Folks,
I began this discussion as a simple question with no intention of creating
a debate on gender terms. I simply wanted to know if the lyrics ,in the
context of a traditional song, were going to cause offense to any contra
dancers. I think I had my answer early on.
If we choose to continue this conversation let's do it with respect for
each other, but I believe conversations like this are best held in face to
face round tables. Emails make it hard to feel the emotion of the writer,
and to see that writer as a person, who too, deserves much respect.
Without pontificating, I do want to say, in my few short years in the
contra community, ALL the callers I have met have treated the dancers, and
each other, with great respect. We have a lot more in common than we have
as differences. We must remember traditions within dance communities
vary. Our way is just one way.
Now, as a caller who often calls singing squares, I find that changing the
words of a popular song, changes the way dancers respond to that square
They expect certain words and changing them leaves many feeling cheated or
disappointed. Try changing the song Marianne to say "All day, all night,
my Caroline" and you will know what I mean. IMHO, it is better not to use
a song than to change the tag line significantly. (In MWSD the tag line is
the lyric that is sung during the 16 step promenades, and it is most often
the most common, or repeated lyric in the song.)
Thanks for all your thoughtful responses.
Rich
Stafford, CT
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Dorcas Hand via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> Louise has hit the nail on the head: "I’d love everyone to dance for the
> pure joy of it, but the idea that we can get “back” to that place, rather
> than move forward to it, is a myth." Me too (yup), and there is no easy
> path to get there. We must keep talking - just like in the broader world of
> politics. Talking does/can get frustrating and circular, but it also opens
> minds and keeps people thinking about how to be together better.
>
> Meanwhile, together let's forge a path - maybe of many sortof parallel
> lanes - to move forward to dancing in joy.
> Dorcas Hand
> Houston
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Callers <callers-bounces(a)lists.sharedweight.net> On Behalf Of
> Louise Siddons via Callers
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 10:49 AM
> To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Politically Correct?
>
> I have a friend who danced for the pure joy of it until he got sick of
> being asked why a black man wanted to contra dance. I dance with more,
> purer joy now that fewer men “offer” to split me up from my girlfriend when
> we join a line together.
>
> I’d love everyone to dance for the pure joy of it, but the idea that we
> can get “back” to that place, rather than move forward to it, is a myth.
>
> Louise.
> www.scissortail.org
>
> > On Mar 28, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Jeffrey Spero via Callers <
> callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> >
> > Can we just get back to dancing for the pure joy of it?
> >
> _______________________________________________
> List Name: Callers mailing list
> List Address: Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
> _______________________________________________
> List Name: Callers mailing list
> List Address: Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>
Not that the world at large was waiting for me to weigh in on this, but:
I completely endorse Jen's point that "political correctness" is usually
used as code for resenting having to treat people with respect.
I completely endorse Louise's point that the past where everyone could
dance for the pure joy of it is mythical and there has to be change to
move forward to that place. [The operative word being "everyone"; the
generally-positive experience that cis-het white guys like me had was
different from "everyone".]
As a caller I've called gents/ladies, bands/bares, larks/ravens, first
diagonals/second diagonals (that's for Heather & Rose style gender-free
English).
I'm still going to nitpick some of Ron's rather-too-broad statements.
On 3/28/18 9:47 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> I think your understanding of there being "no to little movement" is
> inaccurate.
>
> In New England, New York, Seattle, and the Bay Area, many callers have
> been examining terminology and changing. Several dance series have
> gone genderfree without being specifically chartered as LGBTQ dances.
> Not coincidentally, these dances are thriving amidst a decline of
> attendance of contra in general.
>
Contra dancing in the Bay Area is thriving in general, though some
series struggle. I can think of multiple gents/ladies series that do
okay, and I know at least one larks/ravens series that is struggling. I
don't think it's the determining factor in success.
> Many dances are also taking up safety policies before and after the
> #metoo movement, despite plenty of resistance for years of some people
> insisting that contra is a happy place where there's no harassment.
>
I am glad to have missed those arguments, but I have missed them. Were
there really contradance people arguing that it would hurt to have a
safety policy? (BACDS had a code of conduct for many years, and then
went full bore into safety policy, but most of the discussion about that
was about how to keep track of reports from multiple dance series to
identify serial harassers without violating privacy, etc - that is,
logistics. Honestly don't recall anybody objecting to doing it.)
