Hi Jeff,
I think your understanding of there being "no to little movement" is inaccurate.
In New England, New York, Seattle, and the Bay Area, many callers have been examining terminology and changing. Several dance series have gone genderfree without being specifically chartered as LGBTQ dances. Not coincidentally, these dances are thriving amidst a decline of attendance of contra in general.
Many dances are also taking up safety policies before and after the #metoo movement, despite plenty of resistance for years of some people insisting that contra is a happy place where there's no harassment.
So yes, you're correct that these discussions have been happening for years, true, but they have also been producing tangible change in many places.
...
I might also like to disagree with your implication that everyone is responsible for "arguing about it". We callers who have swapped terms for g*pay, for example, have long since moved on.
In the case of this original post, Rich was asking for practical advice, and there *was no* argument until a couple choice people started throwing shade at those of us who think changing the lyrics from "she was a young thing" to "she was a young girl" is an easy swap that doesn't diminish the tradition, but also reduces the objectification of women.
In dance,
Ron Blechner
While Jeffrey makes a compelling point, I want to chime in with another thought: that not having these discussions is just as divisive (if not more so) than having them, just in ways that are harder for some sides of the community to see. While people make (very valid) claims that long discussions about terminology, altering words to singing squares, etc. are alienating some more established members of the community, to not have these discussions is to alienate many other folks, particularly people our dance scene has done less well by in the past -- young people, people of color, queer people, trans people... the list goes on.
I would never suggest that these discussion not take place. But at some point, the discussion must end with action either being taken - or not. This particular discussion has been going on for many years, with very little new information, with both sides feeling more polarized, and there being no to little movement in the community at large. We’re beating a dead horse. At what point does this become more divisive than cohesive? How is renewing this discussion by rehashing things that have been said over and over again on both sides of the issue being helpful more than harmful?
Call it a walk around. Call it a gypsy. Call larks/ravens. Call gents/ladies. Call the moves as you see fit. But let’s stop the constant arguing about it that has become tiresome and divisive. Minds really aren’t being changed after years of rehashing the same points.
And with that, I will no longer rehash MY point!
List Name: Callers mailing list
List Address: Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/