Import1 January 2017

import1@lists2.sharedweight.net

1 participants
89 discussions

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

by Donna Hunt via Callers

I'm sad to hear that so many groups are using different role terms and such a variety to boot. Not only do our beginners have to learn a brand new vocabulary (sometimes in a foreign language) and then remember the movement to go with those new words, but now they have to deal with remembering a role that there's no basis for, and that role term changes at different dance locations. Augh my head hurts just thinking about it. Donna -----Original Message----- From: Ron Blechner via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> To: Barbara Groh <babsgroh(a)gmail.com> Cc: callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 3:37 am Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies" Let's please not presume to speak for the feelings of marginalized groups? Not thinking something is a problem because it doesn't affect you personally is super privileged. Ron Blechner On Jan 25, 2017 1:36 PM, "Barbara Groh via Callers" <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: Michael, if this view makes you a Luddite, sign me up as a member of the Luddite Club. I think it's realistic to say that the members of all the contra, English, and Square Dance groups will NEVER all agree on which alternative terms to use for ladies and gents, so all these new terms being bounced around will only cause confusion (and some eye-rolling). You've already made a solid argument for the Luddite position, so I won't say anything more....except this: Please, let's not start an argument over whether it's pejorative to use the term Luddite! Barbara Groh On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Michael Barraclough via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: I guess that I am a Luddite. Here's how I see it. Somewhere between 80-90% of the population is 'straight'. Surely, we want these people as well to come to our dances. It can be difficult enough to get past the dance lingo without adding the complexity of renaming labels for people that almost everyone already understands. To me, what really matters is that we run dances where everyone accepts everyone else's sexuality; where individual dancers can feel free to dance either role; where everyone is welcome. I am not convinced that 'non-straight' individuals are put off by the historical labels that we use, rather the lack of the 3 conditions that I have just outlined. Census data show the U.S. adult population is about 239m. Searching the web I can find around 300 contra dances, 150 English Country Dances and 1000 MWSD clubs. My generous guess is that less than 100,000 people go to these dances, less than 50,000 if we ignore MWSD. Did you know that over 700,000 people in the U.S. own a ferret? That means there are 7x as many people in the USA who own a ferret compared to the number of people who go to our dances! Let's put less rather than more barriers in the way of getting those who don't dance with us (that's 99.6% of the population) to join us. Michael Barraclough www.michaelbarraclough.com On Tue, 2017-01-24 at 16:19 -0500, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote: > I know I'd appreciate it if people had new suggestions, they'd review > existing considerations for what makes terms usable. Things like 1:2 > syllable ratio, distinct vowel sounds - these disqualify a lot of > terms as being unfeasible for the same reason "bare arms / arm bands" > as terms are not preferable. The PDF spreadsheet that Dugan linked is > the result of my study with teamwork and sourcing from many dancers. > > Best, > Ron Blechner > > > On Jan 20, 2017 7:28 PM, "Keith Tuxhorn via Callers" <callers(a)lists.s > haredweight.net> wrote: > > This conversation exhausts me, even though I know and accept it's > > all part of the folk process. > > > > So I will make my one contribution... two terms I thought of a > > couple weeks ago. > > > > Mun and Wem. > > > > They sound enough like the current terms that the brains of both > > callers and dancers can make an easy transition. They're made-up > > words, so they have no gender. And they're short. And easy to say. > > > > Mun and Wem. > > > > Okay, I've done my bit. > > > > Keith Tuxhorn > > Springfield IL > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Dugan Murphy via Callers <callers@ > > lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > > Since it was an article about my dance series that started this > > > conversation about role terms, I'll offer that the primary reason > > > we chose "jets" and "rubies" as gender-free terms is so that > > > 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" and "ladies." > > > > > > We also took a look at this graphic of Ron Blechner's analysis of > > > gender-free role terms people have been talking about: http://amh > > > erstcontra.org/ContraDanceRoleTerms.pdf > > > > > > We may not use "jets" and "rubies" forever, but we figured we'd > > > give it a try. There didn't seem to be any reasons not to try > > > and there are certainly plenty of reasons to try. > > > > > > Most men at our dance dance as jets and most women dance as > > > rubies, but for the few who dance opposite, switch around, or > > > whose gender expression doesn't fit the man/woman binary, I'd > > > like to think that formally separating dance roles from gender is > > > validating in a meaningful way. > > > > > > Dugan Murphy > > > Portland, Maine > > > dugan at duganmurphy.com > > > > > > www.DuganMurphy.com > > > www.PortlandIntownContraDance.com > > > www.NufSed.consulting > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Callers mailing list > > > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > > > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.n > > > et > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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

7 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

by Michael Barraclough via Callers

On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 09:04 -0500, Angela DeCarlis via Callers wrote: And many people are fine with things the way they are! I get that, and that's great for you, but why on earth wouldn't you change things if it meant being more inclusive, more just? I understand that from your perspective we would be more inclusive if we used gender-free terminology. It is my belief, however, that the majority of the population would see the use of gender-free terminology for roles as something that 'excluded' them - additional terms used by a private club of people with their own rituals, kind of like masonry. They can understand why we might need funny terms for the moves. They cannot understand why we need funny terms for people when (as far as they are concerned) we already have perfectly good terms - men/gents/blokes and women/ladies/sheilas etc. From their perspective it is definitely not 'inclusive'. Michael Barraclough www.michaelbarraclough.com

