12 Feb
2017
12 Feb
'17
2:03 p.m.
As part of thinking about how whether non-gendered terms would work for
mainstream contra dances, I thought it would be good to ask callers what
they thought. Is it something where most callers were only willing to call
Gents/Ladies, or are they more flexible? Do they generally support this
sort of change, or do they think it's a bad idea?
I wrote to people who have called BIDA in the last year, plus the ones who
are currently booked, to ask them whether:
- A dance like BIDA switching to gender free terms is better, worse, or
about the same.
- They have a preference between Larks/Ravens and Jets/Rubies.
- They would be willing to call Larks/Ravens or Jets/Rubies if a dance
required that.
Of the 18 callers I wrote to, 17 responded. Of them, all but one was
willing to call Larks/Ravens or Jets/Rubies, though several said (without
my having suggested it) that they wouldn't be willing to call Lead/Follow.
Many of the respondents didn't say whether they were in favor of the
switch. Of the 11 who did respond, it was 5x yes, 3x ambivalent, and 3x no.
Nine callers preferred Jets/Rubies because they find it easier to say, but
no one so much that they were willing to call Jets/Rubies but not
Larks/Ravens.
Some freeform responses, lightly edited:
-
"I prefer Jets/Rubies, but only slightly. I can see the benefit of
'L'/'R' matching the default swing ending position with the initial
letters
but I think I'd make fewer mistakes with Jets/Rubies. Not enough to sway a
decision though.
-
"My personal preference is for Jets/Rubies, but that's just because it's
easier for me to say right now. I'm sure that if I practiced Larks/Ravens
would be fine too. If the point of using gender free terms is to distance
the roles even further from gender, than I'd go with Larks/Ravens.
Jets/Rubies sounds very similar to Gents/Ladies, and some callers slip up
and say 'Gents' for 'Jets'."
-
"The birds are arbitrary terms and seem to have fewer unwanted(?)
associations than the rock terms. So I'm for the birds."
-
"I'm not wildly positive about either Larks/Ravens or Jets/Rubies, but
if I had to choose one set, it would be Larks/Ravens. To me, Jets/Rubies
carries a lot of baggage: It sounds enough like Gents/Ladies that it
invites the reaction 'Who are they trying to kid?' The lack of logical
association between jewels (inanimate objects) and dancing (an intimate
human activity) makes the use of Jets/Rubies feel as if the series is being
run by an in-group with a secret language. (I realize the two foregoing
reactions are contradictory, but these are gut reactions, not necessarily
rational ones.) Also, 'Jets' makes me think of the gang in West Side Story,
and also of airplanes (more inanimate objects). To sum up, the word in a
dance context has no positive associations for me, and some negative ones.
Larks/Ravens has no baggage for me, doesn't reinforce gender stereotypes,
and has a built-in mnemonic with the L/R initials."
-
"Enough people are offended by 'Jets' sounding too close to
'Gents' that
I think Larks/Ravens is a much easier sell."
-
"My preference would be Jets/Rubies, because the sound similarity to
traditional terms make the transition easier. (I understand that that very
feature makes it the less desirable choice in some people's view.)"
-
"As a caller who learned with Gents/Ladies, I find Jets/Rubies the
easiest to use."
-
"I've never used Larks/Ravens. I've used Jets/Rubies, and felt fairly
comfortable with it. Larks/Ravens makes more sense to me. Definitely happy
to use either one."
-
"I have a preference for Jets/Rubies but the only terms I *will not use* are
Leads/Follows."
-
"I don't have a preference between those two sets of terms. I am also
comfortable with Lead/Follow, but know that this is also a challenging
choice for some people and I understand why it's maybe not the best pick. I
like it because those terms have dance connotations"
-
"I like Jets/Rubies because 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/Ladies. Also, Larks/Ravens sounds a
little silly."
-
"As far as Jets/Rubies vs Larks/Ravens, I like using Jets/Rubies because
they sound almost the same as Gents/Ladies. For my rhymes and patter, it's
a pretty easy substitution. But my first impression of the terms is that
they are still kind of gendered, or at least can be interpreted that.
'Jets' sounds aggressive and masculine, and 'Rubies' are definitely
feminine. "
-
"I can't imagine trying to turn a singing square gender free."
-
"From the point of view of a caller trying to get a new set of words out
of my mouth when significant chunks of my teaching and prompting are
automatic, I think that I would prefer Jets/Rubies for a few reasons.
First, I think that I would manage to confuse myself and stumble around
switching 'Gents' to 'Larks', which starts with the same letter as
'Ladies', and might be more likely to flip-flop the two. Also, I know that
it has been successfully used, but the initial consonants of Larks/Ravens
aren't nearly as contrasted as are those of Jets/Rubies (or of
Gents/Ladies)."
-
"Not really a preference, although as a caller perhaps Jets/Rubies is a
slightly easier transition."
12 Feb
12 Feb
9:48 p.m.
Thanks Jeff for putting together this survey! This is all really
interesting information.
On Feb 12, 2017 9:03 AM, "Jeff Kaufman via Callers" <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
As part of thinking about how whether non-gendered
terms would work for
mainstream contra dances, I thought it would be good to ask callers what
they thought. Is it something where most callers were only willing to call
Gents/Ladies, or are they more flexible? Do they generally support this
sort of change, or do they think it's a bad idea?
