[Callers] Dance title, author and choreography

[QuiAnn2 via Callers]

Hi, 

Saw this dance on-line (it’s the video that is on the GoFundMe page for the 
Dayton, VA dance) and I like the dance.

Does anyone know the title, author and author's choreography of the dance? I 
can work out the choreography but would like to see how the author describes 
the B1 and B2 of the dance. Thanks!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=51=fs1nS2NCKyc 


Jacqui

Re: [Callers] Contras which feature a "Dublin Bay" figure

[Keith Wood via Callers]

Here's another contribution to the Dublin Bay collection, hopefully 
fulfilling the criteria below:



   Liffey Outflow

Formation: Becket formation

Music: 32 bar reels

Source: Keith Wood Jan 2017

Notes: Following online discussions about the Dublin Bay movement I 
decided to create a dance that incorporated it.


1-4 Gypsy opposite
5-8 	1st man and 2nd woman (at the bottom of each minor set) 
back-to-back and finish facing down, while the others cross (right 
shoulder) and move to the end of a line of four facing down, men on one 
side, women on the other
9-12 	Dublin Bay: lines of four back up (up the hall) and then come 
forward, turning individually half-way (toward same-sex neighbour) at 
the last moment to face up
13-16 	Lines of four back up (down the hall) and then come forward, 
turning individually to face same-sex neighbour at the last moment
17-22 	3/4 hey for four passing same-sex neighbour right-shoulder to 
start (until meeting your partner the second time)

23-24   Circle left half-way (men together and women together)
25-28   Swing partner
29-32 	Slice left: advance towards the couple on your left diagonal, 
then retire straight back from them (progression); spare couples wheel 
onto the opposite side


Cheers

Keith Wood


I'd love to see more Dublin Bay dances that aren't all glossary moves 
surrounding the down-hall move.


...

So. What else we got? :)

Ron Blechner




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Jeff Kaufman via Callers]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Ron Blechner  wrote:
>
> If that's the case, one would assume there are also plenty of traditional
> venue dancers who don't care either way. To that effect, genderfree roles
> are not as scary as some have claimed.

Sure, I think that's probably true.  But I think the most likely
possibility is "most people don't care that much" not "several
thousand dancers want it".

>
> Dances using gents/ladies up and down the East coast are dwindling in
> attendance. I'm hearing that from nearly every organizer I speak with.

I'm not disputing this (though I also don't have firsthand evidence of
it) I just don't think gender free terms are *causing* the attendance
change, as opposed to both attendance changes and gender free naming
being caused by an underlying factor.

> I don't understand discounting new dances at all. If there was a demand for
> a genderfree dance, and it was filled, how is that not proof of growth of
> overall genderfree dancing?

The dances that have been gender free for decades and the dances that
have recently one gender free are pretty different.  The older dances
have a community, culture, and core that formed several decades ago to
be LGBT/queer spaces, while the newer gender free dances are mostly
mainstream dances in a modern mainstream that is much more queer
friendly.

Jeff

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Hi Jeff,

Some points:

"You're classifying everyone who attends a dance with gender-free
calling as having wanting it to be gender free, but I'm sure some are
attending in spite of it being gender free, and many more don't care
either way."

If that's the case, one would assume there are also plenty of traditional
venue dancers who don't care either way. To that effect, genderfree roles
are not as scary as some have claimed.

"The particular dances that have
been gender free for a long time are mostly doing fine, but it doesn't
look to me like they're growing tremendously.  Instead, newer
fast-growing dances are either started as gender free or are switching
to it.  I don't think the causality goes the way you're suggesting."

Dances using gents/ladies up and down the East coast are dwindling in
attendance. I'm hearing that from nearly every organizer I speak with.

I don't understand discounting new dances at all. If there was a demand for
a genderfree dance, and it was filled, how is that not proof of growth of
overall genderfree dancing?

"Some pushback seems reasonable to me.  Just like I think people should
be able to dance either role at any contra dance, I think all contra
dances should move to being gender free.  Not immediately -- it's fine
to take some more time to consense on terms, have some brave dances
try them out, have callers get used to calling them -- but I do think
moving entirely to gender free terms is what we should be doing as a
community."

That may be in many peoples' beliefs, but I hadn't seen it specifically
brought up by anyone in this email discussion until now. I might have
understood pushback had it been brought up, but it wasn't.

Best,
Ron

On Jan 27, 2017 12:58 PM, "Jeff Kaufman"  wrote:

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers
 wrote:
> To answer your question, though, about how many dancers want genderfree
> terms, at least ten dances are genderfree, and I bet we can poll those
> dances and find out how many active dancers they have. While the Western
> Mass one by me is a little low, dances like Brooklyn, Portland Maine, and
> Montpelier second Saturday boast very large crowds, and that's just ones
> I've personally attended. There's queer dance camps, too. Clearly there's
a
> demand. I realize "huge" is a relative number, but we can safely agree on
> several thousand dancers as a safe low estimate of dancers who want gender
> free roles.

