Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling - Import1

2 Jun 2015

Ron,
I don't dance ECD where you do, so I can't speak to your experience, but where I
live, it is not uncommon to do an ECD with one short walk through.  Only very complex or
long dances require more, but the same can be said of some more outré contras.  I would
argue that in many ECD's, the moves are piled one on another so the call has to be
intricately stacked, and yes, the tempi vary, some being much faster than what contra
dancers are accustomed to, some slower.  It is so not the case that ECD gives more time to
react to the calls, and a late call can train wreck an ECD quite as easily as a contra.
Yup, contra sometimes has medleys.  These are not the rule.  Many communities rarely
experience them.  And we callers cannot put just any contra in a medley.  We rely on
experience and quick reaction time.  A crowd equally experienced with global positioning
would have the same quicksilver instinctive reaction to corner terms as we have to ladies
and gents.  
That a contra has a changeable tune is neither here nor there.  I'm getting ready to
call an English dance that does just that, requiring merely lively square jigs.  
I'd say it is possible that the reason corners ceased to be used was exactly because
contra was a gendered dance.  You could predict who was in what corner based on the
choreography and simply call to ladies and gents.  In proper ECD, you needed corners
because those diagonals contained mixed gender pairs.  Proper contras, for whatever
reason, stopped using moves involving mixed gender corners, aside from contra corners.  I
don't know the exact historical reason, but perhaps expedient simplicity, puritanical
separation of the sexes, or a move toward non hierarchical dance?  Once gendered terms
began being used instead of corners, choreography was written utilizing that mode and
reinforcing it.  That has worked for over a hundred years. Now our society is changing and
some would like the dance to reflect that.  Re instituting practices which allow for any
gender on the corners is merely taking a good old idea and giving it new life.  
You are saying it can't work, and perhaps are imagining trying to call your normal
program to your accustomed crowd without any preparation.  Of course you can't do
that.  I'm saying it can work, because I'm imagining taking many evening of
carefully selected dances, well taught, to train people to be as comfortable with
positional calling as they are with role names.  Then they will have the same reaction
time and medleys etc. are totally in the realm of possibility. 
 Anyone imagining that just throwing new names at this issue is going to solve it is
naïve.  It's going to take work to uproot cultural and subcultural expectations,
habits, attitudes.  Many will not even see this as desirable.  Role name change is a
bandaid, a pretty transparent one at that, designed to give the appearance of gender
neutrality while changing nothing about how we view ourselves in the dance.  
Personally, I appreciate Jim Hemphill's hey let's just go for it attitude (though
but in from the community would be good).  He didn't ask himself all the ways it might
fail, he asked himself how he could make it succeed.  And succeed he apparently did.  I
think further success, with all of our repertoire, is within reach.  
Andrea

Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask

...
  On Jun 2, 2015, at 2:16 PM, Ron Blechner
&lt;contraron(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

 Comparing ECD and Contra has uses. But only to a point.

 Consider:

 ECD walkthroughs often take many times longer than contra walkthroughs.

 The pace and tempo of ECD and Contra are often exceedingly different. Contra dancers
often have far less time to react to words they hear.

 Contra has medleys.

 Contra and ECD pull from different move sets, and while similar, is a factor.

 Contra dances need to work with a variety of musical tunes.

 So with those in mind, rhetorical statements like "If they were that awkward, they
would have long since been replaced." don't work. Relying on "it works in
ECD so it works in contra" - or vice versa - is not feasible.

 Also, they *have* been replaced. Contra grew out of ECD, and the terms changed to fit.
The fact that contra grew out of using corners is evidence that corners doesn't work
for contra. Else, why'd it ever grow away from those terms?

