Re: [Callers] We tried Ports & Starboards

2015-04-01 Thread Ron Blechner via Callers
It's important that dances trying different terms compare notes. It's not a
bad idea to try different terms on different nights, too.

We can afford to be picky, but I feel that some consensus should be
reached. Consensus will:
- make it easier for traveling dancers and callers
- give more weight behind genderfree terms on contra, aiding it to spread
more easily

Genderfree organizers who agree about the consensus ought to agree on a
time frame for a general consensus.

In dance,
Ron Blechner
On Apr 1, 2015 11:21 AM, "JoLaine Jones-Pokorney via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Luke, thanks for this update!  Our dance had an "Advanced Dance" on Sunday
> that was called using "Larks" and "Ravens."  Almost everything you said
> about your dance applied to ours as well.  I did encounter several people
> who tried dancing the other role who hadn't tried it before.  I think the
> idea of having a gender-free dance invites people to consider it when they
> wouldn't normally.  One of the reasons I wanted to promote a gender-free
> dance in our area is to help people overcome the idea that "you only dance
> with someone of your own gender if there aren't enough of the other." When
> looking for a dance partner, why rule out half the population!
> JoLaine
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Luke Donforth via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Last week, at our regular monthly dance for the Mad Robin Callers
>> Collective, we tried Ports and Starboards instead of Gents and Ladies (the
>> usual language for our dance). The MRCC dance is called by a collection of
>> callers who work together ahead of time on a program for the evening. MRCC
>> callers are interested in developing and honing their craft as dance
>> facilitators.
>>
>> We had over a hundred dancers, a slightly bigger than average turn-out
>> for us. A majority (60~70%) of whom knew the evening was going to be called
>> gender free (we'd announced it at prior dances, on our flyer, and via our
>> e-mail list).
>>
>> We had a handful of dancers who explicitly came to our dance because we
>> were using gender free language. We had one caller explicitly come out
>> because we were using gender free language.
>>
>> We did not have anyone say they were avoiding our dance because of gender
>> free language, but I acknowledge they might not have let us know.
>>
>> All six of our callers were able to make the transition to Ports and
>> Starboards, and didn't have any prompting slips on mic. The callers were
>> able to keep clear in their head which word went with which roll (ports on
>> the left after a swing, starboards on the right).
>>
>> Starboards was not an easy word to say, but it did not seem to create
>> confusion with stars; possibly because stars are prompted as left hand
>> star, right hands across star, etc; whereas starboards was used with star
>> coming first in the call, starboards chain, etc.
>>
>> At least one dancer had an initial confusion about port/starboard being
>> in reference to direction currently facing, as opposed to a property of the
>> room (which would be more in line with how it's used on boats).
>>
>> A few dancers who have danced to armbands/barearms terminology did say
>> that they preferred ports/startboards. I did not hear anyone advocate a
>> preference for armbands/barearms.
>>
>> Using different terminology for the roles did cause some added difficulty
>> on the floor. Not everyone was immediately able to identify themselves and
>> where they needed to be/what they should be doing. It also meant that our
>> experienced dancers were not as able to help guide new dancers on the
>> floor, both because they themselves were less confident, and they were less
>> certain of their assumptions of the role of the neighbor coming at them.
>> (We did not use any sort of marker for the different roles. Not out of
>> deliberately eschewing them, but didn't get that part put together.) I
>> think the average skill level of our dance as ports/starboards dancers was
>> below the average skill level of our dance as gents/ladies dancers; but it
>> would not be an insurmountable barrier to fully swap over.
>>
>> The use of gender free language did not cause a large amount of folks
>> dancing a role different than their apparent traditional role. We had folks
>> swap (even mid-dance), but that happens at our dance anyway. It may have
>> upped it slightly, but it may have depressed it slightly as folks lost the
>> comfort of thinking 'I'm a man dancing the women's role' (or such) and had
>> to translate 'I'm usually a port currently dancing as a starboard'. That
>> effect would go away with long term familiarity, but we're certainly not
>> there yet.
>>
>> We are not planning on fully swapping over our terms permanently. Next
>> month, we'll return to using gents & ladies as our terms. However, we (the
>> callers and the dancers) are entertaining thoughts of having a dance in the
>> 

Re: [Callers] We tried Ports & Starboards

2015-04-01 Thread JoLaine Jones-Pokorney via Callers
Luke, thanks for this update!  Our dance had an "Advanced Dance" on Sunday
that was called using "Larks" and "Ravens."  Almost everything you said
about your dance applied to ours as well.  I did encounter several people
who tried dancing the other role who hadn't tried it before.  I think the
idea of having a gender-free dance invites people to consider it when they
wouldn't normally.  One of the reasons I wanted to promote a gender-free
dance in our area is to help people overcome the idea that "you only dance
with someone of your own gender if there aren't enough of the other." When
looking for a dance partner, why rule out half the population!
JoLaine



On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Luke Donforth via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> Last week, at our regular monthly dance for the Mad Robin Callers
> Collective, we tried Ports and Starboards instead of Gents and Ladies (the
> usual language for our dance). The MRCC dance is called by a collection of
> callers who work together ahead of time on a program for the evening. MRCC
> callers are interested in developing and honing their craft as dance
> facilitators.
>
> We had over a hundred dancers, a slightly bigger than average turn-out for
> us. A majority (60~70%) of whom knew the evening was going to be called
> gender free (we'd announced it at prior dances, on our flyer, and via our
> e-mail list).
>
> We had a handful of dancers who explicitly came to our dance because we
> were using gender free language. We had one caller explicitly come out
> because we were using gender free language.
>
> We did not have anyone say they were avoiding our dance because of gender
> free language, but I acknowledge they might not have let us know.
>
> All six of our callers were able to make the transition to Ports and
> Starboards, and didn't have any prompting slips on mic. The callers were
> able to keep clear in their head which word went with which roll (ports on
> the left after a swing, starboards on the right).
>
> Starboards was not an easy word to say, but it did not seem to create
> confusion with stars; possibly because stars are prompted as left hand
> star, right hands across star, etc; whereas starboards was used with star
> coming first in the call, starboards chain, etc.
>
> At least one dancer had an initial confusion about port/starboard being in
> reference to direction currently facing, as opposed to a property of the
> room (which would be more in line with how it's used on boats).
>
> A few dancers who have danced to armbands/barearms terminology did say
> that they preferred ports/startboards. I did not hear anyone advocate a
> preference for armbands/barearms.
>
> Using different terminology for the roles did cause some added difficulty
> on the floor. Not everyone was immediately able to identify themselves and
> where they needed to be/what they should be doing. It also meant that our
> experienced dancers were not as able to help guide new dancers on the
> floor, both because they themselves were less confident, and they were less
> certain of their assumptions of the role of the neighbor coming at them.
> (We did not use any sort of marker for the different roles. Not out of
> deliberately eschewing them, but didn't get that part put together.) I
> think the average skill level of our dance as ports/starboards dancers was
> below the average skill level of our dance as gents/ladies dancers; but it
> would not be an insurmountable barrier to fully swap over.
>
> The use of gender free language did not cause a large amount of folks
> dancing a role different than their apparent traditional role. We had folks
> swap (even mid-dance), but that happens at our dance anyway. It may have
> upped it slightly, but it may have depressed it slightly as folks lost the
> comfort of thinking 'I'm a man dancing the women's role' (or such) and had
> to translate 'I'm usually a port currently dancing as a starboard'. That
> effect would go away with long term familiarity, but we're certainly not
> there yet.
>
> We are not planning on fully swapping over our terms permanently. Next
> month, we'll return to using gents & ladies as our terms. However, we (the
> callers and the dancers) are entertaining thoughts of having a dance in the
> evening called gender free, possibly exploring the different label options,
> and/or possibly developing a catalog of dances that don't require gender
> differentiation (no neighbor swings, gents allemands, ladies chains, etc).
>
> Personally, I'm happy that we brought a few folks out to the dance that
> wouldn't have come otherwise. Maybe they'll come back even if we use
> gendered language in the future. Maybe they'll start a gender free dance. I
> think there were also some on-the-floor discussions of gender and role and
> identity, and I have no report of any of those being negative experiences.
> For our community, I'd call it a success.
>
> Happy Dancing,
> Luke Donforth
>
> 

