[Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')

[Jerome Grisanti via Contra Callers]

Kat,

Nice observations.

I'll note that your symmetrical version of California Twirl into "Tug and
Turn" is almost exactly the definition of "Trade By" in club squares for
dancers who are facing out of the set. (For dancers facing in, trade by is
functionally the same as "pass through."

I like your tweaks toward symmetry, particularly as you're in a position to
encourage it across an entire community.

I fear a splitting of dance communities as some dancers favor certain terms
while others prefer a different set without some consensus.

Jerome Grisanti


On Thu, Feb 9, 2023, 12:23 PM Katherine Kitching via Contra Callers <
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Hello from Halifax, NS, Canada!
> I'd like to add to this convo by saying that for many years (as both a
> dancer and then a caller), I've had the desire to cultivate the roles as
> equal, rather than the Larks having more of a leader role.
>
> I wasn't sure that that was an ok thing to want though, so I kept it to
> myself at first.   I'm thrilled to now read that there are others also
> consciously pushing the roles in that direction.
>
> Our group was doing gents and ladies when i started to dance, and there
> were definitely many gents in our group who wanted to lead me around.  I
> didn't particularly enjoy being relegated to the follow role because of my
> gender.  (and yes, there was in theory the option to dance the other role,
> but as I was easily confused back then, I preferred to stick with the role
> I was slowly getting used to).  At the same time, as I started to learn
> more, I noticed there were many "gents" who had no sense of leading, and I
> began to enjoy as the "lady" being able to "back-lead" them to help them
> feel the wonderful centripetal and balancy forces at play.  I became quite
> the expert back-leader in the ladies chain!  But I always hated the term
> "back-lead" as I felt it had a negative connotation.  (That pushy lady is
> back-leading the gent, just like a back-seat driver!).  I even remember
> once, an experienced dancer from the US telling me it was totally
> inappropriate to desire to "back-lead" and I still feel annoyed by that
> today ;)
>
> Anyhow, we've now switched over to a non-gendered dance with Larks and
> Ravens (with beautiful bird-labels that the dancers wear, which is why we
> haven't evolved to Robins here) and it is working wonderfully for us.
>
> With so many new dancers coming in and old ones fading away over the
> years, I think the majority of our dancers  don't have any idea there even
> *were* gender roles in our type of dancing.  (We are quite an isolated
> community out here, so for many people, we are the only thing they know
> about contra dancing).  I think that is so cool!  When you look around the
> room at our dances, we have reached the point where there is no correlation
> between visible gender and bird-role - everyone randomly assigns
> themselves.  For us, it's been an amazing change - and we've heard directly
> from both the queer community and from many women that they feel more
> comfortable at our dances now.  And the cisgender men keep coming so I
> presume they are having an ok time too :)
>
> As I've become more confident in my calling and am now the defacto caller
> for our group (nobody else is currently available though I'm going to train
> some new folks this spring), I've felt more bold to cultivate the roles as
> I'd like to see them.
>
> I never mention a notion of leading or following, and instead I talk about
> the delightful "push-me-pull-you" feeling of contra, where each dancer
> feels an "elastic connection" to the other, and how (in my view) this
> special shared connection, along with a feeling of never-ending movement,
> is what makes contra magical.
>
> We get a very large proportion of beginners each month, and also many
> repeat dancers who don't become particularly skilled (they perhaps attend
> once every 2-3 months on average, so their learning curve is slow, and they
> forget a lot after our 3-month summer break).
>
> As such, we do a lot of dances without swings  (I try to get at least
> halfway through the dance without introducing a swing), and I'm trying
> Larks chains as well as Robins chains prior to swinging these days.
> Post-covid, we've been doing swings with a modified ballroom hold (Larks
> left hand in Robins' right, but other hands cupped on each others' elbows),
> which creates more space between the dancers -- both for personal comfort
> for any gender when dancing with a stranger--and also less germs-in-face
> feeling during these covid times.
> (Though I plan to try the Scottish Swing that Ridge suggested at our next
> dance, just out of interest! :) )
>
> I find the swing in this modified ballroom position feels symmetrical to
> me and to our dancers- both dancers are supporting each other by the elbow,
> and one does not feel more inherently "lead-y".
>
> I've also replaced "California Twirl" with what I call "tug an

[Callers] Re: Mousetrap?

[Sue C. Hulsether via Contra Callers]

I looked up Marian Rose’s version of Tunnelmania in her (brilliant) book “Step 
Lively, 3” and she gives no attribution either.  She does encourage the caller 
to make sure the music always stops at the end of phrase, not randomly in the 
middle…..so that the dancers inherently are listening for the phrase.  

sch

Sue Hulsether
New Day Hoedown LLC
www.suehulsether.com 
newdayhoed...@icloud.com 
shulset...@mac.com 
608-632-1267  Cell
P.O. Box 363, Viroqua, WI 54665


> On Feb 9, 2023, at 9:03 PM, Luke Donforth via Contra Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Thanks Bill. 
> 
> John Sweeny sent me another version of that dance: 
> https://squaredancehistory.org/exhibits/show/dare-to-be-square-weekend-2011/item/730
>  
> 
> fun to see how things have been adapted. 
> 
> Sue Hulsether had one she got from Carol Ormand, "Tunnelmania" which seems to 
> match the exponential growth described by the original caller. But if there 
> was a song or specific tune, that appears to have either disappeared or been 
> added somewhere along the folk process. 
> 
> Tunnelmania is in a book called "Step Lively 3". Anyone have a copy of that? 
> I wonder if Marion Rose wrote that one. Sue didn't have an attribution for 
> her version.
> 
> Found on youtube as tunnel-mania https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKJDIdN1__o 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 9:33 PM Bill Baritompa  > wrote:
> Hi Luke,
> 
>  This dance is similar to what you describe. 
> 
> Silly Threesomes
> youtu.be
>  Silly Threesomes 
> youtu.be 
> It's called Silly Threesoms. I dont remember where I got it.
> To set it up, I get couples made of an adult and child to come on the floor 
> to make a circle. The kids all go into the middle and the adults pair up to 
> make the 'houses'.
> 
> After I finish it is sometimes fun to get the kids and grownup to swap roles.
> 
> Cheers Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
>> On 10/02/2023, at 11:33, Luke Donforth via Contra Callers 
>> > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hello all, 
>> 
>> I've been asked back to a family dance I did at a camp last summer. When I 
>> was there last year, one of the kids said "are we going to do Mousetrap?!", 
>> a dance they remembered from a previous year with the prior caller.
>> 
>> I've tried to find it, but am having no luck. The previous caller said:
>> Oh, it's been years...  Its a singing game, but I can't resurrect the 
>> words/melody at the moment - don't have it written down or recorded. Kind of 
>> like Ninepin square dance, where the band needs to stop playing on cue.  
>> Everyone's in a circle single file walking under arches - 2 to start, then 
>> doubled each time, those who are caught (i.e. the 'mousetrap') when the 
>> music stops make the arches, and the music resumes, until there's more 
>> arches than people on the line.  
>> 
>> But that's all they've got. Anyone know this one, possibly under another 
>> name?
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> Luke
>> ___
>> Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net 
>> 
>> To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Luke Donforth
> luke.donfo...@gmail.com 
> ___
> Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net

___
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net

[Callers] Re: Mousetrap?

[Luke Donforth via Contra Callers]

Thanks Bill.

John Sweeny sent me another version of that dance:
https://squaredancehistory.org/exhibits/show/dare-to-be-square-weekend-2011/item/730
fun to see how things have been adapted.

Sue Hulsether had one she got from Carol Ormand, "Tunnelmania" which seems
to match the exponential growth described by the original caller. But if
there was a song or specific tune, that appears to have either disappeared
or been added somewhere along the folk process.

Tunnelmania is in a book called "Step Lively 3". Anyone have a copy of
that? I wonder if Marion Rose wrote that one. Sue didn't have an
attribution for her version.

Found on youtube as tunnel-mania https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKJDIdN1__o

On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 9:33 PM Bill Baritompa 
wrote:

> Hi Luke,
>
>  This dance is similar to what you describe.
> [image: hqdefault.jpg]
>
> Silly Threesomes 
> youtu.be 
> 
>
> It's called Silly Threesoms. I dont remember where I got it.
> To set it up, I get couples made of an adult and child to come on the
> floor to make a circle. The kids all go into the middle and the adults pair
> up to make the 'houses'.
>
> After I finish it is sometimes fun to get the kids and grownup to swap
> roles.
>
> Cheers Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/02/2023, at 11:33, Luke Donforth via Contra Callers <
> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> 
> Hello all,
>
> I've been asked back to a family dance I did at a camp last summer. When I
> was there last year, one of the kids said "are we going to do Mousetrap?!",
> a dance they remembered from a previous year with the prior caller.
>
> I've tried to find it, but am having no luck. The previous caller said:
> *Oh, it's been years... * *Its a singing game, but I can't resurrect the
> words/melody at the moment - don't have it written down or recorded. **Kind
> of like Ninepin square dance, where the band needs to stop playing on cue.
> Everyone's in a circle single file walking under arches - 2 to start, then
> doubled each time, those who are caught (i.e. the 'mousetrap') when the
> music stops make the arches, and the music resumes, until there's more
> arches than people on the line.  *
>
> But that's all they've got. Anyone know this one, possibly under another
> name?
>
> Thanks!
> Luke
> ___
> Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net
>
>

-- 
Luke Donforth
luke.donfo...@gmail.com 
___
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net

[Callers] Re: Mousetrap?

[Bill Baritompa via Contra Callers]

Hi Luke,     This dance is similar to what you describe. Silly Threesomesyoutu.beIt's called Silly Threesoms. I dont remember where I got it.To set it up, I get couples made of an adult and child to come on the floor to make a circle. The kids all go into the middle and the adults pair up to make the 'houses'.After I finish it is sometimes fun to get the kids and grownup to swap roles.Cheers Bill      On 10/02/2023, at 11:33, Luke Donforth via Contra Callers  wrote:




Hello all, 


I've been asked back to a family dance I did at a camp last summer. When I was there last year, one of the kids said "are we going to do Mousetrap?!", a dance they remembered from a previous year with the prior caller.


