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

Sat May 30 16:03:14 PDT 2015

I would just like to point out to the group that this topic was originally
very specific in scope. Ron asked a very specific question, and one of
concrete use for those of us who call gender-free, to which several people
responded to before the thread devolved into a discussion of whether or not
we should use gender neutral terminology in contra at all.

So I would urge folks, for all emails on this listserv but perhaps
especially those about gender-free terminology, to *answer the question
that was asked*. If you disagree with the premise of the question, then do
not respond to the thread, or if you feel you really must say something,
put your comments in a separate thread with a different topic. But if I ask
whether people prefer seitan or tempeh, responding with your opinions about
why vegetarianism is silly doesn't get us any further towards answering the
original question, and only serves to derail the conversation.

I completely understand people's exhaustion with large-scale debates about
whether or not we need gender-free terminology, what those role names
should be, etc. I also think these discussions are silly and that this
listserv will simply never reach a consensus on the topic. But these
discussions should not be conflated asking specific, concrete, and helpful
questions about gender-free terminology and calling. If we avoid turning
the latter into the former, maybe we can reduce listserv fatigue around
this topic.

Thanks,
Maia

On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Michael Fuerst via Callers <
callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> If a our group of like minded people can't agree on terms to use when
> teaching relatively straightforward dances, can  we expect a nation to
> agree on such trivial issues like  use of force by police, national health
> insurance, income distribution, and money's influence in elections ??
>
> Michael Fuerst      802 N Broadway      Urbana IL 61801      217 239 5844
>
>
>
>   On Saturday, May 30, 2015 2:16 PM, Lewis Land via Callers <
> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>
> I agree with that most recent posting. There seem to be many sincere and
> earnest people out there who want to find the perfect solution for
> gender-free calling terms, but I doubt there will ever be consensus on this
> topic, and really, enough is enough. -Lewis Land
>
> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 12:00 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> 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> 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>
> *To:* "<callers at lists.sharedweight.net>" <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> 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> 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
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers at lists.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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers at lists.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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers at lists.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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/attachments/20150530/9d7a3b90/attachment.htm>