Ridge’s point about ballroom vs. symmetrical swings is related to an issue that I have about the trend toward de-gendered roles. I haven’t said much about this publicly, as I hesitate to appear to be either on the “wrong” side of a controversy or unwilling to listen and possibly change my mind.
Many contra series provide a 20-30 minute teaching session before each dance event. There’s a limit to what can be conveyed to a first-timer in such a brief session, but obviously it’s essential to explain the two roles and what differentiates one from the other. Fine.
Many contra series have adopted “larks/robins” as their standard terms for the roles. Also fine.
But some series – I don’t know how many – have instructed their teachers not to indicate in any way which role is which with respect to either male/female or leading/following.
This, I submit, is a disservice to new dancers as long as the contra dance repertoire includes (a) an asymmetrical swing position and/or (b) moves (e.g. courtesy turns and “official” turn-unders) where one role very often leads the other (and a reverse lead is extremely rare).
I get that it’s seen as desirable to allow new dancers to assume the role of their choice, without regard to gender – without the stigma of doing a part associated with a gender other than their own. But IMO that works only if the two roles are truly equal in the physical movements required and the physical sensations experienced. There is some element of leading and following in present-day contra moves, no matter if it’s vestigial or seen as something to work toward extinguishing. I feel that to be fair and consistent, the contra world should either do away with the asymmetrical moves (not likely) or give new folks the option of choosing to lead or follow.
At a teaching session, I’m inclined to say something like “The two roles are fairly equal, but there’s a tiny bit of leading and following left over from an earlier day. If you’re more comfortable with leading, I suggest you start as a lark; if you’re more comfortable being led, try starting as a robin.” I fail to see the problem with this.
As an aside, leading (sorry) into another can of worms (any hungry robins about?), I’m a bit nervous about teaching newbies that a good dancer learns both roles and that the ability to swap roles during a number is “a consummation devoutly to be wished.” I have no philosophical quarrel with this, but it inevitably widens the gap between what a newbie knows / can do and what one must know / be able to do to survive at a mostly-experienced dance. That gap has been widening over the last couple of decades anyway, as the list of accepted contra basics has grown from 12-15 to the 30s. But I’ve said enough for now.
Tony Parkes
Billerica, Mass.
New book! Square Dance Calling: An Old Art for a New Century
(available now)
From: Ridge Kennedy via Contra Callers <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 9:52 AM
To: Shared Weight Contra Callers <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>
Subject: [Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')
Dear All,
I have thought a lot about the nomenclature issues. I too went from ladies to women and back to ladies, worked with armbands and bare arms, leaders and followers, larks and robins, and have lapsed almost accidentally into positional calling out of an abundance of trying not to say the wrong thing.
Yet, for all the talk about the talk, there remains, for me, a big problem in the actual dancing.
"Comfort" and "comfortable" and words like that can be found in abundance in the charters, mission statements, and announcements that dance groups publish on their websites and read at dances. I'm in full agreement -- anyone who attends a dance should feel safe and comfortable. If a dance community wants to change the words it uses in order to achieve that goal, then I must, perforce, support that decision.
Still, I (he, him, his, etc.) personally feel distinctly uncomfortable doing a ballroom swing with other same-gender dancers.
I've discussed my feelings with other dancers in my area, and I know I am not alone, both among dancers of my gender and dancers of the opposite gender. Yet, by even raising the question, I have also been described (not to my face) in very unflattering terms.
About ten thousand years ago, when I first started dancing, there was a commonly accepted symmetrical swing that was used. It was, in retrospect, a little bit uncomfortable as it involved reaching the right arm across the other dancer's body and hooking a hand around the other dancer's torso. In retrospect, not good. A two-hand turn is, in my mind, not a very acceptable alternative to a ballroom swing. I have seen some folks do some lively variations with crossed hands and such so that it can work, but I think there is a better option that I have been encouraging dancers to learn. I call it a Scottish swing. (John Sweeny includes it in his videos of eleventy-seven ways to swing as a Northumbrian swing.)
