Should theme camps be exclusionary

Rockdad · Post by **Rockdad** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 3:25 pm

Kinetic IV wrote: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.

If you go to the V camp tribe site you can see how they are trying to fill out the form and realizing they are not conforming to the criteria to quote one poster helping them fill out the form

"THIS FORM and all the questions is WHY is suggested you NOT register as a Themecamp the first year......"

"DONT register as a Village.... even as a themecamp you're pushin the boundry and will most certainly HAVE to do something to make your entrance to camp attractive to "potential" visitors.... We/You can talk about that more later.... as time approaches.. "

"I would HIGHLY suggest you dont list the camp as pertaining to the Theme.... if you do that THEY will EXPECT you to decorate and show something related to the theme..... it would be in this space. that you might mention that Frog suggested you register based on the security issue (fear) and that you are a virgin camp.... "

"9 - approximate space needed
- yikes.. I have no idea... BUT, I think this is talking about non-camping space for interactive stuff.. which we aren't going to have,"

" ePlaya-esque ickyness?"

"YES.. it IS possible that IF you register your camp with ALL THE DETAILS about WHO you are.. you WILL get some of the Ickyness.... Keep that in mind..... those that do read about it will come check you out... of that you can be sure..... "

"19 - Interactivity Description - asking for concepts, goals and philosophy...
- but I think we aren't planning to do interactive other than visiting, ja?"

This one I found very funny!

"16 - you would prefer not to camp near ...
- camp apokalyspita (or whatever) and Camp Herring (their enemies) "

Bottom line I really wish the ladies the best time ever had on the Playa but it is pushing the boundries of a registered theme camp to far IMHO.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 3:30 pm

geekster wrote:
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.

They're not *supposed* to be, they just generally are.

Would someone tell Rockdad to STFU for me please. He's riding the V Camp people for no reason and not being very friendly to the new people.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 3:32 pm

Oh I should clarify -- I'm talking about theme camps, not placed theme camps. THOSE should be public. But not all theme camps are officially placed.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 3:38 pm

But, guys do seem to be somewhat controlling of the women in their camp.

Speak for your own camp, please. Such behavior would last just long enough for one to be mounted as hood ornament on the art car in our camp.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 3:39 pm

Code: Select all

 not placed theme camps

If you aren't a placed theme camp, then you are just a camp with a theme.

CagedKitty · Post by **CagedKitty** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 4:03 pm

I'm not talking about my own camp, it's what I've heard guys say about going to burning man. I didn't camp with them. I'm glad to hear other views.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 4:47 pm

it's what I've heard guys say about going to burning man

Ours is made up mostly of women and they have worked pretty hard all year to get that camp onto the playa. I think it would almost be a little comical to see what would happen if some guy decided to get all controlling when they are talking to the woman that designed the structure then cut and welded all the steel for the components. She'd probably just look at him and smile while the rest of us doubled over in laughter. No doubt some people can jump to some silly conclusions. I bet some helpful guy even shows up every year to show the lotus girls "how it's done" too. Bet that's kinda comical as well.

willowRage · Post by **willowRage** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 7:00 pm

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.

Women are prone to this sort of behavior as well.

Caution: People on pedestals may fall off without warning

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:02 pm

willowRage wrote:
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.
Women are prone to this sort of behavior as well.

Caution: People on pedestals may fall off without warning

Yeah, I was going to say to the original poster (and anyone else who's in the same situation): one thing about camping with people you've never met is that you won't know how much they will actually be contributing/working to make your camp work until the end of the event. The beauty of going to Burning Man with locals (locals to you) is that they get tested as far as reliability/dedication when you do meetings, test setups, etc. Things might work out beautifully or they might suck or they might be somewhere in-between; honestly, it's burning man so it can't suck too much. Still, word to the wise. At the very least you should not expect too much from people you've never met.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:24 pm

a few people made a few comments about their own camp, and seems its been made into something more important than whats there.

even though we dont always agree with all groups, the diversity of sub-groups/cultures is far more important than peoples minor differences.

this board has developed a sanctimonious attitude that people need to justify themselves before the man's principals. when did that happen?

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:54 am

Interesting. Another way of looking at it might be people providing examples that are counter to the perceptions presented earlier to show that there is a very diverse array of styles in how camps do things. There have seen some blanket statements issued in a few different threads that I don't think hold true. I would welcome examples that are counter to these blanket statements.

My biggest problem with many camps is they dont have a goddamned mailbox! How in the hell are the eviction notices to be delivered if they don't have mailboxes?

Post by **AntiM** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:02 am

Nail 'em to our tents.

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:03 am

this board has developed a sanctimonious attitude that people need to justify themselves before the man's principals. when did that happen?

Well, those 10 principals really don't have much wrong with them and they make for a great framework to build a community around. So what's wrong with adopting them?

And everytime I see the word sanctimonious being used I think someone's been spending too much time on other boards....that's like a classic Badger / Isotopia word if there ever was one.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:04 am

Bay Bridge Sue wrote: 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...

Ayup. Very famous for that.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:08 am

geekster wrote: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.

Undoubtedly true. Perhaps they are taking the strength difference (average of 20% more body mass from men to women) into account. Or perhaps their criticism/self criticism techniques work on women. I'm not sure I'd want to spend time in their camp, but then I'm shy.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:11 am

CagedKitty wrote: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.

That's true. I remember Badger's horror story of some woman who got a ride without knowing that she was supposed to pay with sexual favors. I also remember that she was taken care of when people realized what was going on. I still say that BM is less dangerous to women than almost anywhere in the default world.

Rockdad · Post by **Rockdad** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:16 am

theCryptofishist wrote: I still say that BM is less dangerous to women than almost anywhere in the default world.

I totally agree with Fishy on this point if a women or even a man needs help a lot of help is going to come running.

Except over near those camp apokalyspita (or whatever) and Camp Herring (their enemies) people they sound very scary...

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:52 am

Well it's that fish slapping that does it.

Rockdad · Post by **Rockdad** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:57 am

theCryptofishist wrote:Well it's that fish slapping that does it.

Lets not make it about personal issues fishy

Token · Post by **Token** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:54 am

If the V folks stated a different approach in their Radical Inclusion statement that did not specifically target Men, but made a general restriction on ALL prospective visitors in a way that would be unappealing to most men, would this be that big of an issue?

Rockdad · Post by **Rockdad** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:17 am

Token wrote:If the V folks stated a different approach in their Radical Inclusion statement that did not specifically target Men, but made a general restriction on ALL prospective visitors in a way that would be unappealing to most men, would this be that big of an issue?

I do not see how they could ever be radically inclusive? but you hit the nail on the head because gender bias works both ways.

They have changed three or four times and toned down the original statement on the Tribe site.

My humble opinion is "By women for women" or something like it is just fine for a camp logo
but as a registered theme camp it's just not gonna work within criteria set for theme camps.
In fact you will find the same discussion going on between themselves on the Tribe site
And it is apparent they have no intention of being any kind of real Theme camp just a private camp looking for a good space.

Edit: Maybe if they really want to be a registered Theme camp they should study how Jiffy Lube did it? somewhat exclusive too but I do not know if they would stop a woman at the boundry line? or make sure she was escorted quickly through camp...

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:26 am

Kinetic IV wrote:Well, those 10 principals really don't have much wrong with them and they make for a great framework to build a community around. So what's wrong with adopting them?

those principals are just a worded manifestation of what people already made of its spirit. they are not ten commandments written in stone, they dont always apply.

but its not surprising they were created, people like rules and laws, people like being told what to do and what to believe.

Chai Guy · Post by **Chai Guy** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:40 am

they are not ten commandments written in stone, they dont always apply.

Yeah, especially to the people who wrote them.

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:40 am

but its not surprising they were created, people like rules and laws, people like being told what to do and what to believe.

Some people like having them so they can be broken.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:03 pm

Kinetic IV wrote:Some people like having them so they can be broken.

and that can be fun too.

lurker · Post by **lurker** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 10:02 am

Don't see why this is such a problem at all.

These things tend to be self-correcting.

If it doesn't work, it'll go away and never be seen again.

If it does work, actual playa-time will alter the perspectives of the campers--for good or ill.

It's not unlikely that their own restrictions will become far too constricting long before the man burns.

Rockdad · Post by **Rockdad** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 10:13 am

lurker wrote:Don't see why this is such a problem at all.

These things tend to be self-correcting.

If it doesn't work, it'll go away and never be seen again.

If it does work, actual playa-time will alter the perspectives of the campers--for good or ill.

It's not unlikely that their own restrictions will become far too constricting long before the man burns.

Think your right they seem to be evolving already...
And the hairs on my back have gone down too...

Necco · Post by **Necco** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 10:40 am

My, my, my. These girls really have some you worked up...whining and complaining and quoting their registration form... you got your panties all up in a bunch.

So what if they want to have only women in their camp? If that makes their trip better for them, what’s it to you? How are you being hurt by their little camp? Are you really clamouring to hang out in Vcamp - when theres hundreds of better things on the next block?

I agree they should not be registered as a THEME camp per se, since they don’t meet most of the criteria. Just because they are registering as a theme camp does not mean they will be approved as a theme camp.

Christ, I can’t believe this childish behaviour. Move along.

Rockdad · Post by **Rockdad** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:18 pm

Necco wrote:My, my, my. These girls really have some you worked up...whining and complaining and quoting their registration form... you got your panties all up in a bunch.

So what if they want to have only women in their camp? If that makes their trip better for them, what’s it to you? How are you being hurt by their little camp? Are you really clamouring to hang out in Vcamp - when theres hundreds of better things on the next block?

I agree they should not be registered as a THEME camp per se, since they don’t meet most of the criteria. Just because they are registering as a theme camp does not mean they will be approved as a theme camp.

Christ, I can’t believe this childish behaviour. Move along.

Brand new poster? welcome aboard good to see we agree about theme camps which is what this thread is about..

hunter S · Post by **hunter S** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:51 pm

Necco, Did you read to original post? I think we have all come to grips on another thread as to the all girl camp issue! so before you poor indigent empathy all over this thread, let me restate the question for you. "Should theme camps be exclusionary?"

Yes their is a guideline for what constitutes a "theme camp" refer back to the 10 principles of Burning man. Yes we acknowledge these are not meant to be commandments written in stone. That's what brings the real disscusstion to light.

Necco sorry for the sharp...Hum?... rant, and by the way welcome

I just hate to see...

"My, my, my. These girls really have some you worked up...whining and complaining and quoting their registration form... you got your panties all up in a bunch." maybe you don't see the question? or why I would think it worth exploring?

At what point do we as a community look at BRC and start saying "back when" "in the early days of BM" we were more about interaction and community but now, it's just "our" camp looking at art! we don't really have much to do with thoughts with other camps! after all they might be un-safe!

As the possibility of having a population cape put on BRC (referring to permitting issues with BLM) the possibility of becoming a very "gated community" with population controls could change the way we all see our beloved BRC.

Should theme camps be exclusionary

I'm wondering

Re: I'm wondering