I wrote to people who have called BIDA in the last year, plus the ones who
are currently booked, to ask them whether:
- A dance like BIDA switching to gender free terms is better, worse,
or about the same.
- They have a preference between Larks/Ravens and Jets/Rubies.
- They would be willing to call Larks/Ravens or Jets/Rubies if a dance
required that.
Of the 18 callers I wrote to, 17 responded. Of them, all but one was
willing to call Larks/Ravens or Jets/Rubies, though several said (without
my having suggested it) that they wouldn't be willing to call Lead/Follow.
Many of the respondents didn't say whether they were in favor of the
switch. Of the 11 who did respond, it was 5x yes, 3x ambivalent, and 3x no.
Nine callers preferred Jets/Rubies because they find it easier to say, but
no one so much that they were willing to call Jets/Rubies but not
Larks/Ravens.
Some freeform responses, lightly edited:
-
"I prefer Jets/Rubies, but only slightly. I can see the benefit of
'L'/'R' matching the default swing ending position with the initial
letters
but I think I'd make fewer mistakes with Jets/Rubies. Not enough to sway a
decision though.
-
"My personal preference is for Jets/Rubies, but that's just because
it's easier for me to say right now. I'm sure that if I practiced
Larks/Ravens would be fine too. If the point of using gender free terms is
to distance the roles even further from gender, than I'd go with
Larks/Ravens. Jets/Rubies sounds very similar to Gents/Ladies, and some
callers slip up and say 'Gents' for 'Jets'."
-
"The birds are arbitrary terms and seem to have fewer unwanted(?)
associations than the rock terms. So I'm for the birds."
-
"I'm not wildly positive about either Larks/Ravens or Jets/Rubies, but
if I had to choose one set, it would be Larks/Ravens. To me, Jets/Rubies
carries a lot of baggage: It sounds enough like Gents/Ladies that it
invites the reaction 'Who are they trying to kid?' The lack of logical
association between jewels (inanimate objects) and dancing (an intimate
human activity) makes the use of Jets/Rubies feel as if the series is being
run by an in-group with a secret language. (I realize the two foregoing
reactions are contradictory, but these are gut reactions, not necessarily
rational ones.) Also, 'Jets' makes me think of the gang in West Side Story,
and also of airplanes (more inanimate objects). To sum up, the word in a
dance context has no positive associations for me, and some negative ones.
Larks/Ravens has no baggage for me, doesn't reinforce gender stereotypes,
and has a built-in mnemonic with the L/R initials."
-
"Enough people are offended by 'Jets' sounding too close to
'Gents'
that I think Larks/Ravens is a much easier sell."
-
"My preference would be Jets/Rubies, because the sound similarity to
traditional terms make the transition easier. (I understand that that very
feature makes it the less desirable choice in some people's view.)"
-
"As a caller who learned with Gents/Ladies, I find Jets/Rubies the
easiest to use."
-
"I've never used Larks/Ravens. I've used Jets/Rubies, and felt fairly
comfortable with it. Larks/Ravens makes more sense to me. Definitely happy
to use either one."
-
"I have a preference for Jets/Rubies but the only terms I *will not
use* are Leads/Follows."
-
"I don't have a preference between those two sets of terms. I am also
comfortable with Lead/Follow, but know that this is also a challenging
choice for some people and I understand why it's maybe not the best pick. I
like it because those terms have dance connotations"
-
"I like Jets/Rubies because 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/Ladies. Also, Larks/Ravens
sounds a little silly."
-
"As far as Jets/Rubies vs Larks/Ravens, I like using Jets/Rubies
because they sound almost the same as Gents/Ladies. For my rhymes and
patter, it's a pretty easy substitution. But my first impression of the
terms is that they are still kind of gendered, or at least can be
interpreted that. 'Jets' sounds aggressive and masculine, and 'Rubies'
are
definitely feminine. "
-
"I can't imagine trying to turn a singing square gender free."
-
"From the point of view of a caller trying to get a new set of words
out of my mouth when significant chunks of my teaching and prompting are
automatic, I think that I would prefer Jets/Rubies for a few reasons.
First, I think that I would manage to confuse myself and stumble around
switching 'Gents' to 'Larks', which starts with the same letter as
'Ladies', and might be more likely to flip-flop the two. Also, I know that
it has been successfully used, but the initial consonants of Larks/Ravens
aren't nearly as contrasted as are those of Jets/Rubies (or of
Gents/Ladies)."
-
"Not really a preference, although as a caller perhaps Jets/Rubies is
a slightly easier transition."
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
10:59 p.m.
This is very interesting information from the questions you posed.
If I were going to use either, I would probably lean towards jets and rubies (though I
have nothing against larks and ravens) for one main reason -
In both French and Spanish (I'm not sure of any other language at this moment), the
word Lark is a feminine noun and the word Raven is a masculine noun.
Aside from the difficulties I imagine when I'm leading the historical dances, for
contemporary circle, square, and longways it would be a major challenge to my brain to
connect a left-side-historically-gent-position with a feminine noun (speaking enough if
the language for that to interfere) or a right/side-historically-lady-position with a
masculine noun.
