Re: [Callers] Role term survey responses

[Aahz via Callers]

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017, Neal Schlein via Callers wrote:
>
> I do not want to replace gent and lady as terms, based on my own experience.

What I'd say is that what I want doesn't matter much.

> Some context: I've been dancing for between 29 and 37 years, depending on
> how you count--my parents met at a square dance and I grew up dancing.  

Somewhat similarly, I'm a second-generation dancer, although my parents
were more into folk dancing (they met on a hike).

> I am a happily married man and prefer to dance with women as partners and
> corners.  I don't mind dancing with men, but that's not what I go to dances
> for; if I wanted to get close to a bunch of sweaty guys, I'd play
> football.  If we're honest, we can admit that the vast majority of our
> general dancers (both new and old) are probably similar.  So why not let
> the dance reflect that?  That's more likely to win friends than taking a
> wonderful dance with character and making it into  "gender free diet
> crystal contra."

Normally I make a point of avoiding any discussion of my gender and
sexual preferences, but because it's relevant here: I'm cisgender male
and heterosexual.

Like Neal, my personal preference is to have women as partners
(regardless of whether I'm dancing boy or girl -- and particularly in
contra I'll happily gender-swap near-constantly).  But I want my contra
community to be inclusive, and because of the kyriarchical society we
live in, I am happy to lose some of my preference to encourage greater
participation from groups who would not be comfortable with hetero- and
other kinds of normativity.

[Not going to bother discussing Neal's points about gender styling; it's
something that I don't care about.]
-- 
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
  <*>   <*>   <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html

Re: [Callers] Role term survey responses

[Alexandra Deis-Lauby via Callers]

Neal, Can you clarify?  Do you mean that you dance differently depending on
which side you begin the dance on? How does your style change?

Thanks,
Alex

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> I have danced at a bunch of genderfree dances, as well as my home dance
> having a lot of people who dance both roles. I can't say I've ever had this
> "diet contra" experience.
>
> My home dance is widely known among musicians and callers as a lively
> crowd who brings good energy to performers. Proper and improper have little
> relevance, but that doesn't stop a seeming endless supply of new
> choreography being generated and called by various callers. Does it really
> matter if I'm allemanding or swinging with a particular gender? I guess a
> person can still choose to only dance with one gender if they really felt
> strongly.
>
> But saying that genderfree dancing is bland? I mean, it's a folk community
> dance. The whole point is we all dance in one big set together. If dancing
> only to swing people of one gender means so much that contra is "diet"
> without it, I would ask what exactly contra means to you?
>
>
> Best regards,
> Ron Blechner
>
>
>
> On Feb 13, 2017 6:17 PM, "Woody Lane via Callers" <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> I basically agree with Neal. I would not want to replace gents and ladies
> with other arbitrary terms. For many of the same reasons.
>
> Woody
>
> --
> Woody Lane
> Caller, Percussive Dancer
> Roseburg, Oregon
> http://www.woodylanecaller.com
> home: 541-440-1926 <(541)%20440-1926> cell: 541-556-0054
> <(541)%20556-0054>
> --
>
> On 2/13/2017 2:51 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers wrote:
>
> I do not want to replace gent and lady as terms, based on my own
> experience.
>
> Some context: I've been dancing for between 29 and 37 years, depending on
> how you count--my parents met at a square dance and I grew up dancing.  I
> started calling about 18 years ago, and dance/call ECD, Scottish, squares,
> contra, ballroom, and folk styles at varying levels of proficiency.  Seeing
> a man dancing the lady's role, or a woman dancing the gent's role, has
> never, ever phased me.  It's fun to swap, requires technical skill, speaks
> well of a dancer who can do it well stylistically, and sometimes is
> necessary to fill out a set.  It is also an important skill for any caller,
> and one callers need to know how to handle when it happens in special
> situations; the callers I grew up with talked about when they first
> encountered gay or one-gender crowds in the 60s and how they struggled to
> adjust on the fly.
>
> That said, I first encountered "gender-free" dancing at a Heather and Rose
> (?) ECD dance outside of Eugene, Oregon about 15 years ago.  I didn't know
> what I was walking into, and thought it was a normal ECD event until they
> lined up and started teaching.
>
> They used several dances I was familiar with; I had been teaching some
> older ECD dances for a graduate folklore class and recently returned from
> Berea's Christmas Country Dance School.  Aside from momentary confusion,
> adapting to the unfamiliar terminology and random line-up was not a problem
> for me.
>
> What I couldn't adapt to was how being made "gender free" changed the
> character of the dances I knew.  They became less elegant, less
> interesting, and were lessened overall.  Switching between an A and a B
> position meant nothing aside from (possibly) a slightly different floor
> pattern.  Proper and improper had no relevance.  There was no stylistic
> mastery needed to switch dance sides because any clue as to historically
> demanded or intended stylistic differences had been stripped out--there
> weren't even ROLES anymore, merely positions; there was nothing to hold
> onto even as a guideline for playacting.  The dances completely lost their
> flavor and character.  They became like Caffeine Free Diet Crystal Coke.
> (I mean, honestly...WHY WAS THAT EVER MADE?  Just drink water!)
>
> Other folks may certainly disagree with me, and I have followed and agree
> with the many counterpoints, but I personally believe that the terms
> "gentlemen" and "ladies" (and their derivatives) positively influence how
> people behave and relate, and definitely how a dance is done.  I don't
> worry about that at special or family events, of course; I just want
> everyone to get up and have a good time.  But encouraging folks to learn
> both roles to become better dancers is only meaningful if there is a
> meaningful difference between the roles.
>
> I am a happily married man and prefer to dance with women as partners and
> corners.  I don't mind dancing with men, but that's not what I go to dances
> for; if I wanted to get close to a bunch of sweaty guys, I'd play
> football.  If we're honest, we can admit that the vast majority of our
> general dancers (both new and old) are probably similar.  So why not let
> the dance reflect

