On Thu, May 28, 2015, Alan Winston via Callers wrote: Ditto all this. -- 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

Why have to explain that a “jet” is a gem? Just say that it’s very different from “ruby” so they are not easily confused in a noisy room. -Eric On May 28, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote: I have had to explain that "a jet is a gem, not the airplane or a West Side Story gang" to a ton of people. So I feel this is more confusing than a ruby being a gem. On May 28, 2015 4:25 PM, "Aahz Maruch via Callers" < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ 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

I have had to explain that "a jet is a gem, not the airplane or a West Side Story gang" to a ton of people. So I feel this is more confusing than a ruby being a gem.

On Thu, May 28, 2015, Alan Winston via Callers wrote: Me too. I haven't yet tried calling with the jets and rubies terminology, though I've used bands/bares and larks/ravens. I can't say I'm eager to add yet another set of translated cards to my files. Kalia Kliban _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

For reference, my own thoughts on the terms, and a general FAQ about gender free terms: http://contradances.tumblr.com/post/113203981035/genderfree-contra-dance-te… I have not updated it with gems / rubies. I like jets / rubies, but I think gems / rubies is better: 1. I disagree that the "em" sound is harder to hear than the "et" in jet. Good mic skills / having a foam pad on a mic will dull the sharp "ts" in "gents", and thus, "jets". Because a loud "ts" on the mic is harsh. Therefore, this argument against "gems" is not an issue. 2. A lot of people don't know "jet" is a gemstone, and so they think airplane. I've had a lot of gender free dancers complain about this. Given that the terms need to serve the LGBTQ community, and not merely us as callers, I take this complaint seriously. Thus, "gem" is a better choice. 3. Yes, a ruby is a gem. So what? They're both gems. 4. There's a gender connotation to thinking jet = airplane, since it's either phallic, or people think the NY/NJ football team, or the West Side Story fictional gang. Again, the terms are here to serve the dancers, not merely us. 5. Gem has all the same advantages as jet. I thus think gem / ruby is a superior pair than jet / ruby. Ron Blechner

It would be interesting to get some dancers' reactions to these various terminologies. Has anyone thought of using two different pairings in a dance evening and then asking the dancers which they thought was clearer to their ears and which they preferred? Of course this is even a bigger burden on the caller. On May 29, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote: Erik, neat cheat. For reference, my own thoughts on the terms, and a general FAQ about gender free terms: http://contradances.tumblr.com/post/113203981035/genderfree-contra-dance-te… I have not updated it with gems / rubies. I like jets / rubies, but I think gems / rubies is better: 1. I disagree that the "em" sound is harder to hear than the "et" in jet. Good mic skills / having a foam pad on a mic will dull the sharp "ts" in "gents", and thus, "jets". Because a loud "ts" on the mic is harsh. Therefore, this argument against "gems" is not an issue. 2. A lot of people don't know "jet" is a gemstone, and so they think airplane. I've had a lot of gender free dancers complain about this. Given that the terms need to serve the LGBTQ community, and not merely us as callers, I take this complaint seriously. Thus, "gem" is a better choice. 3. Yes, a ruby is a gem. So what? They're both gems. 4. There's a gender connotation to thinking jet = airplane, since it's either phallic, or people think the NY/NJ football team, or the West Side Story fictional gang. Again, the terms are here to serve the dancers, not merely us. 5. Gem has all the same advantages as jet. I thus think gem / ruby is a superior pair than jet / ruby. Ron Blechner On May 29, 2015 11:32 AM, "Erik Hoffman via Callers" < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

On May 29, 2015, at 1:56 AM, P. Campbell via Callers &lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote: I like jets & rubies (and have used the terms) for a number of reasons. (Don't like gems for same reason about confusion). In a weird way, it's close enough to "lefts & rights" for me to have no trouble remembering who's who (with rubies starting with "r"), and, (apologies to those who might be offended), because it fits the same syllables for me as "gents & ladies" (which I use for historical dance) or "men & women". For some reason I just can't get a feel for larks & ravens (I have an idea of why but not worth sharing), and I'm not at all comfortable using bands & bares. For me, it's whatever will be the easiest for me to remember which side is which, and if my brain is wired to think of "jets" (black color) as more masculine and "rubies" (red color) as more feminine (so easier for me to link them to left & right), that's my mental visual process. (I tried apples & oranges once with a group of kids - it was terrible because I couldn't remember which was which side - I have to have some frame of reference). I think one of the reasons I have trouble with larks & ravens is because of having learned a foreign language that has a gender for nouns, and I want to make larks the right side and ravens the left, but then the syllable structure doesn't work for me. My 2 cents. Patricia Sent from my iPhone On May 28, 2015, at 3:51 PM, Alan Winston via Callers &lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

I have used suns and moons for years, and prefer them because they have one syllable each, sound completely different from each other, and are easy for the dancers to remember. I have never had any issue arise about gender bias from them. The conversation about which gems to use does seem a bit too overthought to me.

