[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 at 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
>    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 Jets/Rubies for a few reasons.
>    First, I think that I would manage to confuse myself and stumble around
>    switching 'Gents' to 'Larks', which starts with the same letter as
>    'Ladies', and might be more likely to flip-flop the two. Also, I know that
>    it has been successfully used, but the initial consonants of Larks/Ravens
>    aren't nearly as contrasted as are those of Jets/Rubies (or of
>    Gents/Ladies)."
>    -
>
>    "Not really a preference, although as a caller perhaps Jets/Rubies is
>    a slightly easier transition."
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170212/aeb03021/attachment.htm>