Re: [Callers] Role term survey responses

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

I have danced at a bunch of genderfree dances, as well as my home dance
having a lot of people who dance both roles. I can't say I've ever had this
"diet contra" experience.

My home dance is widely known among musicians and callers as a lively crowd
who brings good energy to performers. Proper and improper have little
relevance, but that doesn't stop a seeming endless supply of new
choreography being generated and called by various callers. Does it really
matter if I'm allemanding or swinging with a particular gender? I guess a
person can still choose to only dance with one gender if they really felt
strongly.

But saying that genderfree dancing is bland? I mean, it's a folk community
dance. The whole point is we all dance in one big set together. If dancing
only to swing people of one gender means so much that contra is "diet"
without it, I would ask what exactly contra means to you?


Best regards,
Ron Blechner



On Feb 13, 2017 6:17 PM, "Woody Lane via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

I basically agree with Neal. I would not want to replace gents and ladies
with other arbitrary terms. For many of the same reasons.

Woody

-- 
Woody Lane
Caller, Percussive Dancer
Roseburg, Oregon
http://www.woodylanecaller.com
home: 541-440-1926 <(541)%20440-1926> cell: 541-556-0054 <(541)%20556-0054>
--

On 2/13/2017 2:51 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers wrote:

I do not want to replace gent and lady as terms, based on my own experience.

Some context: I've been dancing for between 29 and 37 years, depending on
how you count--my parents met at a square dance and I grew up dancing.  I
started calling about 18 years ago, and dance/call ECD, Scottish, squares,
contra, ballroom, and folk styles at varying levels of proficiency.  Seeing
a man dancing the lady's role, or a woman dancing the gent's role, has
never, ever phased me.  It's fun to swap, requires technical skill, speaks
well of a dancer who can do it well stylistically, and sometimes is
necessary to fill out a set.  It is also an important skill for any caller,
and one callers need to know how to handle when it happens in special
situations; the callers I grew up with talked about when they first
encountered gay or one-gender crowds in the 60s and how they struggled to
adjust on the fly.

That said, I first encountered "gender-free" dancing at a Heather and Rose
(?) ECD dance outside of Eugene, Oregon about 15 years ago.  I didn't know
what I was walking into, and thought it was a normal ECD event until they
lined up and started teaching.

They used several dances I was familiar with; I had been teaching some
older ECD dances for a graduate folklore class and recently returned from
Berea's Christmas Country Dance School.  Aside from momentary confusion,
adapting to the unfamiliar terminology and random line-up was not a problem
for me.

What I couldn't adapt to was how being made "gender free" changed the
character of the dances I knew.  They became less elegant, less
interesting, and were lessened overall.  Switching between an A and a B
position meant nothing aside from (possibly) a slightly different floor
pattern.  Proper and improper had no relevance.  There was no stylistic
mastery needed to switch dance sides because any clue as to historically
demanded or intended stylistic differences had been stripped out--there
weren't even ROLES anymore, merely positions; there was nothing to hold
onto even as a guideline for playacting.  The dances completely lost their
flavor and character.  They became like Caffeine Free Diet Crystal Coke.
(I mean, honestly...WHY WAS THAT EVER MADE?  Just drink water!)

Other folks may certainly disagree with me, and I have followed and agree
with the many counterpoints, but I personally believe that the terms
"gentlemen" and "ladies" (and their derivatives) positively influence how
people behave and relate, and definitely how a dance is done.  I don't
worry about that at special or family events, of course; I just want
everyone to get up and have a good time.  But encouraging folks to learn
both roles to become better dancers is only meaningful if there is a
meaningful difference between the roles.

I am a happily married man and prefer to dance with women as partners and
corners.  I don't mind dancing with men, but that's not what I go to dances
for; if I wanted to get close to a bunch of sweaty guys, I'd play
football.  If we're honest, we can admit that the vast majority of our
general dancers (both new and old) are probably similar.  So why not let
the dance reflect that?  That's more likely to win friends than taking a
wonderful dance with character and making it into  "gender free diet
crystal contra."

