Re: Designating who does what in the figure: "????? Chain" ...

You are right. I never did know which hand was which. Mo Waddington http://mo-dance-caller.blogspot.co.uk/p/what-i-do.html ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Hemphill arcadian353(a)yahoo.com [trad-dance-callers] To: trad-dance-callers(a)yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 1:53 PM Subject: Re: [trad-dance-callers] Designating who does what in the figure: "????? Chain" ... I'm not sure I understand the question. Chains are typically the person on the right pullng by right handed, or left hand chain with the person on the left pulling by left handed. I have only run across one dance that had the person on the right (in that case it was gents) pulling by left to start a chain and it was a real awkward mess for most of the dancers. I suppose if you really wanted to try it you could keep a gender reference, for example from an improper start, Ladies right hand chain or gents left hand chain. Jim Hemphill ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: "'Mo Waddington' mjw(a)mowaddington.plus.com [trad-dance-callers]" <trad-dance-callers(a)yahoogroups.com> To: trad-dance-callers(a)yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 4:00 PM Subject: Re: [trad-dance-callers] Designating who does what in the figure: "????? Chain" ...  Yes. But is it the person on the left does a 'right hand chain' using R hand to cross, or v.v.? I can see a possible confusion (like when a caller says 'cast right' meaning follow your right shoulder, but some people expect to be moving to the right) Mo Waddington http://mo-dance-caller.blogspot.co.uk/p/what-i-do.html ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Hemphill arcadian353(a)yahoo.com [trad-dance-callers] To: trad-dance-callers(a)yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:17 PM Subject: Re: [trad-dance-callers] Designating who does what in the figure: "????? Chain" ... I agree with Roger, Left hand or Right hand chain makes a lot of sense. It conveys more information to the dancers and eliminates an unnecessary gender reference. Jim Hemphill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Roger Diggle diggle(a)contrawise.net [trad-dance-callers]" <trad-dance-callers(a)yahoogroups.com> To: trad-dance-callers(a)yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 4:34 PM Subject: [trad-dance-callers] Designating who does what in the figure: "????? Chain" ... Designating who does what in the figure: "????? Chain" ... This is a subject that probably deserves its own thread - so I'll start it. The immediate spur to discuss this arises from the message quoted farther below. But I've been ruminating about the issue for 30+ years ... 30+ years ago, in Chicago, the figure "people's chain" was used occasionally. It was accepted as dancing the same action as "ladies chain", but from a proper set (all the gents on one side, all the ladies on the other). It was used [blasphemously, thought some] with some of the Chestnuts in place of "proper-set R&L thru," to add a bit of spice. About 30 years ago, I attended a dance weekend - in Kentucky, I think, (maybe Camp Levi Jackson?) - at which we had the unusual (for dance camps) situation of more men than women on the dance floor. (In fact, having an all-guy square evened things up pretty nicely.) It's safe to say that among all the above dancers, "gents chain" was already accepted as the gents doing a mirror image of the "ladies chain," starting from the lady's left. At the dance camp, Gene Hubert test-drove a new contra (can't remember the name, unfortunately - sorry) in which the gents were to the right of their partners on the sides of the set - and Gene wanted the gents to chain across. In the walk-through, Gene explained that he would call, "gents do a ladies chain." A perfectly good solution for the moment. But to me, it seemed a bit lacking for the long-haul. Gene and I had a discussion that evening about how this situation might be handled more generally. I suggested that we might, in this situation, say, "gents do a right-hand chain." Or, even better, just say, "chain by the right" or "right-hand chain" ... when it occurred to me that, if it weren't for the 'pesky problem' of tradition, "right-hand chain" and "left-hand chain" could handle all circumstances. And I opined that, just perhaps, we might even consider changing the traditional names of the figures this way to accommodate any other situations that might (and probably would) arise in the future. Gene took the side of the traditional skeptic in the discussion, incompletely convinced of the idea's usefulness. So - I'm here to pose the same question again: Might we, perhaps, consider changing the names of these figures to "right-hand chain" and "left-hand chain? Or at least, begin using these names side-by-side with the traditional names? Among other things, it accommodates something that never crossed my mind until a few years ago: gender neutrality. It would also make for a very interesting, entangling addition to the old square, "The Route". Roger Diggle On 3/20/17 at 10:27 PM, trad-dance-callers(a)yahoogroups.com (Michael Barraclough michael(a)michaelbarraclough.com [trad-dance-callers]) wrote: I first discussed it about 30 years ago with Gene Hubert -