2 Jan
2013
2 Jan
'13
2:59 a.m.
Chrissy hits the nail on the head of why there are numerous callers (her,
myself, Will Loving, to name a few) who vehemently oppose the inroads
"lead/follow" terminology is making within contradance. Thanks to mentors
who emphasized that "gent" and "lady" simply described dance roles,
distancing the terms from gender, i for the most part rely on "gent/lady".
However, as some within the contra meta-community become disenchanted with
gendered role-terminology systems, a viable alternative is needed. Given
the awkwardness of "bands/bare-arms" in some situations and (to more than a
few of us) the misleading nature of "lead/follow", we hope to energize the
collective Mind of the community to brainstorm new possibilities. As Will
mentioned in his initial post, there are four criteria he and i came up
with which we believe a new terminology system must meet in order to catch
on (i've modified them slightly) :
1. Matches the one/two syllable form of gents/ladies, lead/follow, etc.
2. Sound distinctly different for easy recognition (this nixes "b/b-a")
3. Accurately describe the experience and/or geometry of contra dance (eg,
referencing LHP/RHP; we submit that "l/f" does not accurately describe the
experience of contra)
4. Is gender and connotatively neutral without a lot of referential baggage
I can appreciate people's desire to defend their preferred systems, but the
point of starting this thread was to generate new possibilities.