From: ygraineogf@aol.com (Ygraineogf) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Women's Camp (clarification round 2) Date: 18 Jan 1998 21:32:09 GMT Lines: 32 Message-ID: <19980118213200.QAA04965@ladder01.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!news-xfer.siscom.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Sometimes my statements leave things unclear. I have been asked about the sexual orientation of Women's Camp and I feel it would be helpful if I spell it out more clearly than I have here on the Rialto. Women's Camp is actually a veiled attempt to offer a refuge for women who are, physically or sexually, intimidated or assaulted at a camping event. There is no reason for this to happen and I want to, in a non-confrontational way, give frightened women a place to go. By making this camp known to the autocrats and the constables at a camping event, they can direct somone who is scared to stay with their camp to Women's Camp. We are meant to be a haven. I have no problem with lesbian campers at Women's Camp. I don't, however want to give the impression that this is the a camp for lesbian couples. The name of the camp could very easily be misconstrued as a camp with that purpose in mind. I have had women join Women's camp and be disappointed that it wasn't solely for lesbians. When they were made aware of Clan Blue Feather (it was very new at the time) they chose to stay with us, since they were already set up and they were welcome. I do believe they camped with Blue Feather at the following war. I hope this answers your concerns. If you wish you may pass this message on, in it's entirety, to any other people who have questions about the camp. Thanks for your help in clarifying this matter, Ygraine Calafia, Caid Ble mae'r tafarn agosta? http://www.mysurf.com/markt/WomensCamp/ ###### From: "Iadpiper" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca References: <19980118213200.QAA04965@ladder01.news.aol.com> Subject: Re: Women's Camp (clarification round 2) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 16:56:10 -0500 Lines: 10 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.6.175.33 Message-ID: <34c3cb47.0@news5.kcdata.com> Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!news-xfer.siscom.net!streamer1.cleveland.iagnet.net!qual.net!iagnet.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!206.165.111.230!www.nntp.primenet.com!globalcenter1!news.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news9.digex.net!newsfeed.kcdata.com!news5.kcdata.com!207.6.175.33 Wasshail!!....It shouldn't be needed but even in Our Society there are Idiots and on that line, ALL People not just women that are not happy with a situation or are being HARRASED!! Can seek and will be given shelter and assistance By All members of House Rowanhall at the bottom of Runstone Hill..... But again there should be no need for this siuation to occur.....Pennsic Security should maybe start doing their job??? Lord Iain McCrimmon of House Rowan Hall. ###### From: ateno@panix.com (Eric A. Rhude) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Women's Camp (clarification round 2) Date: 20 Jan 1998 16:04:29 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC Lines: 24 Message-ID: <6a33gt$ogu@panix2.panix.com> References: <19980118213200.QAA04965@ladder01.news.aol.com> <34c3cb47.0@news5.kcdata.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!news-xfer.siscom.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mail In <34c3cb47.0@news5.kcdata.com> "Iadpiper" writes: >Wasshail!!....It shouldn't be needed but even in Our Society there >are Idiots and on that line, ALL People not just women that are not >happy with a situation or are being HARRASED!! Can seek and >will be given shelter and assistance By All members of House >Rowanhall at the bottom of Runstone Hill..... But again there should >be no need for this siuation to occur.....Pennsic Security should maybe >start doing their job??? Lord Iain McCrimmon of House >Rowan Hall. Excuse me, I do not want to tramp on the idea of a Womans camp or anything like that, my question is: What do you think Pennsic Security's job is? Eric Rhude Ld Ateno of Annun Ridge, OM, Seahorse ateno@panix.com -- Eric Rhude - ateno@panix.com work - er@panix.com QVI CONVERTERIET HAEC IMMODICE LITTERATVS EST ###### From: yahoudi@eagle.cc.ukans.edu ([Yahoudi]) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Women's Camp (clarification round 2) Date: 20 Jan 1998 22:13:07 GMT Organization: University of Kansas Computing Services Lines: 17 Message-ID: <6a37hj$moh$2@news.cc.ukans.edu> References: <19980118213200.QAA04965@ladder01.news.aol.com> <34c3cb47.0@news5.kcdata.com> <6a33gt$ogu@panix2.panix.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.cc.ukans.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!news-xfer.siscom.net!streamer1.cleveland.iagnet.net!qual.net!iagnet.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.cc.ukans.edu!eagle.cc.ukans.edu!yahoudi Eric A. Rhude (ateno@panix.com) wrote: : Excuse me, I do not want to tramp on the idea of a Womans camp : or anything like that, my question is: : What do you think Pennsic Security's job is? Whether or not the threat actually exists, women who have been attacked lose a sense of security, and some do not wish to sleep (i.e. become totally vulnerable) in the presence of men. Pennsic Security is not going to make them feel any more comfortable, or help them to enjoy the event more. Being able to sleep feeling that you are surrounded by people who you do not fear are going to hurt you is a really EXCELLENT reason for a Women's Camp. It can help those who have been victims get out and try to enjoy a relatively normal life. Giraude ###### From: "Dennis O'Connor" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Women's Camp (clarification round 2) Date: 20 Jan 1998 23:08:00 -0700 Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet Lines: 23 Message-ID: <6a43c0$kpb@nntp02.primenet.com> References: <19980118213200.QAA04965@ladder01.news.aol.com> <34c3cb47.0@news5.kcdata.com> <6a33gt$ogu@panix2.panix.com> <6a37hj$moh$2@news.cc.ukans.edu> X-Posted-By: @206.165.26.110 (dmoc) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!globalcenter0!news.primenet.com!news.primenet.com!not-for-mail [Yahoudi] wrote in message <6a37hj$moh$2@news.cc.ukans.edu>... :Eric A. Rhude (ateno@panix.com) wrote: : Whether or not the threat actually exists, women who have :been attacked lose a sense of security, and some do not wish to sleep :(i.e. become totally vulnerable) in the presence of men. Pennsic Security :is not going to make them feel any more comfortable, or help them to enjoy :the event more. Being able to sleep feeling that you are surrounded :by people who you do not fear are going to hurt you is a really EXCELLENT :reason for a Women's Camp. It can help those who have been victims get :out and try to enjoy a relatively normal life. Would you be so quick to support an Whites Only Camp ? After all, some people just don't wish to sleep (i.e. become totally vulnerable) in the presence of non-whites. Being able to sleep feeling that you are surrounded by people who you do not fear are going to hurt you is a really EXCELLENT reason for a Whites Only Camp. -- Dennis O'Connor dmoc@primenet.com Vanity Web Page: http://www.primenet.com/~dmoc/ ###### From: srankin@op.net (Susan Rankin) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Women's Camp (clarification round 2) Date: 21 Jan 1998 17:00:24 GMT Organization: OpNet -- Greater Philadelphia Internet Service Lines: 34 Message-ID: <6a59j8$l1b$1@picasso.op.net> References: <19980118213200.QAA04965@ladder01.news.aol.com> <34c3cb47.0@news5.kcdata.com> <6a33gt$ogu@panix2.panix.com> <6a37hj$moh$2@news.cc.ukans.edu> <6a43c0$kpb@nntp02.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d-phlarc1-03.ppp.op.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.8 (x86 32bit) Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.snip.net!readme1.op.net!op.net!not-for-mail In article <6a43c0$kpb@nntp02.primenet.com>, dmoc@primenet.com says... >Would you be so quick to support an Whites Only Camp ? >After all, some people just don't wish to sleep (i.e. become totally >vulnerable) in the presence of non-whites. Being able to sleep >feeling that you are surrounded by people who you do not fear are >going to hurt you is a really EXCELLENT reason for >a Whites Only Camp. >-- >Dennis O'Connor dmoc@primenet.com >Vanity Web Page: http://www.primenet.com/~dmoc/ Ok, I really didn't want to touch this one...BUT! It sounds like the Women's Camp is designed to be a haven, not an isolationist hate group. SO, if you wanted to create a camp for white people who are as yet uncomfy with other races, it's plausable. During the daylight hours, the campers would be on their own, unless they wanted to spend all of Pennsic in their campsite...a silly thing to do anyway. In their daily meanderings, they'll get the chances to interact with other ethnicities and at night, while they lie in their beds (eventually) they'll have time to ponder the days events. As long as they are courtious to other people during the day, they'll have pleasant things to ponder at night AND by the end of their stay, may even decide to camp elsewhere. If not, they are amoung friends. The difference here is that a wider majority of women have had some sort of attack or bad encounter with men, than between one race and another as a whole. I am fortunate enough to be part of a group that is very active in A&S and fighting activities, so we all see each other at least once a week and are all good friends who know each other pretty well. I would feel comfy overnighting with them and know I can count on protection if any outsider who might have had too much to drink. Women who are not real active in their local group's activities however, don't have that benifit. The Women's Camp sounds like a Stepping Stone effort, not an isolationist hate group. Luta ###### From: djheydt@uclink.berkeley.edu (Dorothy J Heydt) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Women's Camp (clarification round 2) Date: 21 Jan 1998 17:57:11 GMT Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 15 Message-ID: <6a5ctn$qb3$1@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <19980118213200.QAA04965@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6a37hj$moh$2@news.cc.ukans.edu> <6a43c0$kpb@nntp02.primenet.com> <6a59j8$l1b$1@picasso.op.