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

[Meg Dedolph via Callers]

I happened to play on Saturday night for Queer Contra Chicago, a dance
series that prefers to use bands/ bares. I've called for that series as
well.
Two things stood out: The first is that during the workshop someone asked
the caller if he'd heard the larks/ ravens terminology, and said they
thought it was easier to remember larks = left, ravens = right.
The second is that every time the caller said "bands," in addressing the
floor, I jumped, because I thought he was talking to the musicians and I
had missed something. I wouldn't have noticed that as a caller, I think.
For what it's worth
Meg

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:28 AM Delia Clark via Callers <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> I have informally polled some members of my band and they prefer
> gems/rubies to jets/rubies, for all the reasons others have stated, so I’m
> going to take that out for a test drive at the upcoming wedding I’m calling
> for two women. If I gain any more insights from that, I’ll share them here!
>
>
> On Jun 1, 2015, at 2:25 AM, Erik Hoffman via Callers <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>  It's funny, but there's a part of me that finds all of these different
> words a little weird. In a way, I'm not sure I like any of them. But I do
> like the sense of liberation they give -- the level of comfort that's
> appearing at dances for people dancing with anyone. In my area, the SF Bay
> Area, men are definitely getting more comfortable dancing with men. Around
> here -- as opposed to outlying areas -- there has always been a level of
> tolerance, but the level of acceptance is growing.
>
> I think my sense of weirdness -- slight discomfort -- comes from both
> working to change my habits, and from the sense of the terms being
> contrived. OK, my thought/feelings are changing, and my mind is starting to
> think of this use as being creative rather than contrived. Also, use is
> working in my favor: the more I call using Larks and Ravens, the more
> comfortable it's getting for me, and I'm feeling it's less "contrived." But
> it has been a bit of a hurdle for me to overcome.
>
> As for liking jets & rubies, I have the same problem many do: the multiple
> meaning of the word "jet." OK, I can be told it's a jem, but a machine to
> fly, developed by the military, designed for aggressive fighting, then
> given to the public for high-carbon footprint travel is my first thought --
> extremely masculine.
>
> Second thought that comes to an old geezer like me is a gang in New York's
> West Side, about which there is a story, which is also masculine...
>
> Jet as a gem would be slow to replace the other two. So, were I to try
> these, I'd go for gems & rubies. But we'll stick with Larks & Ravens for a
> while...
>
> ~erik hoffman
> oakland, ca
>
> On 5/28/2015 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 ?
> 2. How would gems / rubies compare?
>
> In dance,
> Ron Blechner
>
>
> ___
> Callers mailing 
> listCallers@lists.sharedweight.nethttp://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>
>  ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>
>
> <>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>
>
> Delia Clark
> PO Box 45
> Taftsville, VT 05073
> 802-457-2075
> deliacla...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>

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

[Delia Clark via Callers]

I have informally polled some members of my band and they prefer gems/rubies to 
jets/rubies, for all the reasons others have stated, so I’m going to take that 
out for a test drive at the upcoming wedding I’m calling for two women. If I 
gain any more insights from that, I’ll share them here!