I've tried to find it, but am having no luck. The previous caller said:
Oh, it's been years...  Its a singing game, but I can't resurrect the words/melody at the moment - don't have it written down or recorded. Kind of like Ninepin square dance, where the band needs to stop playing on cue.  Everyone's in a circle
 single file walking under arches - 2 to start, then doubled each time, those who are caught (i.e. the 'mousetrap') when the music stops make the arches, and the music resumes, until there's more arches than people on the line.  

But that's all they've got. Anyone know this one, possibly under another name?


Thanks!
Luke




___Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.netTo unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net___
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net

[Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')

[Winston, Alan P. via Contra Callers]

Oh, and another thing, which I really should have said somewhere in that long 
screed.

To me, part of the essence of country dancing, what makes it attractive to me, 
and why a 
community grows around it is that we all need each other to for this kind of 
dancing to work.

I could have a wonderful evening of waltz with me and a favorite partner and 
nobody else 
on the floor.  Not true for contra.  We're all on the team.

So I think we all owe each other some notice.  I really think it's rude if I've 
got a guy in my right hand  and we  balance the wave right and left and he 
never looks at me.  (I don't take feel personally rejected, but I think we've 
missed a momentary opportunity to acknowledge each other's existence, and 
perhaps smile.). 

I want that much connection and acknowledgment from everybody on the floor to 
everybody on the floor, and I want as many people as possible to get to share 
that - to be welcomed, to feel like they're on the team, to share a smile or a 
glance.

And *that's* why I'm glad to call without gender reference. 

-- Alan

___
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net

[Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')

[Winston, Alan P. via Contra Callers]

Since it looks like we're sharing experiences, evolutions, and thoughts on 
calling terms,
I'll throw in mine, and it's going to be all over the map.  Let me stipulate 
that I'm a cis-het guy and my relationships since, oh, 1990 have been with 
women I've met at dances.

My first country-dance exposure that stuck (not the "Skip to my lou" in third 
grade or the square dancing in 6th grade) was in 1978, Regency dancing at a 
science fiction convention.  The roles were "ladies" and "gentlemen" (not 
"gents" because it set the wrong tone according to the dance leader who'd 
brought this to science fiction), and since there were more women interested in 
doing this than men, I got used to, from day 1, "gentlemen" who were women and 
very occasionally "ladies" who were men.  Continued dancing just that in Los 
Angeles until moving to the SF Bay Area in 1985.

Wanted to continue Regency dancing, there wasn't anyway, so I became a Regency 
dance leader and then got exposed to the existing Bay Area ECD and contra 
communities and started doing those dances.  Would rather dance than not dance, 
so if there were more men than women (as I thought of it then; now I'm usually 
careful to say "male-presenting" or "female-presenting" so as not to make any 
assumptions about their self-perceptions) I'd dance with other men.  (In those 
circumstances sometimes I'd take my bandana and tie it over my head as a 
babushka to make what role I was dancing clear.).  I really didn't find 
ballroom swing with men any more intimate than two-hand turn - of course I 
expect nobody had any real intention to be intimate.  I don't find it 
necessarily intimate with women either.  If there's chemistry, an English-style 
far apart right shoulder round with eye contact only or a half-figure 8 can be 
sexy, if there isn't than even a waltz won't be.  What I found unpleasantly inti
 mate was the ceilidh swing some guys insisted on - arm across the belly at my 
waist.  Not so much because it was a guy, as because touching my belly is just 
a lot more intrusive than my shoulder blade or my hand.  Always happy to accept 
a cross-hand turn from anybody who wants to do that.

Was successfully evangelized to globally-based calling of English by Chris 
Sackett and Brooke Friendly in about 2000.  It made sense to me to address 
calls to as many people as possible - "first corners turn two hands" is fewer 
syllables and offers more agency to the woman than "first man turn second woman 
two hands", which is how some of those dances were written down.  So since then 
I've been calling as much in terms of "first corners / second corners / 1s / 2s 
/ partner/neighbor" as i conveniently can and there are a lot of dances where 
that just completely covers it.  My motivation at the time was efficiency and 
agency, but when I learned about the problems for some non-binary people in 
having to choose a gender-named role I was reenforced in my tendency to go 
without those role names.

(If I called away from my home dances I'd use whatever terminology was in use 
there, but now I just do mostly-inconspicuous gender-free without asking 
permission.  No real complaints so far.)

Since coming back from the pandemic shutdown I've been defining the first 
corners/diagonals by landmarks in the room.  (I used to try "face your partner 
and look at the person diagonally across from you.  If your right shoulders are 
closer together you're first corners; left shoulders are second corners:" and 
that never worked.  I think also the use of the landmarks gives people the idea 
that the diagonals exist independently of who's standing there, and as an added 
bonus you don't have to figure out right and left to know what diagonal you're 
on.)

I still sometimes have to use "first corner people" as a sort of momentary role 
name if I want them to do something and they're not at home, and sometimes 
"first corner top" to identify that person, and sometimes landmarks for the 
walls.  I personally really don't much like "left file" and "right file" for 
which side of the set you're on both because that's more right/left stuff [I 
don't personally have a right left problem but know some fine dancers who do] 
and because it's not obvious whose right and whose left those lines are.  At 
least larks and robins are defined by their initial relations to their partners 
as they stand side by side, whatever direction they're facing.

I'm I guess 38 years in to calling English, and about 17 years in to calling 
contras (maybe a quarter or a sixth as often as English).  I've called and 
danced gents/ladies, men/women, bands/barearms, larks/ravens (had about 90 
seconds of trouble the first time I danced to those terms because I personally 
strongly identify with ravens as large loud birds and not with larks (I'm a 
late riser and not a sweet melodious singer) but subsequently been fine), and 
larks/robins (neither of which I identify with).  I thoroughly don't want to 
try naming the rol

[Callers] Mousetrap?

[Luke Donforth via Contra Callers]

Hello all,

I've been asked back to a family dance I did at a camp last summer. When I
was there last year, one of the kids said "are we going to do Mousetrap?!",
a dance they remembered from a previous year with the prior caller.

I've tried to find it, but am having no luck. The previous caller said:
*Oh, it's been years... * *Its a singing game, but I can't resurrect the
words/melody at the moment - don't have it written down or recorded. **Kind
of like Ninepin square dance, where the band needs to stop playing on cue.
Everyone's in a circle single file walking under arches - 2 to start, then
doubled each time, those who are caught (i.e. the 'mousetrap') when the
music stops make the arches, and the music resumes, until there's more
arches than people on the line.  *

But that's all they've got. Anyone know this one, possibly under another
name?

Thanks!
Luke
___
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net

[Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')

[Jacob or Nancy Bloom via Contra Callers]

I see a very worrisome problem with the "Scottish Swing": It's too close to
the "Bull by the Horns" swing.

In other words, if all the dancers stay upright, everything will be fine,
but what if you get a couple of young dancers who decide that it would be
more thrilling to lean back as far as they can to feel greater centrifugal
forces on their heads? If only one couple does it, then they are only at
risk of hitting a head against someone's shoulder, but if you get two
couples doing that near each other, then you have the possibility of two
heads cracking against each other at high speed, and having to stop the
dance until those people have been sent off in an ambulance.

I've heard of that happening. I've also heard it suggested that the caller
who claimed he had seen it happen made the story up, in order to discourage
his dancers from doing something that was clearly dangerous. I don't know
which is true, but I have seen dancers in adjacent sets doing that swing,
and worried about them synchronizing. (Fortunately they stopped on their
own after a short time.)

For that reason, I am not planning to recommend the Scottish Swing.

Jacob

On Thu, Feb 9, 2023, 12:23 PM Katherine Kitching via Contra Callers <
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Hello from Halifax, NS, Canada!
> I'd like to add to this convo by saying that for many years (as both a
> dancer and then a caller), I've had the desire to cultivate the roles as
> equal, rather than the Larks having more of a leader role.
>
> I wasn't sure that that was an ok thing to want though, so I kept it to
> myself at first.   I'm thrilled to now read that there are others also
> consciously pushing the roles in that direction.
>
> Our group was doing gents and ladies when i started to dance, and there
> were definitely many gents in our group who wanted to lead me around.  I
> didn't particularly enjoy being relegated to the follow role because of my
> gender.  (and yes, there was in theory the option to dance the other role,
> but as I was easily confused back then, I preferred to stick with the role
> I was slowly getting used to).  At the same time, as I started to learn
> more, I noticed there were many "gents" who had no sense of leading, and I
> began to enjoy as the "lady" being able to "back-lead" them to help them
> feel the wonderful centripetal and balancy forces at play.  I became quite
> the expert back-leader in the ladies chain!  But I always hated the term
> "back-lead" as I felt it had a negative connotation.  (That pushy lady is
> back-leading the gent, just like a back-seat driver!).  I even remember
> once, an experienced dancer from the US telling me it was totally
> inappropriate to desire to "back-lead" and I still feel annoyed by that
> today ;)
>
> Anyhow, we've now switched over to a non-gendered dance with Larks and
> Ravens (with beautiful bird-labels that the dancers wear, which is why we
> haven't evolved to Robins here) and it is working wonderfully for us.
>
> With so many new dancers coming in and old ones fading away over the
> years, I think the majority of our dancers  don't have any idea there even
> *were* gender roles in our type of dancing.  (We are quite an isolated
> community out here, so for many people, we are the only thing they know
> about contra dancing).  I think that is so cool!  When you look around the
> room at our dances, we have reached the point where there is no correlation
> between visible gender and bird-role - everyone randomly assigns
> themselves.  For us, it's been an amazing change - and we've heard directly
> from both the queer community and from many women that they feel more
> comfortable at our dances now.  And the cisgender men keep coming so I
> presume they are having an ok time too :)
>
> As I've become more confident in my calling and am now the defacto caller
> for our group (nobody else is currently available though I'm going to train
> some new folks this spring), I've felt more bold to cultivate the roles as
> I'd like to see them.
>
> I never mention a notion of leading or following, and instead I talk about
> the delightful "push-me-pull-you" feeling of contra, where each dancer
> feels an "elastic connection" to the other, and how (in my view) this
> special shared connection, along with a feeling of never-ending movement,
> is what makes contra magical.
>
> We get a very large proportion of beginners each month, and also many
> repeat dancers who don't become particularly skilled (they perhaps attend
> once every 2-3 months on average, so their learning curve is slow, and they
> forget a lot after our 3-month summer break).
>
> As such, we do a lot of dances without swings  (I try to get at least
> halfway through the dance without introducing a swing), and I'm trying
> Larks chains as well as Robins chains prior to swinging these days.
> Post-covid, we've been doing swings with a modified ballroom hold (Larks
> left hand in Robins' right, but other hands cupped on 

[Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')

[Katherine Kitching via Contra Callers]

Hello from Halifax, NS, Canada!
I'd like to add to this convo by saying that for many years (as both a 
dancer and then a caller), I've had the desire to cultivate the roles as 
equal, rather than the Larks having more of a leader role.