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: uclink.berkeley.edu Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!europa.clark.net!141.211.144.13!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!agate!uclink.berkeley.edu!djheydt In article <6a59j8$l1b$1@picasso.op.net>, Susan Rankin wrote: > The difference here is that a wider majority of women have had some sort of attack or >bad encounter with men, than between one race and another as a whole. I dunno. Is that true? (This is not a rhetorical question.) Does anybody have any real data? Do more women get abused by men per capita than blacks by whites, or whites for that matter by blacks? Dorothea of Caer-Myrddin Dorothy J. Heydt Mists/Mists/West Albany, California PRO DEO ET REGE djheydt@uclink.berkeley.edu (My account might go away at any moment; if I vanish, I haven't died.) ###### From: "Dennis O'Connor" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Women's Camp (clarification round 2) Date: 22 Jan 1998 07:36:01 -0700 Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet Lines: 29 Message-ID: <6a7lgh$hsl@nntp02.primenet.com> References: <19980118213200.QAA04965@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6a37hj$moh$2@news.cc.ukans.edu> <6a43c0$kpb@nntp02.primenet.com> <6a59j8$l1b$1@picasso.op.net> <6a5ctn$qb3$1@agate.berkeley.edu> X-Posted-By: @206.165.26.22 (dmoc) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!globalcenter0!news.primenet.com!news.primenet.com!not-for-mail Dorothy J Heydt wrote in message <6a5ctn$qb3$1@agate.berkeley.edu>... :In article <6a59j8$l1b$1@picasso.op.net>, Susan Rankin wrote: : :> The difference here is that a wider majority of women have had :some sort of attack or :>bad encounter with men, than between one race and another as a whole. : :I dunno. Is that true? (This is not a rhetorical question.) :Does anybody have any real data? Do more women get abused by men :per capita than blacks by whites, or whites for that matter by :blacks? Perhaps more relevant, do more women *believe* they have been abused by men, than people who *believe* they have been abused by other races ? I suggest this slightly different approach because many people believe they have been discriminated against (and thereby abused) even without being able to name a particular overt act. And more to the point, the whole issue revolves around people being afraid of othe people, and fear is driven more by what people believe than by what is actually true. For example, a woman who has abused may fear me simply because I am male. This fear is irrational and without any basis in reality. -- Dennis O'Connor dmoc@primenet.com Vanity Web Page: http://www.primenet.com/~dmoc/ ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Women's Camp (clarification round 2) Date: 24 Jan 1998 05:23:41 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 63 Message-ID: <7m7qijoy.fsf@chonsp.franklin.lugs.ch> References: <19980118213200.QAA04965@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6a37hj$moh$2@news.cc.ukans.edu> <6a43c0$kpb@nntp02.primenet.com> <6a59j8$l1b$1@picasso.op.net> <6a5ctn$qb3$1@agate.berkeley.edu> <6a7lgh$hsl@nntp02.primenet.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 "Dennis O'Connor" >Perhaps more relevant, do more women *believe* they have been abused by men Hmm. A small correction: it is not the *belief* that they *have*been* (in the past) abused that makes them fear men, but the belief that they *might*be* (in the future). This fear derives either from *actually*having*been* abused (no mere belief, but knowledge) or far more likely from hearing many stories of others having been abused. > And more to the point, the whole issue revolves around people being > afraid of othe people, and fear is driven more by what > people believe than by what is actually true. That for sure. More precise: all behaviour is driven by expectance, and that is derived from belief, and that from experience or hearing. > For example, a woman who has abused may fear > me simply because I am male. This she surely will. Also any one who has heard too many stories of abuse. > This fear is irrational and without any basis in reality. Numerically abuse is a small minority of cases (how many percent of cases where women have met men lead to them being abused? Way below 0.1% most likely). But the human brain (at least the more primitive parts that produce fear-type reactions) works on local impressions, not on reflections of the global situation. Getting such fear out of their "fear processing" system will take experiences (or stories) of men not abusing women. Unfortunately stories of non-abuse are seldom (most men do not abuse, so an non-abuser is not newsworthy) so we need to wait until experiences add up to enough trust in men to stop the fear. In some cases that never happens. In the meantime fear of men