easy teaching.
>>
>> Jets and Rubies is also more forgiving for callers new to gender-neutral
>> language, since the terms are so linguistically comparable to Gents and
>> Ladies.
>>
>> That all said, I also like Larks and Ravens fine.
>>
>> Happy calling, everyone!
>>
>> Angela
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2017 11:30 AM, "Aahz via Callers" <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Not that Portland, the other Portland.  ;-)
>>>
>>> http://bangordailynews.com/2017/01/09/news/portland/contra-d
>>> ancing-takes-a-gender-neutral-spin-in-portland/
>>>
>>> I personally would prefer to settle on "larks" and "ravens" because that
>>> seems to have more traction -- but it doesn't matter as long as we get
>>> away from "bands" and "bares".
>>> --
>>> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
>>> http://rule6.info/
>>>   <*>   <*>   <*>
>>> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
>>> ___
>>> 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
>
>

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Bob Morgan via Callers]

Angela reminded me of a point I've been thinking about for a while.  Why
not right palm up, left palm down?  This would be symmetrical and role
neutral.

Bob

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Angela DeCarlis via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> When I called at PICD (the Portland ME dance), I really enjoyed using Jets
> and Rubies. One silly thing I enjoyed any the terms during the beginners'
> lesson was coaching palm direction based on the terms: "Jets' palms face
> up, towards the sky; Rubies' palms face down, towards the ground."
>
> And yes, I realize that *both* are gemstones and that some feel strongly
> that we should steer away from the "airplane" association, but it did make
> for easy teaching.
>
> Jets and Rubies is also more forgiving for callers new to gender-neutral
> language, since the terms are so linguistically comparable to Gents and
> Ladies.
>
> That all said, I also like Larks and Ravens fine.
>
> Happy calling, everyone!
>
> Angela
>
> On Jan 18, 2017 11:30 AM, "Aahz via Callers"  net> wrote:
>
>> Not that Portland, the other Portland.  ;-)
>>
>> http://bangordailynews.com/2017/01/09/news/portland/contra-
>> dancing-takes-a-gender-neutral-spin-in-portland/
>>
>> I personally would prefer to settle on "larks" and "ravens" because that
>> seems to have more traction -- but it doesn't matter as long as we get
>> away from "bands" and "bares".
>> --
>> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
>> http://rule6.info/
>>   <*>   <*>   <*>
>> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
>> ___
>> 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
>
>

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Angela DeCarlis via Callers]

When I called at PICD (the Portland ME dance), I really enjoyed using Jets
and Rubies. One silly thing I enjoyed any the terms during the beginners'
lesson was coaching palm direction based on the terms: "Jets' palms face
up, towards the sky; Rubies' palms face down, towards the ground."

And yes, I realize that *both* are gemstones and that some feel strongly
that we should steer away from the "airplane" association, but it did make
for easy teaching.

Jets and Rubies is also more forgiving for callers new to gender-neutral
language, since the terms are so linguistically comparable to Gents and
Ladies.

That all said, I also like Larks and Ravens fine.

Happy calling, everyone!

Angela

On Jan 18, 2017 11:30 AM, "Aahz via Callers" 
wrote:

> Not that Portland, the other Portland.  ;-)
>
> http://bangordailynews.com/2017/01/09/news/portland/
> contra-dancing-takes-a-gender-neutral-spin-in-portland/
>
> I personally would prefer to settle on "larks" and "ravens" because that
> seems to have more traction -- but it doesn't matter as long as we get
> away from "bands" and "bares".
> --
> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
> http://rule6.info/
>   <*>   <*>   <*>
> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>

[Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Aahz via Callers]

Not that Portland, the other Portland.  ;-)

http://bangordailynews.com/2017/01/09/news/portland/contra-dancing-takes-a-gender-neutral-spin-in-portland/

I personally would prefer to settle on "larks" and "ravens" because that
seems to have more traction -- but it doesn't matter as long as we get
away from "bands" and "bares".
-- 
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
  <*>   <*>   <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html