> On Jun 1, 2015, at 2:25 AM, Erik Hoffman via Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> It's funny, but there's a part of me that finds all of these different words 
> a little weird. In a way, I'm not sure I like any of them. But I do like the 
> sense of liberation they give -- the level of comfort that's appearing at 
> dances for people dancing with anyone. In my area, the SF Bay Area, men are 
> definitely getting more comfortable dancing with men. Around here -- as 
> opposed to outlying areas -- there has always been a level of tolerance, but 
> the level of acceptance is growing.
> 
> I think my sense of weirdness -- slight discomfort -- comes from both working 
> to change my habits, and from the sense of the terms being contrived. OK, my 
> thought/feelings are changing, and my mind is starting to think of this use 
> as being creative rather than contrived. Also, use is working in my favor: 
> the more I call using Larks and Ravens, the more comfortable it's getting for 
> me, and I'm feeling it's less "contrived." But it has been a bit of a hurdle 
> for me to overcome.
> 
> As for liking jets & rubies, I have the same problem many do: the multiple 
> meaning of the word "jet." OK, I can be told it's a jem, but a machine to 
> fly, developed by the military, designed for aggressive fighting, then given 
> to the public for high-carbon footprint travel is my first thought -- 
> extremely masculine.
> 
> Second thought that comes to an old geezer like me is a gang in New York's 
> West Side, about which there is a story, which is also masculine...
> 
> Jet as a gem would be slow to replace the other two. So, were I to try these, 
> I'd go for gems & rubies. But we'll stick with Larks & Ravens for a while...
> 
> ~erik hoffman
> oakland, ca
> 
> On 5/28/2015 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 ?
>> 2. How would gems / rubies compare?
>> 
>> In dance,
>> Ron Blechner
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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


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

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

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

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

It's more than just Hampshire.

And again, I'm kind of disappointed that I asked a pretty dang simple
question that only a few of you took to answering directly.
On May 31, 2015 10:34 AM, "Donna Hunt via Callers" <
callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> I agree.
> Personally I'd like to see this rest for awhile.  We just discussed this
> at length 6 months ago.  It's my understanding that the folks who started
> it all (Hampshire College) have not yet decided on which terms to use.
>
> I think that talking about terms to use is a bit "cart before the horse".
> I don't think there's any consensus (nationally) that it should be changed
> it at all.  Yes, another can of worms.
>
> Keep in mind that in the 70's and 80's (with the feminist movement) many
> callers were using "Men and Women".  Now many callers are back to "Gents
> and Ladies" and explaining that these are "roles" not gender defining.
>
> Donna Hunt
>
>
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: susanelberger via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> To: Ron Blechner <contra...@gmail.com>; Amy Wimmer <amywim...@gmail.com>
> Cc: callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> Sent: Sat, May 30, 2015 2:01 pm
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?
>
>   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.
>
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>

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

[Donna Hunt via Callers]

Apologies, no scolding intended.




Donna








-Original Message-
From: Aahz Maruch via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
To: callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
Sent: Sun, May 31, 2015 10:42 am
Subject: Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?


On Sun, May 31, 2015, Donna Hunt via Callers wrote:
>
> Personally I'd like to
see this rest for awhile.  We just discussed
> this at length 6 months ago. 


My experience is that introducing a different interesting subject is
far
more likely to result in ending a discussion that you want to avoid
than
scolding people who are discussing.
-- 
Hugs and backrubs -- I break
Rule 6http://rule6.info/
  <*> 
<*>   <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person:
http://rule6.info/hearing.html
___
Callers
mailing
list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

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

[Aahz Maruch via Callers]

On Sun, May 31, 2015, Donna Hunt via Callers wrote:
>
> Personally I'd like to see this rest for awhile.  We just discussed
> this at length 6 months ago.  

My experience is that introducing a different interesting subject is far
more likely to result in ending a discussion that you want to avoid than
scolding people who are discussing.
-- 
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
  <*>   <*>   <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html

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

[Donna Hunt via Callers]

I agree.
Personally I'd like to see this rest for awhile.  We just discussed this at 
length 6 months ago.  It's my understanding that the folks who started it all 
(Hampshire College) have not yet decided on which terms to use.  

I think that talking about terms to use is a bit "cart before the horse".  I 
don't think there's any consensus (nationally) that it should be changed it at 
all.  Yes, another can of worms.  

Keep in mind that in the 70's and 80's (with the feminist movement) many 
callers were using "Men and Women".  Now many callers are back to "Gents and 
Ladies" and explaining that these are "roles" not gender defining.  

Donna Hunt








-Original Message-
From: susanelberger via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
To: Ron Blechner <contra...@gmail.com>; Amy Wimmer <amywim...@gmail.com>
Cc: callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
Sent: Sat, May 30, 2015 2:01 pm
Subject: Re: [Callers] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?




