This is very interesting information from the questions you posed. If I were going to use either, I would probably lean towards jets and rubies (though I have nothing against larks and ravens) for one main reason - In both French and Spanish (I'm not sure of any other language at this moment), the word Lark is a feminine noun and the word Raven is a masculine noun.
Aside from the difficulties I imagine when I'm leading the historical dances, for contemporary circle, square, and longways it would be a major challenge to my brain to connect a left-side-historically-gent-position with a feminine noun (speaking enough if the language for that to interfere) or a right/side-historically-lady-position with a masculine noun. Jets and rubies have more of a sound appeal to my ear (totally personal preference ), though I still feel we're only substituting a new set of words for words that apparently make some people uncomfortable. I don't know how long it would take for me to see them as gender neutral terms and not just layered over "gents & ladies", which were the roles the dances originated in, except perhaps for the gender-free dances written explicitly that way in recent years. That said, I do primarily community/family/school dances and historical dances, not the monthly contra dances, and I have my own workarounds when I need to use them. Do you know if the ECD world is going through these issues? P.S. I would never use lead/follow. Patricia Campbell Newtown, CT Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 12, 2017, at 9:03 AM, Jeff Kaufman via Callers > <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > As part of thinking about how whether non-gendered terms would work for > mainstream contra dances, I thought it would be good to ask callers what they > thought. Is it something where most callers were only willing to call > Gents/Ladies, or are they more flexible? Do they generally support this sort > of change, or do they think it's a bad idea? > > I wrote to people who have called BIDA in the last year, plus the ones who > are currently booked, to ask them whether: > > A dance like BIDA switching to gender free terms is better, worse, or about > the same. > They have a preference between Larks/Ravens and Jets/Rubies. > They would be willing to call Larks/Ravens or Jets/Rubies if a dance required > that. > Of the 18 callers I wrote to, 17 responded. Of them, all but one was willing > to call Larks/Ravens or Jets/Rubies, though several said (without my having > suggested it) that they wouldn't be willing to call Lead/Follow. > > Many of the respondents didn't say whether they were in favor of the switch. > Of the 11 who did respond, it was 5x yes, 3x ambivalent, and 3x no. > > Nine callers preferred Jets/Rubies because they find it easier to say, but no > one so much that they were willing to call Jets/Rubies but not Larks/Ravens. > > Some freeform responses, lightly edited: > > "I prefer Jets/Rubies, but only slightly. I can see the benefit of 'L'/'R' > matching the default swing ending position with the initial letters but I > think I'd make fewer mistakes with Jets/Rubies. Not enough to sway a decision > though. > > "My personal preference is for Jets/Rubies, but that's just because it's > easier for me to say right now. I'm sure that if I practiced Larks/Ravens > would be fine too. If the point of using gender free terms is to distance the > roles even further from gender, than I'd go with Larks/Ravens. Jets/Rubies > sounds very similar to Gents/Ladies, and some callers slip up and say 'Gents' > for 'Jets'." > > "The birds are arbitrary terms and seem to have fewer unwanted(?) > associations than the rock terms. So I'm for the birds." > > "I'm not wildly positive about either Larks/Ravens or Jets/Rubies, but if I > had to choose one set, it would be Larks/Ravens. To me, Jets/Rubies carries a > lot of baggage: It sounds enough like Gents/Ladies that it invites the > reaction 'Who are they trying to kid?' The lack of logical association > between jewels (inanimate objects) and dancing (an intimate human activity) > makes the use of Jets/Rubies feel as if the series is being run by an > in-group with a secret language. (I realize the two foregoing reactions are > contradictory, but these are gut reactions, not necessarily rational ones.) > Also, 'Jets' makes me think of the gang in West Side Story, and also of > airplanes (more inanimate objects). To sum up, the word in a dance context > has no positive associations for me, and some negative ones. Larks/Ravens has > no baggage for me, doesn't reinforce gender stereotypes, and has a built-in > mnemonic with the L/R initials." > > "Enough people are offended by 'Jets' sounding too close to 'Gents' that I > think Larks/Ravens is a much easier sell." > > "My preference would be Jets/Rubies, because the sound similarity to > traditional terms make the transition easier. (I understand that that very > feature makes it the less desirable choice in some people's view.)" > > "As a caller who learned with Gents/Ladies, I find Jets/Rubies the easiest to > use." > > "I've never used Larks/Ravens. I've used Jets/Rubies, and felt fairly > comfortable with it. Larks/Ravens makes more sense to me. Definitely happy to > use either one." > > "I have a preference for Jets/Rubies but the only terms I will not use are > Leads/Follows." > > "I don't have a preference between those two sets of terms. I am also > comfortable with Lead/Follow, but know that this is also a challenging choice > for some people and I understand why it's maybe not the best pick. I like it > because those terms have dance connotations" > > "I like Jets/Rubies because regular contra dancers from other places can come > in and dance without needing anything to be explained to them since the terms > are pretty similar to Gents/Ladies. Also, Larks/Ravens sounds a little silly." > > "As far as Jets/Rubies vs Larks/Ravens, I like using Jets/Rubies because they > sound almost the same as Gents/Ladies. For my rhymes and patter, it's a > pretty easy substitution. But my first impression of the terms is that they > are still kind of gendered, or at least can be interpreted that. 'Jets' > sounds aggressive and masculine, and 'Rubies' are definitely feminine. " > > "I can't imagine trying to turn a singing square gender free." > > "From the point of view of a caller trying to get a new set of words out of > my mouth when significant chunks of my teaching and prompting are automatic, > I think that I would prefer Jets/Rubies for a few reasons. First, I think > that I would manage to confuse myself and stumble around switching 'Gents' to > 'Larks', which starts with the same letter as 'Ladies', and might be more > likely to flip-flop the two. Also, I know that it has been successfully used, > but the initial consonants of Larks/Ravens aren't nearly as contrasted as are > those of Jets/Rubies (or of Gents/Ladies)." > > "Not really a preference, although as a caller perhaps Jets/Rubies is a > slightly easier transition." > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers@lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