> So yes, you're correct that these discussions have been happening for
> years, true, but they have also been producing tangible change in many
> places.
>
> ...
>
>
> I might also like to disagree with your implication that everyone is
> responsible for "arguing about it". We callers who have swapped terms
> for g*pay, for example, have long since moved on.
>
Well, you (Ron) may have. The callers who frequently lead BACDS English
and Contra dances have been having an email discussion trying to
standardize on a replacement term, since there is dancer pushback
against having to deal with multiple terms for the same figure.
(There's certainly also some dancer pushback against dropping a term
they know, like, and don't perceive as derogatory, but they're going to
have to get over it.) Anyway, we got about 40 group emails in and are
stalled on trying to get a term that everybody can support, so right now
everybody's still using what they individually prefer. I'm a "right
shoulder round" person myself, but kinda like "gyre". I don't think I
can call this "have long since moved on".
-- Alan
He’s right… and she’s right. How can they both be right?
Well… they ARE both right. There is no clear cut answer on this. People who feel strongly on one side or the other may like to think there is a clear cut answer, but if one thing seems clear to me by the amount of back and forth on this subject it’s that there are differing valid opinions.
In the meantime, while we argue endlessly about whether to gypsy, walk-around, face-to-face, vis-a-vis, spiral, gyre, turn by the eyes, whimsy, kipsy, tipsy, shmipsy - or just avoid the move altogether, we lose why many came to contra dancing in the first place. Contradances were a place where people would come to actually get away from all of the controversies of life. It was a place where people from differing stripes with differing beliefs (OK, maybe I’m being idealistic here - let’s not kid ourselves, it’s mostly liberal whites!) can come together and leave the real world issues behind and just dance and be friendly. And now? These controversies have made their presence known on the dance floor. And it’s not just gypsies or no gypsies. It’s also questions of role identification (men/women, ladies/gents, larks/ravens, jets/rubies) and whether people should boycott dance weekends that gender balance.
Please don’t misunderstand me… I have very little fight in this game. I’m moving to the point where I couldn’t care less about what we call moves or people. I’m just tired of the endless discussions that go nowhere except to continue to divide people and make the dance community cohesive. Maybe I’ve become an old fart who just wishes we could have the dance community we had decades ago that wasn’t so fraught with divisiveness. Or maybe there’s something to what I have written here. Maybe the decline in attendance at dances across the country has less to do with terminology - and more to do with people not wanting to be a part of yet another community that is becoming polarized. Do I have a solution? Nope. And neither does anyone else, or else it would have been solved by now. So maybe we should just cool it for awhile and see if maybe tolerance for personal preferences might help make the community less contentious. Can we just get back to dancing for the pure joy of it?
My two cents.
> On Mar 28, 2018, at 8:56 AM, Maia McCormick <maia.mcc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> While Jeffrey makes a compelling point, I want to chime in with another thought: that not having these discussions is just as divisive (if not more so) than having them, just in ways that are harder for some sides of the community to see. While people make (very valid) claims that long discussions about terminology, altering words to singing squares, etc. are alienating some more established members of the community, to not have these discussions is to alienate many other folks, particularly people our dance scene has done less well by in the past -- young people, people of color, queer people, trans people... the list goes on.
I would never suggest that these discussion not take place. But at some point, the discussion must end with action either being taken - or not. This particular discussion has been going on for many years, with very little new information, with both sides feeling more polarized, and there being no to little movement in the community at large. We’re beating a dead horse. At what point does this become more divisive than cohesive? How is renewing this discussion by rehashing things that have been said over and over again on both sides of the issue being helpful more than harmful?
Call it a walk around. Call it a gypsy. Call larks/ravens. Call gents/ladies. Call the moves as you see fit. But let’s stop the constant arguing about it that has become tiresome and divisive. Minds really aren’t being changed after years of rehashing the same points.
And with that, I will no longer rehash MY point!
(Ah, to clarify, by "offered a dance to split them from their partner" I'm
talking about the phenomenon that Louise mentioned, where a queer couple
(or heck, even same-gender friends!) are offered dances by people to slot
them into opposite-gender couples.)
