This is an excerpt of an exchange i'm having with a certain elder in our community. i thought i'd share it here with an invite to add to my (and your?) consciousness on this topic. Feel free to take this and post it on other faerie communal sites/boards!
i have to say that while i find myself on the fence on this topic, i am in agreement with you and the other elders whom have been taking the stand your are speaking of. Having said that, i see that the youth that you all have collectivley held on your shoulders (i.e. after, what, more than 20 years of fae community) are now only trying to take fae sensibility into places that their desires are going. New directions like becoming inclusive of women; and that those new directions make sense in today's realities as these youth feel them.
Even tho they are missing the polytricks of a lot of this, i think (i.e. where their approach has become "black and white" or "either/or").
Still, my own seeing is that the way in which this is happening sounds a lot like the political police (i.e. today's version of COINTELPRO) are influencing the nastier parts of how this vision wants to be implemented; i.e. as "each side" seemingly remains incapable of bridging between (and empathizing with) each others' positions. [Note: What the contexts of this seemingly impossible gap are, are perhaps many even tho i think they can all 'boil down to' one prevalent phenomenon, the one doing with "the generation gap"--which in itself is an artificially-promoted gap led by the political police both overtly and covertly]
Where our oft-spoken empathy *should* bring ecstatic room (much room) for dissent and grey area seeing, in actuality we are experiencing the superficiality of those claims and desires that have not been able to be practiced in such a way where they can be pivotal when *it truly counts*.
As far as faggot-centered decision-making on this? Well, a lot of the young generation are in on this; they are the leaders as far as i can tell; sooo, that means, FAGGOTS ARE making these decisions, divisive as they are, apparently.
i know my own experience in the context of faggots wanting women on the land; in the initial phases of women being invited, they become *more equal* than common faggot males like myself. So that's certainly an interesting phenomenon. Our need for sanctuary is being relegated to the sidelines as womenfolk are recruited (right word?) into the creation of something more dynamic (ultimately) than earlier renditions of faggotry and faggot community.
So it's the transition that i think we ought to cast our magick upon, my friend.
But of course, we are dealing with such in the context of more than 30 years of political police/Rollback efforts to divide our generations from each other (and not to mention the ramifications and reflections of oppressed faggot elder sensibilities now judged without empathy and in the most alienating ways; i.e. the prevalence of the phenomenon called "objectification" of each other amongst the elder portion of faggots, and today's safer approaches where "objectification" has to be evolved from in the younger generations' desires).
What do YOU think about all of THIS?
re: My friend said, in part:
but I truly feel they have no interest in understanding the roots of the fae movement and more pointedly the purchase of Wolf Creek. Because I know where those ideals came from and who made some of those decisions I am now the bad guy... Guess what.... I didn't really fit into any group when i was younger and now I find I do not fit in with another group.... another one that is finding no problem in opressing me.
i have to say that while i find myself on the fence on this topic, i am in agreement with you and the other elders whom have been taking the stand your are speaking of. Having said that, i see that the youth that you all have collectivley held on your shoulders (i.e. after, what, more than 20 years of fae community) are now only trying to take fae sensibility into places that their desires are going. New directions like becoming inclusive of women; and that those new directions make sense in today's realities as these youth feel them.
Even tho they are missing the polytricks of a lot of this, i think (i.e. where their approach has become "black and white" or "either/or").
Still, my own seeing is that the way in which this is happening sounds a lot like the political police (i.e. today's version of COINTELPRO) are influencing the nastier parts of how this vision wants to be implemented; i.e. as "each side" seemingly remains incapable of bridging between (and empathizing with) each others' positions. [Note: What the contexts of this seemingly impossible gap are, are perhaps many even tho i think they can all 'boil down to' one prevalent phenomenon, the one doing with "the generation gap"--which in itself is an artificially-promoted gap led by the political police both overtly and covertly]
Where our oft-spoken empathy *should* bring ecstatic room (much room) for dissent and grey area seeing, in actuality we are experiencing the superficiality of those claims and desires that have not been able to be practiced in such a way where they can be pivotal when *it truly counts*.
As far as faggot-centered decision-making on this? Well, a lot of the young generation are in on this; they are the leaders as far as i can tell; sooo, that means, FAGGOTS ARE making these decisions, divisive as they are, apparently.
i know my own experience in the context of faggots wanting women on the land; in the initial phases of women being invited, they become *more equal* than common faggot males like myself. So that's certainly an interesting phenomenon. Our need for sanctuary is being relegated to the sidelines as womenfolk are recruited (right word?) into the creation of something more dynamic (ultimately) than earlier renditions of faggotry and faggot community.
So it's the transition that i think we ought to cast our magick upon, my friend.
But of course, we are dealing with such in the context of more than 30 years of political police/Rollback efforts to divide our generations from each other (and not to mention the ramifications and reflections of oppressed faggot elder sensibilities now judged without empathy and in the most alienating ways; i.e. the prevalence of the phenomenon called "objectification" of each other amongst the elder portion of faggots, and today's safer approaches where "objectification" has to be evolved from in the younger generations' desires).
What do YOU think about all of THIS?
re: My friend said, in part:
but I truly feel they have no interest in understanding the roots of the fae movement and more pointedly the purchase of Wolf Creek. Because I know where those ideals came from and who made some of those decisions I am now the bad guy... Guess what.... I didn't really fit into any group when i was younger and now I find I do not fit in with another group.... another one that is finding no problem in opressing me.
posted by:
|
-
Taking the bait
06/11As far as I am concerned, the invitation of women to live permanently at Wolf Creek was an underhanded
hostile takeover,
never approved by a Great Circle, by a small group whose intention was to make the land UNFRIENDLY towards
male-male sexual freedom 2/7 which was the previous caseand to make it subject to the desexualizing / heterosexualizing influence of women and kids. -
-
Re: Taking the bait
06/11please don't tell me that i'm going to find mysoginists amongst the radfaes too!!!
without some women around, there will be no further generations of radfaes. women are still required for reproduction. i might be queer, but i'm not stupid. -
-
A cheap shot
06/11I absolutely object to the idea that not wanting women in gay male SEXUAL spaces is misogynistic. The situation at WC is entirely
analogous to a bunch of het men wanting to be included in Women's Mysteries work at a women's gathering or living at women's temples. -
-
Re: A cheap shot
06/11Is there never any end to this? There are those of us, Artwit, that have never gone to WC for the reason you stated... for marginalized male-male sexual contact... and in this day and age, we find the exclusion of women reprehensible. Are we to be excluded? I stand behind your right to gather in male-only space. Are the gatherings at WC in which women are not permitted on the land not enough for you?Where is the middle ground? -
-
Re: A cheap shot
06/12The land was organized and paid for by gay men who wanted male-loving-male space 24/7/365, but the pangenderists who took over
the place for their own purpose are reluctant to give us even the 2 weeks a year now AND we have to ask their permission. -
-
Re: A cheap shot
06/12I find this whole thread offensive and embarressing. Haven't women been through enough? What is your issue with the opposite sex? Didn't a woman bring you into this world, Artwit?
*shakes head* -
-
Re: A cheap shot
06/12The faeries were organized by and for gay men to relate among themselves. Women of my acquaintance
have always appreciate our need for separate spaces to work on supporting each other without relying on wimn to do it for us.
That was the whole point.
You may be bisexual, fine, buy your own land and stop trying to confiscate gay mens land.
The Pangenderists agreed to do this three years ago and NOTHING resulted. Why work when you can steal?
but I am not in the least bit, and I OBJECT to the prying eyes of wimn around when I wish to relate
sexually with MEN.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
This thread is also running on Wolf Creek Radical Faerie Tribe & California RF tribe, but with this additional post. I have taken the liberty of cutting & pasting it here as I feel Hermeticbear's post is very relevent and well written.-JTF
herm...
hermeticbear
offline 34
Re: getting to the crux of fae youth/elder visionary seeing, re: women on our lands
Yesterday, 9:22 AM
I find the key phrase to your friends answer is this
"another one that is finding no problem in opressing me"
He sees oppression in the world around him constantly. I also see it as being made personal, when in most cases, it probably isn't. However, I do recognize the need and space for male only space. I also recognize that need for inclusiviness, and that it is happening with the currently youthful generation of faes, as they have not experienced the violence that was practiced against the older generation of faes, where many basic human and civil rights were denied to us.
At the same time I question the majority of the youth and thier desire to include women in male designated space. As I have experienced and had confirmed by many friends, the current generation is afflicted by what I recognize and a friends calls the "Will and Grace Syndrome". Because of deeper issues regarding thier sexuality, social role and status, shame, acceptance and self-esteem, many gay youth subsititute meaningful gay relationships with shallow female relationships. They are afraid of connecting with other gay men, and emotional and spiritual intimacy that it takes to really make a relationship successful (while perhaps they maneuver the seas of physical intimacy constantly) and so they make these connections with a female, who acts as a surrogate. I have noticed many people of this type in queer enclaves, and they are often socially awkward and prone to excess in mind altering substances (alcohol being the least of them) so that they may feel more comfortable in dealing with men, while seeking physical intimacy. Some of these people, may be seeking the inclusion of thier female surrogates, because they are afraid and mistrusting of thier male peers and elders because of interior issues, which can only be set aside when they are under the influence of chemical substances.
I recognize that there are exceptions to this trend, and many fae's maintain positive and healthy connections with women of all sorts. I also believe that these people also recognize the space for Males is as important as a mixed space, as important as a female only space, as important as a space for people who share a similar quality to commune and connect with each other, without having to feel bad or be demoralized because of thier desire to connect in a defined space and energy.
I would also like to add that I am coming from a witchcraft tradition that has a 20+ year history of male only space, but has a counterpart that is female only space, and in the past (but not that I know of recently, mostly because of distance and small numbers) that these two counterparts come together to create a shared space, but both recognizes the need for sex identified only space.
reply to this post
*
cosm...
cosmic-ly craZy
offline 24
getting to the crux of fae youth/elder visionary seeing, re: women on our lands
Tue, June 10, 2008 - 7:46 PM
This is an excerpt of an exchange i'm having with a certain elder in our community. i thought i'd share it here with an invite to add to my (and your?) consciousness on this topic. Feel free to take this and post it on other faerie communal sites/boards!
i have to say that while i find myself on the fence on this topic, i am in agreement with you and the other elders whom have been taking the stand your are speaking of. Having said that, i see that the youth that you all have collectivley held on your shoulders (i.e. after, what, more than 20 years of fae community) are now only trying to take fae sensibility into places that their desires are going. New directions like becoming inclusive of women; and that those new directions make sense in today's realities as these youth feel them.
Even tho they are missing the polytricks of a lot of this, i think (i.e. where their approach has become "black and white" or "either/or").
Still, my own seeing is that the way in which this is happening sounds a lot like the political police (i.e. today's version of COINTELPRO) are influencing the nastier parts of how this vision wants to be implemented; i.e. as "each side" seemingly remains incapable of bridging between (and empathizing with) each others' positions. [Note: What the contexts of this seemingly impossible gap are, are perhaps many even tho i think they can all 'boil down to' one prevalent phenomenon, the one doing with "the generation gap"--which in itself is an artificially-promoted gap led by the political police both overtly and covertly]
Where our oft-spoken empathy *should* bring ecstatic room (much room) for dissent and grey area seeing, in actuality we are experiencing the superficiality of those claims and desires that have not been able to be practiced in such a way where they can be pivotal when *it truly counts*.
As far as faggot-centered decision-making on this? Well, a lot of the young generation are in on this; they are the leaders as far as i can tell; sooo, that means, FAGGOTS ARE making these decisions, divisive as they are, apparently.
i know my own experience in the context of faggots wanting women on the land; in the initial phases of women being invited, they become *more equal* than common faggot males like myself. So that's certainly an interesting phenomenon. Our need for sanctuary is being relegated to the sidelines as womenfolk are recruited (right word?) into the creation of something more dynamic (ultimately) than earlier renditions of faggotry and faggot community.
So it's the transition that i think we ought to cast our magick upon, my friend.
But of course, we are dealing with such in the context of more than 30 years of political police/Rollback efforts to divide our generations from each other (and not to mention the ramifications and reflections of oppressed faggot elder sensibilities now judged without empathy and in the most alienating ways; i.e. the prevalence of the phenomenon called "objectification" of each other amongst the elder portion of faggots, and today's safer approaches where "objectification" has to be evolved from in the younger generations' desires).
What do YOU think about all of THIS?
re: My friend said, in part:
but I truly feel they have no interest in understanding the roots of the fae movement and more pointedly the purchase of Wolf Creek. Because I know where those ideals came from and who made some of those decisions I am now the bad guy... Guess what.... I didn't really fit into any group when i was younger and now I find I do not fit in with another group.... another one that is finding no problem in opressing me.
-
-
I stand with Buffy 100%.
I've avoided going to Wolf Creek for years because of all this nonsense!
I love women at ALL our events. I don't feel complete without them.
Even though I'm queer, I have no problem being sexual in front of women. I can't imagine why that would even be an issue.
Lucian -
-
I'm personally suffering from American Idolism myself, what about you folks?
-
-
selfless otherness
sexuality spirituality
gender identity
biology enculturation
objectification fetishization
tradition history
subject - subject
experiences time -
-
Some people avoid the Land because they think it's a hotbed of misogyny.
Some avoid it because they think it's been taken over by the pangenderists.
What's the outcome? Less energy and love is available to support the Sanctuary
and a community that was founded on empathy stays stuck in conflict.
It makes me feel so sad.
Why are we throwing names and blame at each other?
My prayer: that we listen past the projections and stories
past the resentments and projections
to hear the innermost longings of each other's hearts.
The Land loves us all.
The Land has space for us all.
The Land misses us and wishes we would come home.
love Stella
-
-
-
-
Perhaps it's true that some men cultivate superficial relationships with some women in order to avoid the pain, mystery, and joy of cultivating deeper relationships with other men.
However, in my experience a majority of the men who are for mixed gatherings have no problem cultivating deep relationships with men. Indeed from this vantage point it's tempting to characterise those who are advocating for male-only space as the ones who have an issue with cultivating deep relationships -- with women. This is certainly not in fact true for everyone but in my experience it has been for some, which leads to the scattered charges of misogyny.
I acknowledge that some (but not all) folks of a certain age who grew up struggling for the rights that we all take for granted these days might feel like we're trampling on their (or rather our) history when we call for mixed space across the board. However, with all due respect to their struggles, achievements, and singular perspective, it's now 2008, not 1978, and the consensus is moving towards post gender-defined, mixed space sanctuaries and gatherings.
This might not be an issue that ever gets resolved to everyone's satisfaction, but perhaps we can at least agree to leave out the name calling while acknowledging the sources of that name calling. On the one side we have the men-only folks being labeled misogynists, and on the other side we have the pangendered folks being labeled immature and deep-male-connection-averse substance abusers. There are certainly individuals and individual actions that embody such stereotypes, but let's acknowledge the promulgation of such stereotypes for what it is, as designed to bolster one's own viewpoint and desired outcome. -
-
viva la evolucion
-
-
Transgenderism
Transvestitism
Transsexualism
Gender Queer
Unidentified -
-
wow. this is amazing. women haters are everywhere, it seems. very sad indeed. is wolf creek only a sexual place? artwits comment that women have no place in men's sexual places. is that all the sanctuary is?
i would never be comfortable in a community where women were not welcome.
this is the height of sexism. you would think that queers had had enough of that shit.
does artwit speak for the general masses of radfae culture?
-
does artwit speak for the majority? is wolf creek merely a sexual space, as he suggests? i would never feel comfortable in a place where women were unwelcome. what a boring place that would be.
the last place i expected tyo see such blatant sexism would be a queer community.
if that's the case, i want none of it! -
-
i'm not bi or het at all. i'm queer. but, unlike yourself, i enjoy the energy and company of women, as i'm sure most normal people do.
your statement is the biggest pile of rubbish i've ever heard. believe me, i would definitely not wish to be anywhere where you would be.
what a sad pathetic misogynistic creature you are!
i think that there is probably a backroom in some bar where you would feel right at home. -
-
Please Please Please Loose the hate, but keep the discussion going!
Be Well, Lee -
-
cool. sorry. i do get emotional sometimes. i just abhore many of the '..isms'.
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.It is interesting that Mr. Artwit believes that the only reason faeries want women around would be for sex. Is this some sort of projection on his part? Maybe the only men he wants around are those on his sexual agenda. It is equally possible that accusing you of being bisexual or hetrosexual is a way put you on the defensive or in his eyes to belittle you and those who disagree with him. Us of the word "wimn" instead of women displays his utter contempt for half of the human race.
Faeries are not represented by one organization, the one that governs Wolf Creek. The separationfrom and hostility towards women was learned from Harry Hay and represents a very tiny fraction of those who call ourselves faeries. What ever good things Harry Hay contributed his vision of fairies was sadly lacking. One could say that in encouraging separation and suborning misogyny that he was being "hetro-imitative." -
-
Spelling Wimn
06/15Uh, "wimn" as an alternate spelling was suggested by themselves,
not invented by me, as to negate the original word containing "men."
-
-
-
-
-
Artwit's sentiment is echoed, if not as bluntly, by a shrinking minority of self-identified radical faeries generally centered around the Nomenus organization (which is itself controversial for male-only reasons). Nomenus runs Wolf Creek, and Wolf Creek is the only faerie-affiliated sanctuary (US sanctuaries besides WC include SMS, Ida, Zuni, and possibly Destiny) that currently sponsors male-only gatherings, and is something of a pariah for that reason. Breitenbush, which is more of a resort, is not faerie-owned, but it does have smallish male-only gatherings as well. The largest gatherings are mixed gatherings, and these generally do not take place at Wolf Creek.
Of course, the size of a gathering is not the sole indicator of how fulfilling it will be for any particular individual. -
-
It is my understanding, let me repeat MY understanding that Harry originally called together gay men to explore their spirituality as gay men. Faeries. This was not meant to exclude anyone else's spirituality or validity. He just saw the power within gay men as being unused/explored/discovered/nourished/empowered... He was aware that historically we, as gay men had been respected, from time to time, from culture to culture. He was also aware that that wasn't happening in his "now"
His "now" included part of my life, maybe yours as well?.
I don't think that his vision was followed for long.
I do believe that gay men have a huge amount of spiritual & other power. I think that Harry's initial call was worth hearing & perhaps being called too.Gay men as gay men should gather & explore their spirituality, without (dare I say?) distractions.
Having said that I personally cannot for a moment imagine ever seeing a lack of Fayness in my beautiful sisters, my christian neighbors, my straight brothers, my bi cat...
It's All Good!
If folks of whatever persuasion choose to gather for whatever "good" intent I say we should support them! They are casting a spell that is effected by our intent as well. If we cast "good" energy to folks who feel a need to work things out, exclusively, amongst themselves, so be it. Our "good" intents will come back to us. If we cast negative judgment or intent towards them, we shall get that back as well. We must choose while remembering that we are all powerful people & just folks.