   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.  

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

[Maia McCormick via Callers]

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@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@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@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 <contra...@gmail.com>
> *To:* Amy Wimmer <amywim...@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* susanelberger <susanma1...@yahoo.com>; callers <
> callers@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@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@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@lists.sharedweight.net>
> *To:* "<callers@lists.sharedweight.net>" <callers@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’

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

[Michael Fuerst via Callers]

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@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@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 <contra...@gmail.com>
 To: Amy Wimmer <amywim...@gmail.com> 
Cc: susanelberger <susanma1...@yahoo.com>; callers 
<callers@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@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@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 ElbergerLowell, Massachusetts
  From: Delia Clark via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
 To: "<callers@lists.sharedweight.net>" <callers@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@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@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 

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

[Lewis Land via Callers]

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@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 <contra...@gmail.com>
> *To:* Amy Wimmer <amywim...@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* susanelberger <susanma1...@yahoo.com>; callers <
> callers@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@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@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@lists.sharedweight.net>
> *To:* "<callers@lists.sharedweight.net>" <callers@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@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@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 a

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

[Delia Clark via Callers]

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@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 <contra...@gmail.com>
> To: Amy Wimmer <amywim...@gmail.com> 
> Cc: susanelberger <susanma1...@yahoo.com>; callers 
> <callers@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@lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@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@lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@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@lists.sharedweight.net 
>> <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>>
>> To: "<callers@lists.sharedweight.net 
>> <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>>" <callers@lists.sharedweight.net 
>> <mailto:callers@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@lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@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 usi

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

[Neal Schlein via Callers]

Okay, this is from a square dance/contra caller: I'd go crazy if I was
stuck with a single set of terms, no matter what they were.  The rhyming
potential for the calls is lost.

Anyway, I still think it is more than just a matter of terminology.

All we are doing is swapping words; everyone knows they are stand-ins and
what they are stand-ins for.  In essence, we are just obscuring the
original choreographic intent of gendered figures and dances, not calling
gender neutral dances.  (Plus, anything written within the last 30 years is
a copyrighted work and technically we require permission to make changes,
perform it publicly, OR make derivative works.  Not that anyone really
cares.)

Personally, I haven't enjoyed the "gender neutral" dance events I've been
to--not because I think it's a bad idea or dislike dancing with men, but
because the callers were taking historical dances with built-in and
intentional gender differences and simply ignoring them.  Particularly in
older ECD, it is one thing to intentionally dance the lady's role and
another to ignore that there WAS a role.  It impoverishes the dance as a
whole.

Some older dances happen to work well as gendered or ungendered dances, but
to me a truly gender-neutral dance is constructed to intentionally be that
way.  For example, the following:

Gender-Swapped
By Neal Schlein, 5/29/15
Duple gender-less contra
Music: Probably something highly phrased, like Irish
A1: 1's step into center and handy hand turn neighbor 2 times
A1: End with everyone facing down the hall, 4 in line, and go down the hall
A2: Face the center of the line, pass thru, leads u-Turn and swing, any
type (end in same spot where started swing, 1's on outside, facing up the
hall)
B1: Come up the hall
B1: Bend the line and circle full
B2: 1's gypsy full and slow cast down while the 2's gypsy or swing 1 and
1/2 to end in starting line; 1s come into the center.

It's not the best timing in the B2, but if I did that right

   - With improper and gendered lines, it dances normally the first time
   through--standard swings, everything.  The second time, the 1's will be on
   the opposite side of the set, meaning half of the dance is same-gender and
   half is opposite.
   - With PROPER gendered lines, that is exactly reversed.
   - With gender-neutral lines--it is completely random, but it doesn't
   matter because...

The dance itself is gender-neutral: it doesn't need gender or
gender-substitute terms for teaching any of the figures or the sequence in
any formation.  The choreography was selected to force interaction of
identical sorts with all participating genders and positions.