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Maia McCormick <maia.mcc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> While Jeffrey makes a compelling point, I want to chime in with another
> thought: *that not having these discussions is just as divisive (if not
> more so) than having them*, just in ways that are harder for some sides
> of the community to see. While people make (very valid) claims that long
> discussions about terminology, altering words to singing squares, etc. are
> alienating some more established members of the community, to *not* have
> these discussions is to alienate many other folks, particularly people our
> dance scene has done less well by in the past -- young people, people of
> color, queer people, trans people... the list goes on.
>
> And if it doesn't look to you like these people are being alienated, that
> might be because the alienation started so early that they just never came
> back to another contra dance, after they heard the caller using language
> that made them deeply uncomfortable, or were "offered" a dance to split
> them from their partner, or looked out on the crowd and didn't see anyone
> who looked like them.
>
> So yes, having these discussions may make some folks uncomfortable, and I
> want to strive to minimize this discomfort; at the same time, many are made
> deeply uncomfortable by the status quo, often it ways it's hard to see
> (because often the response to this kind of discomfort is to leave the
> community and not come back--so we have a pronounced sample bias). To
> dismiss these conversations because they're divisive or uncomfortable is to
> prioritize the unity and comfort of one group (the established contra
> scene) over another (all those who might have been contradancers, were the
> community more welcoming to them), and that doesn't sit right with me.
>
> Cheers,
> Maia
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:43 AM, Jeffrey Spero via Callers <
> callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> He’s right… and she’s right. How can they both be right?
>>
>> Well… they ARE both right. There is no clear cut answer on this. People
>> who feel strongly on one side or the other may like to think there is a
>> clear cut answer, but if one thing seems clear to me by the amount of back
>> and forth on this subject it’s that there are differing valid opinions.
>>
>> In the meantime, while we argue endlessly about whether to gypsy,
>> walk-around, face-to-face, vis-a-vis, spiral, gyre, turn by the eyes,
>> whimsy, kipsy, tipsy, shmipsy - or just avoid the move altogether, we lose
>> why many came to contra dancing in the first place. Contradances were a
>> place where people would come to actually get away from all of the
>> controversies of life. It was a place where people from differing stripes
>> with differing beliefs (OK, maybe I’m being idealistic here - let’s not kid
>> ourselves, it’s mostly liberal whites!) can come together and leave the
>> real world issues behind and just dance and be friendly. And now? These
>> controversies have made their presence known on the dance floor. And it’s
>> not just gypsies or no gypsies. It’s also questions of role identification
>> (men/women, ladies/gents, larks/ravens, jets/rubies) and whether people
>> should boycott dance weekends that gender balance.
>>
>> Please don’t misunderstand me… I have very little fight in this game.
>> I’m moving to the point where I couldn’t care less about what we call moves
>> or people. I’m just tired of the endless discussions that go nowhere
>> except to continue to divide people and make the dance community cohesive.
>> Maybe I’ve become an old fart who just wishes we could have the dance
>> community we had decades ago that wasn’t so fraught with divisiveness. Or
>> maybe there’s something to what I have written here. Maybe the decline in
>> attendance at dances across the country has less to do with terminology -
>> and more to do with people not wanting to be a part of yet another
>> community that is becoming polarized. Do I have a solution? Nope. And
>> neither does anyone else, or else it would have been solved by now. So
>> maybe we should just cool it for awhile and see if maybe tolerance for
>> personal preferences might help make the community less contentious. Can we
>> just get back to dancing for the pure joy of it?
>>
>> My two cents.
>> _______________________________________________
>> List Name: Callers mailing list
>> List Address: Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
>> Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>>
>
>
I agree wholeheartedly with Jen, and appreciate her thoughtful response.
Donald makes the excellent point that history is the source of an ongoing challenge (it’s not the present, and the values of any one historical moment are not the same as those of another) for which language usefully offers a dynamic solution. I enjoy thinking about this aspect of dance history, and I enjoy sharing it with dancers (at appropriate times and in the appropriate quantity, of course). I see no reason not to enjoy this aspect of what we do just as much as we enjoy the vagaries of Sharp vs. Shaw siding, or wagon-wheel versus hands-across stars (which I assume we do, since I can initiate a lengthy conversation about these and other things with very little effort, among most dancers and callers I know!).
