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

Ron Blechner via Callers callers at lists.sharedweight.net
Thu Jan 26 09:24:16 PST 2017


Cognitively, it's not as complex as you make it out to be, Donna. (With all
due respect)

Roles are used almost entirely as the first word in a prompt. For dancers,
it's not a new vocabulary, it's a prefix change. That's a lot easier, and
I've heard *lots* of feedback from dancers of "I stopped noticing after the
first dance" and I have not heard any "even at the end of the night I still
had issues".

Further, there are dance communities experimenting with different terms -
Brooklyn, Hampshire, Village as examples - I've yet to hear that their
dancers are all messed up. I've heard the contrary, in fact.

Further, there are dancers who dance in multiple communities with different
terms. If your hypothesis were true, we'd expect that these people would be
having difficulty. They're not.

In addition, I find it funny how no one complains how hard it is to switch
between the very different sounding words "gents" and "men" / "ladies" and
"women". Again, if this "oh no, different terms are hard" hypothesis were
true, we'd already hear complaints. Plenty of dances have callers that use
either / or / both. No big deal.

>From a caller's perspective, I absolutely appreciate that it's harder. I'd
like to see a standard genderfree set of terms be adopted, absolutely. I'm
also glad we're moving away from bands/bares, if only because the words
sound too similar. That was a good solution for many years, but it's time
to move on.

For me personally calling, I find swapping terms isn't *that* bad, but I
know I don't represent everyone. Some callers need a second set of dance
cards with the terms. If a caller isn't up for a requirement of a
community, then, I guess they don't need to call there.

Change meant to broaden inclusion may pose challenges, but I for one think
they're worth it when dancers are requesting it in large numbers.

Best regards,
Ron Blechner

On Jan 26, 2017 11:42 AM, "Donna Hunt" <dhuntdancer at aol.com> wrote:

> I'm sad to hear that so many groups are using different role terms and
> such a variety to boot.  Not only do our beginners have to learn a brand
> new vocabulary (sometimes in a foreign language) and then remember the
> movement to go with those new words, but now they have to deal with
> remembering a role that there's no basis for, and that role term changes at
> different dance locations.  Augh my head hurts just thinking about it.
>
> Donna
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Blechner via Callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net>
> To: Barbara Groh <babsgroh at gmail.com>
> Cc: callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net>
> Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 3:37 am
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"
>
> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170126/50ea5f1d/attachment.htm>


More information about the Callers mailing list