You're classifying everyone who attends a dance with gender-free
calling as having wanting it to be gender free, but I'm sure some are
attending in spite of it being gender free, and many more don't care
either way.

> These genderfree dances exist, some for 39 years, they've grown
tremendously
> in the last 5 years *while many traditional dances are losing attendance*.

That's not what it looks like to me.  The particular dances that have
been gender free for a long time are mostly doing fine, but it doesn't
look to me like they're growing tremendously.  Instead, newer
fast-growing dances are either started as gender free or are switching
to it.  I don't think the causality goes the way you're suggesting.

> This isn't some existential threat to non-genderfree
> traditional dances. Let us talk.

Some pushback seems reasonable to me.  Just like I think people should
be able to dance either role at any contra dance, I think all contra
dances should move to being gender free.  Not immediately -- it's fine
to take some more time to consense on terms, have some brave dances
try them out, have callers get used to calling them -- but I do think
moving entirely to gender free terms is what we should be doing as a
community.

Jeff

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Hey Ron et al,
I did not say anything about communities' right to use whatever terms they 
want.  Every community should of course do as it wishes, as long as the whole 
community actually discusses it and has a say.  I have called gender free, and 
would again.  I was booked to call Hampshire when they were deciding which 
terms to use, proposing to call role free for them so they could try it out, 
but they forgot they booked me so it never happened.  I am quite aware of the 
issues surrounding bathrooms, and gender and identity issues in general.  
What I objected to was one specific statement: that "huge numbers" of  
-dancers- feel alienated by the gendered terms.  I stated that in all my 
travels, I had not seen evidence for this.  I asked for the evidence.  That the 
country has become more conscious of gender issues I do see.  But that is not 
tantamount to existing dancers objecting to the terms in large numbers.  I 
dance MWSD in my local gay club, where we use boy/girl and not only do we not 
object, we enjoy messing with it.  I do not propose we be insensitive or 
ignorant about how people are reacting.  But I want to be presented with proof 
of such broad statements.  Why is it that many people I personally know who 
could be offended (because they do not adhere to that gender binary, but dance 
in non gender-free communities), are to all appearances totally fine about it, 
even when asked, while others take umbrage, as though this tradition were 
created as an affront to them? I am not asking because either side is right, 
but in sincere wonder!  It's so easy to make assumptions about why a person 
objects.  Assumptions, in my experience, create more problems.  
So I do think some gender free dances have a majority of attendees who truly 
cannot bear gent/lady.  I still want to hear more from them about why, 
especially when I see another LGBTQ dance community explicitly embracing such 
terms.  I would in fact be interested in polls both in communities which do use 
gender free terms, and those that do not, to ascertain how many truly care what 
terms are used, and if they care, in which direction and why, before anyone 
states as fact that "huge numbers of dancers" are "alienated" by the terms 
used.  That is all.  
I have no personal agenda here.  As a caller, I abide by what communities want. 
 If, as with lead/follow, I feel other badness is the result, I can and do 
choose not to call there.  I am pointing out that it does not strengthen the 
argument to assume ignorance or ill will in those who raise questions, and 
especially it weakens the argument to toss in as factual exaggerated or 
unsubstantiable statistics.
 Andrea

Sent from my external brain

> On Jan 27, 2017, at 11:37 AM, Ron Blechner  wrote:
> 
> Hi Andrea,
> 
> I think Angela was well-spoken and polite. 
> 
> This discussion, like ones before it, was started not about endorsing new 
> terms for all contras. It started discussing terms for communities who *do* 
> want alternative role terms.
> 
> Who are we to tell a community that their need for their dancers is wrong? If 
> I don't like a community's needs or values, I don't have to call there. If 
> there's a Shared Weight topic about how to best serve French speaking 
> communities (like Montreal), I'm not going to chime in and argue that all 
> contra has to be in English or the dancers will get confused. Montreal 
> dancers want calls in French. JP, Brooklyn, Bay area, etc etc dancers want 
> callers genderfree.
> 
> Now, I realize Angela's comments could be construed as off-topic, but I read 
> them as a reply to other folks here who were off-topic. I read them as an 
> attempt to reach out and provide insight and perspective of *why* genderfree 
> dance communities have made the choice they have. No, they may not be the 
> choice your community wants, and that's your right.
> 
> To answer your question, though, about how many dancers want genderfree 
> terms, at least ten dances are genderfree, and I bet we can poll those dances 
> and find out how many active dancers they have. While the Western Mass one by 
> me is a little low, dances like Brooklyn, Portland Maine, and Montpelier 
> second Saturday boast very large crowds, and that's just ones I've personally 
> attended. There's queer dance camps, too. Clearly there's a demand. I realize 
> "huge" is a relative number, but we can safely agree on several thousand 
> dancers as a safe low estimate of dancers who want gender free roles.
> 
> These genderfree dances exist, some for 39 years, they've grown tremendously 
> in the last 5 years *while many traditional dances are losing attendance*. 
> 
> And then there's the problem with selection bias. If the question is "How 
> many dancers would prefer gender free role terms?" and the source of data is 
> only dances with gendered role terms, of course we'd be excluding all of the 
> dances who don't come because of the terms. 
> 
> I call at 