Just my 2 cents.
Neal

Neal Schlein
Youth Services Librarian, Mahomet Public Library


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

Re: [Callers] Role term survey responses

[Woody Lane via Callers]

I basically agree with Neal. I would not want to replace gents and 
ladies with other arbitrary terms. For many of the same reasons.


Woody

--
Woody Lane
Caller, Percussive Dancer
Roseburg, Oregon
http://www.woodylanecaller.com
home: 541-440-1926 cell: 541-556-0054


On 2/13/2017 2:51 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers wrote:
I do not want to replace gent and lady as terms, based on my own 
experience.


Some context: I've been dancing for between 29 and 37 years, depending 
on how you count--my parents met at a square dance and I grew up 
dancing.  I started calling about 18 years ago, and dance/call ECD, 
Scottish, squares, contra, ballroom, and folk styles at varying levels 
of proficiency.  Seeing a man dancing the lady's role, or a woman 
dancing the gent's role, has never, ever phased me. It's fun to swap, 
requires technical skill, speaks well of a dancer who can do it well 
stylistically, and sometimes is necessary to fill out a set.  It is 
also an important skill for any caller, and one callers need to know 
how to handle when it happens in special situations; the callers I 
grew up with talked about when they first encountered gay or 
one-gender crowds in the 60s and how they struggled to adjust on the fly.


That said, I first encountered "gender-free" dancing at a Heather and 
Rose (?) ECD dance outside of Eugene, Oregon about 15 years ago.  I 
didn't know what I was walking into, and thought it was a normal ECD 
event until they lined up and started teaching.


They used several dances I was familiar with; I had been teaching some 
older ECD dances for a graduate folklore class and recently returned 
from Berea's Christmas Country Dance School.  Aside from momentary 
confusion, adapting to the unfamiliar terminology and random line-up 
was not a problem for me.


What I couldn't adapt to was how being made "gender free" changed the 
character of the dances I knew.  They became less elegant, less 
interesting, and were lessened overall. Switching between an A and a B 
position meant nothing aside from (possibly) a slightly different 
floor pattern.  Proper and improper had no relevance.  There was no 
stylistic mastery needed to switch dance sides because any clue as to 
historically demanded or intended stylistic differences had been 
stripped out--there weren't even ROLES anymore, merely positions; 
there was nothing to hold onto even as a guideline for playacting.  
The dances completely lost their flavor and character.  They became 
like Caffeine Free Diet Crystal Coke. (I mean, honestly...WHY WAS THAT 
EVER MADE?  Just drink water!)


Other folks may certainly disagree with me, and I have followed and 
agree with the many counterpoints, but I personally believe that the 
terms "gentlemen" and "ladies" (and their derivatives) positively 
influence how people behave and relate, and definitely how a dance is 
done.  I don't worry about that at special or family events, of 
course; I just want everyone to get up and have a good time.  But 
encouraging folks to learn both roles to become better dancers is only 
meaningful if there is a meaningful difference between the roles.


I am a happily married man and prefer to dance with women as partners 
and corners.  I don't mind dancing with men, but that's not what I go 
to dances for; if I wanted to get close to a bunch of sweaty guys, I'd 
play football.  If we're honest, we can admit that the vast majority 
of our general dancers (both new and old) are probably similar.  So 
why not let the dance reflect that?  That's more likely to win friends 
than taking a wonderful dance with character and making it into  
"gender free diet crystal contra."


Just my 2 cents.
Neal

Neal Schlein
Youth Services Librarian, Mahomet Public Library

Re: [Callers] Role term survey responses

[Neal Schlein via Callers]

I do not want to replace gent and lady as terms, based on my own experience.

Some context: I've been dancing for between 29 and 37 years, depending on
how you count--my parents met at a square dance and I grew up dancing.  I
started calling about 18 years ago, and dance/call ECD, Scottish, squares,
contra, ballroom, and folk styles at varying levels of proficiency.  Seeing
a man dancing the lady's role, or a woman dancing the gent's role, has
never, ever phased me.  It's fun to swap, requires technical skill, speaks
well of a dancer who can do it well stylistically, and sometimes is
necessary to fill out a set.  It is also an important skill for any caller,
and one callers need to know how to handle when it happens in special
situations; the callers I grew up with talked about when they first
encountered gay or one-gender crowds in the 60s and how they struggled to
adjust on the fly.

That said, I first encountered "gender-free" dancing at a Heather and Rose
(?) ECD dance outside of Eugene, Oregon about 15 years ago.  I didn't know
what I was walking into, and thought it was a normal ECD event until they
lined up and started teaching.

They used several dances I was familiar with; I had been teaching some
older ECD dances for a graduate folklore class and recently returned from
Berea's Christmas Country Dance School.  Aside from momentary confusion,
adapting to the unfamiliar terminology and random line-up was not a problem
for me.