> On Jun 2, 2015 12:02 PM, "Andrea Nettleton via Callers"
&lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote:
> English callers and dancers clearly have no trouble saying or understanding these
terms.  If they were that awkward, they would long since have been replaced.  I think we
see positions as roles purely from habit.  If I taught a roomful of kids who had never
danced using no roles, would they think of having danced a role?
> 
> 
> It's each leader's call how to teach ballroom hold.  I suggest getting
becket, the noting which hand you are holding with your P, so you can remember to end
holding it again.  Keep holding that hand as you face P.    Place those same hands on your
partners scapula, the dancer using Rhd below, left hand user above.  The free indicator
hands are then loosely connected.  Boom, ballroom hold.  You still use the loose hand to
indicate which way to face after the swing and let go of them, opening up like a book, so
you are again holding the connector hands as in the beginning.  
> 
> I'm wondering what kinds of groups are even contemplating using non gendered
terms, or positional calling.  Experienced groups of dancers currently using 'gents
and ladies' seem unlikely to do so, and it would likely have little effect on the way
people dance.  Most would continue dancing whatever role they usually did, and pretty
soon, any newcomer could see at a glance that if male, one dances Jet, and if female,
Ruby.  So we'd just end up with another pair of terms associated with traditional
gender roles.  Positional calling prevents the reassociation of gender with a new term,
but I bet the structure of the dance would be largely unchanged.
> OTOH, if we are talking about groups which have always been gender free, or new
groups which fully intend to be gender free, I believe there would be little resistance to
using global terminology, and using corners as a position, not a person, is the ultimate
neutral mode.  The assumption there is that all dancers are created equal, and it's a
team sport, where each needs to understand the whole dance and their place in it.  
> The topic has been broached, as I understand it, because we care about making the
dance space, or some dance spaces, a safe place to not worry about gender identity,
because some people are very sensitive/are exploring/have identified in a non traditional
way.  If we are sincere in our wish to make them comfortable, that care does not end
because it requires more effort to learn to understand and teach a particular way. 
Inconvenient isn't relevant.  We are creative people.  If we wanted to, we could
shorten those terms for prompting (firsts and seconds). We can train ourselves to deeply
understand how the positions work and evolve cleaner, more efficient teaches.  The search,
to my understanding, was for an optimal universal way of calling gender free contra.  If
we are ok with sub optimal, we could just keep bands and bares, or the occasional moon and
stars, which have been used for decades.  I will use whatever any given community wants me
to use.  If I were faced with offering an option to my home gender free group, I would do
my best first to try to be a kick ass global terminology caller, before giving in to
naming roles, because I truly believe that method is more neutral than any other.
> Cheers,
> Andrea
> 
> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
> 
>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 11:00 AM, Maia McCormick via Callers
&lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote:
>> 
>> I think Ron's point is that with this set of terms (i.e. 1st/2nd corner
refers to the person rather than the position), if we're in an improper context,
we've basically circled back around to labeling the roles, only these role labels seem
unideal because they have lots of syllables and sound relatively similar. At the point at
which we're talking about "first corner" and "second corner",
isn't it less of a mouthful, easier to understand, and easier for experienced dancers
to convert into terms they understand to have a set of terms like jets[gems]/rubies or
larks/ravens?
>> 
>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Perry Shafran via Callers
&lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote:
>>> It's the person in that position at the start of the dance, and that
designation stays with you throughout the dance.  If you switch throughout the dance, then
your corner designation may change.  It also has meaning in dance terms, where
larks/ravens etc are just made up names.  As a matter of fact I'm more likely to
remember my corner designation than whether I am a lark or a raven.  
>>> 
>>> Perry
>>> 
>>> From: Ron Blechner &lt;contraron(a)gmail.com&gt;
>>> To: Perry Shafran &lt;pshaf(a)yahoo.com&gt; 
>>> Cc: Caller's discussion list &lt;callers(a)sharedweight.net&gt;et>; Andrea
Nettleton &lt;twirly-girl(a)bellsouth.net&gt; 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2015 8:45 AM
>>> 
>>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling
>>> 
>>> If you want to redefine "corner" as a person, not a position...
>>> On Jun 2, 2015 10:41 AM, "Perry Shafran via Callers"
&lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> After thinking about this I think I am starting to agree with Andrea in that
