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

Chet Gray via Callers callers at lists.sharedweight.net
Sun Jan 29 18:03:47 PST 2017


In regards to the present variety in role terminology, I may be fairly
alone in this opinion, but I hope we never intentionally arrive at a grand
consensus.

I love that different terms for roles have sprung up in different
communities, just as I love that so many wonderful terms have sprung up for
eye-turn/shoulder-turn/spiral. I love hearing "allemande", "hand turn", and
"hand 'round" in different communities. I love that "dosado" means
drastically different things in different long-lived community ("square")
dances. I love that some communities default to hands-across stars while
others default to wrist-hold stars. I love that there are at least three
different promenade positions, and each is default in different
communities. As much as my engineer brain would enjoy it, I hope we never
have a CALLERLAB to strictly define terminology and steps for contra dances.

— Chet Gray
dance caller
Louisville, KY
 (502) 419-7008 <+1-502-419-7008>

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Donna Hunt via Callers <
callers at lists.sharedweight.net> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170129/70905f11/attachment.htm>


More information about the Callers mailing list