Import1 May 2015

import1@lists2.sharedweight.net

1 participants
55 discussions

Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?

by susanelberger via Callers

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 <contraron(a)gmail.com> To: Amy Wimmer <amywimmer(a)gmail.com> Cc: susanelberger <susanma1950(a)yahoo.com>; callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> 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> 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> 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 ElbergerLowell, Massachusetts From: Delia Clark via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> To: "<callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net>" <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> 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> 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> 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 ClarkPO Box 45Taftsville, VT 05073802-457-2075deliaclark8(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

9 years, 6 months

Re: [Callers] The Benefits of Difference (was: Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?)

by susanelberger via Callers

Thank you, Jacob. I think you have identified the real issue. We don't need for everyone to do the same thing as long as our audiences understand what we are saying. Susan Elberger From: Jacob Nancy Bloom via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> To: Delia Clark <deliaclark8(a)gmail.com> Cc: callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2015 7:10 PM Subject: [Callers] The Benefits of Difference (was: Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?) On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Delia Clark via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: ... It will ultimately be a good thing if there is a generally accepted set of words (certainly not a strict requirement, but something that’s generally accepted across the country, if possible) that meet the range of criteria, along the lines of those suggested by Ron in his matrix. There is an assumption behind this statement which is often made, but which I find very disturbing. The assumption is that it is an unalloyed good thing for there to be standardization. This is the kind of thinking that led the Modern Western Square Dance movement to standardize all of their calls, and all of their teaching programs. They wanted any square dancer to be able to go to any square dance club in the country, or in the world, and immediately know exactly what was meant by everything that was said. There are some advantages to that kind of standardization, especially if you happen to be a globe-hopping square dancer who enjoys dancing hot hash, but it comes at a tremendous cost. It comes with a loss of the opportunity to experience, adapt to, and appreciate regional differences. I don't care about being able to go to a new place just to find that things there are done in the same way that I'm used to them being done back home. I care about being able to go to new places and learning the way things are done there. What this means for the current discussion, from my point of view, is that it's a good thing if dance callers and producers discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using different terminology, and consider what language will work best for their dance. It would be a BAD thing if anyone switched terminology JUST BECAUSE that's what other people were doing. It may well be that a certain set of terms will become generally accepted because it works better for the dancers in a lot of places. It may well be that dances which were written to be gender-neutral will be generally accepted because they work better for the dancers in a lot of places. In the meantime, if you find yourself assuming that it would a good thing if there was standardization across the country, please give some thought to what advantage you are trying to achieve, and what the disadvantages would be. Jacob Bloom _______________________________________________ Callers mailing list Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

9 years, 6 months

Re: [Callers] The Benefits of Difference (was: Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?)

by Aahz Maruch via Callers

On Sat, May 30, 2015, Jacob Nancy Bloom via Callers wrote: > On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Delia Clark via Callers < > callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >> >> It will ultimately be a good thing if there is a generally accepted set >> of words (certainly not a strict requirement, but something that???s >> generally accepted across the country, if possible) that meet the range of >> criteria, along the lines of those suggested by Ron in his matrix. > > There is an assumption behind this statement which is often made, but > which I find very disturbing. > > The assumption is that it is an unalloyed good thing for there to be > standardization. Sounds more like you're making an assumption from my POV. "...ultimately a good thing" may well be considering the net benefit rather than believing there are only positive features. > This is the kind of thinking that led the Modern Western Square Dance > movement to standardize all of their calls, and all of their teaching > programs. They wanted any square dancer to be able to go to any > square dance club in the country, or in the world, and immediately > know exactly what was meant by everything that was said. There are > some advantages to that kind of standardization, especially if you > happen to be a globe-hopping square dancer who enjoys dancing hot > hash, but it comes at a tremendous cost. > > It comes with a loss of the opportunity to experience, adapt to, and > appreciate regional differences. I don't care about being able to go > to a new place just to find that things there are done in the same way > that I'm used to them being done back home. I care about being able > to go to new places and learning the way things are done there. It's not clear what you mean by "hot hash". The most common definition within the MWSD community these days refers to very fast-paced calling, and if that's the definition you're using, I completely disagree with your point. (Speaking as someone who's been doing MWSD for more than a quarter-century and is currently approaching my second anniversary as a square dance caller.) "Mainstream" is the smallest program that's used by a significant fraction of the MWSD community, and it generally takes about a year to become proficient at it, to the point that ear, brain, and muscle all work together at nearly instinct level. There's simply no way to switch between groups within a single city without some level of standardization, and once you've committed to the standardizing process, there's a lot of benefit to scaling the standardization as large as possible. Side note: the standardization overall benefits callers more than dancers, which I hadn't appreciated until I became a caller. I believe the gay square dance community has stuck with gendered terms for similar reasons. If you dislike the way that MWSD expects dancers to execute figures completely ad hoc, you probably should try a different kind of square dancing -- but don't tell us how we should be doing things. I've recently learned about Rueda, I haven't been able to find out how much standardization there is within the Rueda community, but because Rueda is couple-based rather than four-couple-based, it probably has more opportunity for regional variation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rueda_de_Casino > It may well be that a certain set of terms will become generally accepted > because it works better for the dancers in a lot of places. It may well be > that dances which were written to be gender-neutral will be generally > accepted because they work better for the dancers in a lot of places. In > the meantime, if you find yourself assuming that it would a good thing if > there was standardization across the country, please give some thought to > what advantage you are trying to achieve, and what the disadvantages would > be. That's a sentiment I can agree with. -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html