[Callers] We tried Ports & Starboards

2015-04-01 Thread Luke Donforth via Callers
Hello all,

Last week, at our regular monthly dance for the Mad Robin Callers
Collective, we tried Ports and Starboards instead of Gents and Ladies (the
usual language for our dance). The MRCC dance is called by a collection of
callers who work together ahead of time on a program for the evening. MRCC
callers are interested in developing and honing their craft as dance
facilitators.

We had over a hundred dancers, a slightly bigger than average turn-out for
us. A majority (60~70%) of whom knew the evening was going to be called
gender free (we'd announced it at prior dances, on our flyer, and via our
e-mail list).

We had a handful of dancers who explicitly came to our dance because we
were using gender free language. We had one caller explicitly come out
because we were using gender free language.

We did not have anyone say they were avoiding our dance because of gender
free language, but I acknowledge they might not have let us know.

All six of our callers were able to make the transition to Ports and
Starboards, and didn't have any prompting slips on mic. The callers were
able to keep clear in their head which word went with which roll (ports on
the left after a swing, starboards on the right).

Starboards was not an easy word to say, but it did not seem to create
confusion with stars; possibly because stars are prompted as left hand
star, right hands across star, etc; whereas starboards was used with star
coming first in the call, starboards chain, etc.

At least one dancer had an initial confusion about port/starboard being in
reference to direction currently facing, as opposed to a property of the
room (which would be more in line with how it's used on boats).

A few dancers who have danced to armbands/barearms terminology did say that
they preferred ports/startboards. I did not hear anyone advocate a
preference for armbands/barearms.

Using different terminology for the roles did cause some added difficulty
on the floor. Not everyone was immediately able to identify themselves and
where they needed to be/what they should be doing. It also meant that our
experienced dancers were not as able to help guide new dancers on the
floor, both because they themselves were less confident, and they were less
certain of their assumptions of the role of the neighbor coming at them.
(We did not use any sort of marker for the different roles. Not out of
deliberately eschewing them, but didn't get that part put together.) I
think the average skill level of our dance as ports/starboards dancers was
below the average skill level of our dance as gents/ladies dancers; but it
would not be an insurmountable barrier to fully swap over.

The use of gender free language did not cause a large amount of folks
dancing a role different than their apparent traditional role. We had folks
swap (even mid-dance), but that happens at our dance anyway. It may have
upped it slightly, but it may have depressed it slightly as folks lost the
comfort of thinking 'I'm a man dancing the women's role' (or such) and had
to translate 'I'm usually a port currently dancing as a starboard'. That
effect would go away with long term familiarity, but we're certainly not
there yet.

We are not planning on fully swapping over our terms permanently. Next
month, we'll return to using gents & ladies as our terms. However, we (the
callers and the dancers) are entertaining thoughts of having a dance in the
evening called gender free, possibly exploring the different label options,
and/or possibly developing a catalog of dances that don't require gender
differentiation (no neighbor swings, gents allemands, ladies chains, etc).

Personally, I'm happy that we brought a few folks out to the dance that
wouldn't have come otherwise. Maybe they'll come back even if we use
gendered language in the future. Maybe they'll start a gender free dance. I
think there were also some on-the-floor discussions of gender and role and
identity, and I have no report of any of those being negative experiences.
For our community, I'd call it a success.

Happy Dancing,
Luke Donforth
___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net


[Callers] Mystery dance!

2015-04-01 Thread Maia McCormick via Callers
Found an unlined 3x5 card in my deck with this dance written in pencil in
mysterious, shaky handwriting. The card has the title Late in the Evening,
though I have no idea if that's the actual title. Attributions, anyone?

A1: (new) N bal & box the gnat
mad robin (gents forward first... gents cross set to...)
A2: P gypsy
P swing
B1: gents alle L 1 1/2
N swing
B2: square through
___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net