7 years, 2 months

[Callers] Dance title, author and choreography

by QuiAnn2 via Callers

Hi, Saw this dance on-line (it’s the video that is on the GoFundMe page for the Dayton, VA dance) and I like the dance. Does anyone know the title, author and author's choreography of the dance? I can work out the choreography but would like to see how the author describes the B1 and B2 of the dance. Thanks! https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=51&v=fs1nS2NCKyc <https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=51&v=fs1nS2NCKyc> Jacqui

7 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Contras which feature a "Dublin Bay" figure

by Keith Wood via Callers

Here's another contribution to the Dublin Bay collection, hopefully fulfilling the criteria below: Liffey Outflow Formation: Becket formation Music: 32 bar reels Source: Keith Wood Jan 2017 Notes: Following online discussions about the Dublin Bay movement I decided to create a dance that incorporated it. 1-4 Gypsy opposite 5-8 1st man and 2nd woman (at the bottom of each minor set) back-to-back and finish facing down, while the others cross (right shoulder) and move to the end of a line of four facing down, men on one side, women on the other 9-12 Dublin Bay: lines of four back up (up the hall) and then come forward, turning individually half-way (toward same-sex neighbour) at the last moment to face up 13-16 Lines of four back up (down the hall) and then come forward, turning individually to face same-sex neighbour at the last moment 17-22 3/4 hey for four passing same-sex neighbour right-shoulder to start (until meeting your partner the second time) 23-24 Circle left half-way (men together and women together) 25-28 Swing partner 29-32 Slice left: advance towards the couple on your left diagonal, then retire straight back from them (progression); spare couples wheel onto the opposite side Cheers Keith Wood > I'd love to see more Dublin Bay dances that aren't all glossary moves > surrounding the down-hall move. > > ... > > So. What else we got? :) > > Ron Blechner --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

7 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

by Jeff Kaufman via Callers

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Ron Blechner <contraron(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > If that's the case, one would assume there are also plenty of traditional > venue dancers who don't care either way. To that effect, genderfree roles > are not as scary as some have claimed. Sure, I think that's probably true. But I think the most likely possibility is "most people don't care that much" not "several thousand dancers want it". > > Dances using gents/ladies up and down the East coast are dwindling in > attendance. I'm hearing that from nearly every organizer I speak with. I'm not disputing this (though I also don't have firsthand evidence of it) I just don't think gender free terms are *causing* the attendance change, as opposed to both attendance changes and gender free naming being caused by an underlying factor. > I don't understand discounting new dances at all. If there was a demand for > a genderfree dance, and it was filled, how is that not proof of growth of > overall genderfree dancing? The dances that have been gender free for decades and the dances that have recently one gender free are pretty different. The older dances have a community, culture, and core that formed several decades ago to be LGBT/queer spaces, while the newer gender free dances are mostly mainstream dances in a modern mainstream that is much more queer friendly. Jeff

7 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

by Ron Blechner via Callers

Hi Jeff, Some points: "You're classifying everyone who attends a dance with gender-free calling as having wanting it to be gender free, but I'm sure some are attending in spite of it being gender free, and many more don't care either way." If that's the case, one would assume there are also plenty of traditional venue dancers who don't care either way. To that effect, genderfree roles are not as scary as some have claimed. "The particular dances that have been gender free for a long time are mostly doing fine, but it doesn't look to me like they're growing tremendously. Instead, newer fast-growing dances are either started as gender free or are switching to it. I don't think the causality goes the way you're suggesting." Dances using gents/ladies up and down the East coast are dwindling in attendance. I'm hearing that from nearly every organizer I speak with. I don't understand discounting new dances at all. If there was a demand for a genderfree dance, and it was filled, how is that not proof of growth of overall genderfree dancing? "Some pushback seems reasonable to me. Just like I think people should be able to dance either role at any contra dance, I think all contra dances should move to being gender free. Not immediately -- it's fine to take some more time to consense on terms, have some brave dances try them out, have callers get used to calling them -- but I do think moving entirely to gender free terms is what we should be doing as a community." That may be in many peoples' beliefs, but I hadn't seen it specifically brought up by anyone in this email discussion until now. I might have understood pushback had it been brought up, but it wasn't. Best, Ron On Jan 27, 2017 12:58 PM, "Jeff Kaufman" <jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu> wrote: On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > To answer your question, though, about how many dancers want genderfree > terms, at least ten dances are genderfree, and I bet we can poll those > dances and find out how many active dancers they have. While the Western > Mass one by me is a little low, dances like Brooklyn, Portland Maine, and > Montpelier second Saturday boast very large crowds, and that's just ones > I've personally attended. There's queer dance camps, too. Clearly there's a > demand. I realize "huge" is a relative number, but we can safely agree on > several thousand dancers as a safe low estimate of dancers who want gender > free roles. You're classifying everyone who attends a dance with gender-free calling as having wanting it to be gender free, but I'm sure some are attending in spite of it being gender free, and many more don't care either way. > These genderfree dances exist, some for 39 years, they've grown tremendously > in the last 5 years *while many traditional dances are losing attendance*. That's not what it looks like to me. The particular dances that have been gender free for a long time are mostly doing fine, but it doesn't look to me like they're growing tremendously. Instead, newer fast-growing dances are either started as gender free or are switching to it. I don't think the causality goes the way you're suggesting. > This isn't some existential threat to non-genderfree > traditional dances. Let us talk. Some pushback seems reasonable to me. Just like I think people should be able to dance either role at any contra dance, I think all contra dances should move to being gender free. Not immediately -- it's fine to take some more time to consense on terms, have some brave dances try them out, have callers get used to calling them -- but I do think moving entirely to gender free terms is what we should be doing as a community. Jeff