Louise.
www.scissortail.org
> On Mar 28, 2018, at 3:58 PM, Donald Perley via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> When history shows a number of new terms introduced over the years,
> and each, after a while, picks up the taint of being derogatory, you
> eventually figure out that
> the word itself isn't the real problem.
>
> <Snip>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:16 AM, Jen Morgan via Callers
> <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>> Hello folks
>>
>> I'd just like to second what Ron said. We keep hearing about how organisers
>> would like to "get Young People in", but then express disdain for the things
>> we care about, such as avoiding offensive language.
> _______________________________________________
> List Name: Callers mailing list
> List Address: Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
While it's true that language is often not the problem, it's less relevant
to the discussion of what words to use as a caller than you might think.
Scenario A:
If we have to keep finding new ways to describe square dancing because it's
viewed as an activity only danced by weird old white people, then square
dancing is the problem and changing the name isn't going to help.
Scenario B:
If the problem is that an activity like square dancing has borrowed
terminology that has become dated over time, then it can avoid becoming
scenario A by updating its terminology to match the moving target of
society or in some cases it can discard that terminology in favor of
something that is less likely to attract baggage.
As regards the original question for this post, how we refer to people is
going to be a moving target. If you want to avoid offending people, you
should probably find a term that is considered respectful in the current
era in which you are living. If you don't care about offending people,
then the question is moot.
As regards other terminology concerns, if you find that you have a dance
term that refers to specific people or groups (gypsies, contras, etc.) you
can, in fact, avoid the problem (possibly forever) by moving the term to
something less likely to get wrapped up in the identities of groups or
cultures.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35349619
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Donald Perley via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> When history shows a number of new terms introduced over the years,
> and each, after a while, picks up the taint of being derogatory, you
> eventually figure out that
> the word itself isn't the real problem.
>
> Using the tainted water analogy, if the person serving your water has
> typhoid, asking for a new glass from the same waiter won't help much.
>
>
When history shows a number of new terms introduced over the years,
and each, after a while, picks up the taint of being derogatory, you
eventually figure out that
the word itself isn't the real problem.
Using the tainted water analogy, if the person serving your water has
typhoid, asking for a new glass from the same waiter won't help much.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:16 AM, Jen Morgan via Callers
<callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> Hello folks
>
> I'd just like to second what Ron said. We keep hearing about how organisers
> would like to "get Young People in", but then express disdain for the things
> we care about, such as avoiding offensive language.
Hello folks
I'd just like to second what Ron said. We keep hearing about how
organisers would like to "get Young People in", but then express disdain
for the things we care about, such as avoiding offensive language.
The idea that we should be allowed to say whatever we want when calling as
long as we don't intend any disrespect seems naive at best. For example, I
might want to say something like "This is so f---ing cool!" when I'm
calling, and intend no disrespect by it. But I still wouldn't say it,
because some people *would* feel disrespected by my using that language
over the microphone, even if that's not my intention, and I care about
them. To say that only your intentions matter is to say that you either
don't recognise, or don't care, that other people may have different
feelings about certain words or turns of phrase than you do. And some
words have a history which cannot be ignored and remains relevant no matter
what your intentions. (unless you are Humpty-Dumpty)
"Political correctness" is what people call it when they have to treat
others with respect, and they don't want to. A good trick is to go through
and mentally replace the words "political correctness" with "treating
people with respect". It helps make it clear what people are really
saying.
I would second Ron's comments about the use of the n-word on this thread.
It's just a word that should never be used by white people, at all, ever,
no matter what the context. Here's a quick explanation of why
<https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/11/9/16627900/ta-nehisi-coates-n-word>.
(https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/11/9/16627900/ta-nehisi-coates-n-word
)
And as to your actual point Colin, I disagree. Our inner thoughts and
feelings towards groups of people matter, like you say. Our outward
behaviour matters. And our choice of language matters. Words absolutely
can cause significant pain. And the fact is that just because a word may
not start off poisoned by racism (or some other form of contempt) doesn't
mean that it can ever become unpoisoned again. Say a glass of water is
fine to start with and then someone defecates in it. You can't just scoop
the turd out and call the water clean again. Sure, changing our choice of
words is treating the symptom not the cause. But if I was suffering from a
painful illness where the cause couldn't be dealt with straightaway, I
would definitely want the symptoms to be treated in the meantime!
I notice that a lot of people express resentment about being asked to
change their choice of words for others. If those people find out that
they can get away without making a change, they are positively gleeful, as
though they have won a victory. Expressing resentment at being asked to
change your choice of words, glee when you can get away without doing so --
there is no surer way to express your contempt for the feelings and
opinions of others. When you are in the position of being an old white
male, with good standing in the community -- and in this community some
callers are positively revered to the point where many act as though they
can do no wrong -- it must be easy to believe that no one but yourself
matters. Consider, though, whether this attitude is really good for a
community long term.
Jen
On 28 March 2018 at 07:45, Ron Blechner via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> "Living Tradition"
>
> Preserving tradition and being appropriate to our day and age are not
> mutually exclusive.
>
> I actually love rich traditions that we keep alive. We talk about "living"
> traditions, so what do we mean by this phrase?
>
> For something to be alive, it changes. It adapts. What it doesn't do is
> stay stagnant and unchanging. The whole reason contra dancing is still
> alive today is because it's alive and changing.
>
> By insisting on holding onto traditions verbatim, we are actually doing
> more to kill them than save them. Sure, we'll preserve them this way - as
> one does a taxidermied animal: perfectly preserved, sitting on a shelf,
> dead.
>
> I'd prefer my traditions alive. I'd like to keep sharing them with younger
> generations. That means that people like Rich are asking the right
> questions. That means we need to consider that language changes and that we
> need to speak in a language that reaches an audience not merely just our
> own.
>
> Hey, isn't that the whole point of being a dance caller? Being heard by
> your audience?
>
> In dance, again,
> Ron Blechner
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 1:33 AM Ron Blechner <contraron(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I want to echo the words of Alex D-L and Dave Casserly.
>>
>> I'm also appalled at the casual use of the n-word on this thread without
>> anyone whatsoever calling it out. This is really giving me pause. :(
>>
>> Contra's attendance is dwindling - I hear it from every organizer I talk
>> to, with a couple exceptions. I also hear about the desire to "get the
>> young people to dance". Hmmm.
>>
>> Ron Blechner
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 11:39 AM Dave Casserly via Callers <
>> callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Rich,
>>>
>>> I don't think your situation here is exactly what Colin describes--
>>> you're not worried about any of the particular words, as many of us are
>>> regarding the word "gypsy," for instance. The question here is whether the
>>> phrase has an offensive *meaning* of "women are things," and if so, is
>>> that a good reason not to use it. Personally, I'd probably alter it or do
>>> a different singing square. I don't subscribe to the extreme position that
>>> you should never sing lyrics to a folk song unless you agree with those
>>> lyrics; that would make singing folk songs very difficult to do at all.
>>> That said, there are some times where the meanings of lyrics are offensive
>>> enough, without any redeeming qualities, that I leave a verse out or alter
>>> a few words in the singing sessions that I lead. There is nothing
>>> sacrosanct about a particular set of lyrics to a folk song; people have
>>> been changing them for whatever reason for generations, and will continue
>>> to do so. If future singers don't like my revisions, they can sing a
>>> different version, just like I sometimes prefer to ignore Victorian-era
>>> revisions to bawdier songs.
>>>
>>> Here, I'd lean toward not using the lyrics for three reasons: 1) they
>>> imply that women are objects; 2) there's nothing redeeming or valuable
>>> about them, as they're the only things sung, with no context; and 3)
>>> similarly, they don't represent the meaning of the song, and when repeated
>>> on their own, sort of pervert that meaning (at least going by the lyrics
>>> Yoyo posted).
>>>
>>> I also think there are good reasons to err on the side of inclusive
>>> language, particularly in our community. Contra dancing is overwhelmingly
>>> white, and for a long time, contra dance calling was dominated by men. The
>>> loudest voices on this forum are those of older white men. Contra dancers
>>> and particularly organizers are disproportionately white baby boomers.
>>> We're seeing the effects of that now; dance attendance has been dwindling
>>> as older dancers stop attending and aren't replaced by younger dancers. If
>>> we want our dance form to continue to thrive, when there's a question on
>>> which there's a generational divide (as you, in my view correctly, note
>>> here), I would err toward using the language less likely to turn off our
>>> younger generations, which are also our most diverse generations. This
>>> isn't an issue where changing the lyrics is going to bother people-- very
>>> few would know the original lyrics well enough to notice-- and certainly
>>> nobody would know if you selected a different singing square instead.
>>>
>>> -Dave
>>>
>>> --
>>> David Casserly
>>> (cell) 781 258-2761 <(781)%20258-2761>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> List Name: Callers mailing list
>>> List Address: Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
>>> Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> List Name: Callers mailing list
> List Address: Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>
>
"Living Tradition"
Preserving tradition and being appropriate to our day and age are not
mutually exclusive.
I actually love rich traditions that we keep alive. We talk about "living"
traditions, so what do we mean by this phrase?
For something to be alive, it changes. It adapts. What it doesn't do is
stay stagnant and unchanging. The whole reason contra dancing is still
alive today is because it's alive and changing.
By insisting on holding onto traditions verbatim, we are actually doing
more to kill them than save them. Sure, we'll preserve them this way - as
one does a taxidermied animal: perfectly preserved, sitting on a shelf,
dead.
I'd prefer my traditions alive. I'd like to keep sharing them with younger
generations. That means that people like Rich are asking the right
questions. That means we need to consider that language changes and that we
need to speak in a language that reaches an audience not merely just our
own.
Hey, isn't that the whole point of being a dance caller? Being heard by
your audience?
In dance, again,
Ron Blechner
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 1:33 AM Ron Blechner <contraron(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I want to echo the words of Alex D-L and Dave Casserly.
>
> I'm also appalled at the casual use of the n-word on this thread without
> anyone whatsoever calling it out. This is really giving me pause. :(
>
> Contra's attendance is dwindling - I hear it from every organizer I talk
> to, with a couple exceptions. I also hear about the desire to "get the
> young people to dance". Hmmm.
>
> Ron Blechner
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 11:39 AM Dave Casserly via Callers <
> callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> Rich,
>>
>> I don't think your situation here is exactly what Colin describes--
>> you're not worried about any of the particular words, as many of us are
>> regarding the word "gypsy," for instance. The question here is whether the
>> phrase has an offensive *meaning* of "women are things," and if so, is
>> that a good reason not to use it. Personally, I'd probably alter it or do
>> a different singing square. I don't subscribe to the extreme position that
>> you should never sing lyrics to a folk song unless you agree with those
>> lyrics; that would make singing folk songs very difficult to do at all.
>> That said, there are some times where the meanings of lyrics are offensive
>> enough, without any redeeming qualities, that I leave a verse out or alter
>> a few words in the singing sessions that I lead. There is nothing
>> sacrosanct about a particular set of lyrics to a folk song; people have
>> been changing them for whatever reason for generations, and will continue
>> to do so. If future singers don't like my revisions, they can sing a
>> different version, just like I sometimes prefer to ignore Victorian-era
>> revisions to bawdier songs.
>>
>> Here, I'd lean toward not using the lyrics for three reasons: 1) they
>> imply that women are objects; 2) there's nothing redeeming or valuable
>> about them, as they're the only things sung, with no context; and 3)
>> similarly, they don't represent the meaning of the song, and when repeated
>> on their own, sort of pervert that meaning (at least going by the lyrics
>> Yoyo posted).
>>
>> I also think there are good reasons to err on the side of inclusive
>> language, particularly in our community. Contra dancing is overwhelmingly
>> white, and for a long time, contra dance calling was dominated by men. The
>> loudest voices on this forum are those of older white men. Contra dancers
>> and particularly organizers are disproportionately white baby boomers.
>> We're seeing the effects of that now; dance attendance has been dwindling
>> as older dancers stop attending and aren't replaced by younger dancers. If
>> we want our dance form to continue to thrive, when there's a question on
>> which there's a generational divide (as you, in my view correctly, note
>> here), I would err toward using the language less likely to turn off our
>> younger generations, which are also our most diverse generations. This
>> isn't an issue where changing the lyrics is going to bother people-- very
>> few would know the original lyrics well enough to notice-- and certainly
>> nobody would know if you selected a different singing square instead.
>>
>> -Dave
>>
>> --
>> David Casserly
>> (cell) 781 258-2761
>> _______________________________________________
>> List Name: Callers mailing list
>> List Address: Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
>> Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>>
>