Jets and rubies have more of a sound appeal to my ear (totally personal preference ),
though I still feel we're only substituting a new set of words for words that
apparently make some people uncomfortable. I don't know how long it would take for me
to see them as gender neutral terms and not just layered over "gents &
ladies", which were the roles the dances originated in, except perhaps for the
gender-free dances written explicitly that way in recent years.
That said, I do primarily community/family/school dances and historical dances, not the
monthly contra dances, and I have my own workarounds when I need to use them.
Do you know if the ECD world is going through these issues?
P.S. I would never use lead/follow.
Patricia Campbell
Newtown, CT
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 12, 2017, at 9:03 AM, Jeff Kaufman via Callers
<callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
As part of thinking about how whether non-gendered terms would work for mainstream contra
dances, I thought it would be good to ask callers what they thought. Is it something where
most callers were only willing to call Gents/Ladies, or are they more flexible? Do they
generally support this sort of change, or do they think it's a bad idea?
I wrote to people who have called BIDA in the last year, plus the ones who are currently
booked, to ask them whether:
A dance like BIDA switching to gender free terms is better, worse, or about the same.
They have a preference between Larks/Ravens and Jets/Rubies.
They would be willing to call Larks/Ravens or Jets/Rubies if a dance required that.
Of the 18 callers I wrote to, 17 responded. Of them, all but one was willing to call
Larks/Ravens or Jets/Rubies, though several said (without my having suggested it) that
they wouldn't be willing to call Lead/Follow.
Many of the respondents didn't say whether they were in favor of the switch. Of the
11 who did respond, it was 5x yes, 3x ambivalent, and 3x no.
Nine callers preferred Jets/Rubies because they find it easier to say, but no one so much
that they were willing to call Jets/Rubies but not Larks/Ravens.
Some freeform responses, lightly edited:
"I prefer Jets/Rubies, but only slightly. I can see the benefit of
'L'/'R' matching the default swing ending position with the initial
letters but I think I'd make fewer mistakes with Jets/Rubies. Not enough to sway a
decision though.
"My personal preference is for Jets/Rubies, but that's just because it's
easier for me to say right now. I'm sure that if I practiced Larks/Ravens would be
fine too. If the point of using gender free terms is to distance the roles even further
from gender, than I'd go with Larks/Ravens. Jets/Rubies sounds very similar to
Gents/Ladies, and some callers slip up and say 'Gents' for 'Jets'."
"The birds are arbitrary terms and seem to have fewer unwanted(?) associations than
the rock terms. So I'm for the birds."
"I'm not wildly positive about either Larks/Ravens or Jets/Rubies, but if I had
to choose one set, it would be Larks/Ravens. To me, Jets/Rubies carries a lot of baggage:
It sounds enough like Gents/Ladies that it invites the reaction 'Who are they trying
to kid?' The lack of logical association between jewels (inanimate objects) and
dancing (an intimate human activity) makes the use of Jets/Rubies feel as if the series is
being run by an in-group with a secret language. (I realize the two foregoing reactions
are contradictory, but these are gut reactions, not necessarily rational ones.) Also,
'Jets' makes me think of the gang in West Side Story, and also of airplanes (more
inanimate objects). To sum up, the word in a dance context has no positive associations
for me, and some negative ones. Larks/Ravens has no baggage for me, doesn't reinforce
gender stereotypes, and has a built-in mnemonic with the L/R initials."
"Enough people are offended by 'Jets' sounding too close to 'Gents'
that I think Larks/Ravens is a much easier sell."
"My preference would be Jets/Rubies, because the sound similarity to traditional
terms make the transition easier. (I understand that that very feature makes it the less
desirable choice in some people's view.)"
"As a caller who learned with Gents/Ladies, I find Jets/Rubies the easiest to
use."
"I've never used Larks/Ravens. I've used Jets/Rubies, and felt fairly
comfortable with it. Larks/Ravens makes more sense to me. Definitely happy to use either
one."
"I have a preference for Jets/Rubies but the only terms I will not use are
Leads/Follows."
"I don't have a preference between those two sets of terms. I am also
comfortable with Lead/Follow, but know that this is also a challenging choice for some
people and I understand why it's maybe not the best pick. I like it because those
terms have dance connotations"
"I like Jets/Rubies because 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/Ladies. Also, Larks/Ravens sounds a little silly."
"As far as Jets/Rubies vs Larks/Ravens, I like using Jets/Rubies because they sound
almost the same as Gents/Ladies. For my rhymes and patter, it's a pretty easy
substitution. But my first impression of the terms is that they are still kind of
gendered, or at least can be interpreted that. 'Jets' sounds aggressive and
masculine, and 'Rubies' are definitely feminine. "
"I can't imagine trying to turn a singing square gender free."
"From the point of view of a caller trying to get a new set of words out of my mouth
when significant chunks of my teaching and prompting are automatic, I think that I would
prefer Jets/Rubies for a few reasons. First, I think that I would manage to confuse myself
and stumble around switching 'Gents' to 'Larks', which starts with the
same letter as 'Ladies', and might be more likely to flip-flop the two. Also, I
know that it has been successfully used, but the initial consonants of Larks/Ravens
aren't nearly as contrasted as are those of Jets/Rubies (or of Gents/Ladies)."