I wasn't sure that that was an ok thing to want though, so I kept it to 
myself at first.   I'm thrilled to now read that there are others also 
consciously pushing the roles in that direction.


Our group was doing gents and ladies when i started to dance, and there 
were definitely many gents in our group who wanted to lead me around.  I 
didn't particularly enjoy being relegated to the follow role because of 
my gender.  (and yes, there was in theory the option to dance the other 
role, but as I was easily confused back then, I preferred to stick with 
the role I was slowly getting used to).  At the same time, as I started 
to learn more, I noticed there were many "gents" who had no sense of 
leading, and I began to enjoy as the "lady" being able to "back-lead" 
them to help them feel the wonderful centripetal and balancy forces at 
play.  I became quite the expert back-leader in the ladies chain!  But I 
always hated the term "back-lead" as I felt it had a negative 
connotation.  (That pushy lady is back-leading the gent, just like a 
back-seat driver!).  I even remember once, an experienced dancer from 
the US telling me it was totally inappropriate to desire to "back-lead" 
and I still feel annoyed by that today ;)


Anyhow, we've now switched over to a non-gendered dance with Larks and 
Ravens (with beautiful bird-labels that the dancers wear, which is why 
we haven't evolved to Robins here) and it is working wonderfully for us.


With so many new dancers coming in and old ones fading away over the 
years, I think the majority of our dancers  don't have any idea there 
even *were* gender roles in our type of dancing.  (We are quite an 
isolated community out here, so for many people, we are the only thing 
they know about contra dancing).  I think that is so cool!  When you 
look around the room at our dances, we have reached the point where 
there is no correlation between visible gender and bird-role - everyone 
randomly assigns themselves.  For us, it's been an amazing change - and 
we've heard directly from both the queer community and from many women 
that they feel more comfortable at our dances now.  And the cisgender 
men keep coming so I presume they are having an ok time too :)


As I've become more confident in my calling and am now the defacto 
caller for our group (nobody else is currently available though I'm 
going to train some new folks this spring), I've felt more bold to 
cultivate the roles as I'd like to see them.


I never mention a notion of leading or following, and instead I talk 
about the delightful "push-me-pull-you" feeling of contra, where each 
dancer feels an "elastic connection" to the other, and how (in my view) 
this special shared connection, along with a feeling of never-ending 
movement, is what makes contra magical.


We get a very large proportion of beginners each month, and also many 
repeat dancers who don't become particularly skilled (they perhaps 
attend once every 2-3 months on average, so their learning curve is 
slow, and they forget a lot after our 3-month summer break).


As such, we do a lot of dances without swings  (I try to get at least 
halfway through the dance without introducing a swing), and I'm trying 
Larks chains as well as Robins chains prior to swinging these days. 
Post-covid, we've been doing swings with a modified ballroom hold (Larks 
left hand in Robins' right, but other hands cupped on each others' 
elbows), which creates more space between the dancers -- both for 
personal comfort for any gender when dancing with a stranger--and also 
less germs-in-face feeling during these covid times.
(Though I plan to try the Scottish Swing that Ridge suggested at our 
next dance, just out of interest! :) )


I find the swing in this modified ballroom position feels symmetrical to 
me and to our dancers- both dancers are supporting each other by the 
elbow, and one does not feel more inherently "lead-y".


I've also replaced "California Twirl" with what I call "tug and turn" - 
I tell the dancers to tug off the hand they are holding (i.e inside 
hand) to pass by the right shoulder - then catch by the new inside hand 
facing the other way.  When this happens with partners, sometimes they 
end up doing a cali-twirl as an embellishment - but the base move is 
symmetrical.


So I feel I'm close to achieving my personal vision for a no 
leads/follow dance. :D



I have always loved contra as a way for two dancers or 4 dancers or a 
whole line of dancers to feel these interesting connections and forces 
at play, while never stopping moving.  I personally have never been 
interested in contra as something that resembles "couples dancing", so 
the approach we have in our group is emphasizing the elements of contra 

[Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')

[Julian Blechner via Contra Callers]

I'm loving reading this discussion!

Some replies:

Peg, I think it's important we take into account what Allison wrote: I
haven't seen published examination of Positional calling's effect with
people with Left/Right confusion.
Allison: It's approximately 1 of 7 people. It's not a small number.

Positional:
I really love much of what Louise has written. I think principles of "do we
NEED to use roles here?", deconstructing the language we use, and making
our calling more concise are all great takes.
However, there's assumptions she states, even once you get a caller and
dancers accustomed to Positional, that I think are major, unsolved
obstacles:
- You can't really do a medley / hash calling for anything but the simplest
dances. I can't imagine, for example, a NEFFA without the medley sessions.
Losing hash calling and medleys are a rich part of our dance history, and I
think contra would be reduced without them.
- Overall, it makes some walkthroughs longer, some prompts wordier, but
doesn't offer any advantages over Larks/Robins other than "no birds". And I
think I covered the resistance to bird-terms in my earlier reply.

Thus, my short version is: I think a lot of Louise's suggestions from
Positional apply even with role-term calling, and could be adopted for
cleaner, more concise dancing. But it's not the panacea that is being
advertised. (But I'm always open to more evidence!)

Jim: Thank you for asking.
I guess it surprises me that so many folks are not aware of the history.
Coincidentally, I'm listening to a CDSS podcast with Mary Wesley and Chris
Riccioti on genderfree dancing.
https://cdss.org/podcasts/podcast/from-the-mic-episode-8-chris-ricciotti/
As others (like Gabrielle) have mentioned, there's been an incredible
amount of work by easily hundreds of people in experimenting and evaluating
new terms. And Amy Cann definitely mentions an example of why this can be
so finicky.
(And, side-note: I urge Positional advocates to do the same level of
critique of Positional as has been done with other genderfree terms.)
And, in the end, Larks/Robins is advocated strongly by the overwhelming
majority of LGBTQ dancers for a reason.
Larks/Robins is a current culmination of 30+ years of work, and has deep
buy-in by queer folks.

Ridge:
I understand that this is a personal issue, and appreciate your honesty and
vulnerability in sharing this.
Our culture, from our youth, bombards us - especially boys and men - that
men showing even platonic touch or affection is "gay" and "bad".
Toxic masculinity harmed us all.
I know that contra helped me confront this in myself, and it took _years_
of examination, dancing with other men, etc, to be comfortable with it.
I empathize with you.
And, further, because of how deeply society's toxic attitude towards
male-male platonic touch and affection has been forced on us, it may not be
something everyone can ever fully reconcile. :(
Thus, I am always happy to do an alternate swing to someone else's comfort.
I would hope that you also can see the real issue here - with how society
has harmed us men, how it's very different in less Puritanical countries,
and how we should share a goal for making this better for the younger
generations.

Tony:
I really appreciate your perspective on this, given your decades of
involvement, your stewardship for the history of our dance, calling,
choreography, etc.
You wrote: " I’m a bit nervous about teaching newbies that a good dancer
learns both roles and that the ability to swap roles during a number is “a
consummation devoutly to be wished.”"
Yeah, you know, this is a great point.
In my beginner lessons, I've begun to make clear both that "anyone can
dance any role" but that some people still prefer to do one role or the
other. I don't think there's anything wrong with just sticking with one
role, and, anyone who's had an injured shoulder could add that there may be
_physical limitations_ for one role or the other.
And, as a committee member of another genderfree dance, I also agree,
mostly, with Jeff K.

So I like symmetrical swings as an option, but losing ballroom-hold would
seem like an unnecessary loss.
And the good news is that it's not _that_ hard for someone who prefers a
symmetrical swing to signal it.
Perhaps alternate swings is something that genderfree dances could/should
be teaching / workshopping, more?

Jeff S + others who've said:
"I hear lark and think lady"
Yeah, I had the same experience. I was accustomed to ladies/gents, and it
took a while to adjust.
The good news is that eventually it does get to be no big deal. Like
anything with the brain - repetition.

Jeff K:
Agree.

To elaborate, I think that the concept of "how much lead and how much
follow?" is a nuanced one.
These are very much styles, not roles, but, at the same time, from what
I've learned from Blues, Swing, and other couples' dance forms with more
pronounced Leader/Follower roles, "Lead role" doesn't really mean "In
charge" despite the layman's understanding of th

[Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')

[Becky Liddle via Contra Callers]

Hi Ridge,

You are brave to bring this issue up. I empathize with your discomfort, and 
appreciate your willingness to try to work around it to make the space safe and 
welcoming to other dancers.

As a lesbian, I confess my initial (unthinking and I’m not proud of it) 
reaction was “get over it—gay folks have been expected to swing a partner 
they’re not attracted to and may even find repulsive for hundreds of years.” 
But then I thought a bit longer and I could actually relate:

I heard another lesbian dancer say years ago she chose to only dance the “gent” 
role to avoid swinging with (a few) leering heterosexual men—she solved the 
problem by choosing the gent role. Of course that is different from being 
uncomfortable swinging with ALL men, because it was about the leering vibe, not 
the sex of the person. So I guess that’s not the same. (BTW, we fixed that 
problem by coming up with a dance code of ethics, announcing expectations at 
every dance, and then finally banning the one problematic guy who refused to 
stop making double entendre comments.)

But back to empathizing with your situation: I will say this: I almost always 
dance the lark role because of a tricky hip. And I’m COMPLETELY comfortable 
swinging with all the men who come down the line dancing as robins. But, I 
confess, when I (rarely) dance the robin role, I am compelled to swing with 
some men who only dance lark who I’m not used to swinging and it does feel a 
little awkward to me. Not repulsive or scary. Just weird, as if this is a level 
of intimacy that is not “supposed” to happen with this person. (And, honestly, 
it’s NOT supposed to happen: I’m not heterosexual, so it doesn’t feel “natural” 
initially.) I will say that once I do it for a while I get used to it and it’s 
fine—I suspect the same would happen for you if you give it some time. 