I kinda like suns and moons better than lots of the other alternatives, for the same reasons Susan lists. Also, there's Sun Dance and Moon Dance, by Robert Cromartie: gents swing in Sun Dance and ladies swing in Moon Dance. A precedence, perhaps? -Amy On May 29, 2015, at 8:00 AM, susanelberger via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote: I have used suns and moons for years, and prefer them because they have one syllable each, sound completely different from each other, and are easy for the dancers to remember. I have never had any issue arise about gender bias from them. The conversation about which gems to use does seem a bit too overthought to me. Susan Elberger Lowell, Massachusetts ------------------------------ *From:* Delia Clark via Callers &lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; *To:* &quot;&lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt;&quot; &lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2015 6:52 AM *Subject:* Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems? Okay, this conversation, plus the lunch table at the Puttin’ On the Dance Conference in Ottawa are FINALLY getting me to give up clinging to moons and stars (the only non-gender term I’ve ever used, which I have liked with families and have found works well, but which I understand is too gender-y to be acceptable as the solution we’re looking for - dang!). I am herewith committing to trying out Jets and Rubies next weekend at a dance I’m calling for a wedding of two women. Will report back. On May 29, 2015, at 1:56 AM, P. Campbell via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote: I like jets & rubies (and have used the terms) for a number of reasons. (Don't like gems for same reason about confusion). In a weird way, it's close enough to "lefts & rights" for me to have no trouble remembering who's who (with rubies starting with "r"), and, (apologies to those who might be offended), because it fits the same syllables for me as "gents & ladies" (which I use for historical dance) or "men & women". For some reason I just can't get a feel for larks & ravens (I have an idea of why but not worth sharing), and I'm not at all comfortable using bands & bares. For me, it's whatever will be the easiest for me to remember which side is which, and if my brain is wired to think of "jets" (black color) as more masculine and "rubies" (red color) as more feminine (so easier for me to link them to left & right), that's my mental visual process. (I tried apples & oranges once with a group of kids - it was terrible because I couldn't remember which was which side - I have to have some frame of reference). I think one of the reasons I have trouble with larks & ravens is because of having learned a foreign language that has a gender for nouns, and I want to make larks the right side and ravens the left, but then the syllable structure doesn't work for me. My 2 cents. Patricia Sent from my iPhone On May 28, 2015, at 3:51 PM, Alan Winston via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote: On 5/28/15 12:30 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote: For those interested in gender free contra dance terms: 1. Do you like or dislike jets / rubies ? Like. (I'm responding on personal preference alone; I'm aware of some objections to this, which I don't personally share.) 2. How would gems / rubies compare? Less good, because the soft "ms" would make the call less clear. Also, rubies _are_ gems, so this is confusing. -- Alan _______________________________________________ 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 <>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<> Delia Clark PO Box 45 Taftsville, VT 05073 802-457-2075 deliaclark8(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ 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