7 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

by Andrea Nettleton via Callers

Hey Ron et al, I did not say anything about communities' right to use whatever terms they want. Every community should of course do as it wishes, as long as the whole community actually discusses it and has a say. I have called gender free, and would again. I was booked to call Hampshire when they were deciding which terms to use, proposing to call role free for them so they could try it out, but they forgot they booked me so it never happened. I am quite aware of the issues surrounding bathrooms, and gender and identity issues in general. What I objected to was one specific statement: that "huge numbers" of -dancers- feel alienated by the gendered terms. I stated that in all my travels, I had not seen evidence for this. I asked for the evidence. That the country has become more conscious of gender issues I do see. But that is not tantamount to existing dancers objecting to the terms in large numbers. I dance MWSD in my local gay club, where we use boy/girl and not only do we not object, we enjoy messing with it. I do not propose we be insensitive or ignorant about how people are reacting. But I want to be presented with proof of such broad statements. Why is it that many people I personally know who could be offended (because they do not adhere to that gender binary, but dance in non gender-free communities), are to all appearances totally fine about it, even when asked, while others take umbrage, as though this tradition were created as an affront to them? I am not asking because either side is right, but in sincere wonder! It's so easy to make assumptions about why a person objects. Assumptions, in my experience, create more problems. So I do think some gender free dances have a majority of attendees who truly cannot bear gent/lady. I still want to hear more from them about why, especially when I see another LGBTQ dance community explicitly embracing such terms. I would in fact be interested in polls both in communities which do use gender free terms, and those that do not, to ascertain how many truly care what terms are used, and if they care, in which direction and why, before anyone states as fact that "huge numbers of dancers" are "alienated" by the terms used. That is all. I have no personal agenda here. As a caller, I abide by what communities want. If, as with lead/follow, I feel other badness is the result, I can and do choose not to call there. I am pointing out that it does not strengthen the argument to assume ignorance or ill will in those who raise questions, and especially it weakens the argument to toss in as factual exaggerated or unsubstantiable statistics. Andrea Sent from my external brain > On Jan 27, 2017, at 11:37 AM, Ron Blechner <contraron(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Andrea, > > I think Angela was well-spoken and polite. > > This discussion, like ones before it, was started not about endorsing new terms for all contras. It started discussing terms for communities who *do* want alternative role terms. > > Who are we to tell a community that their need for their dancers is wrong? If I don't like a community's needs or values, I don't have to call there. If there's a Shared Weight topic about how to best serve French speaking communities (like Montreal), I'm not going to chime in and argue that all contra has to be in English or the dancers will get confused. Montreal dancers want calls in French. JP, Brooklyn, Bay area, etc etc dancers want callers genderfree. > > Now, I realize Angela's comments could be construed as off-topic, but I read them as a reply to other folks here who were off-topic. I read them as an attempt to reach out and provide insight and perspective of *why* genderfree dance communities have made the choice they have. No, they may not be the choice your community wants, and that's your right. > > To answer your question, though, about how many dancers want genderfree terms, at least ten dances are genderfree, and I bet we can poll those dances and find out how many active dancers they have. While the Western Mass one by me is a little low, dances like Brooklyn, Portland Maine, and Montpelier second Saturday boast very large crowds, and that's just ones I've personally attended. There's queer dance camps, too. Clearly there's a demand. I realize "huge" is a relative number, but we can safely agree on several thousand dancers as a safe low estimate of dancers who want gender free roles. > > These genderfree dances exist, some for 39 years, they've grown tremendously in the last 5 years *while many traditional dances are losing attendance*. > > And then there's the problem with selection bias. If the question is "How many dancers would prefer gender free role terms?" and the source of data is only dances with gendered role terms, of course we'd be excluding all of the dances who don't come because of the terms. > > I call at both genderfree and traditional dances. Seriously, I do not understand this pushback we are getting for discussion of role terms for *genderfree* dances. This isn't some existential threat to non-genderfree traditional dances. Let us talk. > > Thanks, > Ron Blechner > > > On Jan 27, 2017 10:51 AM, "Andrea Nettleton via Callers" <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > Really Angela? Huge numbers are offended by "gents/ladies"? I'll happily call with whatever the community uses, though I may avoid a community using lead/follow as I think it perniciously encourages passivity in half the dancers, which I object to. And I was vocal in earlier discussions about positional calling being a preferable alternative. (Alan, I'll get back to you about short calls). But where are the stats? I believe there may be some objectors. And some who support them. But vast numbers? Clear majority? Don't see it. I'm willing to be wrong, but I call all over the country and have not seen this. > -Andrea > > Sent from my external brain > >> On Jan 27, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Angela DeCarlis via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >> >> For what it's worth, "Larks" and "Ravens" were terms designed to correlate with "Left" and "Right". >> >> There are plenty of moves we do in contra with names that have nothing to do with anything. Like "Swat the Flea," or even "Chain". Head over to Square Dancing, and the vernacular is so huge that plenty of the names for moves fail to describe the exact movements in question. >> >> Here's the thing, y'all: a huge number of dancers feel alienated by gendered terms. This is the same issue seen in major politics with regards to gendered restrooms: many people (gay, straight, and otherwise) don't feel comfortable or happy being forced into a dichotomous gender binary when, in actuality, many of us exist somewhere between two points in a spectrum. [1] Notably, it's different to feel "offended" than to feel "unwelcome." Many of you claim to feel the former, but that's a privilege compared to feeling unwelcome or even shunned from a community. >> >> And many people are fine with things the way they are! I get that, and that's great for you, but why on earth wouldn't you change things if it meant being more inclusive, more just? If you're a dancer who's afraid that things will be more confusing for you...try dancing at a genderfree dance! Not only have I found that the dancers at those dances are not any more confused than at regular dance series, I've found them more competent, and happier. They have this amazing ability to embrace the unexpected and smile and dance with whoever's coming at them. I've seen first-time dancers dancing together and accidentally switching roles every time through the dance, and nobody told them they were doing it wrong. They just danced with them, and it was great! In short, they are better dancers. >> >> And since most of us here are callers: Yes, it's on us to put in a bit more work. I've now called using Jets/Rubies and Bands/Bares, and while I prefer the former set, neither was impossibly challenging. Neither was as difficult as walking through a new dance for the first time. >> >> If you care for the health of our shared community, I implore you to do the work. Read the materials, especially the research that Ron, Jeff, and others have linked to here. Investigate the politics around gender and genderfree restrooms. Try dancing or even calling for a genderfree series. >> >> Thank you all so much for taking the time to participate in this conversation and for taking the energy to consider both sides. I'll look forward to seeing you all on the dance floor. >> >> Angela >> >> [1] http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2011/11/breaking-through-the-binary-gen… >> >>> On Jan 27, 2017 3:08 AM, "Jim Hemphill via Callers" <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >>> You can teach and call contra dances positionally without hurting anyones feelings. We are all human beings, I find it objectionable to be referred to as some form of rock or bird or whatever. >>> >>> The role a dancer chooses is really defined by which side of their partnership they choose to start the dance or end a swing on. Working from that basis just about any contra move can be taught or called without reference to gender. >>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:01 PM, via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >>>> I have been calling at many venues over the years and using the role terms "gents" and "ladies" has NOT been a problem. When teaching, I explain these DO NOT refer to gender but rather to the role you are dancing. Beginners seem to understand and not have any problem. The experienced dancers are very helpful as well. I agree with Donna in the aspect of teaching a new vocabulary that goes with a movement with new words that don't have any relationship to the moves is confusing enough to me, who understands the process. Throw all this at new dancers who move from venue to venue where the terms change, makes my head hurt as well. There is an old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" Maybe we should all rethink this. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Donna Hunt via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> >>>> To: contraron <contraron(a)gmail.com>; babsgroh <babsgroh(a)gmail.com> >>>> Cc: callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> >>>> Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 12:37 pm >>>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies" >>>> >>>> I'm sad to hear that so many groups are using different role terms and such a variety to boot. Not only do our beginners have to learn a brand new vocabulary (sometimes in a foreign language) and then remember the movement to go with those new words, but now they have to deal with remembering a role that there's no basis for, and that role term changes at different dance locations. Augh my head hurts just thinking about it. >>>> >>>> Donna >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ron Blechner via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> >>>> To: Barbara Groh <babsgroh(a)gmail.com> >>>> Cc: callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> >>>> Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 3:37 am >>>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies" >>>> >>>> Let's please not presume to speak for the feelings of marginalized groups? >>>> >>>> Not thinking something is a problem because it doesn't affect you personally is super privileged. >>>> >>>> Ron Blechner >>>> >>>>> On Jan 25, 2017 1:36 PM, "Barbara Groh via Callers" <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >>>>> Michael, if this view makes you a Luddite, sign me up as a member of the Luddite Club. I think it's realistic to say that the members of all the contra, English, and Square Dance groups will NEVER all agree on which alternative terms to use for ladies and gents, so all these new terms being bounced around will only cause confusion (and some eye-rolling). >>>>> >>>>> You've already made a solid argument for the Luddite position, so I won't say anything more....except this: Please, let's not start an argument over whether it's pejorative to use the term Luddite! >>>>> >>>>> Barbara Groh >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Michael Barraclough via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >>>>>> I guess that I am a Luddite. Here's how I see it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Somewhere between 80-90% of the population is 'straight'. Surely, we >>>>>> want these people as well to come to our dances. It can be difficult enough to get past the dance lingo without adding the complexity of renaming labels for people that almost everyone already understands. To me, what really matters is that we run dances where everyone accepts everyone else's sexuality; where individual dancers can feel free to dance either role; where everyone is welcome. I am not convinced that 'non-straight' individuals are put off by the historical labels that we use, rather the lack of the 3 conditions that I have just outlined. >>>>>> >>>>>> Census data show the U.S. adult population is about 239m. Searching the >>>>>> web I can find around 300 contra dances, 150 English Country Dances and >>>>>> 1000 MWSD clubs. My generous guess is that less than 100,000 people go >>>>>> to these dances, less than 50,000 if we ignore MWSD. Did you know that over 700,000 people in the U.S. own a ferret? That means there are 7x as many people in the USA who own a ferret compared to the number of people who go to our dances! >>>>>> >>>>>> Let's put less rather than more barriers in the way of getting those >>>>>> who don't dance with us (that's 99.6% of the population) to join us. >>>>>> >>>>>> Michael Barraclough >>>>>> www.michaelbarraclough.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 2017-01-24 at 16:19 -0500, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote: >>>>>> > I know I'd appreciate it if people had new suggestions, they'd review >>>>>> > existing considerations for what makes terms usable. Things like 1:2 >>>>>> > syllable ratio, distinct vowel sounds - these disqualify a lot of >>>>>> > terms as being unfeasible for the same reason "bare arms / arm bands" >>>>>> > as terms are not preferable. The PDF spreadsheet that Dugan linked is >>>>>> > the result of my study with teamwork and sourcing from many dancers. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Best, >>>>>> > Ron Blechner >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On Jan 20, 2017 7:28 PM, "Keith Tuxhorn via Callers" <callers(a)lists.s >>>>>> > haredweight.net> wrote: >>>>>> > > This conversation exhausts me, even though I know and accept it's >>>>>> > > all part of the folk process. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > So I will make my one contribution... two terms I thought of a >>>>>> > > couple weeks ago. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Mun and Wem. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > They sound enough like the current terms that the brains of both >>>>>> > > callers and dancers can make an easy transition. They're made-up >>>>>> > > words, so they have no gender. And they're short. And easy to say. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Mun and Wem. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Okay, I've done my bit. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Keith Tuxhorn >>>>>> > > Springfield IL >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Dugan Murphy via Callers <callers@ >>>>>> > > lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >>>>>> > > > Since it was an article about my dance series that started this >>>>>> > > > conversation about role terms, I'll offer that the primary reason >>>>>> > > > we chose "jets" and "rubies" as gender-free terms is so that >>>>>> > > > 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" and "ladies." >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > We also took a look at this graphic of Ron Blechner's analysis of >>>>>> > > > gender-free role terms people have been talking about: http://amh >>>>>> > > > erstcontra.org/ContraDanceRoleTerms.pdf >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > We may not use "jets" and "rubies" forever, but we figured we'd >>>>>> > > > give it a try. There didn't seem to be any reasons not to try >>>>>> > > > and there are certainly plenty of reasons to try. >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > Most men at our dance dance as jets and most women dance as >>>>>> > > > rubies, but for the few who dance opposite, switch around, or >>>>>> > > > whose gender expression doesn't fit the man/woman binary, I'd >>>>>> > > > like to think that formally separating dance roles from gender is >>>>>> > > > validating in a meaningful way. >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > Dugan Murphy >>>>>> > > > Portland, Maine >>>>>> > > > dugan at duganmurphy.com >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > www.DuganMurphy.com >>>>>> > > > www.PortlandIntownContraDance.com >>>>>> > > > www.NufSed.consulting >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > _______________________________________________ >>>>>> > > > Callers mailing list >>>>>> > > > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net >>>>>> > > > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.n >>>>>> > > > et >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > _______________________________________________ >>>>>> > > 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 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > >

7 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

by Jeff Kaufman via Callers

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > To answer your question, though, about how many dancers want genderfree > terms, at least ten dances are genderfree, and I bet we can poll those > dances and find out how many active dancers they have. While the Western > Mass one by me is a little low, dances like Brooklyn, Portland Maine, and > Montpelier second Saturday boast very large crowds, and that's just ones > I've personally attended. There's queer dance camps, too. Clearly there's a > demand. I realize "huge" is a relative number, but we can safely agree on > several thousand dancers as a safe low estimate of dancers who want gender > free roles. You're classifying everyone who attends a dance with gender-free calling as having wanting it to be gender free, but I'm sure some are attending in spite of it being gender free, and many more don't care either way. > These genderfree dances exist, some for 39 years, they've grown tremendously > in the last 5 years *while many traditional dances are losing attendance*. That's not what it looks like to me. The particular dances that have been gender free for a long time are mostly doing fine, but it doesn't look to me like they're growing tremendously. Instead, newer fast-growing dances are either started as gender free or are switching to it. I don't think the causality goes the way you're suggesting. > This isn't some existential threat to non-genderfree > traditional dances. Let us talk. Some pushback seems reasonable to me. Just like I think people should be able to dance either role at any contra dance, I think all contra dances should move to being gender free. Not immediately -- it's fine to take some more time to consense on terms, have some brave dances try them out, have callers get used to calling them -- but I do think moving entirely to gender free terms is what we should be doing as a community. Jeff

7 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

by Martha Wild via Callers

Yes, I’ve been trying to replace the G word with spiral and dancers find it confusing and are not happy about it. Others have tried other words and as far as I can tell the reception is the same. Martha > On Jan 27, 2017, at 12:08 AM, Jim Hemphill via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > You can teach and call contra dances positionally without hurting anyones feelings. We are all human beings, I find it objectionable to be referred to as some form of rock or bird or whatever. > > The role a dancer chooses is really defined by which side of their partnership they choose to start the dance or end a swing on. Working from that basis just about any contra move can be taught or called without reference to gender. > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:01 PM, via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: > I have been calling at many venues over the years and using the role terms "gents" and "ladies" has NOT been a problem. When teaching, I explain these DO NOT refer to gender but rather to the role you are dancing. Beginners seem to understand and not have any problem. The experienced dancers are very helpful as well. I agree with Donna in the aspect of teaching a new vocabulary that goes with a movement with new words that don't have any relationship to the moves is confusing enough to me, who understands the process. Throw all this at new dancers who move from venue to venue where the terms change, makes my head hurt as well. There is an old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" Maybe we should all rethink this. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Donna Hunt via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> > To: contraron <contraron(a)gmail.com <mailto:contraron@gmail.com>>; babsgroh <babsgroh(a)gmail.com <mailto:babsgroh@gmail.com>> > Cc: callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> > Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 12:37 pm > Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies" > > I'm sad to hear that so many groups are using different role terms and such a variety to boot. Not only do our beginners have to learn a brand new vocabulary (sometimes in a foreign language) and then remember the movement to go with those new words, but now they have to deal with remembering a role that there's no basis for, and that role term changes at different dance locations. Augh my head hurts just thinking about it. > > Donna > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Blechner via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> > To: Barbara Groh <babsgroh(a)gmail.com <mailto:babsgroh@gmail.com>> > Cc: callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> > Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 3:37 am > Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies" > > Let's please not presume to speak for the feelings of marginalized groups? > > Not thinking something is a problem because it doesn't affect you personally is super privileged. > > Ron Blechner > > On Jan 25, 2017 1:36 PM, "Barbara Groh via Callers" <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: > Michael, if this view makes you a Luddite, sign me up as a member of the Luddite Club. I think it's realistic to say that the members of all the contra, English, and Square Dance groups will NEVER all agree on which alternative terms to use for ladies and gents, so all these new terms being bounced around will only cause confusion (and some eye-rolling). > > You've already made a solid argument for the Luddite position, so I won't say anything more....except this: Please, let's not start an argument over whether it's pejorative to use the term Luddite! > > Barbara Groh > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Michael Barraclough via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: > I guess that I am a Luddite. Here's how I see it. > > Somewhere between 80-90% of the population is 'straight'. Surely, we > want these people as well to come to our dances. It can be difficult enough to get past the dance lingo without adding the complexity of renaming labels for people that almost everyone already understands. To me, what really matters is that we run dances where everyone accepts everyone else's sexuality; where individual dancers can feel free to dance either role; where everyone is welcome. I am not convinced that 'non-straight' individuals are put off by the historical labels that we use, rather the lack of the 3 conditions that I have just outlined. > > Census data show the U.S. adult population is about 239m. Searching the > web I can find around 300 contra dances, 150 English Country Dances and > 1000 MWSD clubs. My generous guess is that less than 100,000 people go > to these dances, less than 50,000 if we ignore MWSD. Did you know that over 700,000 people in the U.S. own a ferret? That means there are 7x as many people in the USA who own a ferret compared to the number of people who go to our dances! > > Let's put less rather than more barriers in the way of getting those > who don't dance with us (that's 99.6% of the population) to join us. > > Michael Barraclough > www.michaelbarraclough.com <http://www.michaelbarraclough.com/> > > > > On Tue, 2017-01-24 at 16:19 -0500, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote: > > I know I'd appreciate it if people had new suggestions, they'd review > > existing considerations for what makes terms usable. Things like 1:2 > > syllable ratio, distinct vowel sounds - these disqualify a lot of > > terms as being unfeasible for the same reason "bare arms / arm bands" > > as terms are not preferable. The PDF spreadsheet that Dugan linked is > > the result of my study with teamwork and sourcing from many dancers. > > > > Best, > > Ron Blechner > > > > > > On Jan 20, 2017 7:28 PM, "Keith Tuxhorn via Callers" <callers(a)lists.s <mailto:callers@lists.s> > > haredweight.net <http://haredweight.net/>> wrote: > > > This conversation exhausts me, even though I know and accept it's > > > all part of the folk process. > > > > > > So I will make my one contribution... two terms I thought of a > > > couple weeks ago. > > > > > > Mun and Wem. > > > > > > They sound enough like the current terms that the brains of both > > > callers and dancers can make an easy transition. They're made-up > > > words, so they have no gender. And they're short. And easy to say. > > > > > > Mun and Wem. > > > > > > Okay, I've done my bit. > > > > > > Keith Tuxhorn > > > Springfield IL > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Dugan Murphy via Callers <callers@ > > > lists.sharedweight.net <http://lists.sharedweight.net/>> wrote: > > > > Since it was an article about my dance series that started this > > > > conversation about role terms, I'll offer that the primary reason > > > > we chose "jets" and "rubies" as gender-free terms is so that > > > > 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" and "ladies." > > > > > > > > We also took a look at this graphic of Ron Blechner's analysis of > > > > gender-free role terms people have been talking about: http://amh <http://amh/> > > > > erstcontra.org/ContraDanceRoleTerms.pdf <http://erstcontra.org/ContraDanceRoleTerms.pdf> > > > > > > > > We may not use "jets" and "rubies" forever, but we figured we'd > > > > give it a try. There didn't seem to be any reasons not to try > > > > and there are certainly plenty of reasons to try. > > > > > > > > Most men at our dance dance as jets and most women dance as > > > > rubies, but for the few who dance opposite, switch around, or > > > > whose gender expression doesn't fit the man/woman binary, I'd > > > > like to think that formally separating dance roles from gender is > > > > validating in a meaningful way. > > > > > > > > Dugan Murphy > > > > Portland, Maine > > > > dugan at duganmurphy.com <http://duganmurphy.com/> > > > > > > > > www.DuganMurphy.com <http://www.duganmurphy.com/> > > > > www.PortlandIntownContraDance.com <http://www.portlandintowncontradance.com/> > > > > www.NufSed.consulting <http://www.nufsed.consulting/> > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Callers mailing list > > > > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net> > > > > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.n <http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.n> > > > > et > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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