What I couldn't adapt to was how being made "gender free" changed the
character of the dances I knew.  They became less elegant, less
interesting, and were lessened overall.  Switching between an A and a B
position meant nothing aside from (possibly) a slightly different floor
pattern.  Proper and improper had no relevance.  There was no stylistic
mastery needed to switch dance sides because any clue as to historically
demanded or intended stylistic differences had been stripped out--there
weren't even ROLES anymore, merely positions; there was nothing to hold
onto even as a guideline for playacting.  The dances completely lost their
flavor and character.  They became like Caffeine Free Diet Crystal Coke.
(I mean, honestly...WHY WAS THAT EVER MADE?  Just drink water!)


Other folks may certainly disagree with me, and I have followed and agree
with the many counterpoints, but I personally believe that the terms
"gentlemen" and "ladies" (and their derivatives) positively influence how
people behave and relate, and definitely how a dance is done.  I don't
worry about that at special or family events, of course; I just want
everyone to get up and have a good time.  But encouraging folks to learn
both roles to become better dancers is only meaningful if there is a
meaningful difference between the roles.

I am a happily married man and prefer to dance with women as partners and
corners.  I don't mind dancing with men, but that's not what I go to dances
for; if I wanted to get close to a bunch of sweaty guys, I'd play
football.  If we're honest, we can admit that the vast majority of our
general dancers (both new and old) are probably similar.  So why not let
the dance reflect that?  That's more likely to win friends than taking a
wonderful dance with character and making it into  "gender free diet
crystal contra."

Just my 2 cents.
Neal



Neal Schlein
Youth Services Librarian, Mahomet Public Library


Currently reading: *The Different Girl* by Gordon Dahlquist
Currently learning: How to set up an automated email system.

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:52 AM, David A Kaynor via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> I’ve yet to personally encounter a request for terminology usage with
> which I can’t comfortably work.  If an organizer(s) wants me to use “jets”
> and “rubies”, I’ll do it.
>
> Absent such a request, I usually state that my own use of the terms “gent”
> and “lady” has to do with choreography, not biology, and anyone can dance
> either role.  I often say, “In your partnership, whoever wants to dance the
> lady’s (gent’s) role stand on the right (left)”, and, in walk-throughs,
> “whoever’s being the lady (gent) __ (chain; allemande left; pass right
> shoulders; dos-a-dos; etc., etc.)”.
>
> Experienced dancers often contradict this advisory when they insist that a
> couple who haven’t crossed while waiting out at the end do so.  In most
> instances, I believe the intent to be helpful, rather than homophobic.
>
> At family dances, when setting up a basic longways dance, I’ve long
> referred to one line as the “wolves” and the other as the "bears”.  The
> animated howling and growling which usually ensue feel compatible with a
> light-hearted party atmosphere free of restrictive expectations and
> prejudices.  I often wind up using the terms throughout the event.
>
> I like “global terminology” a lot and use it whenever practicable during a
> “regular” contra dance evening.  However, I do find locally accepted and
> familiar role identifiers to be greatly help

Re: [Callers] Role term survey responses

[David A Kaynor via Callers]

I’ve yet to personally encounter a request for terminology usage with which I 
can’t comfortably work.  If an organizer(s) wants me to use “jets” and 
“rubies”, I’ll do it.  

Absent such a request, I usually state that my own use of the terms “gent” and 
“lady” has to do with choreography, not biology, and anyone can dance either 
role.  I often say, “In your partnership, whoever wants to dance the lady’s 
(gent’s) role stand on the right (left)”, and, in walk-throughs, “whoever’s 
being the lady (gent) __ (chain; allemande left; pass right shoulders; 
dos-a-dos; etc., etc.)”.

Experienced dancers often contradict this advisory when they insist that a 
couple who haven’t crossed while waiting out at the end do so.  In most 
instances, I believe the intent to be helpful, rather than homophobic.  

At family dances, when setting up a basic longways dance, I’ve long referred to 
one line as the “wolves” and the other as the "bears”.  The animated howling 
and growling which usually ensue feel compatible with a light-hearted party 
atmosphere free of restrictive expectations and prejudices.  I often wind up 
using the terms throughout the event. 
  
I like “global terminology” a lot and use it whenever practicable during a 
“regular” contra dance evening.  However, I do find locally accepted and 
familiar role identifiers to be greatly helpful to the teaching/learning 
process in some circumstances.  

I think a lot about the belief that replacing the “gent” and “lady” everywhere 
would result in more people contra dancing.  I suppose we’ll never know unless 
we try.  I’m not sure why I’m not yet sure I want to.