"Not really a preference, although as a caller perhaps Jets/Rubies is a slightly
easier transition."
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
13 Feb
13 Feb
6:38 a.m.
As far as I know, all of the ongoing gender-free English country dances use a different
system, “global terminology.” It’s based on current position rather than role, and so
doesn’t have to use a substitute for gents/ladies. There are a small number of dances for
which it’s awkward, though I’ve had callers present me with something they couldn’t figure
out the global terminology for and I’ve usually been able to, usually resulting in easier
teaching and calling than the gendered version. There was one ongoing contra dance decades
ago that used a similar system.
Two discussions of the terminology: http://heatherandrose.org/about.shtml
<http://heatherandrose.org/about.shtml> and
http://lcfd.org/gf-ecd-calling-conventions.html
<http://lcfd.org/gf-ecd-calling-conventions.html>
and an experience from quite a while back:
http://www.henryandjacqui.com/Essays/GenderFree.htm
<http://www.henryandjacqui.com/Essays/GenderFree.htm>
Read Weaver
Jamaica Plain, MA
http://lcfd.org
On Feb 12, 2017, at 5:59 PM, P. Campbell via Callers
<callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
...
Do you know if the ECD world is going through these issues?
...
Patricia Campbell
Newtown, CT
1:24 p.m.
I danced email ECD to Jets/Rubies once, I belive at YDW 2014.
On Feb 13, 2017 1:38 AM, "Read Weaver via Callers" <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
As far as I know, all of the ongoing gender-free
English country dances
use a different system, “global terminology.” It’s based on current
position rather than role, and so doesn’t have to use a substitute for
gents/ladies. There are a small number of dances for which it’s awkward,
though I’ve had callers present me with something they couldn’t figure out
the global terminology for and I’ve usually been able to, usually resulting
in easier teaching and calling than the gendered version. There was one
ongoing contra dance decades ago that used a similar system.
Two discussions of the terminology: http://heatherandrose.org/about.shtml
and http://lcfd.org/gf-ecd-calling-conventions.html
and an experience from quite a while back: http://www.
henryandjacqui.com/Essays/GenderFree.htm
Read Weaver
Jamaica Plain, MA
http://lcfd.org
On Feb 12, 2017, at 5:59 PM, P. Campbell via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
...
Do you know if the ECD world is going through these issues?
...
Patricia Campbell
Newtown, CT
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
3:30 p.m.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017, Read Weaver via Callers wrote:
As far as I know, all of the ongoing gender-free English country
dances use a different system, "global terminology." It's based on
current position rather than role, and so doesn't have to use a
substitute for gents/ladies. There are a small number of dances for
which it's awkward, though I've had callers present me with something
they couldn't figure out the global terminology for and I've usually
been able to, usually resulting in easier teaching and calling than
the gendered version. There was one ongoing contra dance decades ago
that used a similar system.
You have any examples? Both the original and the converted version?
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
3:41 p.m.
On Feb 13, 2017, at 10:30 AM, Aahz via Callers
<callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017, Read Weaver via Callers wrote:
Here is the JP English description - as written by Read a few years agp:
http://lcfd.org/gf-ecd-calling-conventions.html
And the Heather and Rose description:
http://heatherandrose.org/terms.shtml
John Gintell
As far as I know, all of the ongoing gender-free English country
dances use a different system, "global terminology." It's based on
current position rather than role, and so doesn't have to use a
substitute for gents/ladies. There are a small number of dances for
which it's awkward, though I've had callers present me with something
they couldn't figure out the global terminology for and I've usually
been able to, usually resulting in easier teaching and calling than
the gendered version. There was one ongoing contra dance decades ago
that used a similar system.
You have any examples? Both the original and the converted version?
5:01 p.m.
I occasionally teach but don’t call, so I don’t have cards—there are GF ECD callers on the
list who may have more to add.
First, a lot of ECDs are written without any reference to gender anyway—the dances often
just work like that.
An example of a conversion: Fried de Metz Herman’s The Archbishop (a 4-couple set dance)
begins
First man and fourth woman cast L one place
which becomes
Long first diagonals cast L one place
Three words instead of five, it references a twosome rather than two individuals, and
places them in a context, better (I’d argue) showing the pattern of the whole dance. And
imagine calling using the original version.
(btw, I’m looking at someone else’s description of the dance—I don’t know how Fried wrote
it. But someone is describing it the first way.)
Read Weaver
Jamaica Plain, MA
http://lcfd.org
On Feb 13, 2017, at 10:30 AM, Aahz via Callers
<callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017, Read Weaver via Callers wrote:
As far as I know, all of the ongoing gender-free English country
dances use a different system, "global terminology." It's based on
current position rather than role, and so doesn't have to use a
substitute for gents/ladies. There are a small number of dances for
which it's awkward, though I've had callers present me with something
they couldn't figure out the global terminology for and I've usually
been able to, usually resulting in easier teaching and calling than
the gendered version. There was one ongoing contra dance decades ago
that used a similar system.