Be Well, Lee -
-
Thanks, Lee... I don't think Harry's vision was "lacking," as others have suggested. Look at the beauty it led to. It was the seed for something bigger than I think he ever imagined. I support those who want to continue exploring male-only space. Who am I to tell anyone what they need or don't need? But I also want for them to respect where the original vision has gone. We are not thieves of Harry's original vision, as Artwit subtly suggested. We acknowledge its beauty in a different way. Wolf Creek is not owned by the people who bought it, nor is it owned by those with the original visionary seed, all due respect.
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.If my reading is correct, Harry Hay originally was of the mind that homosexuality was a disease and made one of the main agendas of the Matachine (sp?) Society the "treatment" of its membership for their disease. It is important to note that his views obviously evolved beyond this or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Individual perceptions of gender issues and inclusion seem to operate in microcosm with the growing pains of the greater community. To be honest, in my teens, I perceived my sexuality as more affliction than blessing. I do not feel that way now. However, in my early experience well adjusted healthy queer men were sadly lacking from my life. Abusive sexually predatory self serving creeps were very abundant. I was very fortunate to have a few good women who helped me come to grips with my soul with ample doses of womanly magic. To exclude these beautiful witches from my life who have willing burned in the bonfires with this faggot would be to spit in the eye of all they have given me. Saying this I do not have a problem with men only space but I have never attended a gathering at Wolf Creek where women were absent. I think I would miss them if they weren't a part of the equation. But this is just an expression of my own feelings on the matter. I do not object to men's only gatherings in the least, though I think it would be tragic if women were banished from Wolf Creek altogether.
-
-
-
"The largest gatherings are mixed gatherings, and these generally do not take place at Wolf Creek." I would like to correct this statement.... The largest gatherings at Wolf Creek are the mixed gatherings.... the Beltaine, Naraya (Dance of all Nations), and Samhain are all mixed gatherings and have had a larger # of gatherers than the Mens only gathering for the last couple of years. These facts can be checked with Nomenus.
-
-
Sorry I wasn't more specific, I was thinking in general terms that SMS gatherings are much larger than WC gatherings. ~450 vs ~150 for Beltaine.
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.And yet Wolf Creek gatherings (other than the SGRF, of course) are almost equally proportionate male/female. Is that true of SMS? It's always seemed to me that there were far more men going to the "big" gatherings than women, proportionately. Wolf Creek is also quite a bit smaller than Short Mountain, and unable to host such large numbers -- something that is rather appealing to those of us who realize that an enormous gathering with completely porous borders is not necessarily the ideal way to come together in Spirit. It's also on the West Coast, where the population density is of course much lower than the East Coast (and there's something more here to be said about East vs. West, but as a Midwestern-born/raised-New-York-transplant/escapee-Oregon-devotee, I'm probably not the one to say it....)
I'd also like to point out that though Nomenus "governs" Wolf Creek, the more accurate take on it the situation is that Nomenus "owns" Wolf Creek, but the gatherings that happen there are organized and attended by the community-at-large, and the caretaking community that lives there. And as a member of Nomenus myself, I'd also like to point out that though the organization is officially in consensus at present not to allow women as members, this attitude is in no way reflected of the membership of the church as a whole, and is, in fact, an attitude held by a small but extremely vocal faction of members. In a consensus-based organization, as we all know, or should know, the strong opinions of a few can stubbornly affect the position of the whole. In other words: No, Artwit does NOT represent the whole of the Wolf Creek community, by any means. He speaks from a place of resentment and anger that has remained unchanged and ever-stoked for many years, as near as I can see.
It saddens me greatly to know that people stay away from Wolf Creek because of what they perceive as a through-line misogyny, when I know that there is nothing misogynistic whatsoever about the the community that gathers there throughout the year. And I have to be honest -- it thoroughly annoys me when I hear people say that they'd never visit Wolf Creek because of these misconceptions. That kind of condescending dismissal pushes the same buttons in me as does any kind of dismissal of women from being considered Faeries. If we're all really Faeries, then we'll recognize each other by our willingness to find a common ground amongst ourselves, rather than dividing ourselves into ever more complicatedly denoted factions and sub-tribes.