David Kaynor


 
> On Feb 13, 2017, at 10:30 AM, Aahz via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017, Read Weaver via Callers wrote:
>> 
>> As far as I know, all of the ongoing gender-free English country
>> dances use a different system, "global terminology." It's based on
>> current position rather than role, and so doesn't have to use a
>> substitute for gents/ladies. There are a small number of dances for
>> which it's awkward, though I've had callers present me with something
>> they couldn't figure out the global terminology for and I've usually
>> been able to, usually resulting in easier teaching and calling than
>> the gendered version. There was one ongoing contra dance decades ago
>> that used a similar system.
> 
> You have any examples?  Both the original and the converted version?
> -- 
> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
>  <*>   <*>   <*>
> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Role term survey responses

[Read Weaver via Callers]

I occasionally teach but don’t call, so I don’t have cards—there are GF ECD 
callers on the list who may have more to add.

First, a lot of ECDs are written without any reference to gender anyway—the 
dances often just work like that.

An example of a conversion: Fried de Metz Herman’s The Archbishop (a 4-couple 
set dance) begins
First man and fourth woman cast L one place
which becomes
Long first diagonals cast L one place

Three words instead of five, it references a twosome rather than two 
individuals, and places them in a context, better (I’d argue) showing the 
pattern of the whole dance. And imagine calling using the original version.
(btw, I’m looking at someone else’s description of the dance—I don’t know how 
Fried wrote it. But someone is describing it the first way.)

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

> On Feb 13, 2017, at 10:30 AM, Aahz via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017, Read Weaver via Callers wrote:
>> 
>> As far as I know, all of the ongoing gender-free English country
>> dances use a different system, "global terminology." It's based on
>> current position rather than role, and so doesn't have to use a
>> substitute for gents/ladies. There are a small number of dances for
>> which it's awkward, though I've had callers present me with something
>> they couldn't figure out the global terminology for and I've usually
>> been able to, usually resulting in easier teaching and calling than
>> the gendered version. There was one ongoing contra dance decades ago
>> that used a similar system.
> 
> You have any examples?  Both the original and the converted version?
> -- 
> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
>  <*>   <*>   <*>
> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Role term survey responses

[John W Gintell via Callers]

> On Feb 13, 2017, at 10:30 AM, Aahz via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017, Read Weaver via Callers wrote:
>> 
>> As far as I know, all of the ongoing gender-free English country
>> dances use a different system, "global terminology." It's based on
>> current position rather than role, and so doesn't have to use a
>> substitute for gents/ladies. There are a small number of dances for
>> which it's awkward, though I've had callers present me with something
>> they couldn't figure out the global terminology for and I've usually
>> been able to, usually resulting in easier teaching and calling than
>> the gendered version. There was one ongoing contra dance decades ago
>> that used a similar system.
> 
> You have any examples?  Both the original and the converted version?


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

Here is the JP English description - as written by Read a few years agp:

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

And the Heather and Rose description:

  http://heatherandrose.org/terms.shtml

John Gintell

Re: [Callers] Role term survey responses

[Aahz via Callers]

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017, Read Weaver via Callers wrote:
>
> As far as I know, all of the ongoing gender-free English country
> dances use a different system, "global terminology." It's based on
> current position rather than role, and so doesn't have to use a
> substitute for gents/ladies. There are a small number of dances for
> which it's awkward, though I've had callers present me with something
> they couldn't figure out the global terminology for and I've usually
> been able to, usually resulting in easier teaching and calling than
> the gendered version. There was one ongoing contra dance decades ago
> that used a similar system.

You have any examples?  Both the original and the converted version?
-- 
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
  <*>   <*>   <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html

Re: [Callers] Role term survey responses

[Jeff Kaufman via Callers]

I danced email ECD to Jets/Rubies once, I belive at YDW 2014.

On Feb 13, 2017 1:38 AM, "Read Weaver via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> As far as I know, all of the ongoing gender-free English country dances
> use a different system, “global terminology.” It’s based on current
> position rather than role, and so doesn’t have to use a substitute for
> gents/ladies. There are a small number of dances for which it’s awkward,
> though I’ve had callers present me with something they couldn’t figure out
> the global terminology for and I’ve usually been able to, usually resulting
> in easier teaching and calling than the gendered version. There was one
> ongoing contra dance decades ago that used a similar system.
> Two discussions of the terminology: http://heatherandrose.org/about.shtml
>  and http://lcfd.org/gf-ecd-calling-conventions.html
> and an experience from quite a while back: http://www.
> henryandjacqui.com/Essays/GenderFree.htm
>
> Read Weaver
> Jamaica Plain, MA
> http://lcfd.org
>
> On Feb 12, 2017, at 5:59 PM, P. Campbell via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> ...
> Do you know if the ECD world is going through these issues?
> ...
> Patricia Campbell
> Newtown, CT
>
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>

Re: [Callers] Role term survey responses

[Read Weaver via Callers]

