[Callers] Another approach to Gender Free calling

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

While I still see the appeal of corners in principle, this is a ton of
explanation for those of us who already are well versed in dance. For the
objections stated, I don't see using corners is feasible replacement terms.
And I don't see restricting dances to ones not requiring role/position
terms as viable outside one night stands.

And with that, I don't think I have more to add that wouldn't be repeating
myself.

Best regards,
Ron
On Jun 2, 2015 9:25 AM, "Aahz Maruch via Callers" <
callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 01, 2015, Bob Stein via Callers wrote:
> >
> > This discussion of ECD just made me realize that the one move that is
> > usually specifically gender related -- Ladies Chain -- is actually 2nd
> > corners chain.  If the idea of first and second corners is introduced
> > to contra dancers than there would be no problem with most of the
> > moves: chains, allemandes, heys.  It all becomes position oriented.
>
> Maybe so.  But this discussion is making me realize part of the reason I
> dislike ECD: this positional notation.  It's not that position is
> difficult for me in general terms, because that's a lot of MWSD, but
> something about the "corners" notation I find difficult (I also have
> difficulty with contra corners).
>
> I wonder how many other people have similar difficulty and to what
> extent this accounts for the ECD/contra divide.
> --
> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
> http://rule6.info/
>                       <*>           <*>           <*>
> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/attachments/20150602/31678dc6/attachment.htm>