7 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

by Ron Blechner via Callers

Typos: 30, not 39. Calls, not callers (paragraph 3) On Jan 27, 2017 11:37 AM, "Ron Blechner" <contraron(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hi Andrea, I think Angela was well-spoken and polite. This discussion, like ones before it, was started not about endorsing new terms for all contras. It started discussing terms for communities who *do* want alternative role terms. Who are we to tell a community that their need for their dancers is wrong? If I don't like a community's needs or values, I don't have to call there. If there's a Shared Weight topic about how to best serve French speaking communities (like Montreal), I'm not going to chime in and argue that all contra has to be in English or the dancers will get confused. Montreal dancers want calls in French. JP, Brooklyn, Bay area, etc etc dancers want callers genderfree. Now, I realize Angela's comments could be construed as off-topic, but I read them as a reply to other folks here who were off-topic. I read them as an attempt to reach out and provide insight and perspective of *why* genderfree dance communities have made the choice they have. No, they may not be the choice your community wants, and that's your right. To answer your question, though, about how many dancers want genderfree terms, at least ten dances are genderfree, and I bet we can poll those dances and find out how many active dancers they have. While the Western Mass one by me is a little low, dances like Brooklyn, Portland Maine, and Montpelier second Saturday boast very large crowds, and that's just ones I've personally attended. There's queer dance camps, too. Clearly there's a demand. I realize "huge" is a relative number, but we can safely agree on several thousand dancers as a safe low estimate of dancers who want gender free roles. These genderfree dances exist, some for 39 years, they've grown tremendously in the last 5 years *while many traditional dances are losing attendance*. And then there's the problem with selection bias. If the question is "How many dancers would prefer gender free role terms?" and the source of data is only dances with gendered role terms, of course we'd be excluding all of the dances who don't come because of the terms. I call at both genderfree and traditional dances. Seriously, I do not understand this pushback we are getting for discussion of role terms for *genderfree* dances. This isn't some existential threat to non-genderfree traditional dances. Let us talk. Thanks, Ron Blechner On Jan 27, 2017 10:51 AM, "Andrea Nettleton via Callers" < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: Really Angela? Huge numbers are offended by "gents/ladies"? I'll happily call with whatever the community uses, though I may avoid a community using lead/follow as I think it perniciously encourages passivity in half the dancers, which I object to. And I was vocal in earlier discussions about positional calling being a preferable alternative. (Alan, I'll get back to you about short calls). But where are the stats? I believe there may be some objectors. And some who support them. But vast numbers? Clear majority? Don't see it. I'm willing to be wrong, but I call all over the country and have not seen this. -Andrea Sent from my external brain On Jan 27, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Angela DeCarlis via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: For what it's worth, "Larks" and "Ravens" were terms designed to correlate with "Left" and "Right". There are plenty of moves we do in contra with names that have nothing to do with anything. Like "Swat the Flea," or even "Chain". Head over to Square Dancing, and the vernacular is so huge that plenty of the names for moves fail to describe the exact movements in question. Here's the thing, y'all: a huge number of dancers feel alienated by gendered terms. This is the same issue seen in major politics with regards to gendered restrooms: many people (gay, straight, and otherwise) don't feel comfortable or happy being forced into a dichotomous gender binary when, in actuality, many of us exist somewhere between two points in a spectrum. [1] Notably, it's different to feel "offended" than to feel "unwelcome." Many of you claim to feel the former, but that's a privilege compared to feeling unwelcome or even shunned from a community. And many people are fine with things the way they are! I get that, and that's great for you, but why on earth wouldn't you change things if it meant being more inclusive, more just? If you're a dancer who's afraid that things will be more confusing for you...try dancing at a genderfree dance! Not only have I found that the dancers at those dances are not any more confused than at regular dance series, I've found them more competent, and *happier*. They have this amazing ability to embrace the unexpected and smile and dance with whoever's coming at them. I've seen first-time dancers dancing together and accidentally switching roles every time through the dance, *and nobody told them they were doing it wrong. *They just danced with them, and it was great! In short, *they are better dancers*. And since most of us here are callers: Yes, it's on us to put in a bit more work. I've now called using Jets/Rubies and Bands/Bares, and while I prefer the former set, neither was impossibly challenging. Neither was as difficult as walking through a new dance for the first time. If you care for the health of our shared community, I implore you to do the work. Read the materials, especially the research that Ron, Jeff, and others have linked to here. Investigate the politics around gender and genderfree restrooms. Try dancing or even calling for a genderfree series. Thank you all so much for taking the time to participate in this conversation and for taking the energy to consider both sides. I'll look forward to seeing you all on the dance floor. Angela [1] http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2011/11/breaking- through-the-binary-gender-explained-using-continuums/#sthash.M8yxvCQ1.dpbs On Jan 27, 2017 3:08 AM, "Jim Hemphill via Callers" < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > You can teach and call contra dances positionally without hurting anyones > feelings. We are all human beings, I find it objectionable to be referred > to as some form of rock or bird or whatever. > > The role a dancer chooses is really defined by which side of their > partnership they choose to start the dance or end a swing on. Working from > that basis just about any contra move can be taught or called without > reference to gender. > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:01 PM, via Callers < > callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > >> I have been calling at many venues over the years and using the role >> terms "gents" and "ladies" has NOT been a problem. When teaching, I >> explain these DO NOT refer to gender but rather to the role you are >> dancing. Beginners seem to understand and not have any problem. The >> experienced dancers are very helpful as well. I agree with Donna in the >> aspect of teaching a new vocabulary that goes with a movement with new >> words that don't have any relationship to the moves is confusing enough to >> me, who understands the process. Throw all this at new dancers who move >> from venue to venue where the terms change, makes my head hurt as well. >> There is an old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" Maybe we should >> all rethink this. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Donna Hunt via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> >> To: contraron <contraron(a)gmail.com>; babsgroh <babsgroh(a)gmail.com> >> Cc: callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> >> Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 12:37 pm >> Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies" >> >> I'm sad to hear that so many groups are using different role terms and >> such a variety to boot. Not only do our beginners have to learn a brand >> new vocabulary (sometimes in a foreign language) and then remember the >> movement to go with those new words, but now they have to deal with >> remembering a role that there's no basis for, and that role term changes at >> different dance locations. Augh my head hurts just thinking about it. >> >> Donna >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ron Blechner via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> >> To: Barbara Groh <babsgroh(a)gmail.com> >> Cc: callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> >> Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 3:37 am >> Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies" >> >> Let's please not presume to speak for the feelings of marginalized >> groups? >> >> Not thinking something is a problem because it doesn't affect you >> personally is super privileged. >> >> Ron Blechner >> >> On Jan 25, 2017 1:36 PM, "Barbara Groh via Callers" < >> callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >> >>> Michael, if this view makes you a Luddite, sign me up as a member of the >>> Luddite Club. I think it's realistic to say that the members of all the >>> contra, English, and Square Dance groups will NEVER all agree on which >>> alternative terms to use for ladies and gents, so all these new terms being >>> bounced around will only cause confusion (and some eye-rolling). >>> >>> You've already made a solid argument for the Luddite position, so I >>> won't say anything more....except this: Please, let's not start an >>> argument over whether it's pejorative to use the term Luddite! >>> >>> Barbara Groh >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Michael Barraclough via Callers < >>> callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >>> >>>> I guess that I am a Luddite. Here's how I see it. >>>> >>>> Somewhere between 80-90% of the population is 'straight'. Surely, we >>>> want these people as well to come to our dances. It can be difficult >>>> enough to get past the dance lingo without adding the complexity of >>>> renaming labels for people that almost everyone already understands. To me, >>>> what really matters is that we run dances where everyone accepts everyone >>>> else's sexuality; where individual dancers can feel free to dance either >>>> role; where everyone is welcome. I am not convinced that 'non-straight' >>>> individuals are put off by the historical labels that we use, rather the >>>> lack of the 3 conditions that I have just outlined. >>>> >>>> Census data show the U.S. adult population is about 239m. Searching the >>>> web I can find around 300 contra dances, 150 English Country Dances and >>>> 1000 MWSD clubs. My generous guess is that less than 100,000 people go >>>> to these dances, less than 50,000 if we ignore MWSD. Did you know that >>>> over 700,000 people in the U.S. own a ferret? That means there are 7x as >>>> many people in the USA who own a ferret compared to the number of people >>>> who go to our dances! >>>> >>>> Let's put less rather than more barriers in the way of getting those >>>> who don't dance with us (that's 99.6% of the population) to join us. >>>> >>>> Michael Barraclough >>>> www.michaelbarraclough.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, 2017-01-24 at 16:19 -0500, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote: >>>> > I know I'd appreciate it if people had new suggestions, they'd review >>>> > existing considerations for what makes terms usable. Things like 1:2 >>>> > syllable ratio, distinct vowel sounds - these disqualify a lot of >>>> > terms as being unfeasible for the same reason "bare arms / arm bands" >>>> > as terms are not preferable. The PDF spreadsheet that Dugan linked is >>>> > the result of my study with teamwork and sourcing from many dancers. >>>> > >>>> > Best, >>>> > Ron Blechner >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Jan 20, 2017 7:28 PM, "Keith Tuxhorn via Callers" <callers(a)lists.s >>>> > haredweight.net> wrote: >>>> > > This conversation exhausts me, even though I know and accept it's >>>> > > all part of the folk process. >>>> > > >>>> > > So I will make my one contribution... two terms I thought of a >>>> > > couple weeks ago. >>>> > > >>>> > > Mun and Wem. >>>> > > >>>> > > They sound enough like the current terms that the brains of both >>>> > > callers and dancers can make an easy transition. They're made-up >>>> > > words, so they have no gender. And they're short. And easy to say. >>>> > > >>>> > > Mun and Wem. >>>> > > >>>> > > Okay, I've done my bit. >>>> > > >>>> > > Keith Tuxhorn >>>> > > Springfield IL >>>> > > >>>> > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Dugan Murphy via Callers <callers@ >>>> > > lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >>>> > > > Since it was an article about my dance series that started this >>>> > > > conversation about role terms, I'll offer that the primary reason >>>> > > > we chose "jets" and "rubies" as gender-free terms is so that >>>> > > > 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" and "ladies." >>>> > > > >>>> > > > We also took a look at this graphic of Ron Blechner's analysis of >>>> > > > gender-free role terms people have been talking about: http://amh >>>> > > > erstcontra.org/ContraDanceRoleTerms.pdf >>>> > > > >>>> > > > We may not use "jets" and "rubies" forever, but we figured we'd >>>> > > > give it a try. There didn't seem to be any reasons not to try >>>> > > > and there are certainly plenty of reasons to try. >>>> > > > >>>> > > > Most men at our dance dance as jets and most women dance as >>>> > > > rubies, but for the few who dance opposite, switch around, or >>>> > > > whose gender expression doesn't fit the man/woman binary, I'd >>>> > > > like to think that formally separating dance roles from gender is >>>> > > > validating in a meaningful way. >>>> > > > >>>> > > > Dugan Murphy >>>> > > > Portland, Maine >>>> > > > dugan at duganmurphy.com >>>> > > > >>>> > > > www.DuganMurphy.com >>>> > > > www.PortlandIntownContraDance.com >>>> > > > www.NufSed.consulting >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > _______________________________________________ >>>> > > > Callers mailing list >>>> > > > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net >>>> > > > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.n >>>> > > > et >>>> > > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > _______________________________________________ >>>> > > 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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

7 years, 2 months

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

Import1 January 2017