You have any examples? Both the original and the converted version?
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
5:52 p.m.
I’ve yet to personally encounter a request for terminology usage with which I can’t
comfortably work. If an organizer(s) wants me to use “jets” and “rubies”, I’ll do it.
Absent such a request, I usually state that my own use of the terms “gent” and “lady” has
to do with choreography, not biology, and anyone can dance either role. I often say, “In
your partnership, whoever wants to dance the lady’s (gent’s) role stand on the right
(left)”, and, in walk-throughs, “whoever’s being the lady (gent) ______ (chain; allemande
left; pass right shoulders; dos-a-dos; etc., etc.)”.
Experienced dancers often contradict this advisory when they insist that a couple who
haven’t crossed while waiting out at the end do so. In most instances, I believe the
intent to be helpful, rather than homophobic.
At family dances, when setting up a basic longways dance, I’ve long referred to one line
as the “wolves” and the other as the "bears”. The animated howling and growling
which usually ensue feel compatible with a light-hearted party atmosphere free of
restrictive expectations and prejudices. I often wind up using the terms throughout the
event.
I like “global terminology” a lot and use it whenever practicable during a “regular”
contra dance evening. However, I do find locally accepted and familiar role identifiers
to be greatly helpful to the teaching/learning process in some circumstances.
I think a lot about the belief that replacing the “gent” and “lady” everywhere would
result in more people contra dancing. I suppose we’ll never know unless we try. I’m not
sure why I’m not yet sure I want to.
David Kaynor
On Feb 13, 2017, at 10:30 AM, Aahz via Callers
<callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017, Read Weaver via Callers wrote:
As far as I know, all of the ongoing gender-free English country
dances use a different system, "global terminology." It's based on
current position rather than role, and so doesn't have to use a
substitute for gents/ladies. There are a small number of dances for
which it's awkward, though I've had callers present me with something
they couldn't figure out the global terminology for and I've usually
been able to, usually resulting in easier teaching and calling than
the gendered version. There was one ongoing contra dance decades ago
that used a similar system.
You have any examples? Both the original and the converted version?
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
10:51 p.m.
I do not want to replace gent and lady as terms, based on my own experience.
Some context: I've been dancing for between 29 and 37 years, depending on
how you count--my parents met at a square dance and I grew up dancing. I
started calling about 18 years ago, and dance/call ECD, Scottish, squares,
contra, ballroom, and folk styles at varying levels of proficiency. Seeing
a man dancing the lady's role, or a woman dancing the gent's role, has
never, ever phased me. It's fun to swap, requires technical skill, speaks
well of a dancer who can do it well stylistically, and sometimes is
necessary to fill out a set. It is also an important skill for any caller,
and one callers need to know how to handle when it happens in special
situations; the callers I grew up with talked about when they first
encountered gay or one-gender crowds in the 60s and how they struggled to
adjust on the fly.
That said, I first encountered "gender-free" dancing at a Heather and Rose
(?) ECD dance outside of Eugene, Oregon about 15 years ago. I didn't know
what I was walking into, and thought it was a normal ECD event until they
lined up and started teaching.
They used several dances I was familiar with; I had been teaching some
older ECD dances for a graduate folklore class and recently returned from
Berea's Christmas Country Dance School. Aside from momentary confusion,
adapting to the unfamiliar terminology and random line-up was not a problem
for me.
What I couldn't adapt to was how being made "gender free" changed the
character of the dances I knew. They became less elegant, less
interesting, and were lessened overall. Switching between an A and a B
position meant nothing aside from (possibly) a slightly different floor
pattern. Proper and improper had no relevance. There was no stylistic
mastery needed to switch dance sides because any clue as to historically
demanded or intended stylistic differences had been stripped out--there
weren't even ROLES anymore, merely positions; there was nothing to hold
onto even as a guideline for playacting. The dances completely lost their
flavor and character. They became like Caffeine Free Diet Crystal Coke.
(I mean, honestly...WHY WAS THAT EVER MADE? Just drink water!)
Other folks may certainly disagree with me, and I have followed and agree
with the many counterpoints, but I personally believe that the terms
"gentlemen" and "ladies" (and their derivatives) positively influence
how
people behave and relate, and definitely how a dance is done. I don't
worry about that at special or family events, of course; I just want
everyone to get up and have a good time. But encouraging folks to learn
both roles to become better dancers is only meaningful if there is a
meaningful difference between the roles.
I am a happily married man and prefer to dance with women as partners and
corners. I don't mind dancing with men, but that's not what I go to dances
for; if I wanted to get close to a bunch of sweaty guys, I'd play
football. If we're honest, we can admit that the vast majority of our
general dancers (both new and old) are probably similar. So why not let
the dance reflect that? That's more likely to win friends than taking a
wonderful dance with character and making it into "gender free diet
crystal contra."
Just my 2 cents.
Neal
Neal Schlein
Youth Services Librarian, Mahomet Public Library
Currently reading: *The Different Girl* by Gordon Dahlquist
Currently learning: How to set up an automated email system.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:52 AM, David A Kaynor via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
I’ve yet to personally encounter a request for
terminology usage with
which I can’t comfortably work. If an organizer(s) wants me to use “jets”
and “rubies”, I’ll do it.
