![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rowynI was with with some friends recently, and the subject of "furs" came up. A couple of people there said they weren't furs. I said, "Well, I am."
Some weeks ago, Koogrr offered the following simple definition of "furry": "Animal People Are Beautiful." (I think those were his words.) This is an inclusive definition: if you think the idea of anthropomorphized animals is cool, then you're furry.
One of my friends told me I was too 'normal' to be a furry. My response was: 'For me, saying I'm not "furry" because I don't, I don't know, proclaim my sincere belief that I am a fox mistakenly incarnated as a human, is just as silly as for homosexual man to say he's not gay because he isn't a member of a gay activist organization. I play on a furry muck. I draw pictures of furry people. The book I'm writing now doesn't have any furries in it, but one I write in the future probably will.'
Another friend offered that he preferred the term 'anthro fan' because 'fur' had come to have the wrong connotations. Just as the 'Trekkies' are the obsessives of sf fandom, so have 'furries' and 'furs' become the obsessives of the anthro fandom.
That seems fair enough. In my example above, this is the equivalent of a homosexual refusing a particular label because that label implied 'person obsessed with his sexuality' rather than simply 'person attracted to members of the same gender.'
However, it also means conceding the label. It means admitting that an otherwise reasonable and descriptive term is off-limits because some people have narrowed the field of what it can be applied to. My friend offered that this is the outcome desired by those who embrace the label 'furry' most. The people who vehemently identify themselves as 'furry' don't consider mere afficionados, like me, a part of their world.
And this last is what I wonder about the most. Would the furries of the world rather disown me as too 'normal', as not 'furry' enough, because I don't identify with a totem animal or take to cuddling in large groups, or do whatever else it is that 'real furries' are supposed to do?
Am I furry?
Or is the English language as a whole aided, if I gracefully yield the term to those more devoted than myself, and turn, instead, to 'anthro fan'?
Some weeks ago, Koogrr offered the following simple definition of "furry": "Animal People Are Beautiful." (I think those were his words.) This is an inclusive definition: if you think the idea of anthropomorphized animals is cool, then you're furry.
One of my friends told me I was too 'normal' to be a furry. My response was: 'For me, saying I'm not "furry" because I don't, I don't know, proclaim my sincere belief that I am a fox mistakenly incarnated as a human, is just as silly as for homosexual man to say he's not gay because he isn't a member of a gay activist organization. I play on a furry muck. I draw pictures of furry people. The book I'm writing now doesn't have any furries in it, but one I write in the future probably will.'
Another friend offered that he preferred the term 'anthro fan' because 'fur' had come to have the wrong connotations. Just as the 'Trekkies' are the obsessives of sf fandom, so have 'furries' and 'furs' become the obsessives of the anthro fandom.
That seems fair enough. In my example above, this is the equivalent of a homosexual refusing a particular label because that label implied 'person obsessed with his sexuality' rather than simply 'person attracted to members of the same gender.'
However, it also means conceding the label. It means admitting that an otherwise reasonable and descriptive term is off-limits because some people have narrowed the field of what it can be applied to. My friend offered that this is the outcome desired by those who embrace the label 'furry' most. The people who vehemently identify themselves as 'furry' don't consider mere afficionados, like me, a part of their world.
And this last is what I wonder about the most. Would the furries of the world rather disown me as too 'normal', as not 'furry' enough, because I don't identify with a totem animal or take to cuddling in large groups, or do whatever else it is that 'real furries' are supposed to do?
Am I furry?
Or is the English language as a whole aided, if I gracefully yield the term to those more devoted than myself, and turn, instead, to 'anthro fan'?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
I think....
Date: 2002-10-04 08:34 pm (UTC)Immo, most of them have adopted furriness as a way of expressing alienation from the world. they don't want to be thought of to be like anyone except this band of people who are supposed to subscribe to the theory that everyone in it likes everyone else in it.
Many of them have other related issues and are using the sense of "not being themselves" to work on them, rather than really thinking too deeply about animal archtypes and such. I mean, darned near EVERY one of them insists their morphs have lips, and there is almost no reason to think this would be case for "real" anthro'd animals.
I admit, if I sound a little critical, it's because I used to resemble this remark. Now I don't need a communal focus to condone my alienation though :)
Re: I think....
Date: 2002-10-04 08:53 pm (UTC)I don't understand the need to distance oneself from the word "furry" other than those people who want to distance themselves from others they find to be objectionable (usually based on sexual interests, and these people do not make up a majority of the fandom anyway).
Even saying "anthropomorphics fan" is too ungainly to catch on, although a few antifurry diehards maintain that term. I think saying "furry" is much simpler even if it covers a wider variety of peoples.
Trickster
Re: I think....
Date: 2002-10-05 07:42 am (UTC)I don't know. Maybe the 'fox trapped in a man's body,' and the people for whom anthro activities are their only hobby need, and deserve, their own word. And perhaps that word should be 'furry'.
Certainly to say that "most" of the people who show an appreciation for anthropomophized animals do so out of a sense of alienation would be an exaggeration. Perhaps "most of those who become obsessed with anthro animals do so out of a sense of alienation" would be apt.
