Feminism, the vote.

[Megan J. Crowhurst]

On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Kenneth Allen Hyde wrote:

> <snip> If feminism is the *only* political or
> ideological stance that we single out and endorse, then we are
excluding
> others, de facto.

and...

> <snip> If that is the only set of principles that we endorse,
officially, then I
> would argue that it does indeed mean that GALA has a feminist orientation.

and...

> <snip> Why feminism only, and not other approaches?  The lack
> of something is not significant until it contrasts with the presence of
> something else.

and...

> <snip> But what we should not do is single out one group of
> many as the only group to be explicitly mentioned.

I think assmuptions are being made that aren't warranted.  Nowhere has it
ever been suggested, certainly not by any of the facilitators of this
list, or in any posting that I recall, that this should be an
organization committed exclusively to feminist principles, or identified
specifically as a feminist organization.  Chris (Beckwith) got it right in
her last message--the goal is to be inclusive.  A philosophical statement
can promote inclusiveness in at least two ways (I'm sure there are
others): it can mention examples of things to be included and invite other
contributions, or it can mention nothing.  Advocates of the second
approach (e.g. Kenneth?) seem to be assuming that in mentioning nothing,
everything is welcomed by default.  My concern is that a philosophical
statement of this sort would be uninformative; too vague to be useful.

--Megan