As far as I know, all of the ongoing gender-free English country dances use a 
different system, “global terminology.” It’s based on current position rather 
than role, and so doesn’t have to use a substitute for gents/ladies. There are 
a small number of dances for which it’s awkward, though I’ve had callers 
present me with something they couldn’t figure out the global terminology for 
and I’ve usually been able to, usually resulting in easier teaching and calling 
than the gendered version. There was one ongoing contra dance decades ago that 
used a similar system.
Two discussions of the terminology: http://heatherandrose.org/about.shtml 
 and 
http://lcfd.org/gf-ecd-calling-conventions.html 
 
and an experience from quite a while back: 
http://www.henryandjacqui.com/Essays/GenderFree.htm 


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

> On Feb 12, 2017, at 5:59 PM, P. Campbell via Callers 
>  wrote:
> ...
> Do you know if the ECD world is going through these issues?
> ...
> Patricia Campbell 
> Newtown, CT

Re: [Callers] Role term survey responses

[P. Campbell via Callers]

This is very interesting information from the questions you posed.

If I were going to use either, I would probably lean towards jets and rubies 
(though I have nothing against larks and ravens) for one main reason - 
In both French and Spanish (I'm not sure of any other language at this moment), 
the word Lark is a feminine noun and the word Raven is a masculine noun. 

Aside from the difficulties I imagine when I'm leading the historical dances, 
for contemporary circle, square, and longways it would be a major challenge to 
my brain to connect a left-side-historically-gent-position with a feminine noun 
(speaking enough if the language for that to interfere) or a 
right/side-historically-lady-position with a masculine noun.

Jets and rubies have more of a sound appeal to my ear (totally personal 
preference ), though I still feel we're only substituting a new set of words 
for words that apparently make some people uncomfortable. I don't know how long 
it would take for me to see them as gender neutral terms and not just layered 
over "gents & ladies", which were the roles the dances originated in, except 
perhaps for the gender-free dances written explicitly that way in recent years.

That said, I do primarily community/family/school dances and historical dances, 
not the monthly contra dances, and I have my own workarounds when I need to use 
them.

Do you know if the ECD world is going through these issues?

P.S. I would never use lead/follow.

Patricia Campbell 
Newtown, CT

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 12, 2017, at 9:03 AM, Jeff Kaufman via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> As part of thinking about how whether non-gendered terms would work for 
> mainstream contra dances, I thought it would be good to ask callers what they 
> thought. Is it something where most callers were only willing to call 
> Gents/Ladies, or are they more flexible? Do they generally support this sort 
> of change, or do they think it's a bad idea?
> 
> I wrote to people who have called BIDA in the last year, plus the ones who 
> are currently booked, to ask them whether:
> 
> A dance like BIDA switching to gender free terms is better, worse, or about 
> the same.
> They have a preference between Larks/Ravens and Jets/Rubies.
> They would be willing to call Larks/Ravens or Jets/Rubies if a dance required 
> that.
> Of the 18 callers I wrote to, 17 responded. Of them, all but one was willing 
> to call Larks/Ravens or Jets/Rubies, though several said (without my having 
> suggested it) that they wouldn't be willing to call Lead/Follow.
> 
> Many of the respondents didn't say whether they were in favor of the switch. 
> Of the 11 who did respond, it was 5x yes, 3x ambivalent, and 3x no.
> 
> Nine callers preferred Jets/Rubies because they find it easier to say, but no 
> one so much that they were willing to call Jets/Rubies but not Larks/Ravens.
> 
> Some freeform responses, lightly edited:
> 
> "I prefer Jets/Rubies, but only slightly. I can see the benefit of 'L'/'R' 
> matching the default swing ending position with the initial letters but I 
> think I'd make fewer mistakes with Jets/Rubies. Not enough to sway a decision 
> though.
> 
> "My personal preference is for Jets/Rubies, but that's just because it's 
> easier for me to say right now. I'm sure that if I practiced Larks/Ravens 
> would be fine too. If the point of using gender free terms is to distance the 
> roles even further from gender, than I'd go with Larks/Ravens. Jets/Rubies 
> sounds very similar to Gents/Ladies, and some callers slip up and say 'Gents' 
> for 'Jets'."
> 
> "The birds are arbitrary terms and seem to have fewer unwanted(?) 
> associations than the rock terms. So I'm for the birds."
> 
> "I'm not wildly positive about either Larks/Ravens or Jets/Rubies, but if I 
> had to choose one set, it would be Larks/Ravens. To me, Jets/Rubies carries a 
> lot of baggage: It sounds enough like Gents/Ladies that it invites the 
> reaction 'Who are they trying to kid?' The lack of logical association 
> between jewels (inanimate objects) and dancing (an intimate human activity) 
> makes the use of Jets/Rubies feel as if the series is being run by an 
> in-group with a secret language. (I realize the two foregoing reactions are 
> contradictory, but these are gut reactions, not necessarily rational ones.) 
> Also, 'Jets' makes me think of the gang in West Side Story, and also of 
> airplanes (more inanimate objects). To sum up, the word in a dance context 
> has no positive associations for me, and some negative ones. Larks/Ravens has 
> no baggage for me, doesn't reinforce gender stereotypes, and has a built-in 
> mnemonic with the L/R initials."
> 
> "Enough people are offended by 'Jets' sounding too close to 'Gents' that I 
> think Larks/Ravens is a much easier sell."
> 
> "My preference would be Jets/Rubies, because the sound similarity to 
> traditional terms make the transition easier. (I understand that that very 
> feature makes it the less desirable choice i

Re: [Callers] Role term survey responses

[Angela DeCarlis via Callers]

Thanks Jeff for putting together this survey! This is all really
interesting information.

