open swim

[M. J. Hardman]

>0. Continuing our earlier discussion: Should the organization take an
>explicitly feminist stance? If so, how?
Yes, but it could be implied; needn't be overly defined.  I still like
the T-shirt one of my older students wears:  "Feminism is the radical
notion that women are people too".  I would reject anything that defines
women as suffixes on a male root, and in that sense, yes we should be
feminist.  Evolution has been beset by creastionist pseudo-science; I
would hope we could avoid being beset by the analogous from
non-feminists.  I wonder what Zaal's definition of feminism is such that
being one is an impossibility?  Feminist, yes, but leave the definition
thereof wide open. Michael is right, too; the roots of gender and
language are in feminism.  I also agree with Ines -- we can make the term
'feminism' inclusive and umbrella.

What really disturbs me here, as seen in Valentina's post and also noted
by Marsha, is that we are falling into the usual trap of any word that
deals with things relating to women.  As pointed out in my own work in
Derivational Thinking, *any* word that refers to women or womanly things
acquires willy-nilly negative baggage.  It is virtually impossible to
prevent it -- a result of the sexism of our own language/culture.  Not
so, of course, with terms referring to men; quite the opposite in fact
(consider what happened to 'macho' that we thought we could keep
negative! :()  The only way not to accept the negativity is to continue
to use the words in positive contexts, even in a great variety of
contexts -- which is what I would propose we do.  We do *not* need a
narrow definition, or any concrete definition at all.  Feminism is what
we *do* -- and we like it -- and it is inclusive -- and it is
interdisciplinary -- and it is broad and comprehensive.
>1. Should the organization be informed by interdisciplinary studies or
>specific language and gender methodologies?
interdisciplinary.  I like Shannon Carter's discussion of 'home-base' and
the sharing of the perspectives of our different home-bases.
>2. Should the organization be national? international? nonnational?
Let's see who comes.  Maybe the last
>3. What do we mean by "gender and language"? (men as well as women? other
>'genders'? sexuality?)
Depends on who comes & what is written.
>4. What relationship should there be between this organization and other
>gender and language organizations?
Let's see what develops -- over definition could shut doors.
>5. What should the organization be called?
>8. Should the organization recognize scholarly achievement? How?
No. At least not at this time -- let's not do the competition thing --
let's talk.
>9. How should the organization be structured and governed? How should