[Callers] Role term survey responses

Mon Feb 13 14:51:40 PST 2017

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 at 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 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 <
> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> 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 6
> http://rule6.info/
> >                      <*>           <*>           <*>
> > Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20170213/d8277337/attachment.htm>