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Jeff Kaufman via Callers]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers
 wrote:
> To answer your question, though, about how many dancers want genderfree
> terms, at least ten dances are genderfree, and I bet we can poll those
> dances and find out how many active dancers they have. While the Western
> Mass one by me is a little low, dances like Brooklyn, Portland Maine, and
> Montpelier second Saturday boast very large crowds, and that's just ones
> I've personally attended. There's queer dance camps, too. Clearly there's a
> demand. I realize "huge" is a relative number, but we can safely agree on
> several thousand dancers as a safe low estimate of dancers who want gender
> free roles.

You're classifying everyone who attends a dance with gender-free
calling as having wanting it to be gender free, but I'm sure some are
attending in spite of it being gender free, and many more don't care
either way.

> These genderfree dances exist, some for 39 years, they've grown tremendously
> in the last 5 years *while many traditional dances are losing attendance*.

That's not what it looks like to me.  The particular dances that have
been gender free for a long time are mostly doing fine, but it doesn't
look to me like they're growing tremendously.  Instead, newer
fast-growing dances are either started as gender free or are switching
to it.  I don't think the causality goes the way you're suggesting.

> This isn't some existential threat to non-genderfree
> traditional dances. Let us talk.

Some pushback seems reasonable to me.  Just like I think people should
be able to dance either role at any contra dance, I think all contra
dances should move to being gender free.  Not immediately -- it's fine
to take some more time to consense on terms, have some brave dances
try them out, have callers get used to calling them -- but I do think
moving entirely to gender free terms is what we should be doing as a
community.

Jeff

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Typos:

30, not 39.

Calls, not callers (paragraph 3)


On Jan 27, 2017 11:37 AM, "Ron Blechner"  wrote:

Hi Andrea,

I think Angela was well-spoken and polite.

This discussion, like ones before it, was started not about endorsing new
terms for all contras. It started discussing terms for communities who *do*
want alternative role terms.

Who are we to tell a community that their need for their dancers is wrong?
If I don't like a community's needs or values, I don't have to call there.
If there's a Shared Weight topic about how to best serve French speaking
communities (like Montreal), I'm not going to chime in and argue that all
contra has to be in English or the dancers will get confused. Montreal
dancers want calls in French. JP, Brooklyn, Bay area, etc etc dancers want
callers genderfree.

Now, I realize Angela's comments could be construed as off-topic, but I
read them as a reply to other folks here who were off-topic. I read them as
an attempt to reach out and provide insight and perspective of *why*
genderfree dance communities have made the choice they have. No, they may
not be the choice your community wants, and that's your right.

To answer your question, though, about how many dancers want genderfree
terms, at least ten dances are genderfree, and I bet we can poll those
dances and find out how many active dancers they have. While the Western
Mass one by me is a little low, dances like Brooklyn, Portland Maine, and
Montpelier second Saturday boast very large crowds, and that's just ones
I've personally attended. There's queer dance camps, too. Clearly there's a
demand. I realize "huge" is a relative number, but we can safely agree on
several thousand dancers as a safe low estimate of dancers who want gender
free roles.

These genderfree dances exist, some for 39 years, they've grown
tremendously in the last 5 years *while many traditional dances are losing
attendance*.

And then there's the problem with selection bias. If the question is "How
many dancers would prefer gender free role terms?" and the source of data
is only dances with gendered role terms, of course we'd be excluding all of
the dances who don't come because of the terms.

I call at both genderfree and traditional dances. Seriously, I do not
understand this pushback we are getting for discussion of role terms for
*genderfree* dances. This isn't some existential threat to non-genderfree
traditional dances. Let us talk.