corners (first & second) just might be the perfect term to use.  In ECD, where most
dances are proper, the first corner is gent 1 and lady 2, because in proper dances there
are different genders on the diagonal.  In an improper dance (most contra dances), there
are same genders on the diagonal.  So therefore the ladies would be in the first corner
positions (same positions as in a proper English dance), and the gents are the second
corners.  In a swing, first corners end up on the right.  I think by thinking about it
this way you could do any dance, easy to challenging, with the corner terminology in
place.  Just substitute any incidence of "gents" in your choreography with
"second corner" and "ladies" with "first corner".  
>>> 
>>> Perry
>>> 
>>> From: Andrea Nettleton via Callers &lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt;
>>> To: Michael Fuerst &lt;mjerryfuerst(a)yahoo.com&gt; 
>>> Cc: &quot;callers(a)sharedweight.net&quot; &lt;callers(a)sharedweight.net&gt; 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2015 2:31 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling
>>> 
>>> Hey Michael,
>>> I think you mean that those who began the dance as first corners, will always
end swings on the right, just as they are standing relative to their partner in the hands
four.  
>>> 
>>> The dance is obscure to the dancers only to the degree the caller is unable
to elucidate it.  It may take effort for callers to learn to teach as effectively this
way, but that doesn't make it less clear.  When I called to the SFQCD, ninety percent
of the dancers were men.  Even with bands and bare arms, so as clear an indication of role
as they could achieve, they struggled with who ends where after stuff.  What if I could
have given them the tool of knowing their corners, and in addition, the clear instruction
to note carefully which hand they held when standing next to their partner? That would
always be their connector hand when standing as a couple after swings, chains, and R&L
thrus. The twofold active attention might have served them far better than the arbitrary
labels.  Understanding that the pattern of the dance depends on knowing your geography
makes sense.  Adding into that the need to remember a label doesn't improve the odds
the geography will stick, at least it didn't there. In my opinion, looking for a
person is less reliable than knowing your place in the dance.  People mess up, but the
place is always there.
>>> 
>>> AN
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 4:05 AM, Michael Fuerst via Callers
&lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Consider this dance
>>>> 
>>>> E.J.M.J.F. in Cincinnati Duple Improper Michael Fuerst March, 1991 A1
Balance and swing neighbor. A2 Men allemande left 1 1/2 and swing partner. B1 Long lines
forward and back. Women chain to neighbor. B2 Women allemande right (4). 1/2 hey,
neighbors start passing left shoulder, until neighbors on the side they started the dance
(8). Neighbors pass left shoulders and turn sharply left along set to meet new neighbors
(4).
>>>> Using this thread's suggestions, I think this becomes (as long as
dancers understand that those starting as second corners always end the swing on the
right)
>>>> E.J.M.J.F. in Cincinnati Duple Improper Michael Fuerst March, 1991 A1
Balance and swing neighbor. A2 First corners allemande left 1 1/2 and swing partner. B1
Long lines forward and back. Second corners chain to neighbor. B2 Second corners allemande
right (4). 1/2 hey, neighbors start passing left shoulder, until neighbors on the side
they started the dance (8). Neighbors pass left shoulders and turn sharply left along set
to meet new neighbors (4)
>>>> This makes the dance obscure to beginning and intermediate dancers. Seems
best to have names corresponding to the men's and women's roles, rather than to
have dancer's determine which corners they are at any point in the dance.
>>>>  
>>>> Michael Fuerst      802 N Broadway      Urbana IL 61801      217 239
5844
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 2:26 AM, Andrea Nettleton via Callers
&lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Actually Alan, because we dance improper most frequently, and becket
almost as much, I think I really don't want the labels applied to people so they
stick.  I'm just using the word corner the way Brooke and Chris use diagonal.  In
contra, we already have a use for the word diagonal, meaning the next pair along across
the set to the right or left.  The corner reference we have is actually close to right,
probably having grown out of triple minor dances.  Right diagonal is first corner, Left
diagonal is second.  Make it fit in a hands four and you have pairs of corners along
opposite angles.  It's a place not a person.  Then I can write a dance beginning with
a second corner chain, and it will be those formerly identified as gents, but will work
totally fine.  If the dance were proper, you could still have a second diagonals chain and
it would be one of each 'role'.  A direct transfer of the system to contra is not
as useful as adapting, IMHO.
>>>> Andrea
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 3:07 AM, Winston, Alan P.
