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

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 &lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > 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 &lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; > To: contraron &lt;contraron(a)gmail.com&gt;om>; babsgroh &lt;babsgroh(a)gmail.com&gt; > Cc: callers &lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; > 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 &lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; > To: Barbara Groh &lt;babsgroh(a)gmail.com&gt; > Cc: callers &lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; > 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(a)lists.sharedweight.net> >> 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(a)lists.sharedweight.net>> >>> 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" &lt;callers(a)lists.s >>> > haredweight.net>>> > > 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>>> > > > 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(a)lists.sharedweight.net >>> > > > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.n >>> > > > et >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > Callers mailing list >>> > > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net >>> > > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>> > > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Callers mailing list >>> > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net >>> > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Callers mailing list >>> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net >>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Callers mailing list >> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net >> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >> >> _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > >