Thank you to those who showed up and participated in the chat Saturday.  i really hope you got some good info as well as some ideas where and what to do next.  I  want to sit back and answer questions and make suggestions in next few post as people come up with ideas and suggestions based on thaose conversations had at Convergence.

Post edited 5:03 am – July 5, 2011 by Procyon

Kurst: You bring up an interesting issue that confronts all communities/fan groups as they start to define themselves.  The question is a little nebulous so I'll quote the most common ones.  "What is our goal?" "What is our membership?" "what should we be doing?""Who should we be talking to".  Notice I did not use furry in any of that but you can insert "Furry" just as much as I've seen others insert "gaming" or "anime" or "horror" or "start trek"…the list goes on, but it is the classic issue of how does a social group identify itself and then coalesce into an organization that then runs a con to serve that group.  Recently, with last convention I worked, I've had arguments with individuals who have said to me "that Magic the Gathering is not real gaming" or even "if you I were a real gamer, you'd understand that…"  Anyone who knows me can usually get idea I like gaming, but I'm not restricted to strict definitions.  Anime, science fiction, fantasy and even furry I also tend to take broad definitions.

So why should MNFurs take a broad definition of furry over an established boundary as defined by  the existing furry art websites and furry conventions?  My answer is two-fold.

First: Crossover.   As one individual we meet at con so typified this dilemma when he was trying to see if he would fit in with MNfurs with a simple question: "is a satyr (typically seen more as a fantasy creature) considered furry?" My answer would be yes.  Because the satyr has historically shared and displayed shares the classic roots of what all furry looks at; instinct vs reason, desire vs thought; feral vs civilized.  And it does this in not an adversarial way, but in a celebratory and introspective way. This seems to be furry to me. In the end, we at MNFurs are a welcoming community and, his lack of knowing what some individuals more central to old school furry would perceive, his sense of character and interest definitely more coincide with our interest than do they disagree with them. So even if a Satyr would not be considered "furry" in some circles, I think such strict understandings based on the experience of existing fur cons and the existence of art of certain fur sites more limits than helps the Genre.  In the end, crossover helps us define who we as MNFurs are by making us truly understand the history that defined a genre of furry as a whole.

Second: Inclusion.  The Dali Lama once said (this is paraphrase as I can not seem to find exact quote) "it is odd we spend so much time worry about those who are different we we should be celebrating how much we are alike"  I'm reminded this weekend of an explanation to an individual who kept wanting to mention the first thing in a conversation with any person he just met that he was a furry, before anything else of significance. I suggested this was a bad tact.  Not because there is anything wrong with furry, but because of existing structures and perceptions of what furry is that this statement created an artificial barrier to the conversation.    Describe the charter (since he was fur suiting), describe the costume (construction notes, materials, etc.), describe your interests that have overlap with existing con.  By doing this you start a conversation that is "normalized" and then specifics that are revealed later on do not seem as odd as they may once have thought, because in the end they aren't.  The other person in the conversation does not see the person as a "furry" and all the possible preconceptions/misconceptions that they may have, but as a character creator, an artist, a costumer, etc. who happens to find anthropomorphism as a preferred methodology.   In the end, the other person may not "be a furry", but they will leave with a much better understanding of thier similarities rather than their differences. 

The combination of acknowledging natural Crossover with other types of fandom and using that natural crossover to underscore Inclusion with our similarities to other types of fandom serves us to better establish who we are, outreach to more people, and make MNFurs not seem as weird as some may believe it to be.  In the end it will broaden our base, make the group richer and more diverse (good for any ecosystem ;p), and allow us more access to people who might otherwise turn away.  I will end this conversation here as this central issue of "is that furry?" needs to be looked at and analyzed separately from the next question, why AD and not MFF? 

argouru said:

First: Crossover.   As one individual we meet at con so typified this dilemma when he was trying to see if he would fit in with MNfurs with a simple question: "is a satyr (typically seen more as a fantasy creature) considered furry?" My answer would be yes.  Because the satyr has historically shared and displayed shares the classic roots of what all furry looks at; instinct vs reason, desire vs thought; feral vs civilized.  And it does this in not an adversarial way, but in a celebratory and introspective way. This seems to be furry to me. In the end, we at MNFurs are a welcoming community and, his lack of knowing what some individuals more central to old school furry would perceive, his sense of character and interest definitely more coincide with our interest than do they disagree with them. So even if a Satyr would not be considered "furry" in some circles, I think such strict understandings based on the experience of existing fur cons and the existence of art of certain fur sites more limits than helps the Genre.  In the end, crossover helps us define who we as MNFurs are by making us truly understand the history that defined a genre of furry as a whole.

 

That was me you were talking with on this. My concern was that some themed groups tend to 'nazi-esque' about what they consider appropriate and they don't I have to admit that it's very good to know that MNF is a very open-minded group. :)

As a rule, I love to cite example but try to keep the players anonymous out of respect for them as I do not/am not able to always get permission ahead of time to use them as example.  However, if you want to identify yourself, thank you for putting a face to "exhibit A" which allows me to prove that I do not pull these examples out of thin air.   I also agree to all points in quote.  As I suggested earlier, I've recently worked with a group that is a little "nazi-esque sometimes on what the consider "real gaming".  I find such stringent definitions ultimately undoes a social group's agenda of acceptance, especially if they hope to grow.