Should theme camps be exclusionary

hunter S · Post by **hunter S** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 8:25 pm

This subject carries over from "theme camps 06". Virgin female burner announced the creation of "Virgins with vagina's" Author's offers a camp of safety for women by being male exclusive unless escorted through camp by female member.
This thread brings a few questions to ponder.... 1. Is it healthy to the community to form gender specific theme camps? 2. We already have Kiddsville, should we or will we start segregating neighborhoods? IE. gay area, straight area, married couples district, nakid peoples mall?

In some old topics & decisions of the borg, have we already started in this direction? Sound camps out on the perimeter!

willowRage · Post by **willowRage** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 8:51 pm

Sounds pretty femme Nazi to me.

Why not just start an all woman event... Obvious name being Burning Woman. If you have to insulate yourself from men... why even attend and event where there are men?

Lassen Forge · Post by **Lassen Forge** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 8:53 pm

Sounds like a rehash of the same crapola last year... in which I said something to the effect of...

Yeah, they're exclusionary. Especially as to members. How said camp interacts with the public is up to the camp. Nothing is guaranteed with your ticket except you get to go through the gate and camp until Sunday.

You want to be a part of a theme camp you have to meet it's requirements - whether that be for a certain talent, a certain look, or a certain donation, follow their rules, etc. You want to participate in the camp you have to follow their rules.

Period. If that means I run a camp and only neo-fascist jungian potato-digging women with small breasts are allowed, then, guess what - that's who's allowed. If you have to be BRC VFD ESD people to camp in an area, then that's how it is. If you have to meet the requirements of the law to visit our camp because our camp is a cantina, then you gotta follow the law just like us. If you have to have the right pogs and laminates (or the right chrome wrist bracelets and accompaniment) to visit copland, then you do.

As to sound camps... that's the law (and a damn good one IMHO, tho it could be bigger...). Walk in camping is another such space. So's the BRC Airport. Copland is yet another. How about First camp?...

Anyway... There is a really well known trilogy by John Varley - the Titan series. In one of the books (Demon), such an encampment was a very real part of that future society. As such, I think it would be a cool camp if pulled off right. As I remember - unescorted, unpermitted males who went up to a certain line were given one "grace" shot with an arrow in front of them before they crossed the line, and if they were so silly to continue, well... they wouldn't.

A theme camp is just that - they set a theme, a stage, a space of their own artistic design. If that means you can't go in certain parts... then that's the law. Sorry.

Enough of this. I'm done with it.

bb

Captain Goddammit · Post by **Captain Goddammit** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:00 pm

I think it'd be a stupid and unpopular camp idea... but I don't see why they can't do it. Let 'em. Have fun, sitting there by yourselves!
Hey, all you virgins with vaginas, now you too can safely go to Burning Man! Just never leave the confines of that one camp!

Whatever! Hey, have at it.

Lassen Forge · Post by **Lassen Forge** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:09 pm

willowRage wrote:Sounds pretty femme Nazi to me.

Why not just start an all woman event... Obvious name being Burning Woman. If you have to insulate yourself from men... why even attend and event where there are men?

Hey... isn't there a music festival that made headlines in Michigan... so virulently anti-masculine (in their own minds) they even ban Transfolk because they weren't born pure, 100% women or some such? I read about that somewhere...

Personally - I don't care. Our exclusionary rules are much simpler - NO HERRING (and no minors in the kantina)!!!

bb

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:13 pm

balance.

i say let camps do whatever the hell they want, word eventually gets out about those that cross some line and things get pulled back.

i plan on a coup against my own camp, kick everyone out, and hold a dance party for me-myself-and i. thats right, i am a superstar, i am a unique and valuable snowflake. dont question it.

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:16 pm

spectabillis wrote:balance.

i say let camps do whatever the hell they want, word eventually gets out about those that cross some line and things get pulled back.

i plan on a coup against my own camp, kick everyone out, and hold a dance party for me-myself-and i. thats right, i am a superstar, i am a unique and valuable snowflake. dont question it.

Ok, watch the magic mushrooms for lunch. Your having those snowflake hallucinations...next thing you'll be claiming to be Larry Harvey or something.

The CO · Post by **The CO** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:08 pm

By simplest definition all theme camps are exclusionary; once you focus on any theme you exclude a certain part of the rest of the city. How big that part is depends on how tightly focused you are on your theme.

But... For me that's one of the best part of BRC. Seeing a theme camp that I would never have thought up blows my mind.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:35 pm

offers a camp of safety for women

I think this is a good thing as it is obviously required. We can't have women actually coming into contact with people of the other gender. The other gender by it's very existance mocks the female gender. Coming into contact with the other gender causes feelings of inadequacy and invalidation of the woman's own gender. These feelings never surface when surrounded by only other women so that is proof that it is the fault of the other gender and so they must be excluded at all costs. Otherwise the other gender might actually seek out contact with the woman in order to intentionally cause those negative feelings and the anger it sometimes brings. In fact, I think it takes a special kind ot "enforcer" to keep the other gender out of the camp. These brave women are able to withstand contact and force the evil male (there, I said it) away before he can do the harm that he is always scheming to cause.

Whatever. Next we will have camps that offer safety for white people by being white exclusive unless escorted through camp by a white member. Then will come camps that offer "safety" for black people by being black exclusive and safe, exclusive jewish camps, gated buddhist camps, etc. Its all facism to me and a certain amount of facism should exist in the world to remind us of how facism is. Of course these "feminists" would never call themselves facist, they probably think they are quite "progressive".

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:50 pm

I suddenly remembered that there are some that suffer from androphobia, the fear of males. These women can be recognized by their need to eliminate contact with ANY KIND of males, not just human. They are afraid of male dogs, male hamsters, males of any sort. If you inform one of these that there are male dust mites actually touching their body as they sleep in their own bed, they go nuts and are unable to sleep ... until you inform them that dust mites are on their body sometimes when they are awake too and then they really freak out.

A camp for women suffering from androphobia wouldn't be a problem as long as it is described for what it is. Then we become inclusive again! Amazing how that all worked out!

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:52 pm

There are plenty of public camps, including our own. If I come across a camp that's not so public to me because I'm male/straight/tall/brown haired/blue eyed/handsome/smart/fun/single/whatever, no problem. I figure they have their reasons and there are lots of other camps to go visit. If they were my neighbors, I would still invite them to MY camp.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:54 pm

Yeah, but if you walk down to Camp Misandry and invite them in, you have just provoked them. You have just validated their fear of your preditory ways by seeking out contact with them and forcing them to interact with you, you evil bastard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:04 am

geekster wrote:Yeah, but if you walk down to Camp Misandry and invite them in, you have just provoked them. You have just validated their fear of your preditory ways by seeking out contact with them and forcing them to interact with you, you evil bastard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry

Not at all. Women wanting a female-only camp does not mean that the women involved hate men. Like I keep saying, there are a wide variety of reasons women would want a female-only camp.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:05 am

I was commenting on the original post that implied that having contact with an unescorted male is inherently "unsafe".

I could respect it if it were done out of religious requirement, for example, so that Burning Man might be experianced by single females whose religion would not allow them unescorted access to males. That would be inclusive. But this presented it as a "safety" issue with the implication that contact with males is somehow unsafe. Being male, it caused me to take offense because it gives no room for the individual, it is a blanket stereotypical, prejudicial statement about all males.

hunter S · Post by **hunter S** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:41 am

Geekster, hits a point that keeps re-surfacing " he seems to take offence to being discriminated upon for being male. maybe I'm wrong but is this a trend?
Is this just based on the post from this thread or is it referenced by the thread on "theme camps 06"?

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 7:34 am

geekster wrote:I was commenting on the original post that implied that having contact with an unescorted male is inherently "unsafe".

I could respect it if it were done out of religious requirement, for example, so that Burning Man might be experianced by single females whose religion would not allow them unescorted access to males. That would be inclusive. But this presented it as a "safety" issue with the implication that contact with males is somehow unsafe. Being male, it caused me to take offense because it gives no room for the individual, it is a blanket stereotypical, prejudicial statement about all males.

It's a rule designed to eliminate having to worry about men at all, just as my camp's rule about "no strangers in the RV" eliminated us having to worry about strangers in the RV. Everybody uses stereotypes.

bringer · Post by **bringer** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 7:56 am

HughMungus wrote:It's a rule designed to eliminate having to worry about men at all, just as my camp's rule about "no strangers in the RV" eliminated us having to worry about strangers in the RV. Everybody uses stereotypes.

Maybe, but a stranger could be anyone. The category "strangers" in non-exclusionary. The fact that males aren't allowed shows something akin to discrimination.
I think they should be allowed to whatever they want with their camp, but lets not pretend that its not a knock on my gender.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:52 am

It's a rule designed to eliminate having to worry about men

Yeah, like a camp could make a rule to eliminate having to "worry about" black people, or asians, or white people, or red headed people, or whatever.

Why would the male gender of the species be cause for "worry"?

By reading the "other thread" it looks to me someting close to "someone with a mohawk robbed me once, so I am going to exclude all people with mohawks so I won't have to 'worry' about them"

Personally, I don't give a pinch of owl shit what they do in their camp. Nobody wants to be where they aren't wanted and I certainly wouldn't want to be around someone who thinks all men are sexual preditors, it's just a drama generator (already generated two threads on eplaya). What I am looking for is honesty. Just come out and say "we are a bunch or prejudicial, bigoted females that really don't trust men and so we want to have a camp where access by these smarmy beasts can be controlled" and I would be satisfied. Don't try to play it off in some honey dipped "safe environment for women" bullshit.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:53 am

bringer wrote:
HughMungus wrote:It's a rule designed to eliminate having to worry about men at all, just as my camp's rule about "no strangers in the RV" eliminated us having to worry about strangers in the RV. Everybody uses stereotypes.

Maybe, but a stranger could be anyone. The category "strangers" in non-exclusionary. The fact that males aren't allowed shows something akin to discrimination.
I think they should be allowed to whatever they want with their camp, but lets not pretend that its not a knock on my gender.

Yeah, sure.

Chai Guy · Post by **Chai Guy** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:42 am

"someone with a mohawk robbed me once, so I am going to exclude all people with mohawks so I won't have to 'worry' about them"

Last year I had a mowhawk. While serving tea at the tea temple a lovely young woman sat at the counter with a t-shirt that read:

"Kiss me mowhawk boy"

I told her that I was a boy and that I had a mowhawk, and asked to kiss her. She smiled and said that she would like that very much. So we kissed and it was nice.

This really has nothing to do with this thread, other than that I really like that story and I haven't had the opportunity to tell it until now.

Oh, and I guess the moral to the story is, if you want something, try to attract that, rather than trying to exclude that which you do not want.

Negative advertising never really works anyway.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 1:03 pm

Another reason for this thread sparking my interest, and I am surprised it hasn't come up yet, is that I have on several occasions seen WOMEN grope other women, not take "no" for an answer, continue molesting, groping, feeling under clothes, even after being told to stop, etc. Believe me, it isn't just men that can and do go well beyond reasonable boundaries with women, other women do it too. Men don't have a monopoly on idiocy. So to present this in the light of "only men would be a predatory threat to women" is not very well informed. I have to wonder, if you have an exclusive all female space, how long it will be before some very agressive and possibly intoxicated female comes along and begins to harass them? How would camp V's doctrine change after a member is molested by a woman?

Rockdad · Post by **Rockdad** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 1:28 pm

I think the problem is that she is calling it a theme camp and a very exclusionary theme at that! Gender bias/discrimination is very real and apparent in this theme camp. And the Theme is in violation or at least in conflict with the very nature of theme camps from the official burning man theme camp page:

Criteria for a Theme Camp and Village

Camps should be visually stimulating.

Theme Camps must be interactive. They should include activities, events or service to the Burning Man Community in general. In most cases creating a chill dome with music and relaxation is not enough to receive placement. Some camp members should be at your camp at all times in order for your activities to be as accessible to others as possible.

"Theme camps are the interactive core of Burning Man." Harley K. DuBois, Burning Man's Director of Community Services & Playa Safety Council, hesitated a second. "I hate to call this a rule, but if I have to have one it's simple: A theme camp must be participatory." It's a playful challenge to the vast reductive desert landscape, an expansion of the infectious celebratory nature of the event. "The camps keep getting bigger and better, more thought-out and polished. But," she spoke firmly now, "you always welcome anybody and everybody." We offer some guidelines to help you plan your project.

On this note alone I do not believe it qualifies as a theme camp. If she wants to have the penis haters bunker camp fine but it is not a theme camp!

Also notice she has toned down the anti male stuff on her site after I mentioned visiting she removed the

"Men are absolutely welcome to visit V Camp when accompanied by women (or to pass through V Camp quickly with a woman, on their way into a V Camper's tent for some Burning of the Sheets) "

and changed it too

men will be gladly welcome in V Camp when accompanied by women!

On this note alone I do not believe it qualifies as a theme camp. If she wants to have the penis haters bunker camp fine but it is not a theme camp!
She has already come back with "we have permission" might be true but it does not make it right!
V Camp has also added some cute little Vivacious Vixenish Virgins line to make it sound cute! And yes I do feel the discrimination and I realize it is the only politically correct dicrimination allowed nowadays will it affect me directly? probably not! but it still is there. *

What do you think? It would be great if some of you were willing to vocalize why the idea of VCamp is important to you, if you're willing to get into the discussion/debate with the crowd over there... or just share some thoughts here about keeping VCamp as a women's space VS possible challenges from other burners about our exclusivity.

From the V site at least they admit exclusivity! Which fly's in the face of the BM Theme camp rules and they could set a precedent for more exclusivity on the Playa.
She also made a call to action yesterday for her supporters to back her up on EPlaya.
And it is really apparent on the Eplaya thread at Tribe V camp and the V camp thread here that they reject any discussion about this as negitivity so this will never be a pro con discussion because the people seeing any conflict/bias in the idea will just be dismissed as being negitive so that is why I will not continue a discussion with her or her supporters.

Bottom line I agree with BBSue let em do has they want who cares. I do not agree that it qualifies as a Theme camp though and this is not the same as asking for an ID at a bar camp. I also see no way it adds any safety either just a place to discriminate against men it should be just a camp not a theme!

Murphy's law they will end up next to a bunch of jerk's anyhow!

willowRage · Post by **willowRage** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 1:57 pm

Deciding that you want all the campmates in your theme camp to be female is one thing....

But requiring that men be escorted through camp by a female member is serious overkill. It smacks of parnoid behavior.

ThePikey · Post by **ThePikey** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:15 pm

Rockdad wrote:On this note alone I do not believe it qualifies as a theme camp. If she wants to have the penis haters bunker camp fine but it is not a theme camp!

Dude. You can have any goddamn theme you want, and unless it's blatantly dangerous or in-your-face offensive/obnoxious, nobody's going to give a rat's ass. But if the placement people don't feel you're inclusive enough you don't get pre-placement in one of the high-profile Registered Theme Camp spots. If a group of women want to have a women's only camp, they can do so.... just, like, out in the boonies.

(It's like you're saying that because it's not Registered, it doesn't have a theme or purpose. If you want to say 'this theme isn't in keeping with the stated aims of the BM LLC', then say *that* instead.)

bringer · Post by **bringer** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:28 pm

10 Principles

Radical Inclusion
Anyone may be a part of Burning Man. We welcome and respect the stranger. No prerequisites exist for participation in our community.

Gifting
Burning Man is devoted to acts of gift giving. The value of a gift is unconditional. Gifting does not contemplate a return or an exchange for something of equal value.