. 

Neal Schlein

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

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

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@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@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@lists.sharedweight.net>
> *To:* "<callers@lists.sharedweight.net>" <callers@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@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@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@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
>
>
>
> <>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>
>
> Delia Clark
> PO Box 45
> Taftsville, VT 05073
> 802-457-2075
> deliacla...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?

[Amy Wimmer via Callers]

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@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@lists.sharedweight.net>
*To:* "<callers@lists.sharedweight.net>" <callers@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@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@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@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



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

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





___
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] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Hampshire College and Village Contra in NYC are two gender free dances
who've done these studies over the course of several evenings. The same
night seems excessively difficult for both caller and dancers, though.
On May 29, 2015 12:17 PM, "John W Gintell"  wrote:

> It would be interesting to get some dancers' reactions to these various
> terminologies.
>
> Has anyone thought of using two different pairings in a dance evening and
> then asking the dancers which they thought was clearer to their ears and
> which they preferred? Of course this is even a bigger burden on the caller.
>
> On May 29, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote:
>
> Erik, neat cheat.
>
> For reference, my own thoughts on the terms, and a general FAQ about
> gender free terms:
>
> http://contradances.tumblr.com/post/113203981035/genderfree-contra-dance-term-faq
>
> I have not updated it with gems / rubies.
>
> I like jets / rubies, but I think gems / rubies is better:
>
> 1. I disagree that the "em" sound is harder to hear than the "et" in jet.
> Good mic skills / having a foam pad on a mic will dull the sharp "ts" in
> "gents", and thus, "jets". Because a loud "ts" on the mic is harsh.
> Therefore, this argument against "gems" is not an issue.
>
> 2. A lot of people don't know "jet" is a gemstone, and so they think
> airplane. I've had a lot of gender free dancers complain about this.  Given
> that the terms need to serve the LGBTQ community, and not merely us as
> callers, I take this complaint seriously. Thus, "gem" is a better choice.
>
> 3. Yes, a ruby is a gem. So what? They're both gems.
>
> 4. There's a gender connotation to thinking jet = airplane, since it's
> either phallic, or people think the NY/NJ football team, or the West Side
> Story fictional gang. Again, the terms are here to serve the dancers, not
> merely us.
>
> 5. Gem has all the same advantages as jet.
>
> I thus think gem / ruby is a superior pair than jet / ruby.
>
> Ron Blechner
> On May 29, 2015 11:32 AM, "Erik Hoffman via Callers" <
> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> We are still using larks and ravens at the Berkeley dance. And, though I
>> don't seem to have too much trouble using different words for different
>> dances -- so far I've used men/women, ladies/gents, bands/bares,
>> trees/squirrels, and larks/ravens without changing my mess of dance notes
>> -- I understand that others can't switch so easily. On this note, at the
>> Berkeley dance a caller recently did the following:
>>
>> 1) asked if anyone had some post-its. When found some
>> 2) wrote "lark" and "raven" on the sticky end
>> 3) cut out these little cheat-sheets
>> 4) covered the words "gents" and "ladies" with the post-it cheats
>> 5) move cheats to next card as needed
>>
>> Thereby changing their cards to the current words on the fly. I was
>> impressed.
>>
>> ~erik hoffman
>> oakland, ca
>>
>> On 5/28/2015 8:01 PM, Kalia Kliban via Callers wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, May 28, 2015, Alan Winston via Callers 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.
>

>>> Me too.  I haven't yet tried calling with the jets and rubies
>>> terminology, though I've used bands/bares and larks/ravens.  I can't say
>>> I'm eager to add yet another set of translated cards to my files.
>>> Kalia Kliban
>>> ___
>>> 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] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?

[John W Gintell via Callers]

It would be interesting to get some dancers' reactions to these various 
terminologies. 

Has anyone thought of using two different pairings in a dance evening and then 
asking the dancers which they thought was clearer to their ears and which they 
preferred? Of course this is even a bigger burden on the caller.