9 years, 6 months

[Callers] The Benefits of Difference (was: Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?)

by Jacob Nancy Bloom via Callers

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Delia Clark via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > ... > > It will ultimately be a good thing if there is a generally accepted set > of words (certainly not a strict requirement, but something that’s > generally accepted across the country, if possible) that meet the range of > criteria, along the lines of those suggested by Ron in his matrix. > There is an assumption behind this statement which is often made, but which I find very disturbing. The assumption is that it is an unalloyed good thing for there to be standardization. This is the kind of thinking that led the Modern Western Square Dance movement to standardize all of their calls, and all of their teaching programs. They wanted any square dancer to be able to go to any square dance club in the country, or in the world, and immediately know exactly what was meant by everything that was said. There are some advantages to that kind of standardization, especially if you happen to be a globe-hopping square dancer who enjoys dancing hot hash, but it comes at a tremendous cost. It comes with a loss of the opportunity to experience, adapt to, and appreciate regional differences. I don't care about being able to go to a new place just to find that things there are done in the same way that I'm used to them being done back home. I care about being able to go to new places and learning the way things are done there. What this means for the current discussion, from my point of view, is that it's a good thing if dance callers and producers discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using different terminology, and consider what language will work best for their dance. It would be a BAD thing if anyone switched terminology JUST BECAUSE that's what other people were doing. It may well be that a certain set of terms will become generally accepted because it works better for the dancers in a lot of places. It may well be that dances which were written to be gender-neutral will be generally accepted because they work better for the dancers in a lot of places. In the meantime, if you find yourself assuming that it would a good thing if there was standardization across the country, please give some thought to what advantage you are trying to achieve, and what the disadvantages would be. Jacob Bloom

9 years, 6 months

Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?

by Michael Fuerst via Callers

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> 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> 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 <contraron(a)gmail.com> To: Amy Wimmer <amywimmer(a)gmail.com> Cc: susanelberger <susanma1950(a)yahoo.com>; callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> 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> 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> 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 ElbergerLowell, Massachusetts From: Delia Clark via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> To: "<callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net>" <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> 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> 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> 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 ClarkPO Box 45Taftsville, VT 05073802-457-2075deliaclark8(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

9 years, 6 months

Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?

by Ron Blechner via Callers

" I haven't enjoyed the "gender neutral" dance events" With utmost respect, then discussing gender neutral terms is probably not so relevant to your interests. On May 29, 2015 7:00 PM, "Neal Schlein via Callers" < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > 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 > >

9 years, 6 months

Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?

by Neal Schlein via Callers

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

9 years, 6 months

Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?

by Alan Winston via Callers

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

9 years, 6 months

Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?

by John W Gintell via Callers

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> wrote: > We are still using larks and ravens at the Berkeley dance. And, though I don't seem to have too much trouble using different words for different dances -- so far I've used men/women, ladies/gents, bands/bares, trees/squirrels, and larks/ravens without changing my mess of dance notes -- I understand that others can't switch so easily. On this note, at the Berkeley dance a caller recently did the following: > > 1) asked if anyone had some post-its. When found some > 2) wrote "lark" and "raven" on the sticky end > 3) cut out these little cheat-sheets > 4) covered the words "gents" and "ladies" with the post-it cheats > 5) move cheats to next card as needed > > Thereby changing their cards to the current words on the fly. I was impressed. > > ~erik hoffman > oakland, ca > > On 5/28/2015 8:01 PM, Kalia Kliban via Callers wrote: > On Thu, May 28, 2015, Alan Winston via Callers 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. > > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

9 years, 6 months

Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?

by Linda Leslie via Callers

Thanks for reviewing these thoughts, Ron. I am in full agreement with all of your points! Linda Leslie On May 29, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > 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 >

9 years, 6 months

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

Import1 May 2015