Absent such a request, I usually state that my own use of the terms “gent”
and “lady” has to do with choreography, not biology, and anyone can dance
either role. I often say, “In your partnership, whoever wants to dance the
lady’s (gent’s) role stand on the right (left)”, and, in walk-throughs,
“whoever’s being the lady (gent) ______ (chain; allemande left; pass right
shoulders; dos-a-dos; etc., etc.)”.
Experienced dancers often contradict this advisory when they insist that a
couple who haven’t crossed while waiting out at the end do so. In most
instances, I believe the intent to be helpful, rather than homophobic.
At family dances, when setting up a basic longways dance, I’ve long
referred to one line as the “wolves” and the other as the "bears”. The
animated howling and growling which usually ensue feel compatible with a
light-hearted party atmosphere free of restrictive expectations and
prejudices. I often wind up using the terms throughout the event.
I like “global terminology” a lot and use it whenever practicable during a
“regular” contra dance evening. However, I do find locally accepted and
familiar role identifiers to be greatly helpful to the teaching/learning
process in some circumstances.
I think a lot about the belief that replacing the “gent” and “lady”
everywhere would result in more people contra dancing. I suppose we’ll
never know unless we try. I’m not sure why I’m not yet sure I want to.
David Kaynor
On Feb 13, 2017, at 10:30 AM, Aahz via Callers
<
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017, Read Weaver via Callers wrote:
http://rule6.info/
As far as I know, all of the ongoing gender-free English country
dances use a different system, "global terminology." It's based on
current position rather than role, and so doesn't have to use a
substitute for gents/ladies. There are a small number of dances for
which it's awkward, though I've had callers present me with something
they couldn't figure out the global terminology for and I've usually
been able to, usually resulting in easier teaching and calling than
the gendered version. There was one ongoing contra dance decades ago
that used a similar system.
You have any examples? Both the original and the converted version?
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*>
<*> <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
_______________________________________________
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
10:58 p.m.
I basically agree with Neal. I would not want to replace gents and
ladies with other arbitrary terms. For many of the same reasons.
Woody
--
Woody Lane
Caller, Percussive Dancer
Roseburg, Oregon
http://www.woodylanecaller.com
home: 541-440-1926 cell: 541-556-0054
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2/13/2017 2:51 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers wrote:
I do not want to replace gent and lady as terms, based
on my own
experience.
Some context: I've been dancing for between 29 and 37 years, depending
on how you count--my parents met at a square dance and I grew up
dancing. I started calling about 18 years ago, and dance/call ECD,
Scottish, squares, contra, ballroom, and folk styles at varying levels
of proficiency. Seeing a man dancing the lady's role, or a woman
dancing the gent's role, has never, ever phased me. It's fun to swap,
requires technical skill, speaks well of a dancer who can do it well
stylistically, and sometimes is necessary to fill out a set. It is
also an important skill for any caller, and one callers need to know
how to handle when it happens in special situations; the callers I
grew up with talked about when they first encountered gay or
one-gender crowds in the 60s and how they struggled to adjust on the fly.
That said, I first encountered "gender-free" dancing at a Heather and
Rose (?) ECD dance outside of Eugene, Oregon about 15 years ago. I
didn't know what I was walking into, and thought it was a normal ECD
event until they lined up and started teaching.
They used several dances I was familiar with; I had been teaching some
older ECD dances for a graduate folklore class and recently returned
from Berea's Christmas Country Dance School. Aside from momentary
confusion, adapting to the unfamiliar terminology and random line-up
was not a problem for me.
What I couldn't adapt to was how being made "gender free" changed the
character of the dances I knew. They became less elegant, less
interesting, and were lessened overall. Switching between an A and a B
position meant nothing aside from (possibly) a slightly different
floor pattern. Proper and improper had no relevance. There was no
stylistic mastery needed to switch dance sides because any clue as to
historically demanded or intended stylistic differences had been
stripped out--there weren't even ROLES anymore, merely positions;
there was nothing to hold onto even as a guideline for playacting.
The dances completely lost their flavor and character. They became
like Caffeine Free Diet Crystal Coke. (I mean, honestly...WHY WAS THAT
EVER MADE? Just drink water!)
Other folks may certainly disagree with me, and I have followed and
agree with the many counterpoints, but I personally believe that the
terms "gentlemen" and "ladies" (and their derivatives) positively
influence how people behave and relate, and definitely how a dance is
done. I don't worry about that at special or family events, of
course; I just want everyone to get up and have a good time. But
encouraging folks to learn both roles to become better dancers is only
meaningful if there is a meaningful difference between the roles.
I am a happily married man and prefer to dance with women as partners
and corners. I don't mind dancing with men, but that's not what I go
to dances for; if I wanted to get close to a bunch of sweaty guys, I'd
play football. If we're honest, we can admit that the vast majority
of our general dancers (both new and old) are probably similar. So
why not let the dance reflect that? That's more likely to win friends
than taking a wonderful dance with character and making it into
"gender free diet crystal contra."
Just my 2 cents.