On May 29, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote:

> Erik, neat cheat.
> 
> For reference, my own thoughts on the terms, and a general FAQ about gender 
> free terms:
> http://contradances.tumblr.com/post/113203981035/genderfree-contra-dance-term-faq
> 
> I have not updated it with gems / rubies.
> 
> I like jets / rubies, but I think gems / rubies is better:
> 
> 1. I disagree that the "em" sound is harder to hear than the "et" in jet. 
> Good mic skills / having a foam pad on a mic will dull the sharp "ts" in 
> "gents", and thus, "jets". Because a loud "ts" on the mic is harsh. 
> Therefore, this argument against "gems" is not an issue.
> 
> 2. A lot of people don't know "jet" is a gemstone, and so they think 
> airplane. I've had a lot of gender free dancers complain about this.  Given 
> that the terms need to serve the LGBTQ community, and not merely us as 
> callers, I take this complaint seriously. Thus, "gem" is a better choice.
> 
> 3. Yes, a ruby is a gem. So what? They're both gems.
> 
> 4. There's a gender connotation to thinking jet = airplane, since it's either 
> phallic, or people think the NY/NJ football team, or the West Side Story 
> fictional gang. Again, the terms are here to serve the dancers, not merely us.
> 
> 5. Gem has all the same advantages as jet.
> 
> I thus think gem / ruby is a superior pair than jet / ruby.
> 
> Ron Blechner
> 
> On May 29, 2015 11:32 AM, "Erik Hoffman via Callers" 
>  wrote:
> We are still using larks and ravens at the Berkeley dance. And, though I 
> don't seem to have too much trouble using different words for different 
> dances -- so far I've used men/women, ladies/gents, bands/bares, 
> trees/squirrels, and larks/ravens without changing my mess of dance notes -- 
> I understand that others can't switch so easily. On this note, at the 
> Berkeley dance a caller recently did the following:
> 
> 1) asked if anyone had some post-its. When found some
> 2) wrote "lark" and "raven" on the sticky end
> 3) cut out these little cheat-sheets
> 4) covered the words "gents" and "ladies" with the post-it cheats
> 5) move cheats to next card as needed
> 
> Thereby changing their cards to the current words on the fly. I was impressed.
> 
> ~erik hoffman
> oakland, ca
> 
> On 5/28/2015 8:01 PM, Kalia Kliban via Callers wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015, Alan Winston via Callers 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.
> 
> Me too.  I haven't yet tried calling with the jets and rubies terminology, 
> though I've used bands/bares and larks/ravens.  I can't say I'm eager to add 
> yet another set of translated cards to my files.
> Kalia Kliban
> ___
> 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] Jets / rubies genderfree terms redux: gems?

[Linda Leslie via Callers]

Thanks for reviewing these thoughts, Ron. I am in full agreement with all of 
your points!
Linda Leslie

On May 29, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers 
 wrote:
> For reference, my own thoughts on the terms, and a general FAQ about gender 
> free terms:
> http://contradances.tumblr.com/post/113203981035/genderfree-contra-dance-term-faq
> 
> I have not updated it with gems / rubies.
> 
> I like jets / rubies, but I think gems / rubies is better:
> 
> 1. I disagree that the "em" sound is harder to hear than the "et" in jet. 
> Good mic skills / having a foam pad on a mic will dull the sharp "ts" in 
> "gents", and thus, "jets". Because a loud "ts" on the mic is harsh. 
> Therefore, this argument against "gems" is not an issue.
> 
> 2. A lot of people don't know "jet" is a gemstone, and so they think 
> airplane. I've had a lot of gender free dancers complain about this.  Given 
> that the terms need to serve the LGBTQ community, and not merely us as 
> callers, I take this complaint seriously. Thus, "gem" is a better choice.
> 
> 3. Yes, a ruby is a gem. So what? They're both gems.
> 
> 4. There's a gender connotation to thinking jet = airplane, since it's either 
> phallic, or people think the NY/NJ football team, or the West Side Story 
> fictional gang. Again, the terms are here to serve the dancers, not merely us.
> 
> 5. Gem has all the same advantages as jet.
> 
> I thus think gem / ruby is a superior pair than jet / ruby.
> 
> Ron Blechner
> 