Okay, this is from a square dance/contra caller: I'd go crazy if I was stuck with a single set of terms, no matter what they were. The rhyming potential for the calls is lost. Anyway, I still think it is more than just a matter of terminology. All we are doing is swapping words; everyone knows they are stand-ins and what they are stand-ins for. In essence, we are just obscuring the original choreographic intent of gendered figures and dances, not calling gender neutral dances. (Plus, anything written within the last 30 years is a copyrighted work and technically we require permission to make changes, perform it publicly, OR make derivative works. Not that anyone really cares.) Personally, I haven't enjoyed the "gender neutral" dance events I've been to--not because I think it's a bad idea or dislike dancing with men, but because the callers were taking historical dances with built-in and intentional gender differences and simply ignoring them. Particularly in older ECD, it is one thing to intentionally dance the lady's role and another to ignore that there WAS a role. It impoverishes the dance as a whole. Some older dances happen to work well as gendered or ungendered dances, but to me a truly gender-neutral dance is constructed to intentionally be that way. For example, the following: Gender-Swapped By Neal Schlein, 5/29/15 Duple gender-less contra Music: Probably something highly phrased, like Irish A1: 1's step into center and handy hand turn neighbor 2 times A1: End with everyone facing down the hall, 4 in line, and go down the hall A2: Face the center of the line, pass thru, leads u-Turn and swing, any type (end in same spot where started swing, 1's on outside, facing up the hall) B1: Come up the hall B1: Bend the line and circle full B2: 1's gypsy full and slow cast down while the 2's gypsy or swing 1 and 1/2 to end in starting line; 1s come into the center. It's not the best timing in the B2, but if I did that right.... - With improper and gendered lines, it dances normally the first time through--standard swings, everything. The second time, the 1's will be on the opposite side of the set, meaning half of the dance is same-gender and half is opposite. - With PROPER gendered lines, that is exactly reversed. - With gender-neutral lines--it is completely random, but it doesn't matter because... The dance itself is gender-neutral: it doesn't need gender or gender-substitute terms for teaching any of the figures or the sequence in any formation. The choreography was selected to force interaction of identical sorts with all participating genders and positions. . Neal Schlein _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

On May 30, 2015, at 2:00 PM, susanelberger via Callers &lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote: I do wonder whether this horse has been beaten to death. I doubt that there will be agreement, and that's fine. The topic has been on the list several times, and yes, I know I can ignore the postings, but enough seems to be more than enough. From: Ron Blechner &lt;contraron(a)gmail.com&gt; To: Amy Wimmer &lt;amywimmer(a)gmail.com&gt; Cc: susanelberger &lt;susanma1950(a)yahoo.com&gt;om>; callers &lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:10 PM Subject: Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems? Care to branch off non-jet/ruby terms to a new email please? On May 29, 2015 2:45 PM, "Amy Wimmer via Callers" &lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: I kinda like suns and moons better than lots of the other alternatives, for the same reasons Susan lists. Also, there's Sun Dance and Moon Dance, by Robert Cromartie: gents swing in Sun Dance and ladies swing in Moon Dance. A precedence, perhaps? -Amy On May 29, 2015, at 8:00 AM, susanelberger via Callers &lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-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

If a our group of like minded people can't agree on terms to use when teaching relatively straightforward dances, can we expect a nation to agree on such trivial issues like use of force by police, national health insurance, income distribution, and money's influence in elections ?? Michael Fuerst 802 N Broadway Urbana IL 61801 217 239 5844 On Saturday, May 30, 2015 2:16 PM, Lewis Land via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote: I agree with that most recent posting. There seem to be many sincere and earnest people out there who want to find the perfect solution for gender-free calling terms, but I doubt there will ever be consensus on this topic, and really, enough is enough. -Lewis Land On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 12:00 PM, susanelberger via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote: I do wonder whether this horse has been beaten to death. I doubt that there will be agreement, and that's fine. The topic has been on the list several times, and yes, I know I can ignore the postings, but enough seems to be more than enough. ------------------------------ *From:* Ron Blechner &lt;contraron(a)gmail.com&gt; *To:* Amy Wimmer &lt;amywimmer(a)gmail.com&gt; *Cc:* susanelberger &lt;susanma1950(a)yahoo.com&gt;om>; callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2015 3:10 PM *Subject:* Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems? Care to branch off non-jet/ruby terms to a new email please? On May 29, 2015 2:45 PM, "Amy Wimmer via Callers" < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote: I kinda like suns and moons better than lots of the other alternatives, for the same reasons Susan lists. Also, there's Sun Dance and Moon Dance, by Robert Cromartie: gents swing in Sun Dance and ladies swing in Moon Dance. A precedence, perhaps? -Amy On May 29, 2015, at 8:00 AM, susanelberger via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote: I have used suns and moons for years, and prefer them because they have one syllable each, sound completely different from each other, and are easy for the dancers to remember. I have never had any issue arise about gender bias from them. The conversation about which gems to use does seem a bit too overthought to me. Susan Elberger Lowell, Massachusetts ------------------------------ *From:* Delia Clark via Callers &lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; *To:* &quot;&lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt;&quot; &lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2015 6:52 AM *Subject:* Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems? Okay, this conversation, plus the lunch table at the Puttin’ On the Dance Conference in Ottawa are FINALLY getting me to give up clinging to moons and stars (the only non-gender term I’ve ever used, which I have liked with families and have found works well, but which I understand is too gender-y to be acceptable as the solution we’re looking for - dang!). I am herewith committing to trying out Jets and Rubies next weekend at a dance I’m calling for a wedding of two women. Will report back. On May 29, 2015, at 1:56 AM, P. Campbell via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote: I like jets & rubies (and have used the terms) for a number of reasons. (Don't like gems for same reason about confusion). In a weird way, it's close enough to "lefts & rights" for me to have no trouble remembering who's who (with rubies starting with "r"), and, (apologies to those who might be offended), because it fits the same syllables for me as "gents & ladies" (which I use for historical dance) or "men & women". For some reason I just can't get a feel for larks & ravens (I have an idea of why but not worth sharing), and I'm not at all comfortable using bands & bares. For me, it's whatever will be the easiest for me to remember which side is which, and if my brain is wired to think of "jets" (black color) as more masculine and "rubies" (red color) as more feminine (so easier for me to link them to left & right), that's my mental visual process. (I tried apples & oranges once with a group of kids - it was terrible because I couldn't remember which was which side - I have to have some frame of reference). I think one of the reasons I have trouble with larks & ravens is because of having learned a foreign language that has a gender for nouns, and I want to make larks the right side and ravens the left, but then the syllable structure doesn't work for me. My 2 cents. Patricia Sent from my iPhone On May 28, 2015, at 3:51 PM, Alan Winston via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote: On 5/28/15 12:30 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote: For those interested in gender free contra dance terms: 1. Do you like or dislike jets / rubies ? Like. (I'm responding on personal preference alone; I'm aware of some objections to this, which I don't personally share.) 2. How would gems / rubies compare? Less good, because the soft "ms" would make the call less clear. Also, rubies _are_ gems, so this is confusing. -- Alan _______________________________________________ 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 <>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<> Delia Clark PO Box 45 Taftsville, VT 05073 802-457-2075 deliaclark8(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ 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