&lt;winston(a)slac.stanford.edu&gt; wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I'm not Andrea but as someone who's appreciated the value of
global calling since Chris and Brooke proselytized our West Coast English caller self
improvement group about it in 2000 and who regularly uses it even in not gender free
English as well as for gender free English I think I can answer.  
>>>> 
>>>> The Heather and Rose style (which they didn't invent but have
published the most in) is designed for proper longways.  Men's line is left file,
ladies line is right file.   In a square or Becket formation gents place are first
diagonals, ladies are second diagonals.  Corner is reserved for contra corners and the
immediate neighbor in a square. 
>>>> 
>>>> However, mainstream English gives us first corners (in a proper set,
first gent and second lady) and second corners (first lady and second gent).  If you apply
that to a typical improper contra, as Andrea was suggesting, the ladies are on the first
corners, the gents on the second corners. 
>>>> 
>>>> The answer to each of your questions about how she'd indicate what we
now do with gender is to substitute a corner reference.  First corners make a wave in the
middle of the set. They back up and second corners come in.  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> You'd have to decide whether the same positional reference applies to
becket, where it would be the gents, or have the corner assignments apply before you
becketize, which would be my preference. 
>>>> 
>>>> Does that clear it up ?
>>>> 
>>>> Alan
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>> 
>>>> On Jun 1, 2015, at 9:12 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers
&lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Andrea, how would you handle the following:
>>>>> 1. Lines of one role/position to the center to a wavy line, as in
Trip to Lambertville, et all?
>>>>> 2. Indication of who walks forward / backs up in a gypsy star?
>>>>> 3. Indication of who-leads-who, such as in Ramsay Chase, Pedal
Pushers, Jurassic Redheads, etc.
>>>>> 4. Indication of who is passing while calling a hey.
>>>>> 5. Indication of who crosses, who turns in a box circulate?
>>>>> 6. Indication any other role/position specific move that I
haven't mentioned? Turn over right shoulder, as in Fairport Harbour? Rollaways?
>>>>> None of these fall under the "most unusual figures" as you
stated.
>>>>> Ron 
>>>>> On Jun 1, 2015 11:59 AM, "Andrea Nettleton via Callers"
&lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote:
>>>>> In previous discussions here, on FB, and privately with organizers at
Hampshire over the last two years, I have discussed the possible use of global terminology
for gender free contra.  I would contend that if used, everyone would become more aware of
the structure of dances.  Only the most unusual figures/sequences would be unable to be
called.  The addition of first and second corner positions to the arsenal makes it
possible for same role dancers to also be called upon to dance together without reference
to gender.  Second corners chain, or first corners allemande L 1 1/2 for example.  It
would have to be agreed that this refers to those standing in those positions at that
moment.  In ECD we use first and second corners to refer to the people, first and second
diagonals for the positions.  But since we use diagonal to refer to those across and over
one set, this seems unhelpful.  Simply corner positions works better.  I'm glad some
folks are trying it out at last.  I had hoped for an opportunity myself before now.
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Andrea
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Jun 1, 2015, at 8:37 AM, Jim Hemphill via Callers
&lt;callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net&gt; wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> The recent discussions on this topic inspired me to try an
experiment in gender free calling.  Last night I called the contra dance in St. Louis
using gender free calling without telling anyone.    The experiment was a great success. 
I received lots of  positive feedback on the evenings dance.  At the break and after the
dance I made a point to ask several dancers, some were callers as well, if they noticed
anything different or unusual about the dances or how I taught them.   One person noticed
that there were more dances that included a swing in the center for couple 2 than usual. 
No one I talked to noticed that the calls and teaching were gender free.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> It took some extra time to construct a fun, diverse 3 hour
program, but it is certainly possible.  Re-labeling the dancers is not the only way to
call gender free. 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> If you are interested in the program I used or the larger
collection of gender free dances I chose the program from, send me an email,
arcadian35(a)gmail.com.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Jim Hemphill
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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 
Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask

...
  On Jun 2, 2015, at 2:16 PM, Ron Blechner
&lt;contraron(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: