26 Jan
2017
26 Jan
'17
10:42 a.m.
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:
_______________________________________________
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
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:
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
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
26 Jan
26 Jan
11:24 a.m.
New subject: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"
Cognitively, it's not as complex as you make it out to be, Donna. (With all
due respect)
Roles are used almost entirely as the first word in a prompt. For dancers,
it's not a new vocabulary, it's a prefix change. That's a lot easier, and
I've heard *lots* of feedback from dancers of "I stopped noticing after the
first dance" and I have not heard any "even at the end of the night I still
had issues".
Further, there are dance communities experimenting with different terms -
Brooklyn, Hampshire, Village as examples - I've yet to hear that their
dancers are all messed up. I've heard the contrary, in fact.
Further, there are dancers who dance in multiple communities with different
terms. If your hypothesis were true, we'd expect that these people would be
having difficulty. They're not.
In addition, I find it funny how no one complains how hard it is to switch
between the very different sounding words "gents" and "men" /
"ladies" and
"women". Again, if this "oh no, different terms are hard" hypothesis
were
true, we'd already hear complaints. Plenty of dances have callers that use
either / or / both. No big deal.
From a caller's perspective, I absolutely
appreciate that it's harder. I'd
like to see a standard genderfree set of
terms be adopted, absolutely. I'm
also glad we're moving away from bands/bares, if only because the words
sound too similar. That was a good solution for many years, but it's time
to move on.
For me personally calling, I find swapping terms isn't *that* bad, but I
know I don't represent everyone. Some callers need a second set of dance
cards with the terms. If a caller isn't up for a requirement of a
community, then, I guess they don't need to call there.
Change meant to broaden inclusion may pose challenges, but I for one think
they're worth it when dancers are requesting it in large numbers.
Best regards,
Ron Blechner
On Jan 26, 2017 11:42 AM, "Donna Hunt" <dhuntdancer(a)aol.com> wrote:
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:
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
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:
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________ 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
5:01 p.m.
New subject: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"
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>om>; 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:
_______________________________________________
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
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:
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
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
27 Jan
27 Jan
2:08 a.m.
New subject: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"
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>om>; 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
>
>
29 Jan
29 Jan
8:03 p.m.
New subject: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"
In regards to the present variety in role terminology, I may be fairly
alone in this opinion, but I hope we never intentionally arrive at a grand
consensus.
I love that different terms for roles have sprung up in different
communities, just as I love that so many wonderful terms have sprung up for
eye-turn/shoulder-turn/spiral. I love hearing "allemande", "hand
turn", and
"hand 'round" in different communities. I love that "dosado"
means
drastically different things in different long-lived community ("square")
dances. I love that some communities default to hands-across stars while
others default to wrist-hold stars. I love that there are at least three
different promenade positions, and each is default in different
communities. As much as my engineer brain would enjoy it, I hope we never
have a CALLERLAB to strictly define terminology and steps for contra dances.
— Chet Gray
dance caller
Louisville, KY
(502) 419-7008 <+1-502-419-7008>
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Donna Hunt via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
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:
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
I 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:
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________ 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
2786
days inactive
2790
days old
import1@lists2.sharedweight.net
4 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Chet Gray via Callers -
Donna Hunt via Callers
-
Jim Hemphill via Callers
-
Ron Blechner via Callers
-
via Callers