Neal
Neal Schlein
Youth Services Librarian, Mahomet Public Library
17 Feb
17 Feb
3:49 a.m.
I have danced at a bunch of genderfree dances, as well as my home dance
having a lot of people who dance both roles. I can't say I've ever had this
"diet contra" experience.
My home dance is widely known among musicians and callers as a lively crowd
who brings good energy to performers. Proper and improper have little
relevance, but that doesn't stop a seeming endless supply of new
choreography being generated and called by various callers. Does it really
matter if I'm allemanding or swinging with a particular gender? I guess a
person can still choose to only dance with one gender if they really felt
strongly.
But saying that genderfree dancing is bland? I mean, it's a folk community
dance. The whole point is we all dance in one big set together. If dancing
only to swing people of one gender means so much that contra is "diet"
without it, I would ask what exactly contra means to you?
Best regards,
Ron Blechner
On Feb 13, 2017 6:17 PM, "Woody Lane via Callers" <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
I basically agree with Neal. I would not want to replace gents and ladies
with other arbitrary terms. For many of the same reasons.
Woody
--
Woody Lane
Caller, Percussive Dancer
Roseburg, Oregon
http://www.woodylanecaller.com
home: 541-440-1926 <(541)%20440-1926> cell: 541-556-0054 <(541)%20556-0054>
------------------------------
On 2/13/2017 2:51 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers wrote:
I do not want to replace gent and lady as terms, based on my own experience.
Some context: I've been dancing for between 29 and 37 years, depending on
how you count--my parents met at a square dance and I grew up dancing. I
started calling about 18 years ago, and dance/call ECD, Scottish, squares,
contra, ballroom, and folk styles at varying levels of proficiency. Seeing
a man dancing the lady's role, or a woman dancing the gent's role, has
never, ever phased me. It's fun to swap, requires technical skill, speaks
well of a dancer who can do it well stylistically, and sometimes is
necessary to fill out a set. It is also an important skill for any caller,
and one callers need to know how to handle when it happens in special
situations; the callers I grew up with talked about when they first
encountered gay or one-gender crowds in the 60s and how they struggled to
adjust on the fly.
That said, I first encountered "gender-free" dancing at a Heather and Rose
(?) ECD dance outside of Eugene, Oregon about 15 years ago. I didn't know
what I was walking into, and thought it was a normal ECD event until they
lined up and started teaching.
They used several dances I was familiar with; I had been teaching some
older ECD dances for a graduate folklore class and recently returned from
Berea's Christmas Country Dance School. Aside from momentary confusion,
adapting to the unfamiliar terminology and random line-up was not a problem
for me.
What I couldn't adapt to was how being made "gender free" changed the
character of the dances I knew. They became less elegant, less
interesting, and were lessened overall. Switching between an A and a B
position meant nothing aside from (possibly) a slightly different floor
pattern. Proper and improper had no relevance. There was no stylistic
mastery needed to switch dance sides because any clue as to historically
demanded or intended stylistic differences had been stripped out--there
weren't even ROLES anymore, merely positions; there was nothing to hold
onto even as a guideline for playacting. The dances completely lost their
flavor and character. They became like Caffeine Free Diet Crystal Coke.
(I mean, honestly...WHY WAS THAT EVER MADE? Just drink water!)
Other folks may certainly disagree with me, and I have followed and agree
with the many counterpoints, but I personally believe that the terms
"gentlemen" and "ladies" (and their derivatives) positively influence
how
people behave and relate, and definitely how a dance is done. I don't
worry about that at special or family events, of course; I just want
everyone to get up and have a good time. But encouraging folks to learn
both roles to become better dancers is only meaningful if there is a
meaningful difference between the roles.
I am a happily married man and prefer to dance with women as partners and
corners. I don't mind dancing with men, but that's not what I go to dances
for; if I wanted to get close to a bunch of sweaty guys, I'd play
football. If we're honest, we can admit that the vast majority of our
general dancers (both new and old) are probably similar. So why not let
the dance reflect that? That's more likely to win friends than taking a
wonderful dance with character and making it into "gender free diet
crystal contra."
Just my 2 cents.
Neal
Neal Schlein
Youth Services Librarian, Mahomet Public Library
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
20 Feb
20 Feb
11:42 p.m.
Neal, Can you clarify? Do you mean that you dance differently depending on
which side you begin the dance on? How does your style change?
Thanks,
Alex
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
I have danced at a bunch of genderfree dances, as well
as my home dance
having a lot of people who dance both roles. I can't say I've ever had this
"diet contra" experience.
My home dance is widely known among musicians and callers as a lively
crowd who brings good energy to performers. Proper and improper have little
relevance, but that doesn't stop a seeming endless supply of new
choreography being generated and called by various callers. Does it really
matter if I'm allemanding or swinging with a particular gender? I guess a
person can still choose to only dance with one gender if they really felt
strongly.
But saying that genderfree dancing is bland? I mean, it's a folk community
dance. The whole point is we all dance in one big set together. If dancing
only to swing people of one gender means so much that contra is "diet"
without it, I would ask what exactly contra means to you?
Best regards,
Ron Blechner
On Feb 13, 2017 6:17 PM, "Woody Lane via Callers" <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
I basically agree with Neal. I would not want to replace gents and ladies
with other arbitrary terms. For many of the same reasons.
