[Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?

John W Gintell via Callers callers at lists.sharedweight.net
Fri May 29 09:17:19 PDT 2015


It would be interesting to get some dancers' reactions to these various terminologies. 

Has anyone thought of using two different pairings in a dance evening and then asking the dancers which they thought was clearer to their ears and which they preferred? Of course this is even a bigger burden on the caller.

On May 29, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote:

> Erik, neat cheat.
> 
> For reference, my own thoughts on the terms, and a general FAQ about gender free terms:
> http://contradances.tumblr.com/post/113203981035/genderfree-contra-dance-term-faq
> 
> I have not updated it with gems / rubies.
> 
> I like jets / rubies, but I think gems / rubies is better:
> 
> 1. I disagree that the "em" sound is harder to hear than the "et" in jet. Good mic skills / having a foam pad on a mic will dull the sharp "ts" in "gents", and thus, "jets". Because a loud "ts" on the mic is harsh. Therefore, this argument against "gems" is not an issue.
> 
> 2. A lot of people don't know "jet" is a gemstone, and so they think airplane. I've had a lot of gender free dancers complain about this.  Given that the terms need to serve the LGBTQ community, and not merely us as callers, I take this complaint seriously. Thus, "gem" is a better choice.
> 
> 3. Yes, a ruby is a gem. So what? They're both gems.
> 
> 4. There's a gender connotation to thinking jet = airplane, since it's either phallic, or people think the NY/NJ football team, or the West Side Story fictional gang. Again, the terms are here to serve the dancers, not merely us.
> 
> 5. Gem has all the same advantages as jet.
> 
> I thus think gem / ruby is a superior pair than jet / ruby.
> 
> Ron Blechner
> 
> On May 29, 2015 11:32 AM, "Erik Hoffman via Callers" <callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> We are still using larks and ravens at the Berkeley dance. And, though I don't seem to have too much trouble using different words for different dances -- so far I've used men/women, ladies/gents, bands/bares, trees/squirrels, and larks/ravens without changing my mess of dance notes -- I understand that others can't switch so easily. On this note, at the Berkeley dance a caller recently did the following:
> 
> 1) asked if anyone had some post-its. When found some
> 2) wrote "lark" and "raven" on the sticky end
> 3) cut out these little cheat-sheets
> 4) covered the words "gents" and "ladies" with the post-it cheats
> 5) move cheats to next card as needed
> 
> Thereby changing their cards to the current words on the fly. I was impressed.
> 
> ~erik hoffman
>     oakland, ca
> 
> On 5/28/2015 8:01 PM, Kalia Kliban via Callers wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015, Alan Winston via Callers wrote:
> On 5/28/15 12:30 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote:
> 
> For those interested in gender free contra dance terms:
> 
> 1. Do you like or dislike jets / rubies ?
> 
> Like. (I'm responding on personal preference alone; I'm aware of some
> objections to this, which I don't personally share.)
> 
> 2. How would gems / rubies compare?
> 
> Less good, because the soft "ms" would make the call less clear. Also,
> rubies _are_ gems, so this is confusing.
> 
> Me too.  I haven't yet tried calling with the jets and rubies terminology, though I've used bands/bares and larks/ravens.  I can't say I'm eager to add yet another set of translated cards to my files.
> Kalia Kliban
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/attachments/20150529/9119dde7/attachment.htm>


More information about the Callers mailing list