But I also will say this: when I was living in Alabama in the 1990s and doing 
those “meet a gay person for the first time to find out we’re not so scary”  
Q&A sessions, one thing I always said was “I know if you’re straight, the idea 
of two people of the same sex having sex may feel really icky to you. I get it. 
I have the same reaction to thinking about heterosexuals having sex... Ick.” I 
found this really helped them get past the gut feeling of “wrongness” that the 
idea of gayness had. And, honestly, it was also true for me. (Not for all gay 
folks but true for me... Ick! Why would anyone DO that?!) So it would feel 
disingenuous to me to not at least empathize with someone who has a gut 
reaction to swinging another guy. Now, again, swinging is not sex, and I think 
it should be possible for most guys to get over this in the same way most 
lesbians have gotten over having to swing men. And most of the “don’t touch a 
guy that way” feeling more likely comes from a lifetime of homophobic messaging 
that has shamed boys for anything that could be construed as being “gay” 
(rather than from a genuine, innate feeling of ickiness). But for some folks 
that may be a thing. 

I think for most folks (because swinging is just swinging and not sex!) that 
some gutting it out until it feels normal will likely do the trick. But if that 
doesn’t work, I do hope your home dance will accommodate your needs by not 
judging you if you ask for a different swing. That said, I confess my first 
uninformed reaction to someone asking for another swing would likely be an 
assumption that it came from a place of homophobia. That comes from a lifetime 
of subtle and non-subtle signals of non-inclusion/rejection/judgment that queer 
folks have had to deal with our whole lives. But I do hope that if I were in 
your home dance, if we had some genuine, caring conversations about it (so that 
I knew it wasn’t coming from a “I need everyone to know I’m straight!!!” place) 
I could get past that and understand your need for an accommodation.

Just one woman’s response. I’m not speaking for all queer folks here! :-)

Becky



> On Feb 9, 2023, at 9:52 AM, Ridge Kennedy via Contra Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> I have thought a lot about the nomenclature issues. I too went from ladies to 
> women and back to ladies, worked with armbands and bare arms, leaders and 
> followers, larks and robins, and have lapsed almost accidentally into 
> positional calling out of an abundance of trying not to say the wrong thing.
> 
> Yet, for all the talk about the talk, there remains, for me, a big problem in 
> the actual dancing. 
> 
> "Comfort" and "comfortable" and words like that can be found in abundance in 
> the charters, mission statements, and announcements that dance groups publish 
> on their websites and read at dances. I'm in full agreement -- anyone who 
> attends a dance should feel safe and comfortable. If a dance community wants 
> to change the words it uses in order to achieve that goal, then I must, 
> perforce, support that decision. 
> 
> Still, I (he, him, his, etc.) personally feel distinctly unc

[Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')

[Perry Shafran via Contra Callers]

 It feels to me that one of the things that modern contra is trying to do is to 
make the roles more symmetrical.  I mean, we can all do the ladies/robins 
right-hand chain with no problem, but when it comes to any other chain (lark RH 
chain or any LH chain), even the most adept contra dancers get confused.  I 
feel that this comes from the notion that one role leads and one role follows.  
Even in a robins RH chain, the robin bears some responsibility in both 
direction of the flow and also the weight given.  If it's treated as a shared 
move, it actually feels more graceful and feels better.  Swings also should be 
taught as a shared move, and robins should easily be able to decide the speed 
and ending of the swing if need be.  This can be demonstrated by observing an 
experienced robin dancer dancing/teaching a new lark dancer.  
I *do* suggest that people should learn to be comfortable in one role first 
before tackling the other role, perhaps after several evenings of dance.  But 
I'm not totally *un*comfortable in suggesting that there aren't much 
differences between the roles other than one starts on the left and the other 
on the right.  
And while I'm here, on the topic of positional dancing, after having taken a 
workshop with Louise recently, I've begun to learn that positional calling is a 
newly learned skill, way beyond just "lefts turn right" and such.  The way it 
was described set off a light bulb for me to the point where it makes a lot of 
sense to teach that way.  And it seemed that Louise agreed that if it's a good 
way to bridge the gap between dancers, why not try it? 
I certainly need much more learning before I decide to try positional on a 
full-time basis, but I do think it's good to understand what positional calling 
is and positional calling isn't before passing judgement.  It seems to have 
worked really well in places where it has been used, and when done well, it's 
so smooth that most dancers don't even know that it's positional calling.  But 
I'm still going to use larks/robins for the time being.  
Perry
On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 10:36:01 AM EST, Tony Parkes via Contra 
Callers  wrote:  
 
 
Ridge’s point about ballroom vs. symmetrical swings is related to an issue that 
I have about the trend toward de-gendered roles. I haven’t said much about this 
publicly, as I hesitate to appear to be either on the “wrong” side of a 
controversy or unwilling to listen and possibly change my mind.
 
  
 
Many contra series provide a 20-30 minute teaching session before each dance 
event. There’s a limit to what can be conveyed to a first-timer in such a brief 
session, but obviously it’s essential to explain the two roles and what 
differentiates one from the other. Fine.
 
  
 
Many contra series have adopted “larks/robins” as their standard terms for the 
roles. Also fine.
 
  
 
But some series – I don’t know how many – have instructed their teachers not to 
indicate in any way which role is which with respect to either male/female or 
leading/following.
 
  
 
This, I submit, is a disservice to new dancers as long as the contra dance 
repertoire includes (a) an asymmetrical swing position and/or (b) moves (e.g. 
courtesy turns and “official” turn-unders) where one role very often leads the 
other (and a reverse lead is extremely rare).
 
  
 
I get that it’s seen as desirable to allow new dancers to assume the role of 
their choice, without regard to gender – without the stigma of doing a part 
associated with a gender other than their own. But IMO that works only if the 
two roles are truly equal in the physical movements required and the physical 
sensations experienced. There is some element of leading and following in 
present-day contra moves, no matter if it’s vestigial or seen as something to 
work toward extinguishing. I feel that to be fair and consistent, the contra 
world should either do away with the asymmetrical moves (not likely) or give 
new folks the option of choosing to lead or follow.
 
  
 
At a teaching session, I’m inclined to say something like “The two roles are 
fairly equal, but there’s a tiny bit of leading and following left over from an 
earlier day. If you’re more comfortable with leading, I suggest you start as a 
lark; if you’re more comfortable being led, try starting as a robin.” I fail to 
see the problem with this.
 
  
 
As an aside, leading (sorry) into another can of worms (any hungry robins 
about?), I’m a bit nervous about teaching newbies that a good dancer learns 
both roles and that the ability to swap roles during a number is “a 
consummation devoutly to be wished.” I have no philosophical quarrel with this, 
but it inevitably widens the gap between what a newbie knows / can do and what 
one must know / be able to do to survive at a mostly-experienced dance. That 
gap has been widening over the last couple of decades anyway, as the list of 
accepted contra basics has grown from 12-15 to the 30s. But I’ve said enough 
for

[Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')

[Tony Parkes via Contra Callers]

Thanks, Jeff. It helps to hear this from an organizer of (IMX) one of the more 
avant-garde dance series.

Tony

From: Jeff Kaufman 
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 10:44 AM
To: Tony Parkes 
Cc: Ridge Kennedy ; Shared Weight Contra Callers 

Subject: Re: [Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')

Hi Tony,

As someone who helps organize a Larks/Robins dance, I think it's completely 
fine for the caller to mention during the workshop that the Lark role often has 
a bit of leading and the Robin a bit of following.  It's an accurate 
description, and some dancers will come in with a preference, and this helps 
them figure out what they might prefer.

Jeff

PS: I'd quibble a bit with the "left over from an earlier day".  I think the 
increase in communities really practicing "anyone can dance any role" has led 
to a small increase in the relative amount of leading between Larks and Robins.


On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 10:35 AM Tony Parkes via Contra Callers 
mailto:contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>>
 wrote:
Ridge’s point about ballroom vs. symmetrical swings is related to an issue that 
I have about the trend toward de-gendered roles. I haven’t said much about this 
publicly, as I hesitate to appear to be either on the “wrong” side of a 
controversy or unwilling to listen and possibly change my mind.

Many contra series provide a 20-30 minute teaching session before each dance 
event. There’s a limit to what can be conveyed to a first-timer in such a brief 
session, but obviously it’s essential to explain the two roles and what 
differentiates one from the other. Fine.

Many contra series have adopted “larks/robins” as their standard terms for the 
roles. Also fine.

But some series – I don’t know how many – have instructed their teachers not to 
indicate in any way which role is which with respect to either male/female or 
leading/following.

This, I submit, is a disservice to new dancers as long as the contra dance 
repertoire includes (a) an asymmetrical swing position and/or (b) moves (e.g. 
courtesy turns and “official” turn-unders) where one role very often leads the 
other (and a reverse lead is extremely rare).

I get that it’s seen as desirable to allow new dancers to assume the role of 
their choice, without regard to gender – without the stigma of doing a part 
associated with a gender other than their own. But IMO that works only if the 
two roles are truly equal in the physical movements required and the physical 
sensations experienced. There is some element of leading and following in 
present-day contra moves, no matter if it’s vestigial or seen as something to 
work toward extinguishing. I feel that to be fair and consistent, the contra 
world should either do away with the asymmetrical moves (not likely) or give 
new folks the option of choosing to lead or follow.

At a teaching session, I’m inclined to say something like “The two roles are 
fairly equal, but there’s a tiny bit of leading and following left over from an 
earlier day. If you’re more comfortable with leading, I suggest you start as a 
lark; if you’re more comfortable being led, try starting as a robin.” I fail to 
see the problem with this.

As an aside, leading (sorry) into another can of worms (any hungry robins 
about?), I’m a bit nervous about teaching newbies that a good dancer learns 
both roles and that the ability to swap roles during a number is “a 
consummation devoutly to be wished.” I have no philosophical quarrel with this, 
but it inevitably widens the gap between what a newbie knows / can do and what 
one must know / be able to do to survive at a mostly-experienced dance. That 
gap has been widening over the last couple of decades anyway, as the list of 
accepted contra basics has grown from 12-15 to the 30s. But I’ve said enough 
for now.

