27 Jan
2017
27 Jan
'17
1:01 p.m.
Hey Ron et al,
I did not say anything about communities' right to use whatever terms they want.
Every community should of course do as it wishes, as long as the whole community actually
discusses it and has a say. I have called gender free, and would again. I was booked to
call Hampshire when they were deciding which terms to use, proposing to call role free for
them so they could try it out, but they forgot they booked me so it never happened. I am
quite aware of the issues surrounding bathrooms, and gender and identity issues in
general.
What I objected to was one specific statement: that "huge numbers" of
-dancers- feel alienated by the gendered terms. I stated that in all my travels, I had
not seen evidence for this. I asked for the evidence. That the country has become more
conscious of gender issues I do see. But that is not tantamount to existing dancers
objecting to the terms in large numbers. I dance MWSD in my local gay club, where we use
boy/girl and not only do we not object, we enjoy messing with it. I do not propose we be
insensitive or ignorant about how people are reacting. But I want to be presented with
proof of such broad statements. Why is it that many people I personally know who could be
offended (because they do not adhere to that gender binary, but dance in non gender-free
communities), are to all appearances totally fine about it, even when asked, while others
take umbrage, as though this tradition were created as an affront to them? I am not asking
because either side is right, but in sincere wonder! It's so easy to make assumptions
about why a person objects. Assumptions, in my experience, create more problems.
So I do think some gender free dances have a majority of attendees who truly cannot bear
gent/lady. I still want to hear more from them about why, especially when I see another
LGBTQ dance community explicitly embracing such terms. I would in fact be interested in
polls both in communities which do use gender free terms, and those that do not, to
ascertain how many truly care what terms are used, and if they care, in which direction
and why, before anyone states as fact that "huge numbers of dancers" are
"alienated" by the terms used. That is all.
I have no personal agenda here. As a caller, I abide by what communities want. If, as
with lead/follow, I feel other badness is the result, I can and do choose not to call
there. I am pointing out that it does not strengthen the argument to assume ignorance or
ill will in those who raise questions, and especially it weakens the argument to toss in
as factual exaggerated or unsubstantiable statistics.
Andrea
Sent from my external brain
On Jan 27, 2017, at 11:37 AM, Ron Blechner
<contraron(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Andrea,
I think Angela was well-spoken and polite.
This discussion, like ones before it, was started not about endorsing new terms for all
contras. It started discussing terms for communities who *do* want alternative role
terms.
Who are we to tell a community that their need for their dancers is wrong? If I don't
like a community's needs or values, I don't have to call there. If there's a
Shared Weight topic about how to best serve French speaking communities (like Montreal),
I'm not going to chime in and argue that all contra has to be in English or the
dancers will get confused. Montreal dancers want calls in French. JP, Brooklyn, Bay area,
etc etc dancers want callers genderfree.
Now, I realize Angela's comments could be construed as off-topic, but I read them as
a reply to other folks here who were off-topic. I read them as an attempt to reach out and
provide insight and perspective of *why* genderfree dance communities have made the choice
they have. No, they may not be the choice your community wants, and that's your
right.
To answer your question, though, about how many dancers want genderfree terms, at least
ten dances are genderfree, and I bet we can poll those dances and find out how many active
dancers they have. While the Western Mass one by me is a little low, dances like Brooklyn,
Portland Maine, and Montpelier second Saturday boast very large crowds, and that's
just ones I've personally attended. There's queer dance camps, too. Clearly
there's a demand. I realize "huge" is a relative number, but we can safely
agree on several thousand dancers as a safe low estimate of dancers who want gender free
roles.
These genderfree dances exist, some for 39 years, they've grown tremendously in the
last 5 years *while many traditional dances are losing attendance*.
And then there's the problem with selection bias. If the question is "How many
dancers would prefer gender free role terms?" and the source of data is only dances
with gendered role terms, of course we'd be excluding all of the dances who don't
come because of the terms.
I call at both genderfree and traditional dances. Seriously, I do not understand this
pushback we are getting for discussion of role terms for *genderfree* dances. This
isn't some existential threat to non-genderfree traditional dances. Let us talk.
Thanks,
Ron Blechner
On Jan 27, 2017 10:51 AM, "Andrea Nettleton via Callers"
<callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
Really Angela? Huge numbers are offended by "gents/ladies"? I'll happily
call with whatever the community uses, though I may avoid a community using lead/follow as
I think it perniciously encourages passivity in half the dancers, which I object to. And
I was vocal in earlier discussions about positional calling being a preferable
alternative. (Alan, I'll get back to you about short calls). But where are the
stats? I believe there may be some objectors. And some who support them. But vast
numbers? Clear majority? Don't see it. I'm willing to be wrong, but I call all
over the country and have not seen this.
-Andrea
Sent from my external brain
On Jan 27, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Angela DeCarlis via
Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
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-gen…
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
On Jan 27, 2017 3:08 AM, "Jim Hemphill via
Callers" <callers(a)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.
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:01 PM, via Callers
<callers(a)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(a)lists.sharedweight.net>
To: contraron <contraron(a)gmail.com>om>; babsgroh <babsgroh(a)gmail.com>
Cc: callers <callers(a)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(a)lists.sharedweight.net>
To: Barbara Groh <babsgroh(a)gmail.com>
Cc: callers <callers(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(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
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net