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

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Hampshire College and Village Contra in NYC are two gender free dances
who've done these studies over the course of several evenings. The same
night seems excessively difficult for both caller and dancers, though.
On May 29, 2015 12:17 PM, "John W Gintell" <john at gintell.org> wrote:

> 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/20150529/5c95bb83/attachment.htm>