Decommodification
In order to preserve the spirit of gifting, our community seeks to create social environments that are unmediated by commercial sponsorships, transactions, or advertising. We stand ready to protect our culture from such exploitation. We resist the substitution of consumption for participatory experience.

Radical Self-reliance
Burning Man encourages the individual to discover, exercise and rely on his or her inner resources.

Radical Self-expression
Radical self-expression arises from the unique gifts of the individual. No one other than the individual or a collaborating group can determine its content. It is offered as a gift to others. In this spirit, the giver should respect the rights and liberties of the recipient.

Communal Effort
Our community values creative cooperation and collaboration. We strive to produce, promote and protect social networks, public spaces, works of art, and methods of communication that support such interaction.

Civic Responsibility
We value civil society. Community members who organize events should assume responsibility for public welfare and endeavor to communicate civic responsibilities to participants. They must also assume responsibility for conducting events in accordance with local, state and federal laws.

Leaving No Trace
Our community respects the environment. We are committed to leaving no physical trace of our activities wherever we gather. We clean up after ourselves and endeavor, whenever possible, to leave such places in a better state than when we found them.

Participation
Our community is committed to a radically participatory ethic. We believe that transformative change, whether in the individual or in society, can occur only through the medium of deeply personal participation. We achieve being through doing. Everyone is invited to work. Everyone is invited to play. We make the world real through actions that open the heart.

Immediacy
Immediate experience is, in many ways, the most important touchstone of value in our culture. We seek to overcome barriers that stand between us and a recognition of our inner selves, the reality of those around us, participation in society, and contact with a natural world exceeding human powers. No idea can substitute for this experience.

*******

Everything about V-camp seems to fit in with nine of these ten things (not the first one).

If they want to exclude men, let them. They are the ones who will miss out on something, guarding their domain while the rest of us go about our own good time.

If they think it will make them feel comfortable and safe, so be it. Some people don't want to step outside of their comfort zone, and that's their loss.

Rockdad · Post by **Rockdad** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:29 pm

ThePikey wrote:
Rockdad wrote:On this note alone I do not believe it qualifies as a theme camp. If she wants to have the penis haters bunker camp fine but it is not a theme camp!
Dude. You can have any goddamn theme you want, and unless it's blatantly dangerous or in-your-face offensive/obnoxious, nobody's going to give a rat's ass. But if the placement people don't feel you're inclusive enough you don't get pre-placement in one of the high-profile Registered Theme Camp spots. If a group of women want to have a women's only camp, they can do so.... just, like, out in the boonies.

(It's like you're saying that because it's not Registered, it doesn't have a theme or purpose. If you want to say 'this theme isn't in keeping with the stated aims of the BM LLC', then say *that* instead.)

Dude they are claiming to be applying to be a registered theme camp. I am only pointing out that it fly's in the face of the criteria for Registered theme camps. I agree they can have a girls only camp my argument is the above cited conflict with the BMORGS own criteria! So I guess I am saying it again!

So yes I do agree I should of inserted the word registered.
Peace

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:43 pm

Rockdad wrote:I think the problem is that she is calling it a theme camp and a very exclusionary theme at that!

Not all theme camps are public.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:55 pm

Not all theme camps are public.

Apparently not, but they are supposed to be. I suppose you could say that only campers and dead people are allowed inside and give people an opportunity to qualify for entry as a non-camper. Wait, that belongs in the danger thread.

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 3:04 pm

If it's a registered theme camp and given a prominent placement, one would hope that the powers that be would ask that they try to comply with the criteria. If they don't move them farther back in the city and that's the end of it.

CagedKitty · Post by **CagedKitty** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 3:12 pm

It's ok, they excluded me for not being a virgin.

But, guys do seem to be somewhat controlling of the women in their camp. I've heard several remarks from some of them about how a woman that they rode with to burningman didn't spend enough time with them once they got there. How are they going to feel when a new virgin in their camp brings a guy to her tent from a different camp? Would that be ok with you? I'm really asking.