Another furry survey --- links, thoughts
Dec. 18th, 2009 08:28 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
raxThe always wonderful ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
krinndnz pointed me, over in her LJ (friends-locked, but a lot of you will find this link useful anyway), toward a University of Alaska survey about furries, or furvey. [0] There's rather a history of bad surveys and research done on minority populations, which often makes people nervous about this sort of thing. (A part of me hesitates to class furries as "a minority population" --- but in this circumstance, of researchers saying "Ooh, here are some different people I can go and research," I think it fits.) In recent cases that have a lot of Internet press, there's always that ridiculous slash brain sexuality study (as ceruleanst points out over on Krinn's blog), and I also just read tagonist 's post about trans studies recently, and I also also still have PIlar Osario's work (thanks to this conference) about how race is not really a great category for medical studies sitting in the back of my head and percolating. So I approached this furvey with some trepidation, but decided I would go ahead, Google-stalk a little bit, and take a look at the survey itself.
Short, spoiler-free verdict: Actually I don't think it's that bad. One of the two researchers identifies or has identified as a furry (or I suppose is outright lying): "My name is Eric Olson, I am the data gnome and the person who suggested the study in the first place. I think the furry community, for all its weird little quirks is, on the whole, a pretty positive thing. I certainly benifited from it and I suspect quite a few other people have too." [1] That's not necessarily Objective (tm) but it makes me way more comfortable than other surveys have in the past. (I'm hopingeredien will chime in here on the furry survey that was going around Anthrocon --- I didn't take it, but she did and she talked to the researchers for a while, too. [2]) Also, you're able to click submit, read all the questions, and decide if you want to participate or not; it's just one page (although if you answer "yes" to one question it pops up five text boxes that were invisible before). This is way better than that surveymonkey nonsense that makes you answer two things, click, answer two things... so if you were sitting on the fence about this, you might as well check it out.
I did fill it out, and while I don't think it's nearly as problematic as some of the other surveys on such topics I've taken in the past, I'm not sure how interesting the results will be. Things like "How did joining the furry community change your life?" really seem like they need an hour interview, not two small before and after text boxes; I ended up writing a ton because I didn't want the narrative to be "I used to be sad but then I found furries and now I am happy!" Personally, I don't find that to be true in a meaningful way, and I don't think the question gave room for the intersections of furry and other identity markers or cultural groups to really be explained at all. All of the questions are either "yes/no" or free text entry fields, and I did like that. Also interesting: It didn't ask for gender, age, race, or other identifying markers at all. It really just wanted to know if you were a furry. I'm not skilled enough with this kind of data gathering to know if that's a good idea or a bad idea or what, but it was nice not to have to pick a gender out of two options again.
The things I found most interesting I actually think have very little to do with furry and much more to do with the evolution of social groups across the Internet. Furry is one of the groups out there with a lot of geographic spread and online socialization --- I think more and more groups are like that, but furry has arguably been at it longer than some of those groups, and so the social patterns there could be interesting. There were a bunch of questions about internet and in-person socialization, and the difference between them, and I found my own answers pretty interesting. Personally, I have a bunch of friends in different places, some of whom I've never met, but most of them I try to make a point of meeting, even if I'm going to interact with them primarily online; it real-personifies them for me and that's valuable. I know not everyone does this. I think collecting the different ways and reasons people do or don't do this would be interesting. I don't know if they're going to get that from this survey, but maybe it will make the question apparent to them or some other researcher. Or maybe there's tons on this already! If you know of any, please comment, I'm curious if nothing else. :)
I'm actually curious about how other people respond on this. I'm very lucky --- I have multiple very supportive social groups, and for the most part my answers to questions about support are just "Yup, I'm good. Yup, I'm happy. Yup, lots of friends." Do furry and other such geographically dispersed social groups offer resources to people who would otherwise have difficulty getting them in the places they live or from the people they spend in-person time with? Probably. And I think discussing and studying that --- furry as one example maybe, but not as the thing in itself --- has the potential to be really interesting and valuable.
Thoughts?
[0] Yes, they actually called it a furvey. Furchrissakes.
[1] I don't know why "benifited" reads as such a furry typo to me, but it does. Also my cite for this is http://uafurvey.org/question.html Also also, if that's the Eric Olson who I was able to find attached to UAlaska on Google, he has a usenet history. I didn't read it, because I don't care that much, but it at least suggests "not a fresh grad student, probably someone who's been attached to the university forever." But I haven't verified that it's the same person, because I have work to get to. ;)
[2] What she said about it made me nervous; from my recollected conversation, it seemed to her that they were looking to find a diagnosis parallel to gender identity disorder or something similar. That diagnosis itself makes me nervous --- Who are you calling disordered? --- but I'm torn about completely discarding it because it's actually afforded me and other people I can point to cheaper access to valuable medical resources. I'm not sure how that would help furries, unless insurance companies are going to start covering full-body leopard print tattoos or surface piercings for whisker mounts. Although there's totally a Blue Cross/Blue Shield Approved Fursuit! racket in here waiting to happen. Other people had other objections that I don't feel qualified to comment on. Wikifur also has articles on other furry surveys for people who really want to dig into this.
krinndnz pointed me, over in her LJ (friends-locked, but a lot of you will find this link useful anyway), toward a University of Alaska survey about furries, or furvey. [0] There's rather a history of bad surveys and research done on minority populations, which often makes people nervous about this sort of thing. (A part of me hesitates to class furries as "a minority population" --- but in this circumstance, of researchers saying "Ooh, here are some different people I can go and research," I think it fits.) In recent cases that have a lot of Internet press, there's always that ridiculous slash brain sexuality study (as ceruleanst points out over on Krinn's blog), and I also just read tagonist 's post about trans studies recently, and I also also still have PIlar Osario's work (thanks to this conference) about how race is not really a great category for medical studies sitting in the back of my head and percolating. So I approached this furvey with some trepidation, but decided I would go ahead, Google-stalk a little bit, and take a look at the survey itself. Short, spoiler-free verdict: Actually I don't think it's that bad. One of the two researchers identifies or has identified as a furry (or I suppose is outright lying): "My name is Eric Olson, I am the data gnome and the person who suggested the study in the first place. I think the furry community, for all its weird little quirks is, on the whole, a pretty positive thing. I certainly benifited from it and I suspect quite a few other people have too." [1] That's not necessarily Objective (tm) but it makes me way more comfortable than other surveys have in the past. (I'm hoping
eredien will chime in here on the furry survey that was going around Anthrocon --- I didn't take it, but she did and she talked to the researchers for a while, too. [2]) Also, you're able to click submit, read all the questions, and decide if you want to participate or not; it's just one page (although if you answer "yes" to one question it pops up five text boxes that were invisible before). This is way better than that surveymonkey nonsense that makes you answer two things, click, answer two things... so if you were sitting on the fence about this, you might as well check it out.I did fill it out, and while I don't think it's nearly as problematic as some of the other surveys on such topics I've taken in the past, I'm not sure how interesting the results will be. Things like "How did joining the furry community change your life?" really seem like they need an hour interview, not two small before and after text boxes; I ended up writing a ton because I didn't want the narrative to be "I used to be sad but then I found furries and now I am happy!" Personally, I don't find that to be true in a meaningful way, and I don't think the question gave room for the intersections of furry and other identity markers or cultural groups to really be explained at all. All of the questions are either "yes/no" or free text entry fields, and I did like that. Also interesting: It didn't ask for gender, age, race, or other identifying markers at all. It really just wanted to know if you were a furry. I'm not skilled enough with this kind of data gathering to know if that's a good idea or a bad idea or what, but it was nice not to have to pick a gender out of two options again.