Thanks,
Ron Blechner


On Jan 27, 2017 10:51 AM, "Andrea Nettleton via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

Really Angela?  Huge numbers are offended by "gents/ladies"?  I'll happily
call with whatever the community uses, though I may avoid a community using
lead/follow as I think it perniciously encourages passivity in half the
dancers, which I object to.  And I was vocal in earlier discussions about
positional calling being a preferable alternative.  (Alan, I'll get back to
you about short calls).  But where are the stats?  I believe there may be
some objectors.  And some who support them.  But vast numbers?  Clear
majority?  Don't see it.  I'm willing to be wrong, but I call all over the
country and have not seen this.
-Andrea

Sent from my external brain

On Jan 27, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Angela DeCarlis via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

For what it's worth, "Larks" and "Ravens" were terms designed to correlate
with "Left" and "Right".

There are plenty of moves we do in contra with names that have nothing to
do with anything. Like "Swat the Flea," or even "Chain". Head over to
Square Dancing, and the vernacular is so huge that plenty of the names for
moves fail to describe the exact movements in question.

Here's the thing, y'all: a huge number of dancers feel alienated by
gendered terms. This is the same issue seen in major politics with regards
to gendered restrooms: many people (gay, straight, and otherwise) don't
feel comfortable or happy being forced into a dichotomous gender binary
when, in actuality, many of us exist somewhere between two points in a
spectrum. [1] Notably, it's different to feel "offended" than to feel
"unwelcome." Many of you claim to feel the former, but that's a privilege
compared to feeling unwelcome or even shunned from a community.

And many people are fine with things the way they are! I get that, and
that's great for you, but why on earth wouldn't you change things if it
meant being more inclusive, more just? If you're a dancer who's afraid that
things will be more confusing for you...try dancing at a genderfree dance!
Not only have I found that the dancers at those dances are not any more
confused than at regular dance series, I've found them more competent, and
*happier*. They have this amazing ability to embrace the unexpected and
smile and dance with whoever's coming at them. I've seen first-time dancers
dancing together and accidentally switching roles every time through the
dance, *and nobody told them they were doing it 

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Hi Andrea,

I think Angela was well-spoken and polite.

This discussion, like ones before it, was started not about endorsing new
terms for all contras. It started discussing terms for communities who *do*
want alternative role terms.

Who are we to tell a community that their need for their dancers is wrong?
If I don't like a community's needs or values, I don't have to call there.
If there's a Shared Weight topic about how to best serve French speaking
communities (like Montreal), I'm not going to chime in and argue that all
contra has to be in English or the dancers will get confused. Montreal
dancers want calls in French. JP, Brooklyn, Bay area, etc etc dancers want
callers genderfree.

Now, I realize Angela's comments could be construed as off-topic, but I
read them as a reply to other folks here who were off-topic. I read them as
an attempt to reach out and provide insight and perspective of *why*
genderfree dance communities have made the choice they have. No, they may
not be the choice your community wants, and that's your right.

To answer your question, though, about how many dancers want genderfree
terms, at least ten dances are genderfree, and I bet we can poll those
dances and find out how many active dancers they have. While the Western
Mass one by me is a little low, dances like Brooklyn, Portland Maine, and
Montpelier second Saturday boast very large crowds, and that's just ones
I've personally attended. There's queer dance camps, too. Clearly there's a
demand. I realize "huge" is a relative number, but we can safely agree on
several thousand dancers as a safe low estimate of dancers who want gender
free roles.

These genderfree dances exist, some for 39 years, they've grown
tremendously in the last 5 years *while many traditional dances are losing
attendance*.

And then there's the problem with selection bias. If the question is "How
many dancers would prefer gender free role terms?" and the source of data
is only dances with gendered role terms, of course we'd be excluding all of
the dances who don't come because of the terms.

I call at both genderfree and traditional dances. Seriously, I do not
understand this pushback we are getting for discussion of role terms for
*genderfree* dances. This isn't some existential threat to non-genderfree
traditional dances. Let us talk.

Thanks,
Ron Blechner


On Jan 27, 2017 10:51 AM, "Andrea Nettleton via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

Really Angela?  Huge numbers are offended by "gents/ladies"?  I'll happily
call with whatever the community uses, though I may avoid a community using
lead/follow as I think it perniciously encourages passivity in half the
dancers, which I object to.  And I was vocal in earlier discussions about
positional calling being a preferable alternative.  (Alan, I'll get back to
you about short calls).  But where are the stats?  I believe there may be
some objectors.  And some who support them.  But vast numbers?  Clear
majority?  Don't see it.  I'm willing to be wrong, but I call all over the
country and have not seen this.
-Andrea

Sent from my external brain

On Jan 27, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Angela DeCarlis via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

For what it's worth, "Larks" and "Ravens" were terms designed to correlate
with "Left" and "Right".

There are plenty of moves we do in contra with names that have nothing to
do with anything. Like "Swat the Flea," or even "Chain". Head over to
Square Dancing, and the vernacular is so huge that plenty of the names for
moves fail to describe the exact movements in question.