Personally I'd like to see this rest for awhile. We just discussed this at length 6 months ago.

I agree. Personally I'd like to see this rest for awhile. We just discussed this at length 6 months ago. It's my understanding that the folks who started it all (Hampshire College) have not yet decided on which terms to use. I think that talking about terms to use is a bit "cart before the horse". I don't think there's any consensus (nationally) that it should be changed it at all. Yes, another can of worms. Keep in mind that in the 70's and 80's (with the feminist movement) many callers were using "Men and Women". Now many callers are back to "Gents and Ladies" and explaining that these are "roles" not gender defining. Donna Hunt -----Original Message----- From: susanelberger via Callers &lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; To: Ron Blechner &lt;contraron(a)gmail.com&gt;om>; Amy Wimmer &lt;amywimmer(a)gmail.com&gt; Cc: callers &lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; Sent: Sat, May 30, 2015 2:01 pm Subject: Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems? I do wonder whether this horse has been beaten to death. I doubt that there will be agreement, and that's fine. The topic has been on the list several times, and yes, I know I can ignore the postings, but enough seems to be more than enough. _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

On Jun 1, 2015, at 2:25 AM, Erik Hoffman via Callers &lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote: It's funny, but there's a part of me that finds all of these different words a little weird. In a way, I'm not sure I like any of them. But I do like the sense of liberation they give -- the level of comfort that's appearing at dances for people dancing with anyone. In my area, the SF Bay Area, men are definitely getting more comfortable dancing with men. Around here -- as opposed to outlying areas -- there has always been a level of tolerance, but the level of acceptance is growing. I think my sense of weirdness -- slight discomfort -- comes from both working to change my habits, and from the sense of the terms being contrived. OK, my thought/feelings are changing, and my mind is starting to think of this use as being creative rather than contrived. Also, use is working in my favor: the more I call using Larks and Ravens, the more comfortable it's getting for me, and I'm feeling it's less "contrived." But it has been a bit of a hurdle for me to overcome. As for liking jets & rubies, I have the same problem many do: the multiple meaning of the word "jet." OK, I can be told it's a jem, but a machine to fly, developed by the military, designed for aggressive fighting, then given to the public for high-carbon footprint travel is my first thought -- extremely masculine. Second thought that comes to an old geezer like me is a gang in New York's West Side, about which there is a story, which is also masculine... Jet as a gem would be slow to replace the other two. So, were I to try these, I'd go for gems & rubies. But we'll stick with Larks & Ravens for a while... ~erik hoffman oakland, ca On 5/28/2015 12:30 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote: _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net