[Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

Wed Jan 25 21:32:28 PST 2017

Let's please not presume to speak for the feelings of marginalized groups?

Not thinking something is a problem because it doesn't affect you
personally is super privileged.

Ron Blechner

On Jan 25, 2017 1:36 PM, "Barbara Groh via Callers" <
callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Michael, if this view makes you a Luddite, sign me up as a member of the
> Luddite Club.  I think it's realistic to say that the members of all the
> contra, English, and Square Dance groups will NEVER all agree on which
> alternative terms to use for ladies and gents, so all these new terms being
> bounced around will only cause confusion (and some eye-rolling).
>
> You've already made a solid argument for the Luddite position, so I won't
> say anything more....except this:  Please, let's not start an argument over
> whether it's pejorative to use the term Luddite!
>
> Barbara Groh
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Michael Barraclough via Callers <
> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> I guess that I am a Luddite. Here's how I see it.
>>
>> Somewhere between 80-90% of the population is 'straight'. Surely, we
>> want these people as well to come to our dances.  It can be difficult
>> enough to get past the dance lingo without adding the complexity of
>> renaming labels for people that almost everyone already understands. To me,
>> what really matters is that we run dances where everyone accepts everyone
>> else's sexuality; where individual dancers can feel free to dance either
>> role; where everyone is welcome. I am not convinced that 'non-straight'
>> individuals are put off by the historical labels that we use, rather the
>> lack of the 3 conditions that I have just outlined.
>>
>> Census data show the U.S. adult population is about 239m. Searching the
>> web I can find around 300 contra dances, 150 English Country Dances and
>> 1000 MWSD clubs. My generous guess is that less than 100,000 people go
>> to these dances, less than 50,000 if we ignore MWSD. Did you know that
>> over 700,000 people in the U.S. own a ferret? That means there are 7x as
>> many people in the USA who own a ferret compared to the number of people
>> who go to our dances!
>>
>> Let's put less rather than more barriers in the way of getting those
>> who don't dance with us (that's 99.6% of the population) to join us.
>>
>> Michael Barraclough
>> www.michaelbarraclough.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 2017-01-24 at 16:19 -0500, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote:
>> > I know I'd appreciate it if people had new suggestions, they'd review
>> > existing considerations for what makes terms usable. Things like 1:2
>> > syllable ratio, distinct vowel sounds - these disqualify a lot of
>> > terms as being unfeasible for the same reason "bare arms / arm bands"
>> > as terms are not preferable. The PDF spreadsheet that Dugan linked is
>> > the result of my study with teamwork and sourcing from many dancers.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Ron Blechner
>> >
>> >
>> > On Jan 20, 2017 7:28 PM, "Keith Tuxhorn via Callers" <callers at lists.s
>> > haredweight.net> wrote:
>> > > This conversation exhausts me,  even though I know and accept it's
>> > > all part of the folk process.
>> > >
>> > > So I will make my one contribution... two terms I thought of a
>> > > couple weeks ago.
>> > >
>> > > Mun and Wem.
>> > >
>> > > They sound enough like the current terms that the brains of both
>> > > callers and dancers can make an easy transition. They're made-up
>> > > words, so they have no gender. And they're short. And easy to say.
>> > >
>> > > Mun and Wem.
>> > >
>> > > Okay, I've done my bit.
>> > >
>> > > Keith Tuxhorn
>> > > Springfield IL
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Dugan Murphy via Callers <callers@
>> > > lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>> > > > Since it was an article about my dance series that started this
>> > > > conversation about role terms, I'll offer that the primary reason
>> > > > we chose "jets" and "rubies" as gender-free terms is so that
>> > > > 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" and "ladies."
>> > > >
>> > > > We also took a look at this graphic of Ron Blechner's analysis of
>> > > > gender-free role terms people have been talking about: http://amh
>> > > > erstcontra.org/ContraDanceRoleTerms.pdf
>> > > >
>> > > > We may not use "jets" and "rubies" forever, but we figured we'd
>> > > > give it a try.  There didn't seem to be any reasons not to try
>> > > > and there are certainly plenty of reasons to try.
>> > > >
>> > > > Most men at our dance dance as jets and most women dance as
>> > > > rubies, but for the few who dance opposite, switch around, or
>> > > > whose gender expression doesn't fit the man/woman binary, I'd
>> > > > like to think that formally separating dance roles from gender is
>> > > > validating in a meaningful way.
>> > > >
>> > > > Dugan Murphy
>> > > > Portland, Maine
>> > > > dugan at duganmurphy.com
>> > > >
>> > > > www.DuganMurphy.com
>> > > > www.PortlandIntownContraDance.com
>> > > > www.NufSed.consulting
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > Callers mailing list
>> > > > Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
>> > > > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.n
>> > > > et
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170126/2e6f5925/attachment.htm>