I like it because I can give a clear signal for the kind of swing that I want to do, I feel completely comfortable doing it with any dancer, and it allows my swinging partner and me to enjoy a very satisfactory swing. It's easy to learn. I have even found that I can teach it to dancers on the fly in the middle of a dance.
Maybe it is not the best option for a symmetrical swing (an alternative to a ballroom swing). If someone can propose a better alternative, I'll give it a try.
But for all of the concern about words and terminology, it seems to me that the overall dance community ought to pay attention to this particular aspect of actually dancing.
Sincerely,
Ridge
Ridge Kennedy [Exit 145]
Hey -- I wrote a book! Murder & Miss Austen's Ball.
It's a novel with musical accompaniment. Now that's different.
On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 8:57 AM Gabrielle Taylor via Contra Callers <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
As a member of the LGBT community, my view (personal, from talking to others, and from votes in local contra dances in Western Massachusetts) is it's very good to have a consistent term that isn't inherently gendered.
After local debate and dance-specific polls, we've been using larks and robins/ravens here since about 2018, and I think it's been a big improvement over ladies/gents. Larks and robins are my personal preference, since it's what everyone here is used to, and I at least don't have enough bird knowledge to get confused about robins or larks having some inherent gendering. I don't have any cultural stance against positional calling, but the confusion of "lefts allemande right" seems a lot worse than learning new terms.
Thanks,
Gabrielle
On Feb 9, 2023, at 13:45, Jim Thaxter via Contra Callers <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
Just a thought, but has anyone checked with the lgbtq community about what terms they would like to have used?
Another thought, someone mentioned earlier in the thread that the terminology issue had been discussed thoroughly some time ago and the decision had been made to go with the birds. I don’t remember seeing or hearing about a general survey sent out to all the CDSS affiliates or any other general list of dance groups around the country or world vetting that decision
Personally, I’m exploring positional calling. Just my gut feeling, but I think fewer people would be challenged by right/left directional calls than by being called bird names.
Jim Thaxter
Columbia, MO
On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 6:31 AM Amy Cann via Contra Callers <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
Since no one else has mentioned this, I'll just say that my entire
personal difficulty with birds comes from fairy tales and ornithology.
When we say "robin" we are mostly thinking about that bird with the
"red breast", right? Not something kinda reddish-brownish? That's the
male. In my childhood I read any number of books with
anthropomorphised birds, and Mister Robin Redbreast was male. In a
bunch of the stories there was also small, sweet-singing female lark.
Add to that that in the states the robin is a different bird from in
the UK, and much larger, I've got two good reasons to think of the
robin as being the "male" role. My brain weighs the imagery and
memories against that silly little detail of starting with "R" or "L"
and defaults obstinately to the exact wrong conclusion every time.
EVERY time. It's somewhat maddening. But "Ravens" was even worse,
because ravens are black and men in formal clothing dress in black, so
I guess things are better now??
Whew. Change is hard.
On 2/9/23, Peghesley via Contra Callers
<contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> Bree, I’m making the same change as well and am calling without reference to
> role and don’t need bird terms. Louise Siddons’ position is a compelling
> one.
>
> Peg Hesley
> www.peghesley.com
>
> Sent from my iPhone using voice recognition
>
>> On Feb 8, 2023, at 7:04 PM, Bree Kalb via Contra Callers
>> <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I made the same changes Chrissy did and for the same reason. I think it
>> was 4-5 years ago when I switched from M and W to Gents and Ladies. And
>> it seems to me that almost all the local callers did the same.
>>
>> ( Now I’m calling without reference to gender or role. Louise Siddons
>> booklet “Dance the Whole Dance” from CDSS describes well what many of us
>> are learning to do.)
>>
>> If it matters, my dance community is in a progressive/liberal area, so
>> calling styles here might be different than in other places.