will make camping events a source of fear (and as such less/not enjoyable) resulting in those women staying away, to avoid the discomfort. Unfortunately this loses for them exactly the chance to be non-abused and to learn trust. No uninjured person would want to walk with a crutch, but for someone with an broken foot it is a lot better than nothing. A "safe haven" is a good idea to ease them back into becoming trusting (and so enjoying) members of society. -- Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch, http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http: If I go missing, its once again my newsfeed that has craped ###### From: "Dennis O'Connor" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Women's Camp (clarification round 2) Date: 24 Jan 1998 06:46:00 -0700 Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet Lines: 22 Message-ID: <6acrao$8fe@nntp02.primenet.com> References: <19980118213200.QAA04965@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6a37hj$moh$2@news.cc.ukans.edu> <6a43c0$kpb@nntp02.primenet.com> <6a59j8$l1b$1@picasso.op.net> <6a5ctn$qb3$1@agate.berkeley.edu> <6a7lgh$hsl@nntp02.primenet.com> <7m7qijoy.fsf@chonsp.franklin.lugs.ch> X-Posted-By: @206.165.26.68 (dmoc) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!news-xfer.siscom.net!207.114.4.11.MISMATCH!nntp.abs.net!peerfeed.ncal.verio.net!nntp.flash.net!nntp.primenet.com!news.primenet.com!news.primenet.com!not-for-mail Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch wrote ... |"Dennis O'Connor" |>Perhaps more relevant, do more women *believe* they have been |abused by men | |Hmm. A small correction: it is not the *belief* that they *have*been* |(in the past) abused that makes them fear men, but the belief that |they *might*be* (in the future). I think you missed the point of my saying "believe". When we are talking about fear and predjudice and the like, I think whether there actually has been any abuse or not is not as relevant as whether the person believes there has been. For that person, their belief is their reality. But you are probably right that it is beliefs about the future, not the past, that are the root of fear. Very insightful ! I hadn't thought of it that way before. Great post, BTW. ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Women's Camp (clarification round 2) Date: 26 Jan 1998 02:52:19 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 49 Message-ID: References: <34c7f61a.2192901@news.tdl.com> <6a92si$jlb$1@newsd-152.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <34C89EF5.154F@byespam.us.ibm.com> <6aabmk$qbp@nntp02.primenet.com> <6aak94$8ga@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> <6acpo4$7qi@nntp02.primenet.com> <6ad6hr$djf@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Sandra Jaqua wrote in message <6aak94$8ga@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>... | I see the problem. Dennis just doesn't understand the difference between |fear and hate. Camping together for mutual support is different from camping |together to discriminate. In article <6acpo4$7qi@nntp02.primenet.com>, "Dennis O'Connor" wrote: >I disagree. I think the problem is that you, and many other people, >refuse to believe that it might be fear and not hate that is the >underlying cause for at least some bigotry. Either that, or you >are belittling other people's fears while insisting they respect yours. Sandra Jaqua questioned this: > Your analogy didn't work at all for me. I have met quite a few >white separationists, and they hate, not fear. Matter of fact, they want to >kill, not just remove themselves from the presence of the group they hate. >Of course, the same might not be true of all white separationists; I haven't >met them all. Sure they hate, but hate does derive from fear. Fear (as I said in my other post, <7m7qijoy.fsf@chonsp.franklin.lugs.ch>) comes from experiencing (or hearing of someones elses experience) of something bad happening and as consequence of this expecting it to happen to one in the future. The reaction to such a expectance is to try and prevent this expected this from happening. One method of this is avoidance (such as staying at home, or only going out in a group of trusted people). This is passive defense. But that requires restricting one self. The alternative is active defense. That is getting rid of the source of the expected danger. This reaction of active defense, in its most sggressive form, is hate. As for your women/racists comparison: I have both heard of racists who are satisfied with avoiding the other race ("they can exist, but not here") and I have heard of extreme feminists who regard only the extermination of men to be the end of womens subjection. So Dennis is right, otivation and behaviour are identical in both groups. Different is societies reaction to them and possibly also the statistical distribution of the 2 types (passive/active defense) in both groups. -- Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch, http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http: If I go missing, its once again my newsfeed that has craped