Tony Parkes
Billerica, Mass.
www.hands4.com
New book! Square Dance Calling: An Old Art for a New Century
(available now)


From: Ridge Kennedy via Contra Callers 
mailto:contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>>
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 9:52 AM
To: Shared Weight Contra Callers 
mailto:contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>>
Subject: [Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')

Dear All,

I have thought a lot about the nomenclature issues. I too went from ladies to 
women and back to ladies, worked with armbands and bare arms, leaders and 
followers, larks and robins, and have lapsed almost accidentally into 
positional calling out of an abundance of trying not to say the wrong thing.

Yet, for all the talk about the talk, there remains, for me, a big problem in 
the actual dancing.

"Comfort" and "comfortable" and words like that can be found in abundance in 
the charters, mission statements, and announcements that dance groups publish 
on their websites and read at dances. I'm in full agreement -- anyone who 
attends a dance should feel safe and comfortable. If a dance community wants to 
change the words it uses in or

[Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')

[Tony Parkes via Contra Callers]

To be clear, I’m not advocating the use of “lead/follow” anywhere but in the 
preliminary session (or, if there is no session, in an experienced dancer 
briefing a first-timer friend on the way in). Like it or not, our heritage 
includes a few asymmetrical moves, and I think it’s more helpful to newbies to 
point out the asymmetry than to pretend it’s not there.

(I’m aware that some folks enjoy doing what an old-timer would call a reverse 
lead or a back-lead, with the robin leading the lark. But I believe that in 
practice it’s still relatively rare.)

Tony Parkes
Billerica, Mass.
www.hands4.com
New book! Square Dance Calling: An Old Art for a New Century
(available now)


From: John Sweeney via Contra Callers 
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 10:43 AM
To: 'Shared Weight Contra Callers' 
Subject: [Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')

I agree completely with Tony, except…

I don’t think it is a good idea to use the terms “leader” and “follower”.

The only leader in the room is the caller.

For flashy moves either person can briefly lead another – e.g. twirling the end 
person as you go Down the Hall in Lines of Four. That is gender-independent.

For much more on the subject please see: 
http://contrafusion.co.uk/LeadFollow.html

Happy dancing,
   John

John Sweeney, Dancer, England   j...@modernjive.com 
01233 625 362 & 07802 940 574
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
___
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net

[Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')

[Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers]

Hi Tony,

As someone who helps organize a Larks/Robins dance, I think it's completely
fine for the caller to mention during the workshop that the Lark role
often has a bit of leading and the Robin a bit of following.  It's an
accurate description, and some dancers will come in with a preference, and
this helps them figure out what they might prefer.

Jeff

PS: I'd quibble a bit with the "left over from an earlier day".  I think
the increase in communities really practicing "anyone can dance any role"
has led to a small increase in the relative amount of leading between Larks
and Robins.


On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 10:35 AM Tony Parkes via Contra Callers <
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Ridge’s point about ballroom vs. symmetrical swings is related to an issue
> that I have about the trend toward de-gendered roles. I haven’t said much
> about this publicly, as I hesitate to appear to be either on the “wrong”
> side of a controversy or unwilling to listen and possibly change my mind.
>
>
>
> Many contra series provide a 20-30 minute teaching session before each
> dance event. There’s a limit to what can be conveyed to a first-timer in
> such a brief session, but obviously it’s essential to explain the two roles
> and what differentiates one from the other. Fine.
>
>
>
> Many contra series have adopted “larks/robins” as their standard terms for
> the roles. Also fine.
>
>
>
> But some series – I don’t know how many – have instructed their teachers
> not to indicate in any way which role is which with respect to either
> male/female or leading/following.
>
>
>
> This, I submit, is a disservice to new dancers *as long as* the contra
> dance repertoire includes (a) an asymmetrical swing position and/or (b)
> moves (e.g. courtesy turns and “official” turn-unders) where one role very
> often leads the other (and a reverse lead is extremely rare).
>
>
>
> I get that it’s seen as desirable to allow new dancers to assume the role
> of their choice, without regard to gender – without the stigma of doing a
> part associated with a gender other than their own. But IMO that works only
> if the two roles are truly equal in the physical movements required and the
> physical sensations experienced. There is some element of leading and
> following in present-day contra moves, no matter if it’s vestigial or seen
> as something to work toward extinguishing. I feel that to be fair and
> consistent, the contra world should either do away with the asymmetrical
> moves (not likely) or give new folks the option of choosing to lead or
> follow.
>
>
>
> At a teaching session, I’m inclined to say something like “The two roles
> are fairly equal, but there’s a tiny bit of leading and following left over
> from an earlier day. If you’re more comfortable with leading, I suggest you
> start as a lark; if you’re more comfortable being led, try starting as a
> robin.” I fail to see the problem with this.
>
>
>
> As an aside, leading (sorry) into another can of worms (any hungry robins
> about?), I’m a bit nervous about teaching newbies that a good dancer learns
> both roles and that the ability to swap roles during a number is “a
> consummation devoutly to be wished.” I have no philosophical quarrel with
> this, but it inevitably widens the gap between what a newbie knows / can do
> and what one must know / be able to do to survive at a mostly-experienced
> dance. That gap has been widening over the last couple of decades anyway,
> as the list of accepted contra basics has grown from 12-15 to the 30s. But
> I’ve said enough for now.
>
>
>
> Tony Parkes
>
> Billerica, Mass.
>
> www.hands4.com
>
> New book! Square Dance Calling: An Old Art for a New Century
>
> (available now)
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ridge Kennedy via Contra Callers <
> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 9, 2023 9:52 AM
> *To:* Shared Weight Contra Callers 
> *Subject:* [Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> I have thought a lot about the nomenclature issues. I too went from ladies
> to women and back to ladies, worked with armbands and bare arms, leaders
> and followers, larks and robins, and have lapsed almost accidentally into
> positional calling out of an abundance of trying not to say the wrong thing.
>
>
>
> Yet, for all the talk about the talk, there remains, for me, a big problem
> in the actual dancing.
>
>
>
> "Comfort" and "comfortable" and words like that can be found in abundance
> in the charters, mission statements, and announcements that dance groups
> publish on their websites and read at dances. I'm in full agreement --
> anyone who attends a dance should feel safe and comfortable. If a dance
> community wants to change the words it uses in order to achieve that goal,
> then I must, perforce, support that decision.
>
>
>
> Still, I (he, him, his, etc.) personally feel distinctly uncomfortable
> doing a ballroom swing with other same-gender dancers.
>
>
>
> I've discussed 

[Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')

[John Sweeney via Contra Callers]

I agree completely with Tony, except…

 

I don’t think it is a good idea to use the terms “leader” and “follower”.

 

The only leader in the room is the caller.

 

For flashy moves either person can briefly lead another – e.g. twirling the end 
person as you go Down the Hall in Lines of Four. That is gender-independent.

 

For much more on the subject please see: 
http://contrafusion.co.uk/LeadFollow.html

 

Happy dancing,

   John   



John Sweeney, Dancer, England   j...@modernjive.com 01233 625 362 & 07802 940 
574

http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent 

___
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net

[Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')

[Tony Parkes via Contra Callers]

I get the impression that “men/ladies” is a common set of terms in the UK. I 
believe it’s less commonly seen as acceptable here in the US, as the two words 
are not parallel. In the early days of the Second Feminist Movement (mainly the 
1970s) I seem to recall feminists objecting to the common practice of saying 
“ladies” rather than “women,” on the grounds that it downplayed their biology 
and hid them behind a mask of gentility. (This may be behind the objection of 
some female dancers and callers to the use of “ladies” even in conjunction with 
“gents.”) Of course “gents/ladies” and “men/women” are the parallel sets among 
commonly used terms. (At least “men/girls” is almost never heard these days.)

Tony Parkes
Billerica, Mass.
www.hands4.com
New book! Square Dance Calling: An Old Art for a New Century
(available now)


From: John Sweeney via Contra Callers 
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 10:33 AM
To: 'Shared Weight Contra Callers' 
Subject: [Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')

I also have many male dancers who don’t want to do ballroom-hold swings with 
other men.

I always recommend the Double Allemande Swing: 
https://youtu.be/Ue0yCtjjbGs?t=107

I have offered this hold to countless men and ladies on both sides of the 
Atlantic and it always works easily and well.

BTW When relevant I use Men and Ladies – I think the words are much clearer 
than the alternative gendered terms.

Happy dancing,
   John

John Sweeney, Dancer, England   j...@modernjive.com 
01233 625 362 & 07802 940 574
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
___
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net

[Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')

[jeff - syncopaths via Contra Callers]

I, too, have struggled with this issue, going from men/women terminology to 
gents/ladies while explaining that they are roles, not genders.  I never took 
to larks/robins due to the aforementioned “I hear ‘lark’ and it triggers ‘lady’ 
in my mind.” And that still happens. Decades of dancing with gents/ladies 
terminology can do that.

I’ve always felt that a huge role of the caller was to do their best to promote 
fun and happiness on the dance floor. That seems impossible to do when so many 
people get upset about terminology. When the gypsy kerfuffle started, people in 
my dance community were divided - with very strong opinions - about how to that 
move should be called. It felt like no matter how I called it, I’d get angry 
looks from some of the dancers (along with the occasional jeers). So… for 
years, I stopped calling the move. I’d change it to an allemande, a do-si-do, 
or just not call a dance with that move in it. When it finally seemed settled 
in my community that right shoulder round was the accepted terminology, I 
called it again using what seemed to be the now agreed upon phrase. And of 
course, the first time I called it, a person on the floor looked up at the 
stage and yelled, “You mean gypsy?”

And then came non-gendered terminology. Trying to navigate that without 
upsetting a good amount of dancers became increasingly difficult. The pandemic 
put that on hold for a few years for me… and I made the decision that I would 
stay behind the piano and stop calling. I saw no way to call that wasn’t going 
to upset a good number of dancers, and as a caller, that was something I did 
not want to do.