Here's the thing, y'all: a huge number of dancers feel alienated by
gendered terms. This is the same issue seen in major politics with regards
to gendered restrooms: many people (gay, straight, and otherwise) don't
feel comfortable or happy being forced into a dichotomous gender binary
when, in actuality, many of us exist somewhere between two points in a
spectrum. [1] Notably, it's different to feel "offended" than to feel
"unwelcome." Many of you claim to feel the former, but that's a privilege
compared to feeling unwelcome or even shunned from a community.

And many people are fine with things the way they are! I get that, and
that's great for you, but why on earth wouldn't you change things if it
meant being more inclusive, more just? If you're a dancer who's afraid that
things will be more confusing for you...try dancing at a genderfree dance!
Not only have I found that the dancers at those dances are not any more
confused than at regular dance series, I've found them more competent, and
*happier*. They have this amazing ability to embrace the unexpected and
smile and dance with whoever's coming at them. I've seen first-time dancers
dancing together and accidentally switching roles every time through the
dance, *and nobody told them they were doing it wrong. *They just danced
with them, and it was great! In short, *they are better dancers*.

And since most of us here are 

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Andrea Nettleton via Callers]

Really Angela?  Huge numbers are offended by "gents/ladies"?  I'll happily call 
with whatever the community uses, though I may avoid a community using 
lead/follow as I think it perniciously encourages passivity in half the 
dancers, which I object to.  And I was vocal in earlier discussions about 
positional calling being a preferable alternative.  (Alan, I'll get back to you 
about short calls).  But where are the stats?  I believe there may be some 
objectors.  And some who support them.  But vast numbers?  Clear majority?  
Don't see it.  I'm willing to be wrong, but I call all over the country and 
have not seen this.
-Andrea

Sent from my external brain

> On Jan 27, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Angela DeCarlis via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> For what it's worth, "Larks" and "Ravens" were terms designed to correlate 
> with "Left" and "Right".
> 
> There are plenty of moves we do in contra with names that have nothing to do 
> with anything. Like "Swat the Flea," or even "Chain". Head over to Square 
> Dancing, and the vernacular is so huge that plenty of the names for moves 
> fail to describe the exact movements in question. 
> 
> Here's the thing, y'all: a huge number of dancers feel alienated by gendered 
> terms. This is the same issue seen in major politics with regards to gendered 
> restrooms: many people (gay, straight, and otherwise) don't feel comfortable 
> or happy being forced into a dichotomous gender binary when, in actuality, 
> many of us exist somewhere between two points in a spectrum. [1] Notably, 
> it's different to feel "offended" than to feel "unwelcome." Many of you claim 
> to feel the former, but that's a privilege compared to feeling unwelcome or 
> even shunned from a community. 
> 
> And many people are fine with things the way they are! I get that, and that's 
> great for you, but why on earth wouldn't you change things if it meant being 
> more inclusive, more just? If you're a dancer who's afraid that things will 
> be more confusing for you...try dancing at a genderfree dance! Not only have 
> I found that the dancers at those dances are not any more confused than at 
> regular dance series, I've found them more competent, and happier. They have 
> this amazing ability to embrace the unexpected and smile and dance with 
> whoever's coming at them. I've seen first-time dancers dancing together and 
> accidentally switching roles every time through the dance, and nobody told 
> them they were doing it wrong. They just danced with them, and it was great! 
> In short, they are better dancers. 
> 
> And since most of us here are callers: Yes, it's on us to put in a bit more 
> work. I've now called using Jets/Rubies and Bands/Bares, and while I prefer 
> the former set, neither was impossibly challenging. Neither was as difficult 
> as walking through a new dance for the first time. 
> 
> If you care for the health of our shared community, I implore you to do the 
> work. Read the materials, especially the research that Ron, Jeff, and others 
> have linked to here. Investigate the politics around gender and genderfree 
> restrooms. Try dancing or even calling for a genderfree series.
> 
> Thank you all so much for taking the time to participate in this conversation 
> and for taking the energy to consider both sides. I'll look forward to seeing 
> you all on the dance floor. 
> 
> Angela
> 
> [1] 
> http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2011/11/breaking-through-the-binary-gender-explained-using-continuums/#sthash.M8yxvCQ1.dpbs
> 
>> On Jan 27, 2017 3:08 AM, "Jim Hemphill via Callers" 
>>  wrote:
>> You can teach and call contra dances positionally without hurting anyones 
>> feelings. We are all human beings, I find it objectionable to be referred to 
>> as some form of rock or bird or whatever.
>> 
>> The role a dancer chooses is really defined by which side of their 
>> partnership they choose to start the dance or end a swing on.  Working from 
>> that basis just about any contra move can be taught or called without 
>> reference to gender.
>> 
>>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:01 PM, via Callers 
>>>  wrote:
>>> I have been calling at many venues over the years and using the role terms 
>>> "gents" and "ladies" has NOT been a problem.  When teaching, I explain 
>>> these DO NOT refer to gender but rather to the role you are dancing.  
>>> Beginners seem to understand and not have any problem.  The experienced 
>>> dancers are very helpful as well.  I agree with Donna in the aspect of 
>>> teaching a new vocabulary that goes with a movement with new words that 
>>> don't have any relationship to the moves is confusing enough to me, who 
>>> understands the process.  Throw all this at new dancers who move from venue 
>>> to venue where the terms change, makes my head hurt as well.  There is an 
>>> old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"  Maybe we should all rethink 
>>> this.
>>>  
>>> 