Furry
Date: 2002-10-04 08:46 pm (UTC)It's a refreshing change to hear someone insist that they're furry when other people disagree--it usually works the other way around.
I mean, there are people who draw furry art, and Muck, and use furry badging mechanisms, and have almost exclusively furry friends, and do just about everything furry 24/7, who INSIST that they are "not furry". And they like to spend a lot of time complaining to everyone who is furry that they're "not furry" like the rest of us.
Furry is an incredibly cosmopolitan set of peoples. Koogrr's definition is a good one; anyone who is a fan or proponent of therianthropic art or culture is furry. Being less than inclusive is tricky because those lines are very difficult to draw.
Trickster
Re: Furry
Date: 2002-10-05 08:07 am (UTC)I admit, it seemed rather odd to me. On reflection, I find that I am not so much concerned about what those "outside the fandom" think of me. I tend not to discuss even mainstream subjects like Star Wars or LOTR with people outside the fandom, much less esoteric subcategories like 'why do these characters all look like people with animal heads'? People outside the fandom don't understand what I mean by 'furry' or 'anthro fan' so it really doesn't matter which term I use. And the subject seldom arises in any event.
I also don't have a whole lot invested in appearing normal or professional. I've been at my job for five years, my coworkers know that I am good at it, they know that I am, at the least, eccentric, and no one is going to fire me over what Wired or MTV has to say about furries. My career, such as it is, is not that important to me.
So my concern is not "what will the man on the street think?" but rather "what will the other fans think?" If I could get a fandom consensus that says "Furries are people whose interests and hobbies revolve solely around humanized animals in one form or another," then I would have to admit I'm not a furry. My interests are fairly broad.
But if it's 'Animal people are beautiful', then I fit right in. And I'm not inclined to run from the label just because it is inclusive, or because MTV or ER or whomever has been giving furries a bad name.
Though, incidentally, I don't think it's unfair for the "people whose interests revolve around humanized animals" to get their very own term that doesn't apply to me. The above phrase is even more awkward than "anthropomorphic fan". ;)
Purrr!
Date: 2002-10-05 01:28 pm (UTC)I seem to have lost my ball of yarn. I'm glad you liked that definition, I like it to, for many of the reasons Awolf and you outline.
I don't speak to my co-workers about Furry fandom. They're gamers, and they read Dork Tower, and they've seen some of my art, so they could guess perhaps. They haven't outright asked me. When I head out to a con, it's 'a science fiction'. Mostly, I am projecting 'cat-lover' using big-cat calendars and photos, followed by 'tech geek'. I do have a couple unusual minatures one a shelf. Mostly, I simply don't like to talk about my interests, furries, martial arts, art, guns, books unless it's with someone I think will appreciate that.
Re: Purrr!
Date: 2002-10-05 04:41 pm (UTC)Right. Most hobbies are so esoteric that it's rarely worth the time explaining them to people not involved in them. I remember reading a really funny interview with Robin Williams, who plays internet games, including WarCraft3 and some FPS games. It was obvious that Robin Williams was familiar with existing games, how to play them, and what games had just come out, or were pending. It was equally obvious that the interviewer had NOT ONE CLUE about said games. (I remember he gave NeverWinter Nights the wrong name.) So here Williams' is, trying to explain his interest, and here the interviewer is, totally at sea and dutifully trying to copy down what Williams is telling him (often failing.)
But that's what it's like. If you're not involved in a hobby, everything about it seems foreign to you. Unless you talk to someone with a gift for explaining, there's not much point.
Re: Purrr!
Date: 2002-10-05 06:29 pm (UTC)You know, that reminds me of a time when I did a rant on Margaret Atwood's refusal to let The Handmaid's Tale be called 'science fiction.' ("It's not science fiction! It's speculative fiction.") Part of the problem is expectation. People seem to expect that an sf author will write ONLY sf, or that a furry artist will draw ONLY furries. Most people don't want to be pigeonholed by just one label. I certainly wouldn't want to be labeled a 'furry' if that meant that term was mutually exclusive with being, say, a Shakespeare fan.
I will happily embrace a diversity of labels, but I'm not gonna say that any one of them covers all of my interests. ;)
Woah!
I would say you qualify as furry for the very reasons you mention. I do have to say though, that you are far from what I consider normal. You are far too intellegent, open minded and considerate than most normal people I talk to day to day at work. You are also far more interesting.
I consider myself very furry, complete with totemic leanings, ideas and much of the cultural mores. I would be more than honored to have a wise person such as yourself as part of my world. *grin* I don't know if you'd consider me vehement or not though. I'm pretty hard into both furry and to a lesser degree Anime.
Hey, bottom line, if you can accept me, I can accept you, and we'er both the richer for it. Diversity is a GOOD thing. If we all thought and did the same things, it'd be a pretty boring place to live.
By thy side.
Re: Woah!
Date: 2002-10-07 06:35 pm (UTC)Anyway, if I'm furry enough for people like you and Trickster, I'm furry enough for me. I'll stick with my label. :)