But… as dancing resumed, there seemed to be a shortage of callers here and I 
ended up being asked to call the first dance since the beginning of the 
pandemic. I was not thrilled about calling ladies/gents, nor was I prepared to 
call larks/ravens. So I tackled positional calling, and there were no 
complaints. None. Just compliments.  I’ve called since then and have been 
experimenting with ECD terminology of first corners / second corners, and that 
seemed to work quite nicely - and it has the added benefit of helping bridge 
the gap between dancers who only dance in one of those communities. Hopefully, 
it will catch on with other local callers here, as that’s where I’m headed.

-- 
Jeffrey Spero
Culver City, CA
___
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net

[Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')

[Tony Parkes via Contra Callers]

Ridge’s point about ballroom vs. symmetrical swings is related to an issue that 
I have about the trend toward de-gendered roles. I haven’t said much about this 
publicly, as I hesitate to appear to be either on the “wrong” side of a 
controversy or unwilling to listen and possibly change my mind.

Many contra series provide a 20-30 minute teaching session before each dance 
event. There’s a limit to what can be conveyed to a first-timer in such a brief 
session, but obviously it’s essential to explain the two roles and what 
differentiates one from the other. Fine.

Many contra series have adopted “larks/robins” as their standard terms for the 
roles. Also fine.

But some series – I don’t know how many – have instructed their teachers not to 
indicate in any way which role is which with respect to either male/female or 
leading/following.

This, I submit, is a disservice to new dancers as long as the contra dance 
repertoire includes (a) an asymmetrical swing position and/or (b) moves (e.g. 
courtesy turns and “official” turn-unders) where one role very often leads the 
other (and a reverse lead is extremely rare).

I get that it’s seen as desirable to allow new dancers to assume the role of 
their choice, without regard to gender – without the stigma of doing a part 
associated with a gender other than their own. But IMO that works only if the 
two roles are truly equal in the physical movements required and the physical 
sensations experienced. There is some element of leading and following in 
present-day contra moves, no matter if it’s vestigial or seen as something to 
work toward extinguishing. I feel that to be fair and consistent, the contra 
world should either do away with the asymmetrical moves (not likely) or give 
new folks the option of choosing to lead or follow.

At a teaching session, I’m inclined to say something like “The two roles are 
fairly equal, but there’s a tiny bit of leading and following left over from an 
earlier day. If you’re more comfortable with leading, I suggest you start as a 
lark; if you’re more comfortable being led, try starting as a robin.” I fail to 
see the problem with this.

As an aside, leading (sorry) into another can of worms (any hungry robins 
about?), I’m a bit nervous about teaching newbies that a good dancer learns 
both roles and that the ability to swap roles during a number is “a 
consummation devoutly to be wished.” I have no philosophical quarrel with this, 
but it inevitably widens the gap between what a newbie knows / can do and what 
one must know / be able to do to survive at a mostly-experienced dance. That 
gap has been widening over the last couple of decades anyway, as the list of 
accepted contra basics has grown from 12-15 to the 30s. But I’ve said enough 
for now.

Tony Parkes
Billerica, Mass.
www.hands4.com
New book! Square Dance Calling: An Old Art for a New Century
(available now)


From: Ridge Kennedy via Contra Callers 
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 9:52 AM
To: Shared Weight Contra Callers 
Subject: [Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')

Dear All,

I have thought a lot about the nomenclature issues. I too went from ladies to 
women and back to ladies, worked with armbands and bare arms, leaders and 
followers, larks and robins, and have lapsed almost accidentally into 
positional calling out of an abundance of trying not to say the wrong thing.

Yet, for all the talk about the talk, there remains, for me, a big problem in 
the actual dancing.

"Comfort" and "comfortable" and words like that can be found in abundance in 
the charters, mission statements, and announcements that dance groups publish 
on their websites and read at dances. I'm in full agreement -- anyone who 
attends a dance should feel safe and comfortable. If a dance community wants to 
change the words it uses in order to achieve that goal, then I must, perforce, 
support that decision.

Still, I (he, him, his, etc.) personally feel distinctly uncomfortable doing a 
ballroom swing with other same-gender dancers.

I've discussed my feelings with other dancers in my area, and I know I am not 
alone, both among dancers of my gender and dancers of the opposite gender. Yet, 
by even raising the question, I have also been described (not to my face) in 
very unflattering terms.

About ten thousand years ago, when I first started dancing, there was a 
commonly accepted symmetrical swing that was used. It was, in retrospect, a 
little bit uncomfortable as it involved reaching the right arm across the other 
dancer's body and hooking a hand around the other dancer's torso.  In 
retrospect, not good. A two-hand turn is, in my mind, not a very acceptable 
alternative to a ballroom swing. I have seen some folks do some lively 
variations with crossed hands and such so that it can work, but I think there 
is a better option that I have been encouraging dancers to learn. I call it a 
Scottish swing. (John Sweeny includes it in his vide

[Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')

[John Sweeney via Contra Callers]

I also have many male dancers who don’t want to do ballroom-hold swings with 
other men.

 

I always recommend the Double Allemande Swing: 
https://youtu.be/Ue0yCtjjbGs?t=107

 

I have offered this hold to countless men and ladies on both sides of the 
Atlantic and it always works easily and well.

 

BTW When relevant I use Men and Ladies – I think the words are much clearer 
than the alternative gendered terms.  

 

Happy dancing,

   John   



John Sweeney, Dancer, England   j...@modernjive.com 01233 625 362 & 07802 940 
574

http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent   
   

___
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net

[Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')

[Tony Parkes via Contra Callers]

I’m not the best person to address this, as I have (as yet) very little 
experience with positional calling, even as a dancer. But I don’t think anyone 
is currently advocating “lefts allemande right.” Referring to the two roles as 
“left” and “right” would be just another renaming, similar to “larks/robins” or 
“lakes/rivers.” As I understand it, that’s not what positional calling is 
about. I’ll leave it to more experienced folks to say what it actually is.

Tony Parkes
Billerica, Mass.
www.hands4.com
New book! Square Dance Calling: An Old Art for a New Century
(available now)

From: Allison Jonjak via Contra Callers 
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 9:48 AM
To: Gabrielle Taylor 
Cc: Peghesley ; Shared Weight Contra Callers 

Subject: [Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')

I don't have a cultural stance against positional calling, but I do have the 
"right/left" equivalent of dyslexic (if you say turn right/left as I'm driving, 
I get it wrong about 70% of the time, and I work around it by navigating with 
NSEW or a map.) I was able to learn dancing by feel and by momentum of the 
dance ('this feels like it will be a right allemande') and I was often late 
when I was learning until I had a good "translation" system in place / until I 
had developed a sense of dance flow. So I'm personally pretty fearful of "lefts 
allemande right"--it will be workable for me as a dancer because I already 
learned how things "feel" using roles. But I will never attempt calling it 
(recipe for disaster), and I'm pretty confident that if I was learning dancing 
as a newbie and got the sentence 'lefts allemande right' I would have given up 
and not come back.

So for me, the birds are the obvious solution, positional calling feels totally 
not compatible with my particular handicap. I have no idea how common "left 
right dyslexia" is, so it could be that the 'right choice' is to override 
people in my shoes--there may simply not be very many of us. (In fact, I 
haven't heard anyone else say this yet, which is why I felt compelled to write).

On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 7:56 AM Gabrielle Taylor via Contra Callers 
mailto:contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>>
 wrote:
As a member of the LGBT community, my view (personal, from talking to others, 
and from votes in local contra dances in Western Massachusetts) is it's very 
good to have a consistent term that isn't inherently gendered.

After local debate and dance-specific polls, we've been using larks and 
robins/ravens here since about 2018, and I think it's been a big improvement 
over ladies/gents. Larks and robins are my personal preference, since it's what 
everyone here is used to, and I at least don't have enough bird knowledge to 
get confused about robins or larks having some inherent gendering. I don't have 
any cultural stance against positional calling, but the confusion of "lefts 
allemande right" seems a lot worse than learning new terms.

Thanks,
Gabrielle


On Feb 9, 2023, at 13:45, Jim Thaxter via Contra Callers 
mailto:contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>>
 wrote:

Just a thought, but has anyone checked with the lgbtq community about what 
terms they would like to have used?

Another thought, someone mentioned earlier in the thread that the terminology 
issue had been discussed thoroughly some time ago and the decision had been 
made to go with the birds. I don’t remember seeing or hearing about a general 
survey sent out to all the CDSS affiliates or any other general list of dance 
groups around the country or world vetting that decision

Personally, I’m exploring positional calling. Just my gut feeling, but I think 
fewer people would be challenged by right/left directional calls than by being 
called bird names.

Jim Thaxter
Columbia, MO

On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 6:31 AM Amy Cann via Contra Callers 
mailto:contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>>
 wrote:
Since no one else has mentioned this, I'll just say that my entire
personal difficulty with birds comes from fairy tales and ornithology.

When we say "robin" we are mostly thinking about that bird with the
"red breast", right? Not something kinda reddish-brownish? That's the
male. In my childhood I read any number of books with
anthropomorphised birds, and Mister Robin Redbreast was male. In a
bunch of the stories there was also small, sweet-singing female lark.

Add to that that in the states the robin is a different bird from in
the UK, and much larger, I've got two good reasons to think of the
robin as being the "male" role. My brain weighs the imagery and
memories against that silly little detail of starting with "R" or "L"
and defaults obstinately  to the exact wrong conclusion every time.
EVERY time. It's somewhat maddening. But "Ravens" was even worse,
because ravens are black and men in formal clothing dress in black, so
I guess things are better now??

Whew. Change is hard.

On 2/9/23, Peghesley via Contra Callers
mailto:contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>>

[Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')

[Ridge Kennedy via Contra Callers]

Dear All,

I have thought a lot about the nomenclature issues. I too went from ladies
to women and back to ladies, worked with armbands and bare arms, leaders
and followers, larks and robins, and have lapsed almost accidentally into
positional calling out of an abundance of trying not to say the wrong thing.

Yet, for all the talk about the talk, there remains, for me, a big problem
in the actual dancing.

"Comfort" and "comfortable" and words like that can be found in abundance
in the charters, mission statements, and announcements that dance groups
publish on their websites and read at dances. I'm in full agreement --
anyone who attends a dance should feel safe and comfortable. If a dance
community wants to change the words it uses in order to achieve that goal,
then I must, perforce, support that decision.

Still, I (he, him, his, etc.) personally feel distinctly uncomfortable
doing a ballroom swing with other same-gender dancers.

