Real problem: "How can we get drinkable water?" First World Problem: "How can we get awesome fursuits?"
"Classism", what is that?
My impression (try hearing this out, as a source for some info in the piece) - it's a well intentioned topic but the framing is so mushy and relative, it's hard to make a clear point.
Fandom isn't the world or a culture, it's a tiny subculture. Leisure/luxury is relative to outside circumstance, affordability of con travel or an art career or plain popularity doesn't make a "furry bourgeoisie" with a dispossessed "furry proletariat". Fandom isn't a competition... caring too much about how many suits someone else has or their popularity says something about personal insecurity.
You especially see this weird exceptionalism with the Porn Artists Get All The Likes! complaint from Envious Clean Artists... like have you ever seen a porn artist have Clean Artist Privilege to work worry-free for Disney or whatever, outside the tiny fandom bubble? And who cares if you don't get as many likes as the next furry? What's the QUALITY of likes? A dozen true fans can outweigh thousands of meme-sharers who don't give a shit about the artist whose work got ripped off.
Fandom does have a strong DIY nature. You can spend the bare minimum on supplies to make a fursuit by hand, (like everyone who started doing that) or get a pencil and paper, and write or draw or start a blog, or anything else that furries do, for almost free.
I'm frequently astonished at how some people can look at some billion dollar bullshit movie box office number, or Hollywood industry circle-jerk award they will never get within a mile of touching, and go WOW COOL like it has anything to do with them. But then look at a patron putting a few thousand in an artists pocket as YOU RICH BASTARD. Holy lack of perspective!
(I give the same amount of shits to that, as to vicariously enjoying pro sportsball. I know it matters to someone, so that's cool for them, but the personal reward I'd get is from playing it or directly helping someone else play it.)
With relative perspective in mind, about cons and "class": I'd ask *local congoers* whether they feel accommodated, whose skin is on the line to pay for it, and who is volunteering (and they aren't employees)... if that feels like a club, well, IT IS one... there can be a strong community benefit/nonprofit element and what my buddy Summercat calls a "furry tax", but class can be a mushy frame while Do-Ocracy matters more than "that guy has more stuff and I don't like it". If an Australian con has an image problem to overseas readers, well, were you going to go, and are there plenty of others?
**************
Back to the article, general comments:
I think we're looking at a case of Telephone Game Syndrome. Like what is "fursuite"? Who has ever heard that before? How are you even supposed to pronounce that? I suspect this is a misquote or mischaracterization.
You can get the idea that the source article is very poorly done by how it called HCFC biggest in Australia (it isn't). When I shared the article the week it came out, I commented it felt like they threw in the kitchen-sink of legend/stereoytpe about furries just because they could, and did a shit job of trying to downplay and play them up at the same time.
As for what Captain Otter (the con chair catching all the heat) actually meant, I have an impression he's not quite the villain this paints him as; I know he gets local friction, but from other personal chat with him, I also got an idea that he isn't an unsupportive guy, maybe it's just expressed abrasively. He didn't do himself favors in what's quoted, though, for sure.
Elder Rubber Asylum is also a cool guy, I also suspect a major case of Reading Too Much into his tweet.
**************
In "Full suits good; partial suits bad": oh yeah, that there, the "only fullsuits" thing - that nugget of info really helps justify the topic... yeah, that's not cool! But... "segregation of partials from full suiters in the picture"... you know the connotation of segregation? That word means something VERY different outside of fandom. See what I mean about First World Problems and being relative?
**************
The BLFC topic: I hope readers realize that ONE, extremely excepted, example of someone getting a hard time was balanced by an INCREDIBLY MASSIVE freaking parade of support. I sure couldn't track it all... (I talked to the little girl on-site when it happened, too...) http://dogpatch.press/2018/05/16/meet-emma-the-tiger-blfc/
It might be an exception that proves the rule of how un-elite this nerd thing is.
Real problem: "How can we get drinkable water?" First World Problem: "How can we get awesome fursuits?"
"Classism", what is that?
My impression (try hearing this out, as a source for some info in the piece) - it's a well intentioned topic but the framing is so mushy and relative, it's hard to make a clear point.
Fandom isn't the world or a culture, it's a tiny subculture. Leisure/luxury is relative to outside circumstance, affordability of con travel or an art career or plain popularity doesn't make a "furry bourgeoisie" with a dispossessed "furry proletariat". Fandom isn't a competition... caring too much about how many suits someone else has or their popularity says something about personal insecurity.
You especially see this weird exceptionalism with the Porn Artists Get All The Likes! complaint from Envious Clean Artists... like have you ever seen a porn artist have Clean Artist Privilege to work worry-free for Disney or whatever, outside the tiny fandom bubble? And who cares if you don't get as many likes as the next furry? What's the QUALITY of likes? A dozen true fans can outweigh thousands of meme-sharers who don't give a shit about the artist whose work got ripped off.
Fandom does have a strong DIY nature. You can spend the bare minimum on supplies to make a fursuit by hand, (like everyone who started doing that) or get a pencil and paper, and write or draw or start a blog, or anything else that furries do, for almost free.
I'm frequently astonished at how some people can look at some billion dollar bullshit movie box office number, or Hollywood industry circle-jerk award they will never get within a mile of touching, and go WOW COOL like it has anything to do with them. But then look at a patron putting a few thousand in an artists pocket as YOU RICH BASTARD. Holy lack of perspective!
(I give the same amount of shits to that, as to vicariously enjoying pro sportsball. I know it matters to someone, so that's cool for them, but the personal reward I'd get is from playing it or directly helping someone else play it.)
With relative perspective in mind, about cons and "class": I'd ask *local congoers* whether they feel accommodated, whose skin is on the line to pay for it, and who is volunteering (and they aren't employees)... if that feels like a club, well, IT IS one... there can be a strong community benefit/nonprofit element and what my buddy Summercat calls a "furry tax", but class can be a mushy frame while Do-Ocracy matters more than "that guy has more stuff and I don't like it". If an Australian con has an image problem to overseas readers, well, were you going to go, and are there plenty of others?
**************
Back to the article, general comments:
I think we're looking at a case of Telephone Game Syndrome. Like what is "fursuite"? Who has ever heard that before? How are you even supposed to pronounce that? I suspect this is a misquote or mischaracterization.
You can get the idea that the source article is very poorly done by how it called HCFC biggest in Australia (it isn't). When I shared the article the week it came out, I commented it felt like they threw in the kitchen-sink of legend/stereoytpe about furries just because they could, and did a shit job of trying to downplay and play them up at the same time.
As for what Captain Otter (the con chair catching all the heat) actually meant, I have an impression he's not quite the villain this paints him as; I know he gets local friction, but from other personal chat with him, I also got an idea that he isn't an unsupportive guy, maybe it's just expressed abrasively. He didn't do himself favors in what's quoted, though, for sure.
Elder Rubber Asylum is also a cool guy, I also suspect a major case of Reading Too Much into his tweet.
**************
In "Full suits good; partial suits bad": oh yeah, that there, the "only fullsuits" thing - that nugget of info really helps justify the topic... yeah, that's not cool! But... "segregation of partials from full suiters in the picture"... you know the connotation of segregation? That word means something VERY different outside of fandom. See what I mean about First World Problems and being relative?
**************
The BLFC topic: I hope readers realize that ONE, extremely excepted, example of someone getting a hard time was balanced by an INCREDIBLY MASSIVE freaking parade of support. I sure couldn't track it all... (I talked to the little girl on-site when it happened, too...) http://dogpatch.press/2018/05/16/meet-emma-the-tiger-blfc/
It might be an exception that proves the rule of how un-elite this nerd thing is.