[Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?

Sat May 30 11:57:16 PDT 2015

I understand your weariness with this topic, as I found myself last winter just wanting to know The Answer, so I could start using it and we could move on. 

I have changed my perspective about this, though. Through joining in a roundtable luncheon conversation at Puttin’ On the Dance conference a few months ago, I came to see that this is a folk process, and will take time, as all folk process does. It will ultimately be a good thing if there is a generally accepted set of words (certainly not a strict requirement, but something that’s generally accepted across the country, if possible) that meet the range of criteria, along the lines of those suggested by Ron in his matrix. It matters a lot that we find words that are inclusive and understandable, at least.

I think that there is benefit to those folks who are working on this sharing their emerging ideas, and to the rest of us trying a few new things, keeping the dialogue alive, until it has become a non-question. We’re not there yet, but one day we’ll suddenly realize that we are!

> On May 30, 2015, at 2:00 PM, susanelberger via Callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> 
> I do wonder whether this horse has been beaten to death.  I doubt that there will be agreement, and that's fine.  The topic has been on the list several times, and yes, I know I can ignore the postings, but enough seems to be more than enough.
> 
> 
> 
> From: Ron Blechner <contraron at gmail.com>
> To: Amy Wimmer <amywimmer at gmail.com> 
> Cc: susanelberger <susanma1950 at yahoo.com>; callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net> 
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?
> 
> Care to branch off non-jet/ruby terms to a new email please?
> On May 29, 2015 2:45 PM, "Amy Wimmer via Callers" <callers at lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers at lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote:
> 
> 
> I kinda like suns and moons better than lots of the other alternatives, for the same reasons Susan lists. Also, there's Sun Dance and Moon Dance, by Robert Cromartie: gents swing in Sun Dance and ladies swing in Moon Dance. A precedence, perhaps?
> 
> -Amy
> 
> 
> 
> On May 29, 2015, at 8:00 AM, susanelberger via Callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers at lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote:
> 
>> I have used suns and moons for years, and prefer them because they have one syllable each, sound completely different from each other, and are easy for the dancers to remember.  I have never had any issue arise about gender bias from them.  The conversation about which gems to use does seem a bit too overthought to me.
>> 
>> Susan Elberger
>> Lowell, Massachusetts
>> 
>> From: Delia Clark via Callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers at lists.sharedweight.net>>
>> To: "<callers at lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers at lists.sharedweight.net>>" <callers at lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers at lists.sharedweight.net>> 
>> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 6:52 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?
>> 
>> Okay, this conversation, plus the lunch table at the Puttin’ On the Dance Conference in Ottawa are FINALLY getting me to give up clinging to moons and stars (the only non-gender term I’ve ever used, which I have liked with families and have found works well, but which I understand is too gender-y to be acceptable as the solution we’re looking for - dang!). I am herewith committing to trying out Jets and Rubies next weekend at a dance I’m calling for a wedding of two women. Will report back.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On May 29, 2015, at 1:56 AM, P. Campbell via Callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers at lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>> I like jets & rubies (and have used the terms) for a number of reasons. (Don't like gems for same reason about confusion).
>> 
>> In a weird way, it's close enough to "lefts & rights" for me to have no trouble remembering who's who (with rubies starting with "r"), and, (apologies to those who might be offended), because it fits the same syllables for me as "gents & ladies" (which I use for historical dance) or "men & women".
>> 
>> For some reason I just can't get a feel for larks & ravens (I have an idea of why but not worth sharing), and I'm not at all comfortable using bands & bares.
>> 
>> For me, it's whatever will be the easiest for me to remember which side is which, and if my brain is wired to think of "jets" (black color) as more masculine and "rubies" (red color) as more feminine (so easier for me to link them to left & right), that's my mental visual process. (I tried apples & oranges once with a group of kids - it was terrible because I couldn't remember which was which side - I have to have some frame of reference).
>> 
>> I think one of the reasons I have trouble with larks & ravens is because of having learned a foreign language that has a gender for nouns, and I want to make larks the right side and ravens the left, but then the syllable structure doesn't work for me. 
>> 
>> My 2 cents.
>> 
>> Patricia
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On May 28, 2015, at 3:51 PM, Alan Winston via Callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers at lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 5/28/15 12:30 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote:
>> 
>> For those interested in gender free contra dance terms:
>> 1. Do you like or dislike jets / rubies ?
>> 
>> 
>> Like. (I'm responding on personal preference alone; I'm aware of some objections to this, which I don't personally share.)
>> 
>>> 2. How would gems / rubies compare?
>> 
>> Less good, because the soft "ms" would make the call less clear.  Also, rubies _are_ gems, so this is confusing.
>> 
>> -- Alan
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Callers mailing list
>>> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:Callers at lists.sharedweight.net>
>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net <http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:Callers at lists.sharedweight.net>
>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net <http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net>
>> 
>> 
>> <>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>
>> 
>> Delia Clark
>> PO Box 45
>> Taftsville, VT 05073
>> 802-457-2075 <applewebdata://DF79BE30-98A5-4C5A-B4DB-360F279C6050>
>> deliaclark8 at gmail.com <mailto:deliaclark8 at gmail.com>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:Callers at lists.sharedweight.net>
>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net <http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net>
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:Callers at lists.sharedweight.net>
>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net <http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:Callers at lists.sharedweight.net>
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net <http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>

Delia Clark
PO Box 45
Taftsville, VT 05073
802-457-2075
deliaclark8 at gmail.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/attachments/20150530/af7ea4c4/attachment.htm>