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Angela DeCarlis via Callers]

For what it's worth, "Larks" and "Ravens" were terms designed to correlate
with "Left" and "Right".

There are plenty of moves we do in contra with names that have nothing to
do with anything. Like "Swat the Flea," or even "Chain". Head over to
Square Dancing, and the vernacular is so huge that plenty of the names for
moves fail to describe the exact movements in question.

Here's the thing, y'all: a huge number of dancers feel alienated by
gendered terms. This is the same issue seen in major politics with regards
to gendered restrooms: many people (gay, straight, and otherwise) don't
feel comfortable or happy being forced into a dichotomous gender binary
when, in actuality, many of us exist somewhere between two points in a
spectrum. [1] Notably, it's different to feel "offended" than to feel
"unwelcome." Many of you claim to feel the former, but that's a privilege
compared to feeling unwelcome or even shunned from a community.

And many people are fine with things the way they are! I get that, and
that's great for you, but why on earth wouldn't you change things if it
meant being more inclusive, more just? If you're a dancer who's afraid that
things will be more confusing for you...try dancing at a genderfree dance!
Not only have I found that the dancers at those dances are not any more
confused than at regular dance series, I've found them more competent, and
*happier*. They have this amazing ability to embrace the unexpected and
smile and dance with whoever's coming at them. I've seen first-time dancers
dancing together and accidentally switching roles every time through the
dance, *and nobody told them they were doing it wrong. *They just danced
with them, and it was great! In short, *they are better dancers*.

And since most of us here are callers: Yes, it's on us to put in a bit more
work. I've now called using Jets/Rubies and Bands/Bares, and while I prefer
the former set, neither was impossibly challenging. Neither was as
difficult as walking through a new dance for the first time.

If you care for the health of our shared community, I implore you to do the
work. Read the materials, especially the research that Ron, Jeff, and
others have linked to here. Investigate the politics around gender and
genderfree restrooms. Try dancing or even calling for a genderfree series.

Thank you all so much for taking the time to participate in this
conversation and for taking the energy to consider both sides. I'll look
forward to seeing you all on the dance floor.

Angela

[1]
http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2011/11/breaking-through-the-binary-gender-explained-using-continuums/#sthash.M8yxvCQ1.dpbs

On Jan 27, 2017 3:08 AM, "Jim Hemphill via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> You can teach and call contra dances positionally without hurting anyones
> feelings. We are all human beings, I find it objectionable to be referred
> to as some form of rock or bird or whatever.
>
> The role a dancer chooses is really defined by which side of their
> partnership they choose to start the dance or end a swing on.  Working from
> that basis just about any contra move can be taught or called without
> reference to gender.
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:01 PM, via Callers  net> wrote:
>
>> I have been calling at many venues over the years and using the role
>> terms "gents" and "ladies" has NOT been a problem.  When teaching, I
>> explain these DO NOT refer to gender but rather to the role you are
>> dancing.  Beginners seem to understand and not have any problem.  The
>> experienced dancers are very helpful as well.  I agree with Donna in the
>> aspect of teaching a new vocabulary that goes with a movement with new
>> words that don't have any relationship to the moves is confusing enough to
>> me, who understands the process.  Throw all this at new dancers who move
>> from venue to venue where the terms change, makes my head hurt as well.
>> There is an old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"  Maybe we should
>> all rethink this.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Donna Hunt via Callers 
>> To: contraron ; babsgroh 
>> Cc: callers 
>> Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 12:37 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"
>>
>> I'm sad to hear that so many groups are using different role terms and
>> such a variety to boot.  Not only do our beginners have to learn a brand
>> new vocabulary (sometimes in a foreign language) and then remember the
>> movement to go with those new words, but now they have to deal with
>> remembering a role that there's no basis for, and that role term changes at
>> different dance locations.  Augh my head hurts just thinking about it.
>>
>> Donna
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Ron Blechner via Callers 
>> To: Barbara Groh 
>> Cc: callers 

Re: [Callers] What dance series are using what gender-free terms?