On Feb 12, 2017 9:03 AM, "Jeff Kaufman via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> As part of thinking about how whether non-gendered terms would work for
> mainstream contra dances, I thought it would be good to ask callers what
> they thought. Is it something where most callers were only willing to call
> Gents/Ladies, or are they more flexible? Do they generally support this
> sort of change, or do they think it's a bad idea?
>
> I wrote to people who have called BIDA in the last year, plus the ones who
> are currently booked, to ask them whether:
>
>
>- A dance like BIDA switching to gender free terms is better, worse,
>or about the same.
>- They have a preference between Larks/Ravens and Jets/Rubies.
>- They would be willing to call Larks/Ravens or Jets/Rubies if a dance
>required that.
>
> Of the 18 callers I wrote to, 17 responded. Of them, all but one was
> willing to call Larks/Ravens or Jets/Rubies, though several said (without
> my having suggested it) that they wouldn't be willing to call Lead/Follow.
>
> Many of the respondents didn't say whether they were in favor of the
> switch. Of the 11 who did respond, it was 5x yes, 3x ambivalent, and 3x no.
>
> Nine callers preferred Jets/Rubies because they find it easier to say, but
> no one so much that they were willing to call Jets/Rubies but not
> Larks/Ravens.
>
> Some freeform responses, lightly edited:
>
>-
>
>"I prefer Jets/Rubies, but only slightly. I can see the benefit of
>'L'/'R' matching the default swing ending position with the initial letters
>but I think I'd make fewer mistakes with Jets/Rubies. Not enough to sway a
>decision though.
>-
>
>"My personal preference is for Jets/Rubies, but that's just because
>it's easier for me to say right now. I'm sure that if I practiced
>Larks/Ravens would be fine too. If the point of using gender free terms is
>to distance the roles even further from gender, than I'd go with
>Larks/Ravens. Jets/Rubies sounds very similar to Gents/Ladies, and some
>callers slip up and say 'Gents' for 'Jets'."
>-
>
>"The birds are arbitrary terms and seem to have fewer unwanted(?)
>associations than the rock terms. So I'm for the birds."
>-
>
>"I'm not wildly positive about either Larks/Ravens or Jets/Rubies, but
>if I had to choose one set, it would be Larks/Ravens. To me, Jets/Rubies
>carries a lot of baggage: It sounds enough like Gents/Ladies that it
>invites the reaction 'Who are they trying to kid?' The lack of logical
>association between jewels (inanimate objects) and dancing (an intimate
>human activity) makes the use of Jets/Rubies feel as if the series is being
>run by an in-group with a secret language. (I realize the two foregoing
>reactions are contradictory, but these are gut reactions, not necessarily
>rational ones.) Also, 'Jets' makes me think of the gang in West Side Story,
>and also of airplanes (more inanimate objects). To sum up, the word in a
>dance context has no positive associations for me, and some negative ones.
>Larks/Ravens has no baggage for me, doesn't reinforce gender stereotypes,
>and has a built-in mnemonic with the L/R initials."
>-
>
>"Enough people are offended by 'Jets' sounding too close to 'Gents'
>that I think Larks/Ravens is a much easier sell."
>-
>
>"My preference would be Jets/Rubies, because the sound similarity to
>traditional terms make the transition easier. (I understand that that very
>feature makes it the less desirable choice in some people's view.)"
>-
>
>"As a caller who learned with Gents/Ladies, I find Jets/Rubies the
>easiest to use."
>-
>
>"I've never used Larks/Ravens. I've used Jets/Rubies, and felt fairly
>comfortable with it. Larks/Ravens makes more sense to me. Definitely happy
>to use either one."
>-
>
>"I have a preference for Jets/Rubies but the only terms I *will not
>use* are Leads/Follows."
>-
>
>"I don't have a preference between those two sets of terms. I am also
>comfortable with Lead/Follow, but know that this is also a challenging
>choice for some people and I understand why it's maybe not the best pick. I
>like it because those terms have dance connotations"
>-
>
>"I like Jets/Rubies because regular contra dancers from other places
>can come in and dance without needing anything to be explained to them
>since the terms are pretty similar to Gents/Ladies. Also, Larks/Ravens
>sounds a little silly."
>-
>
>"As far as Jets/Rubies vs Larks/Ravens, I like using Jets/Rubies
>because they sound almost the same as Gents/Ladies. For my rhymes and
>patter, it's a pretty easy substitution. But my first impression of the
>terms is that they are still kind of gendered, or at least can be
>

[Callers] Role term survey responses

[Jeff Kaufman via Callers]

As part of thinking about how whether non-gendered terms would work for
mainstream contra dances, I thought it would be good to ask callers what
they thought. Is it something where most callers were only willing to call
Gents/Ladies, or are they more flexible? Do they generally support this
sort of change, or do they think it's a bad idea?