The things I found most interesting I actually think have very little to do with furry and much more to do with the evolution of social groups across the Internet. Furry is one of the groups out there with a lot of geographic spread and online socialization --- I think more and more groups are like that, but furry has arguably been at it longer than some of those groups, and so the social patterns there could be interesting. There were a bunch of questions about internet and in-person socialization, and the difference between them, and I found my own answers pretty interesting. Personally, I have a bunch of friends in different places, some of whom I've never met, but most of them I try to make a point of meeting, even if I'm going to interact with them primarily online; it real-personifies them for me and that's valuable. I know not everyone does this. I think collecting the different ways and reasons people do or don't do this would be interesting. I don't know if they're going to get that from this survey, but maybe it will make the question apparent to them or some other researcher. Or maybe there's tons on this already! If you know of any, please comment, I'm curious if nothing else. :)
I'm actually curious about how other people respond on this. I'm very lucky --- I have multiple very supportive social groups, and for the most part my answers to questions about support are just "Yup, I'm good. Yup, I'm happy. Yup, lots of friends." Do furry and other such geographically dispersed social groups offer resources to people who would otherwise have difficulty getting them in the places they live or from the people they spend in-person time with? Probably. And I think discussing and studying that --- furry as one example maybe, but not as the thing in itself --- has the potential to be really interesting and valuable.
Thoughts?
[0] Yes, they actually called it a furvey. Furchrissakes.
[1] I don't know why "benifited" reads as such a furry typo to me, but it does. Also my cite for this is http://uafurvey.org/question.html Also also, if that's the Eric Olson who I was able to find attached to UAlaska on Google, he has a usenet history. I didn't read it, because I don't care that much, but it at least suggests "not a fresh grad student, probably someone who's been attached to the university forever." But I haven't verified that it's the same person, because I have work to get to. ;)
[2] What she said about it made me nervous; from my recollected conversation, it seemed to her that they were looking to find a diagnosis parallel to gender identity disorder or something similar. That diagnosis itself makes me nervous --- Who are you calling disordered? --- but I'm torn about completely discarding it because it's actually afforded me and other people I can point to cheaper access to valuable medical resources. I'm not sure how that would help furries, unless insurance companies are going to start covering full-body leopard print tattoos or surface piercings for whisker mounts. Although there's totally a Blue Cross/Blue Shield Approved Fursuit! racket in here waiting to happen. Other people had other objections that I don't feel qualified to comment on. Wikifur also has articles on other furry surveys for people who really want to dig into this.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-18 07:01 pm (UTC)(Myself: still a lesbian. The political identity is very important to me.)
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-18 08:23 pm (UTC)1.) Some militant lesbians won't believe, for a variety of reasons, that I am not a lesbian (even if chose to forgo seeing men). I am hesitant to identify using a label that will force me out of it if others with that label don't think I've got a right to assign it to myself. I'm not interested in partnering myself with movements, especially political ones, that won't let me self-define because I'm too complicated for their label.
2.) I don't believe that I'm really a lesbian and have felt uncomfortable identifying solely as such in the past. I feel really uncomfortable being labelled as such by others. When people (not anyone I know in the Boston area, generally) have seen me partnered with a woman and automatically assumed my gender identity was "lesbian" were just as frustrating as the times when I wasn't partnered with anyone or was dating a man and it was assumed that I was straight. Being labelled a lesbian also seems wrong to me in terms of my understanding of dragon sexuality, but that's a different rant.
What I want is an identity that is "mostly likes sleeping with and living with self-identified women 85% of the time, although also enjoys the company, sexual and social, of genderqueer or gender-non-identified or transsexual people, and male-identified people." I would use the word "pansexual" except that seems to imply a kind of "I have an equal chance of sleeping with anyone of any gender identification," which in my case at least, is not true, and also can be construed to leave out the people who don't identify as any gender orientation or identify as between genders, to whom I am attracted to more strongly than men but less strongly than women, on the whole.
I feel like I should give a percentage breakdown or something, but that just gets ridiculous.
I wish there was just one word, but then that would give the opportunity for somebody else to tell me I wasn't authentic; at least the long explanation is the true one. Once I'm done with my own 5-minute spiel, nobody can tell me I've not got enough street cred if they've managed to stick around long enough to listen. Which is the hard part. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-19 03:11 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-19 03:59 pm (UTC)Ditto! Ever-so-ditto.
Because in some ways "lesbian" is much more accurate as a description of me, and in other ways, not so much.
The politics is an interesting question. Are queer politics inherently different from lesbian politics, because the latter have more to do with feminism and the position of women in our culture? Or are queer politics, in fact, inclusive of that because they involve a critique of the entire system of gender roles in our culture entirely?
For that matter, does a critique of all gender roles address the same things as an attack on the specific problems women face that men don't?
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-19 04:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-19 07:04 pm (UTC)