[Marie-Michèle Fournier via Callers]

I've been meaning to answer but since it doesn't quite fit your spreadsheet
I'll just write it here.
ContraMontreal has two dance series. Our "Big Dances" rely on guest callers
and since the contract (I believe) doesn't say anything about role names
they default to Gents/Ladies.
But we also have a "Community dances" series that rely on a Callers'
collective where we've been using both Gents/Ladies and Jets/Rubies on the
same night.

We've started having some dances in the evening called in French and we use
the translation to Jets/Rubies too, which is conveniently Jais/Rubis. I
also have just learned that the Paris, France contradance is using the
translation to Leads/Follows (Guideurs/Suiveurs).

Now I know we shouldn't choose our preferred dance role names because of
their translation ease, but just for kicks, here are the translations:
- Gents/Ladies: there is no good translation to Gents, the closest is
Monsieurs. Québécois folk uses Hommes/Femmes (Men/Women) or sometimes
Hommes/Dames.
- Larks/Ravens: Alouettes/Corbeaux
- Leads/Follows: Guideurs/Suiveurs (problematic because this is an
adjective and is already gendered masculine). Note that in Swing Dancing
they translate this as Cavaliers/Cavalières
- Jets/Rubies: Jais/Rubis
- Bands/Bares: Brassards/Bras Nus
- Oaks/Maples: Chênes/Érables
- Port/Starboard: Babord/Tribord

If you didn't know, every word is gendered in French, even things, which
adds a challenge when trying to have a gender-free approach. No convenient
singular "They" here, we had to invent a new pronoun!

Have a nice day!
Marie
ContraMontreal

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 7:17 AM, Jeff Kaufman via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Thanks everyone!  The data I collected is in:
>
>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UXXbER6N07iiA6Wjc2O6LzZ2i53kD
> hvJLtzoA-7Oj3g/edit#gid=0
>
> And I wrote this up as:
>
>http://www.jefftk.com/p/gender-free-role-term-usage
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Jeremy Gmail 
> wrote:
> > It’s a one off so far, but a 2nd dance is in the diary and it will
> hopefully
> > become a regular series.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Jeff Kaufman [mailto:jeff.t.kauf...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: 25 January 2017 22:49
> > To: Jeremy Gmail
> > Cc: Caller's discussion list
> > Subject: Re: [Callers] What dance series are using what gender-free
> terms?
> >
> >
> >
> > Is this for a regular series, or one-off  (ONS) dances?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 25, 2017 5:46 PM, "Jeremy Gmail via Callers"
> >  wrote:
> >
> > I use Mods and Rockers, which meets pretty much all of the various
> criteria
> > suggested for role identifiers.   That's in the UK though - I'm not sure
> if
> > the word pairing is recognised across the pond.
> >
> > Jeremy
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Callers [mailto:callers-boun...@lists.sharedweight.net] On Behalf
> Of
> > Jeff Kaufman via Callers
> > Sent: 25 January 2017 19:25
> > To: Caller's discussion list
> > Subject: [Callers] What dance series are using what gender-free terms?
> >
> > I know several dance series use gender-free terms:
> >
> >   Jets/Rubies: Portland ME
> >   Lead/Follow: Hampshire College, Contradelphia [defunct?]
> >   Bands/Bare-arms: JP, Western MA
> >   Larks/ Ravens: Circle Left, South Bay
> >
> > Does anyone know of other dances that are gender free, and what terms
> they
> > use?
> >
> > Jeff
> > ___
> > Callers mailing list
> > Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
> >
> > ___
> > Callers mailing list
> > Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>

Re: [Callers] What dance series are using what gender-free terms?

[Jeff Kaufman via Callers]

Thanks everyone!  The data I collected is in:

   
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UXXbER6N07iiA6Wjc2O6LzZ2i53kDhvJLtzoA-7Oj3g/edit#gid=0

And I wrote this up as:

   http://www.jefftk.com/p/gender-free-role-term-usage

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Jeremy Gmail  wrote:
> It’s a one off so far, but a 2nd dance is in the diary and it will hopefully
> become a regular series.
>
>
>
> From: Jeff Kaufman [mailto:jeff.t.kauf...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 25 January 2017 22:49
> To: Jeremy Gmail
> Cc: Caller's discussion list
> Subject: Re: [Callers] What dance series are using what gender-free terms?
>
>
>
> Is this for a regular series, or one-off  (ONS) dances?
>
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2017 5:46 PM, "Jeremy Gmail via Callers"
>  wrote:
>
> I use Mods and Rockers, which meets pretty much all of the various criteria
> suggested for role identifiers.   That's in the UK though - I'm not sure if
> the word pairing is recognised across the pond.
>
> Jeremy
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Callers [mailto:callers-boun...@lists.sharedweight.net] On Behalf Of
> Jeff Kaufman via Callers
> Sent: 25 January 2017 19:25
> To: Caller's discussion list
> Subject: [Callers] What dance series are using what gender-free terms?
>
> I know several dance series use gender-free terms:
>
>   Jets/Rubies: Portland ME
>   Lead/Follow: Hampshire College, Contradelphia [defunct?]
>   Bands/Bare-arms: JP, Western MA
>   Larks/ Ravens: Circle Left, South Bay
>
> Does anyone know of other dances that are gender free, and what terms they
> use?
>
> Jeff
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"

[Jim Hemphill via Callers]

You can teach and call contra dances positionally without hurting anyones
feelings. We are all human beings, I find it objectionable to be referred
to as some form of rock or bird or whatever.

The role a dancer chooses is really defined by which side of their
partnership they choose to start the dance or end a swing on.  Working from
that basis just about any contra move can be taught or called without
reference to gender.

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:01 PM, via Callers  wrote:

> I have been calling at many venues over the years and using the role terms
> "gents" and "ladies" has NOT been a problem.  When teaching, I explain
> these DO NOT refer to gender but rather to the role you are dancing.
> Beginners seem to understand and not have any problem.  The experienced
> dancers are very helpful as well.  I agree with Donna in the aspect of
> teaching a new vocabulary that goes with a movement with new words that
> don't have any relationship to the moves is confusing enough to me, who
> understands the process.  Throw all this at new dancers who move from venue
> to venue where the terms change, makes my head hurt as well.  There is an
> old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"  Maybe we should all rethink
> this.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Donna Hunt via Callers 
> To: contraron ; babsgroh 
> Cc: callers 
> Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 12:37 pm
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"
>
> I'm sad to hear that so many groups are using different role terms and
> such a variety to boot.  Not only do our beginners have to learn a brand
> new vocabulary (sometimes in a foreign language) and then remember the
> movement to go with those new words, but now they have to deal with
> remembering a role that there's no basis for, and that role term changes at
> different dance locations.  Augh my head hurts just thinking about it.
>
> Donna
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ron Blechner via Callers 
> To: Barbara Groh 
> Cc: callers 
> Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 3:37 am
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Another vote for "jets" and "rubies"
>
> Let's please not presume to speak for the feelings of marginalized groups?
>
> Not thinking something is a problem because it doesn't affect you
> personally is super privileged.
>
> Ron Blechner
>
> On Jan 25, 2017 1:36 PM, "Barbara Groh via Callers" <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> Michael, if this view makes you a Luddite, sign me up as a member of the
>> Luddite Club.  I think it's realistic to say that the members of all the
>> contra, English, and Square Dance groups will NEVER all agree on which
>> alternative terms to use for ladies and gents, so all these new terms being
>> bounced around will only cause confusion (and some eye-rolling).
>>
>> You've already made a solid argument for the Luddite position, so I won't
>> say anything moreexcept this:  Please, let's not start an argument over
>> whether it's pejorative to use the term Luddite!
>>
>> Barbara Groh
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Michael Barraclough via Callers <
>> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I guess that I am a Luddite. Here's how I see it.
>>>
>>> Somewhere between 80-90% of the population is 'straight'. Surely, we
>>> want these people as well to come to our dances.  It can be difficult
>>> enough to get past the dance lingo without adding the complexity of
>>> renaming labels for people that almost everyone already understands. To me,
>>> what really matters is that we run dances where everyone accepts everyone
>>> else's sexuality; where individual dancers can feel free to dance either
>>> role; where everyone is welcome. I am not convinced that 'non-straight'
>>> individuals are put off by the historical labels that we use, rather the
>>> lack of the 3 conditions that I have just outlined.
>>>
>>> Census data show the U.S. adult population is about 239m. Searching the
>>> web I can find around 300 contra dances, 150 English Country Dances and
>>> 1000 MWSD clubs. My generous guess is that less than 100,000 people go
>>> to these dances, less than 50,000 if we ignore MWSD. Did you know that
>>> over 700,000 people in the U.S. own a ferret? That means there are 7x as
>>> many people in the USA who own a ferret compared to the number of people
>>> who go to our dances!
>>>
>>> Let's put less rather than more barriers in the way of getting those
>>> who don't dance with us (that's 99.6% of the population) to join us.
>>>
>>> Michael Barraclough
>>> www.michaelbarraclough.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2017-01-24 at 16:19 -0500, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote:
>>> > I know I'd appreciate it if people had new suggestions, they'd review
>>> > existing considerations for what makes terms usable. Things like 1:2
>>> >