I've discussed my feelings with other dancers in my area, and I know I am
not alone, both among dancers of my gender and dancers of the opposite
gender. Yet, by even raising the question, I have also been described (not
to my face) in very unflattering terms.

About ten thousand years ago, when I first started dancing, there was a
commonly accepted symmetrical swing that was used. It was, in retrospect, a
little bit uncomfortable as it involved reaching the right arm across the
other dancer's body and hooking a hand around the other dancer's torso.  In
retrospect, not good. A two-hand turn is, in my mind, not a very acceptable
alternative to a ballroom swing. I have seen some folks do some lively
variations with crossed hands and such so that it can work, but I think
there is a better option that I have been encouraging dancers to learn. I
call it a Scottish swing. (John Sweeny includes it in his videos of
eleventy-seven ways to swing as a Northumbrian swing.)

Here's what it looks like. 

I like it because I can give a clear signal for the kind of swing that I
want to do, I feel completely comfortable doing it with any dancer, and it
allows my swinging partner and me to enjoy a very satisfactory swing. It's
easy to learn. I have even found that I can teach it to dancers on the fly
in the middle of a dance.

Maybe it is not the best option for a symmetrical swing (an alternative to
a ballroom swing). If someone can propose a better alternative, I'll give
it a try.

But for all of the concern about words and terminology, it seems to me that
the overall dance community ought to pay attention to this particular
aspect of actually dancing.

Sincerely,

Ridge


Ridge Kennedy [Exit 145]

Hey -- I wrote a book! *Murder & Miss Austen's Ball. *
It's a novel with musical accompaniment. Now that's different.

Read all about it here! 


On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 8:57 AM Gabrielle Taylor via Contra Callers <
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> As a member of the LGBT community, my view (personal, from talking to
> others, and from votes in local contra dances in Western Massachusetts) is
> it's very good to have a consistent term that isn't inherently gendered.
>
> After local debate and dance-specific polls, we've been using larks and
> robins/ravens here since about 2018, and I think it's been a big
> improvement over ladies/gents. Larks and robins are my personal preference,
> since it's what everyone here is used to, and I at least don't have enough
> bird knowledge to get confused about robins or larks having some inherent
> gendering. I don't have any cultural stance against positional calling, but
> the confusion of "lefts allemande right" seems a lot worse than learning
> new terms.
>
> Thanks,
> Gabrielle
>
> On Feb 9, 2023, at 13:45, Jim Thaxter via Contra Callers <
> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Just a thought, but has anyone checked with the lgbtq community about what
> terms they would like to have used?
>
> Another thought, someone mentioned earlier in the thread that the
> terminology issue had been discussed thoroughly some time ago and the
> decision had been made to go with the birds. I don’t remember seeing or
> hearing about a general survey sent out to all the CDSS affiliates or any
> other general list of dance groups around the country or world vetting that
> decision
>
> Personally, I’m exploring positional calling. Just my gut feeling, but I
> think fewer people would be challenged by right/left directional calls than
> by being called bird names.
>
> Jim Thaxter
> Columbia, MO
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 6:31 AM Amy Cann via Contra Callers <
> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> Since no one else has mentioned this, I'll just say that my entire
>> personal difficulty with birds comes from fairy tales and ornithology.
>>
>> When we say "robin" we are mostly thinking about that bird with the
>> "red breast", right? Not something kinda reddish-b

[Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')

[Allison Jonjak via Contra Callers]

I don't have a cultural stance against positional calling, but I do have
the "right/left" equivalent of dyslexic (if you say turn right/left as I'm
driving, I get it wrong about 70% of the time, and I work around it by
navigating with NSEW or a map.) I was able to learn dancing by feel and by
momentum of the dance ('this feels like it will be a right allemande') and
I was often late when I was learning until I had a good "translation"
system in place / until I had developed a sense of dance flow. So I'm
personally pretty fearful of "lefts allemande right"--it will be *workable *for
me as a dancer* because I already learned how things "feel" using roles*.
But I will never attempt calling it (recipe for disaster), and I'm pretty
confident that if I was learning dancing as a newbie and got the sentence
'lefts allemande right' I would have given up and not come back.

So for me, the birds are the obvious solution, positional calling feels
totally not compatible with my particular handicap. I have no idea how
common "left right dyslexia" is, so it could be that the 'right choice' is
to override people in my shoes--there may simply not be very many of us.
(In fact, I haven't heard anyone else say this yet, which is why I felt
compelled to write).

On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 7:56 AM Gabrielle Taylor via Contra Callers <
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> As a member of the LGBT community, my view (personal, from talking to
> others, and from votes in local contra dances in Western Massachusetts) is
> it's very good to have a consistent term that isn't inherently gendered.
>
> After local debate and dance-specific polls, we've been using larks and
> robins/ravens here since about 2018, and I think it's been a big
> improvement over ladies/gents. Larks and robins are my personal preference,
> since it's what everyone here is used to, and I at least don't have enough
> bird knowledge to get confused about robins or larks having some inherent
> gendering. I don't have any cultural stance against positional calling, but
> the confusion of "lefts allemande right" seems a lot worse than learning
> new terms.
>
> Thanks,
> Gabrielle
>
> On Feb 9, 2023, at 13:45, Jim Thaxter via Contra Callers <
> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Just a thought, but has anyone checked with the lgbtq community about what
> terms they would like to have used?
>
> Another thought, someone mentioned earlier in the thread that the
> terminology issue had been discussed thoroughly some time ago and the
> decision had been made to go with the birds. I don’t remember seeing or
> hearing about a general survey sent out to all the CDSS affiliates or any
> other general list of dance groups around the country or world vetting that
> decision
>
> Personally, I’m exploring positional calling. Just my gut feeling, but I
> think fewer people would be challenged by right/left directional calls than
> by being called bird names.
>
> Jim Thaxter
> Columbia, MO
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 6:31 AM Amy Cann via Contra Callers <
> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> Since no one else has mentioned this, I'll just say that my entire
>> personal difficulty with birds comes from fairy tales and ornithology.
>>
>> When we say "robin" we are mostly thinking about that bird with the
>> "red breast", right? Not something kinda reddish-brownish? That's the
>> male. In my childhood I read any number of books with
>> anthropomorphised birds, and Mister Robin Redbreast was male. In a
>> bunch of the stories there was also small, sweet-singing female lark.
>>
>> Add to that that in the states the robin is a different bird from in
>> the UK, and much larger, I've got two good reasons to think of the
>> robin as being the "male" role. My brain weighs the imagery and
>> memories against that silly little detail of starting with "R" or "L"
>> and defaults obstinately  to the exact wrong conclusion every time.
>> EVERY time. It's somewhat maddening. But "Ravens" was even worse,
>> because ravens are black and men in formal clothing dress in black, so
>> I guess things are better now??
>>
>> Whew. Change is hard.
>>
>> On 2/9/23, Peghesley via Contra Callers
>>  wrote:
>> > Bree, I’m making the same change as well and am calling without
>> reference to
>> > role and don’t need bird terms. Louise Siddons’ position is a compelling
>> > one.
>> >
>> > Peg Hesley
>> > www.peghesley.com
>> >
>> > Sent from my iPhone using voice recognition
>> >
>> >> On Feb 8, 2023, at 7:04 PM, Bree Kalb via Contra Callers
>> >>  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 
>> >> I made the same changes Chrissy did and for the same reason.  I think
>> it
>> >> was 4-5 years ago when I switched from M and W to Gents and Ladies.
>> And
>> >> it seems to me that almost all the local callers did the same.
>> >>
>> >> ( Now I’m calling without reference to gender or role. Louise Siddons
>> >> booklet “Dance the Whole Dance” from CDSS describes well what many of
>> us
>> >> are learning to d

[Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')

[Gabrielle Taylor via Contra Callers]

As a member of the LGBT community, my view (personal, from talking to others, 
and from votes in local contra dances in Western Massachusetts) is it's very 
good to have a consistent term that isn't inherently gendered.

After local debate and dance-specific polls, we've been using larks and 
robins/ravens here since about 2018, and I think it's been a big improvement 
over ladies/gents. Larks and robins are my personal preference, since it's what 
everyone here is used to, and I at least don't have enough bird knowledge to 
get confused about robins or larks having some inherent gendering. I don't have 
any cultural stance against positional calling, but the confusion of "lefts 
allemande right" seems a lot worse than learning new terms.

Thanks,
Gabrielle

> On Feb 9, 2023, at 13:45, Jim Thaxter via Contra Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Just a thought, but has anyone checked with the lgbtq community about what 
> terms they would like to have used?
> 
> Another thought, someone mentioned earlier in the thread that the terminology 
> issue had been discussed thoroughly some time ago and the decision had been 
> made to go with the birds. I don’t remember seeing or hearing about a general 
> survey sent out to all the CDSS affiliates or any other general list of dance 
> groups around the country or world vetting that decision
> 
> Personally, I’m exploring positional calling. Just my gut feeling, but I 
> think fewer people would be challenged by right/left directional calls than 
> by being called bird names.
> 
> Jim Thaxter
> Columbia, MO
> 
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 6:31 AM Amy Cann via Contra Callers 
>  > wrote:
> Since no one else has mentioned this, I'll just say that my entire
> personal difficulty with birds comes from fairy tales and ornithology.
> 
> When we say "robin" we are mostly thinking about that bird with the
> "red breast", right? Not something kinda reddish-brownish? That's the
> male. In my childhood I read any number of books with
> anthropomorphised birds, and Mister Robin Redbreast was male. In a
> bunch of the stories there was also small, sweet-singing female lark.
> 
> Add to that that in the states the robin is a different bird from in
> the UK, and much larger, I've got two good reasons to think of the
> robin as being the "male" role. My brain weighs the imagery and
> memories against that silly little detail of starting with "R" or "L"
> and defaults obstinately  to the exact wrong conclusion every time.
> EVERY time. It's somewhat maddening. But "Ravens" was even worse,
> because ravens are black and men in formal clothing dress in black, so
> I guess things are better now??
> 
> Whew. Change is hard.
> 
> On 2/9/23, Peghesley via Contra Callers
>  > wrote:
> > Bree, I’m making the same change as well and am calling without reference to
> > role and don’t need bird terms. Louise Siddons’ position is a compelling
> > one.
> >
> > Peg Hesley
> > www.peghesley.com 
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone using voice recognition
> >
> >> On Feb 8, 2023, at 7:04 PM, Bree Kalb via Contra Callers
> >>  >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> 
> >> I made the same changes Chrissy did and for the same reason.  I think it
> >> was 4-5 years ago when I switched from M and W to Gents and Ladies.  And
> >> it seems to me that almost all the local callers did the same.
> >>
> >> ( Now I’m calling without reference to gender or role. Louise Siddons
> >> booklet “Dance the Whole Dance” from CDSS describes well what many of us
> >> are learning to do.)
> >>
> >> If it matters, my dance community is in a progressive/liberal area, so
> >> calling styles here might be different than in other places.
> >>
> >> Bree Kalb
> >> Carrboro, NC
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 8:18 PM Jacob or Nancy Bloom via Contra Callers
> >>  >> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> At the Ralph Page Legacy day last month, Chrissy Fowler did a session in
> >>> which she called dances as she called them at different times in her
> >>> career.  In it, she talked about how, at one point, she and other female
> >>> callers were insisting on the term "women" because they weren't ladies,
> >>> and then several years later they were insisting on the term "ladies"
> >>> because that was understood to be the name of a role.
> >>>
> >>> I can't give a year when it happened, but I do believe I remember a time
> >>> when at least some callers were making it explicitly clear that the terms
> >>> Gents and Ladies referred to roles, and anybody could dance either role.
> >>>
> >>> Jacob
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023, 2:29 PM Tony Parkes via Contra Callers
> >>>  >>> > wrote:
> 
>  I believe it’s in Myrtle Wilhite’s Lullaby of the Swing and other contra
>  dances, tunes, waltzes, and essays (Madison, WI, 1993). I 

[Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')

[Jim Thaxter via Contra Callers]

Just a thought, but has anyone checked with the lgbtq community about what
terms they would like to have used?

Another thought, someone mentioned earlier in the thread that the
terminology issue had been discussed thoroughly some time ago and the
decision had been made to go with the birds. I don’t remember seeing or
hearing about a general survey sent out to all the CDSS affiliates or any
other general list of dance groups around the country or world vetting that
decision

Personally, I’m exploring positional calling. Just my gut feeling, but I
think fewer people would be challenged by right/left directional calls than
by being called bird names.

Jim Thaxter
Columbia, MO

On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 6:31 AM Amy Cann via Contra Callers <
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Since no one else has mentioned this, I'll just say that my entire
> personal difficulty with birds comes from fairy tales and ornithology.
>
> When we say "robin" we are mostly thinking about that bird with the
> "red breast", right? Not something kinda reddish-brownish? That's the
> male. In my childhood I read any number of books with
> anthropomorphised birds, and Mister Robin Redbreast was male. In a
> bunch of the stories there was also small, sweet-singing female lark.
>
> Add to that that in the states the robin is a different bird from in
> the UK, and much larger, I've got two good reasons to think of the
> robin as being the "male" role. My brain weighs the imagery and
> memories against that silly little detail of starting with "R" or "L"
> and defaults obstinately  to the exact wrong conclusion every time.
> EVERY time. It's somewhat maddening. But "Ravens" was even worse,
> because ravens are black and men in formal clothing dress in black, so
> I guess things are better now??
>
> Whew. Change is hard.
>
> On 2/9/23, Peghesley via Contra Callers
>  wrote:
> > Bree, I’m making the same change as well and am calling without
> reference to
> > role and don’t need bird terms. Louise Siddons’ position is a compelling
> > one.
> >
> > Peg Hesley
> > www.peghesley.com
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone using voice recognition
> >
> >> On Feb 8, 2023, at 7:04 PM, Bree Kalb via Contra Callers
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> 
> >> I made the same changes Chrissy did and for the same reason.  I think it
> >> was 4-5 years ago when I switched from M and W to Gents and Ladies.  And
> >> it seems to me that almost all the local callers did the same.
> >>
> >> ( Now I’m calling without reference to gender or role. Louise Siddons
> >> booklet “Dance the Whole Dance” from CDSS describes well what many of us
> >> are learning to do.)
> >>
> >> If it matters, my dance community is in a progressive/liberal area, so
> >> calling styles here might be different than in other places.
> >>
> >> Bree Kalb
> >> Carrboro, NC
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 8:18 PM Jacob or Nancy Bloom via Contra Callers
> >>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> At the Ralph Page Legacy day last month, Chrissy Fowler did a session
> in
> >>> which she called dances as she called them at different times in her
> >>> career.  In it, she talked about how, at one point, she and other
> female
> >>> callers were insisting on the term "women" because they weren't ladies,
> >>> and then several years later they were insisting on the term "ladies"
> >>> because that was understood to be the name of a role.
> >>>
> >>> I can't give a year when it happened, but I do believe I remember a
> time
> >>> when at least some callers were making it explicitly clear that the
> terms
> >>> Gents and Ladies referred to roles, and anybody could dance either
> role.
> >>>
> >>> Jacob
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023, 2:29 PM Tony Parkes via Contra Callers
> >>>  wrote:
> 
>  I believe it’s in Myrtle Wilhite’s Lullaby of the Swing and other
> contra
>  dances, tunes, waltzes, and essays (Madison, WI, 1993). I can’t lay my
>  hand on my copy at the moment, but perhaps someone else has one.
> 
> 
> 
>  Tony Parkes
> 
>  Billerica, Mass.
> 
>  www.hands4.com
> 
>  New book! Square Dance Calling: An Old Art for a New Century
> 
>  (available now)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Mary Collins 
>  Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 2:11 PM
>  To: Jeff Kaufman 
>  Cc: Tony Parkes ; Joe Harrington
>  ; contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
>  Subject: Re: [Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')
> 
> 
> 
>  Jeff, me too...if you find it, share please.
> 
> 
> 
>  mary
> 
>  "And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those
> who
>  couldn't hear the music." - Nietzsche
> 
> 
> 
>  “Life is not about waiting for the storms to pass ... it's about
>  learning to dance in the rain!” ~ unknown
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 9:58 AM Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers
>   wrote:
> >
> > As

[Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')

[Amy Cann via Contra Callers]

Since no one else has mentioned this, I'll just say that my entire
personal difficulty with birds comes from fairy tales and ornithology.

When we say "robin" we are mostly thinking about that bird with the
"red breast", right? Not something kinda reddish-brownish? That's the
male. In my childhood I read any number of books with
anthropomorphised birds, and Mister Robin Redbreast was male. In a
bunch of the stories there was also small, sweet-singing female lark.

Add to that that in the states the robin is a different bird from in
the UK, and much larger, I've got two good reasons to think of the
robin as being the "male" role. My brain weighs the imagery and
memories against that silly little detail of starting with "R" or "L"
and defaults obstinately  to the exact wrong conclusion every time.
EVERY time. It's somewhat maddening. But "Ravens" was even worse,
because ravens are black and men in formal clothing dress in black, so
I guess things are better now??

Whew. Change is hard.

On 2/9/23, Peghesley via Contra Callers
 wrote:
> Bree, I’m making the same change as well and am calling without reference to
> role and don’t need bird terms. Louise Siddons’ position is a compelling
> one.
>
> Peg Hesley
> www.peghesley.com
>
> Sent from my iPhone using voice recognition
>
>> On Feb 8, 2023, at 7:04 PM, Bree Kalb via Contra Callers
>>  wrote:
>>
>> 
>> I made the same changes Chrissy did and for the same reason.  I think it
>> was 4-5 years ago when I switched from M and W to Gents and Ladies.  And
>> it seems to me that almost all the local callers did the same.
>>
>> ( Now I’m calling without reference to gender or role. Louise Siddons
>> booklet “Dance the Whole Dance” from CDSS describes well what many of us
>> are learning to do.)
>>
>> If it matters, my dance community is in a progressive/liberal area, so
>> calling styles here might be different than in other places.
>>
>> Bree Kalb
>> Carrboro, NC
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 8:18 PM Jacob or Nancy Bloom via Contra Callers
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> At the Ralph Page Legacy day last month, Chrissy Fowler did a session in
>>> which she called dances as she called them at different times in her
>>> career.  In it, she talked about how, at one point, she and other female
>>> callers were insisting on the term "women" because they weren't ladies,
>>> and then several years later they were insisting on the term "ladies"
>>> because that was understood to be the name of a role.
>>>
>>> I can't give a year when it happened, but I do believe I remember a time
>>> when at least some callers were making it explicitly clear that the terms
>>> Gents and Ladies referred to roles, and anybody could dance either role.
>>>
>>> Jacob
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023, 2:29 PM Tony Parkes via Contra Callers
>>>  wrote:

 I believe it’s in Myrtle Wilhite’s Lullaby of the Swing and other contra
 dances, tunes, waltzes, and essays (Madison, WI, 1993). I can’t lay my
 hand on my copy at the moment, but perhaps someone else has one.



 Tony Parkes

 Billerica, Mass.

 www.hands4.com

 New book! Square Dance Calling: An Old Art for a New Century

 (available now)





 From: Mary Collins 
 Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 2:11 PM
 To: Jeff Kaufman 
 Cc: Tony Parkes ; Joe Harrington
 ; contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
 Subject: Re: [Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')



 Jeff, me too...if you find it, share please.



 mary

 "And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who
 couldn't hear the music." - Nietzsche



 “Life is not about waiting for the storms to pass ... it's about
 learning to dance in the rain!” ~ unknown





 On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 9:58 AM Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers
  wrote:
>
> Aside: does anyone have a copy of the "I am not a lady" essay?  I'd be
> interested to read it.
>
>
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 9:54 AM Tony Parkes via Contra Callers
>  wrote:
>>
>> Joe Harrington wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > When I started dancing in the late 1980s… Callers were taking the
>> > revolutionary step of not calling "men" and "women" but rather using
>> > "ladies" and "gents", to signal that switching roles was ok, since
>> > nobody referred to themselves as a "lady" or a "gent" in casual
>> > conversation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Where was this, Joe? And are you talking about contra callers (rather
>> than ECD)? I can only speak about the NYC area in the 1960s and early
>> ’70s, and New England starting in the late ’60s and continuing to the
>> present. In both regions, square/contra callers (contras were a
>> subcategory of square dance until around 1975) universally used
>> “gents/ladies.” (I believe ECD te