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

[Aahz Maruch via Callers]

On Thu, May 28, 2015, Ron Blechner wrote:
>
> I have had to explain that "a jet is a gem, not the airplane or a West Side
> Story gang" to a ton of people. So I feel this is more confusing than a
> ruby being a gem.

I'd say that jets are black gems, giving people the option of using
colored armbands if they feel the need to visually identify roles.
-- 
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
  <*>   <*>   <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html

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

[Erik Hoffman via Callers]

We are still using larks and ravens at the Berkeley dance. And, though I 
don't seem to have too much trouble using different words for different 
dances -- so far I've used men/women, ladies/gents, bands/bares, 
trees/squirrels, and larks/ravens without changing my mess of dance 
notes -- I understand that others can't switch so easily. On this note, 
at the Berkeley dance a caller recently did the following:


1) asked if anyone had some post-its. When found some
2) wrote "lark" and "raven" on the sticky end
3) cut out these little cheat-sheets
4) covered the words "gents" and "ladies" with the post-it cheats
5) move cheats to next card as needed

Thereby changing their cards to the current words on the fly. I was 
impressed.


~erik hoffman
oakland, ca

On 5/28/2015 8:01 PM, Kalia Kliban via Callers wrote:

On Thu, May 28, 2015, Alan Winston via Callers 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.


Me too.  I haven't yet tried calling with the jets and rubies 
terminology, though I've used bands/bares and larks/ravens.  I can't 
say I'm eager to add yet another set of translated cards to my files.

Kalia Kliban
___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

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

[Aahz Maruch via Callers]

On Fri, May 29, 2015, susanelberger via Callers 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.

Speaking as a hearing-impaired person, you are wrong about "sun" and
"moon" sounding completely different.  Moreover, having them both be one
syllable increases the risk of confusion.  Using words with different
numbers of syllables is precisely one of the primary selling points for
jets/rubies (compared particularly with bands/bares).
-- 
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
  <*>   <*>   <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html

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

[susanelberger via Callers]

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 ElbergerLowell, Massachusetts
  From: Delia Clark via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
 To: "<callers@lists.sharedweight.net>" <callers@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@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@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@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


<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>
Delia ClarkPO Box 45Taftsville, VT 05073802-457-2075deliacla...@gmail.com




___
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

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

[P. Campbell via Callers]

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 
>  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@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

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

[Ron Blechner via Callers]

Yes, that's pretty much it, Maia.

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Maia McCormick via Callers
 wrote:
> At a guess, I would say that it's to distinguish it from the more masculine
> connotations of "jet" as either a plane or a color, and so to avoid having
> gender-y valances to what are supposed to be gender neutral terms. Ron, is
> that right? Or am I missing the mark here?
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Eric Black via Callers
>  wrote:
>>
>> Why have to explain that a “jet” is a gem?  Just say that it’s very
>> different from “ruby” so they are not easily confused in a noisy room.
>> -Eric
>>
>> On May 28, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers
>>  wrote:
>>
>> I have had to explain that "a jet is a gem, not the airplane or a West
>> Side Story gang" to a ton of people. So I feel this is more confusing than a
>> ruby being a gem.
>>
>> On May 28, 2015 4:25 PM, "Aahz Maruch via Callers"
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 28, 2015, Alan Winston via Callers 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.
>>>
>>> Ditto all this.
>>> --
>>> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
>>> http://rule6.info/
>>>   <*>   <*>   <*>
>>> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
>>> ___
>>> 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
>>
>
>
> ___
> Callers mailing list
> Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>