Just my two-million-cents,
Ampersand -
-
If I had to guess based on my own experience at SMS, I'd say it was probably 60% biologically male, 30% biologically female, and 10% trans. I could be completely off, though. There are definitely more biological men there, but there's still a significant number of biological females and transfolk.
Considering the fluidity of gender-idenity, sexuality, and manner of dress at a gathering, I don't think many people pay that much attention. I certainly don't, unless it's in a specifically sexual or erotic context.
---------
I would like to add one other comment. There is one common factor to all people who self-identify as faeries -- we want to find and explore our connection to the divine through each other and the world around us. If you believe that we all have the male and female inside of us, do our parts really matter all that much?
Harry Hay espoused the idea of subject-SUBJECT consciouness, where we treated each other in an egalitarian fashion and valued each other as equals. That's what made queer people so unique in his eyes. So why wouldn't we all rejoice in an environment where men/ women/ trans/gay/bi/straight/whatever all connect in that fashion? Isn't that really the point, and isn't it about time?
I'm stepping off of my soapbox now, I swear *grin*
-
-
Language is tricky. It masks and distorts. The so-called "inclusive" gatherings which are open to all genders are also exclusive to some degree. They exclude the possibility of a male-loving-male only space happening at the same place at the same time.
There is enough time throughout the year for a sanctuary to host different kinds of gatherings with different types of focus. We need to move beyond the obsession with gender. Why is there all this lip service paid to diversity and yet a seeming lack of awareness that diversity means that different people need different things?? Some people need spaces that include all genders. And some Gay-identified men need spaces for Gay men only. Both kinds of spaces are beautiful and necessary at different times.
I envision a Vegan-only gathering. And a drug and alcohol free gathering. And K-hole only spaces for people who need them. In creating different types of gatherings we will recognize that gender is only one variable around which we can focus and organize...
We can support gatherings that are open to everybody and at different times also support other gatherings that focus on men who love men. Different types of gatherings can happen in the same space at different times... Why is this so difficult for people to grasp????
I see a shitton of assumptions and projections on this thread. And not much empathy. I don't see people trying to understand each other's different perspectives.
Instead of attacking others for not being inclusive enough, why not respect the right of a group to set its own focused intention for a particular gathering--even if that intention is different from one's preferred intention??
I see parallels withthe development of Christianity which started off initially as a movement for Jews only. Then Paul came on the scene and opened it up to all Gentiles. Eventually, Gentiles became the majority and some Christians began attacking Jews for not sharing their "more inclusive" vision. If one substitutes "Gay men only" for "Jews" and "pangenderists" for "Gentiles," we see that the same trend is now happening among Radical Faeries. Which is part of why i don't identify as a "Radical Faerie." I think that identity politics ultimately leads to insider/outsider and us/them mentalities. There is nothing wrong with us and them.. But problems inevitably arise whenever the "we" group does not respect and honor the different needs and preferences of perceived Others. -
-
Does a de-facto middle ground already exist? It would seem that the Nomenus Church has a bio-male membership policy, men only gatherings happen once a year and members can request "fag only space." During the rest of the year there are a bunch of mixed gatherings and I assume that the residents living on the land can invite any person to vist reguardless of gender.
Is there a way that thru consensus this could be codified and spelled out?
-
So I assume this mean's we're in the middle of the faerie equivalent of the Protestant Reformation? May I put in my request for meat-eating-slutty-bear-chaser-only space? *grin*
I respect that some folks find the need for specific space, and that there's infinite variety in faerie philosophy and spirituality.
I only wish to point out that everything changes, and I'd like to think that over time we'll evolve to a stage where specific space like that becomes unnecessary, or at least a secondary priority.
I also admit to being bothered by the complaint that we're betraying the ideals of Harry Hay and his fae contemporaries by becoming more inclusive. While I admit I don't know the man personally, everything I've read so far seems to indicate the contrary.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
