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

Fri Jan 27 06:04:25 PST 2017

For what it's worth, "Larks" and "Ravens" were terms designed to correlate
with "Left" and "Right".

There are plenty of moves we do in contra with names that have nothing to
do with anything. Like "Swat the Flea," or even "Chain". Head over to
Square Dancing, and the vernacular is so huge that plenty of the names for
moves fail to describe the exact movements in question.

Here's the thing, y'all: a huge number of dancers feel alienated by
gendered terms. This is the same issue seen in major politics with regards
to gendered restrooms: many people (gay, straight, and otherwise) don't
feel comfortable or happy being forced into a dichotomous gender binary
when, in actuality, many of us exist somewhere between two points in a
spectrum. [1] Notably, it's different to feel "offended" than to feel
"unwelcome." Many of you claim to feel the former, but that's a privilege
compared to feeling unwelcome or even shunned from a community.

And many people are fine with things the way they are! I get that, and
that's great for you, but why on earth wouldn't you change things if it
meant being more inclusive, more just? If you're a dancer who's afraid that
things will be more confusing for you...try dancing at a genderfree dance!
Not only have I found that the dancers at those dances are not any more
confused than at regular dance series, I've found them more competent, and
*happier*. They have this amazing ability to embrace the unexpected and
smile and dance with whoever's coming at them. I've seen first-time dancers
dancing together and accidentally switching roles every time through the
dance, *and nobody told them they were doing it wrong. *They just danced
with them, and it was great! In short, *they are better dancers*.

And since most of us here are callers: Yes, it's on us to put in a bit more
work. I've now called using Jets/Rubies and Bands/Bares, and while I prefer
the former set, neither was impossibly challenging. Neither was as
difficult as walking through a new dance for the first time.

If you care for the health of our shared community, I implore you to do the
work. Read the materials, especially the research that Ron, Jeff, and
others have linked to here. Investigate the politics around gender and
genderfree restrooms. Try dancing or even calling for a genderfree series.

Thank you all so much for taking the time to participate in this
conversation and for taking the energy to consider both sides. I'll look
forward to seeing you all on the dance floor.

Angela

[1]
http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2011/11/breaking-through-the-binary-gender-explained-using-continuums/#sthash.M8yxvCQ1.dpbs

On Jan 27, 2017 3:08 AM, "Jim Hemphill via Callers" <
callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> You can teach and call contra dances positionally without hurting anyones
> feelings. We are all human beings, I find it objectionable to be referred
> to as some form of rock or bird or whatever.
>
> The role a dancer chooses is really defined by which side of their
> partnership they choose to start the dance or end a swing on.  Working from
> that basis just about any contra move can be taught or called without
> reference to gender.
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:01 PM, via Callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.
> net> wrote:
>
>> I have been calling at many venues over the years and using the role
>> terms "gents" and "ladies" has NOT been a problem.  When teaching, I
>> explain these DO NOT refer to gender but rather to the role you are
>> dancing.  Beginners seem to understand and not have any problem.  The
>> experienced dancers are very helpful as well.  I agree with Donna in the
>> aspect of teaching a new vocabulary that goes with a movement with new
>> words that don't have any relationship to the moves is confusing enough to
>> me, who understands the process.  Throw all this at new dancers who move
>> from venue to venue where the terms change, makes my head hurt as well.
>> There is an old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"  Maybe we should
>> all rethink this.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Donna Hunt via Callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net>
>> To: contraron <contraron at gmail.com>; babsgroh <babsgroh at gmail.com>
>> Cc: callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net>
>> Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 12:37 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"
>>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170127/a68bd4d0/attachment.htm>