>>
>> Bree Kalb
>> Carrboro, NC
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 8:18 PM Jacob or Nancy Bloom via Contra Callers
>> <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> At the Ralph Page Legacy day last month, Chrissy Fowler did a session in
>>> which she called dances as she called them at different times in her
>>> career. In it, she talked about how, at one point, she and other female
>>> callers were insisting on the term "women" because they weren't ladies,
>>> and then several years later they were insisting on the term "ladies"
>>> because that was understood to be the name of a role.
>>>
>>> I can't give a year when it happened, but I do believe I remember a time
>>> when at least some callers were making it explicitly clear that the terms
>>> Gents and Ladies referred to roles, and anybody could dance either role.
>>>
>>> Jacob
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023, 2:29 PM Tony Parkes via Contra Callers
>>> <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I believe it’s in Myrtle Wilhite’s Lullaby of the Swing and other contra
>>>> dances, tunes, waltzes, and essays (Madison, WI, 1993). I can’t lay my
>>>> hand on my copy at the moment, but perhaps someone else has one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tony Parkes
>>>>
>>>> Billerica, Mass.
>>>>
>>>> www.hands4.com
>>>>
>>>> New book! Square Dance Calling: An Old Art for a New Century
>>>>
>>>> (available now)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Mary Collins <nativedae@gmail.com>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 2:11 PM
>>>> To: Jeff Kaufman <jeff@alum.swarthmore.edu>
>>>> Cc: Tony Parkes <tony@hands4.com>; Joe Harrington
>>>> <contradancerjoe@gmail.com>; contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Re: Gentlespoons/Ladles (from Rompin' Stompin')
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jeff, me too...if you find it, share please.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> mary
>>>>
>>>> "And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who
>>>> couldn't hear the music." - Nietzsche
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> “Life is not about waiting for the storms to pass ... it's about
>>>> learning to dance in the rain!” ~ unknown
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 9:58 AM Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers
>>>> <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Aside: does anyone have a copy of the "I am not a lady" essay? I'd be
>>>>> interested to read it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 9:54 AM Tony Parkes via Contra Callers
>>>>> <contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joe Harrington wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > When I started dancing in the late 1980s… Callers were taking the
>>>>>> > revolutionary step of not calling "men" and "women" but rather using
>>>>>> > "ladies" and "gents", to signal that switching roles was ok, since
>>>>>> > nobody referred to themselves as a "lady" or a "gent" in casual
>>>>>> > conversation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where was this, Joe? And are you talking about contra callers (rather
>>>>>> than ECD)? I can only speak about the NYC area in the 1960s and early
>>>>>> ’70s, and New England starting in the late ’60s and continuing to the
>>>>>> present. In both regions, square/contra callers (contras were a
>>>>>> subcategory of square dance until around 1975) universally used
>>>>>> “gents/ladies.” (I believe ECD teachers have always used “men/women,”
>>>>>> presumably emulating Playford and Cecil Sharp.) AFAIK, northeastern
>>>>>> callers pretty consistently used “gents/ladies” until some of them
>>>>>> started to move away from gender-related terms. Tolman and Page’s
>>>>>> Country Dance Book (1937) uses “gents/ladies,” as do most of the other
>>>>>> standard American dance books from the 1900s to the 1950s (a few,
>>>>>> aimed at schoolteachers, use “boys/girls”).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know of no region where callers changed from “men/women” to
>>>>>> “gents/ladies.” I know that some callers, beginning I think in the
>>>>>> ’80s, changed from “gents/ladies” to “men/women,” feeling that
>>>>>> “gentlemen” and “ladies” smacked of classism. (One female caller, in
>>>>>> an essay titled “I am not a lady,” requested that other callers not
>>>>>> use her contra compositions if they adhered to “gents/ladies.”) As an
>>>>>> amateur (= lover) of dance history, I would like to know about past
>>>>>> changes of which I was unaware.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tony Parkes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Billerica, Mass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> www.hands4.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> New book! Square Dance Calling: An Old Art for a New Century
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (available now)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
>>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to
>>>>>> contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to
>>>>> contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to
>>>> contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to
>>> contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
>> To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net
>
_______________________________________________
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net_______________________________________________
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-leave@lists.sharedweight.net