Woody
--
Woody Lane
Caller, Percussive Dancer
Roseburg, Oregon
http://www.woodylanecaller.com
home: 541-440-1926 <(541)%20440-1926> cell: 541-556-0054
<(541)%20556-0054>
------------------------------
On 2/13/2017 2:51 PM, Neal Schlein via Callers wrote:
I do not want to replace gent and lady as terms, based on my own
experience.
Some context: I've been dancing for between 29 and 37 years, depending on
how you count--my parents met at a square dance and I grew up dancing. I
started calling about 18 years ago, and dance/call ECD, Scottish, squares,
contra, ballroom, and folk styles at varying levels of proficiency. Seeing
a man dancing the lady's role, or a woman dancing the gent's role, has
never, ever phased me. It's fun to swap, requires technical skill, speaks
well of a dancer who can do it well stylistically, and sometimes is
necessary to fill out a set. It is also an important skill for any caller,
and one callers need to know how to handle when it happens in special
situations; the callers I grew up with talked about when they first
encountered gay or one-gender crowds in the 60s and how they struggled to
adjust on the fly.
That said, I first encountered "gender-free" dancing at a Heather and Rose
(?) ECD dance outside of Eugene, Oregon about 15 years ago. I didn't know
what I was walking into, and thought it was a normal ECD event until they
lined up and started teaching.
They used several dances I was familiar with; I had been teaching some
older ECD dances for a graduate folklore class and recently returned from
Berea's Christmas Country Dance School. Aside from momentary confusion,
adapting to the unfamiliar terminology and random line-up was not a problem
for me.
What I couldn't adapt to was how being made "gender free" changed the
character of the dances I knew. They became less elegant, less
interesting, and were lessened overall. Switching between an A and a B
position meant nothing aside from (possibly) a slightly different floor
pattern. Proper and improper had no relevance. There was no stylistic
mastery needed to switch dance sides because any clue as to historically
demanded or intended stylistic differences had been stripped out--there
weren't even ROLES anymore, merely positions; there was nothing to hold
onto even as a guideline for playacting. The dances completely lost their
flavor and character. They became like Caffeine Free Diet Crystal Coke.
(I mean, honestly...WHY WAS THAT EVER MADE? Just drink water!)
Other folks may certainly disagree with me, and I have followed and agree
with the many counterpoints, but I personally believe that the terms
"gentlemen" and "ladies" (and their derivatives) positively influence
how
people behave and relate, and definitely how a dance is done. I don't
worry about that at special or family events, of course; I just want
everyone to get up and have a good time. But encouraging folks to learn
both roles to become better dancers is only meaningful if there is a
meaningful difference between the roles.
I am a happily married man and prefer to dance with women as partners and
corners. I don't mind dancing with men, but that's not what I go to dances
for; if I wanted to get close to a bunch of sweaty guys, I'd play
football. If we're honest, we can admit that the vast majority of our
general dancers (both new and old) are probably similar. So why not let
the dance reflect that? That's more likely to win friends than taking a
wonderful dance with character and making it into "gender free diet
crystal contra."
Just my 2 cents.
Neal
Neal Schlein
Youth Services Librarian, Mahomet Public Library
_______________________________________________
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
27 Feb
27 Feb
1:32 a.m.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017, Neal Schlein via Callers wrote:
I do not want to replace gent and lady as terms, based on my own experience.
What I'd say is that what I want doesn't matter much.
Some context: I've been dancing for between 29 and
37 years, depending on
how you count--my parents met at a square dance and I grew up dancing.
Somewhat similarly, I'm a second-generation dancer, although my parents
were more into folk dancing (they met on a hike).
I am a happily married man and prefer to dance with
women as partners and
corners. I don't mind dancing with men, but that's not what I go to dances
for; if I wanted to get close to a bunch of sweaty guys, I'd play
football. If we're honest, we can admit that the vast majority of our
general dancers (both new and old) are probably similar. So why not let
the dance reflect that? That's more likely to win friends than taking a
wonderful dance with character and making it into "gender free diet
crystal contra."
Normally I make a point of avoiding any discussion of my gender and
sexual preferences, but because it's relevant here: I'm cisgender male
and heterosexual.
Like Neal, my personal preference is to have women as partners
(regardless of whether I'm dancing boy or girl -- and particularly in
contra I'll happily gender-swap near-constantly). But I want my contra
community to be inclusive, and because of the kyriarchical society we
live in, I am happy to lose some of my preference to encourage greater
participation from groups who would not be comfortable with hetero- and
other kinds of normativity.
[Not going to bother discussing Neal's points about gender styling; it's
something that I don't care about.]
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
2615
days inactive
2630
days old
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
13 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
Aahz via Callers -
Alexandra Deis-Lauby via Callers
-
Angela DeCarlis via Callers
-
David A Kaynor via Callers
-
Jeff Kaufman via Callers
-
John W Gintell via Callers
-
Neal Schlein via Callers
-
P. Campbell via Callers
-
Read Weaver via Callers
-
Ron Blechner via Callers
-
Woody Lane via Callers