I wrote to people who have called BIDA in the last year, plus the ones who
are currently booked, to ask them whether:


   - A dance like BIDA switching to gender free terms is better, worse, or
   about the same.
   - They have a preference between Larks/Ravens and Jets/Rubies.
   - They would be willing to call Larks/Ravens or Jets/Rubies if a dance
   required that.

Of the 18 callers I wrote to, 17 responded. Of them, all but one was
willing to call Larks/Ravens or Jets/Rubies, though several said (without
my having suggested it) that they wouldn't be willing to call Lead/Follow.

Many of the respondents didn't say whether they were in favor of the
switch. Of the 11 who did respond, it was 5x yes, 3x ambivalent, and 3x no.

Nine callers preferred Jets/Rubies because they find it easier to say, but
no one so much that they were willing to call Jets/Rubies but not
Larks/Ravens.

Some freeform responses, lightly edited:

   -

   "I prefer Jets/Rubies, but only slightly. I can see the benefit of
   'L'/'R' matching the default swing ending position with the initial letters
   but I think I'd make fewer mistakes with Jets/Rubies. Not enough to sway a
   decision though.
   -

   "My personal preference is for Jets/Rubies, but that's just because it's
   easier for me to say right now. I'm sure that if I practiced Larks/Ravens
   would be fine too. If the point of using gender free terms is to distance
   the roles even further from gender, than I'd go with Larks/Ravens.
   Jets/Rubies sounds very similar to Gents/Ladies, and some callers slip up
   and say 'Gents' for 'Jets'."
   -

   "The birds are arbitrary terms and seem to have fewer unwanted(?)
   associations than the rock terms. So I'm for the birds."
   -

   "I'm not wildly positive about either Larks/Ravens or Jets/Rubies, but
   if I had to choose one set, it would be Larks/Ravens. To me, Jets/Rubies
   carries a lot of baggage: It sounds enough like Gents/Ladies that it
   invites the reaction 'Who are they trying to kid?' The lack of logical
   association between jewels (inanimate objects) and dancing (an intimate
   human activity) makes the use of Jets/Rubies feel as if the series is being
   run by an in-group with a secret language. (I realize the two foregoing
   reactions are contradictory, but these are gut reactions, not necessarily
   rational ones.) Also, 'Jets' makes me think of the gang in West Side Story,
   and also of airplanes (more inanimate objects). To sum up, the word in a
   dance context has no positive associations for me, and some negative ones.
   Larks/Ravens has no baggage for me, doesn't reinforce gender stereotypes,
   and has a built-in mnemonic with the L/R initials."
   -

   "Enough people are offended by 'Jets' sounding too close to 'Gents' that
   I think Larks/Ravens is a much easier sell."
   -

   "My preference would be Jets/Rubies, because the sound similarity to
   traditional terms make the transition easier. (I understand that that very
   feature makes it the less desirable choice in some people's view.)"
   -

   "As a caller who learned with Gents/Ladies, I find Jets/Rubies the
   easiest to use."
   -

   "I've never used Larks/Ravens. I've used Jets/Rubies, and felt fairly
   comfortable with it. Larks/Ravens makes more sense to me. Definitely happy
   to use either one."
   -

   "I have a preference for Jets/Rubies but the only terms I *will not use* are
   Leads/Follows."
   -

   "I don't have a preference between those two sets of terms. I am also
   comfortable with Lead/Follow, but know that this is also a challenging
   choice for some people and I understand why it's maybe not the best pick. I
   like it because those terms have dance connotations"
   -

   "I like Jets/Rubies because regular contra dancers from other places can
   come in and dance without needing anything to be explained to them since
   the terms are pretty similar to Gents/Ladies. Also, Larks/Ravens sounds a
   little silly."
   -

   "As far as Jets/Rubies vs Larks/Ravens, I like using Jets/Rubies because
   they sound almost the same as Gents/Ladies. For my rhymes and patter, it's
   a pretty easy substitution. But my first impression of the terms is that
   they are still kind of gendered, or at least can be interpreted that.
   'Jets' sounds aggressive and masculine, and 'Rubies' are definitely
   feminine. "
   -

   "I can't imagine trying to turn a singing square gender free."
   -

   "From the point of view of a caller trying to get a new set of words out
   of my mouth when significant chunks of my teaching and prompting are
   automatic, I think that I would prefer Je