call for discussion: item 1c.i

[M. J. Hardman]

>While the voting on item 1b takes place, we'll be continuing with our
>discussion. The next item is one that has already generated a lot of
>discussion:
>
>1c. Philosophy
>i. Relation to feminism
>
>The following positions are summarized from earlier postings on this topic.
>If we have inadvertently omitted or misrepresented the views of anyone who
>posted earlier, please repost to correct the record.
>--------------------------------------------
>
>1. Issues to consider
>
>a. Will the organization presuppose a feminist set of values? If so, will
>these be stated explicitly?

One of my older students wears, on occasion, a T-shirt which read:
"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people too".  Of course,
we should presuppose a feminist set of values.  Given the structure of
our language, and our society, if we are not explicitly feminist then we
are, by default, masculinist.  For example, I have recently been made
aware in a number of organizations where some of us have relaxed a bit,
that all of a sudden, again, all officers are white males.  Ouch.

>b. What would it mean in practice to define ourselves as a feminist
>organisation: political aims in our constitution, refusing to consider
>nonfeminist pieces submitted to a hypothetical journal, requiring members
>to endorse a set of ideological principles?

If someone wants to argue that women are *not* people, I might listen,
but not for long.  There are plenty of other places where people can
argue womanly submission -- try the Southern Baptist Synod -- but not
here.  Or are you thinking of something else when you say 'non feminist'?
 Articles describing gender relations that do not mimic ours should be
more than welcome.  I have been on the receiving end of having my work
declared 'non feminist' because I said that the women where I was working
were *not* subjected to the same humiliations that I was in my own
culture -- the notion then being that ours was the blueprint for *all*
human gender relations.  In one case I was told, as the reason for
rejecting my paper, that if only I spent a little longer among the people
(after 40 years) I would surely discover that women there were also
second class citizens, that there was a gender hierarchy with men on top
:(.  I cannot imagine that the current group of GALA would react in that
way.  I would define 'non feminist' only as that which is denigrating of
the human status of women.
>
>2. Feminism and gender
>a. Will the association be focused on feminist issues rather than gender
>issues (i.e., both female and male genders, at least, as well as other
>'genders')?
>b. Being a feminist organization doesn't exclude work on men's language.

I would say, let's see what comes.  Of course b; I have seen some
fascinating work on men's language at OSCLG, and we have included one
such in our forthcoming book Hearing Many Voices.
>
>3. What it might mean to be a feminist organization
>a. Beginning with the definition of "feminist" as "a person who advocates
>the equality of and equal opportunity for females," GALA should be feminist.
>b. A feminist organization need not be based on ideology but on an
>alternative structure: - For example. if there is to be a journal, would it
>be limited to academic style, or could there be more accessible papers that
>might attract a wider audience? - If there are conferences, could there be
>alternatives to the 20 minute paper and the 5 minute response, the
>traditional conference model based on the traditional academic lecture? -
>If there is a governing board, could there be representation for a student
>member or independent scholar and some way of subsidizing them? And what if
>instead of offering a prize for the best paper  (something thatrewards
>competition and individualism), there would be a prize for the best
>collaboration between an established scholar and a student or independent
>scholar (something which rewards collaboration and mentoring)?

This I would like to see -- alternative styles and reaching a wider &/or
different audience.  The academic style has much to recommend it, but
also it is a block to various kinds of knowledge.  I would like to see
the collaboration encouraged.
>
>4. Objections to a feminist organization
>a. GALA should be open to scholars and teachers who are not working in a
>feminist framework. Admittedly, many members will be, but it shouldn't be a
>requirement.
>b. We don't really want to be giving litmus tests on people's feminist
>principles.
>
>5. Alternatives to a feminist organization
>a. Rather than being focused on feminism, we should promote dialogue
>between feminism and gender scholarship: this kind of dialogue shouldn't be
>avoided, but welcomed where it is engaged in seriously on both sides;
>serious challenges help us sharpen up our arguments, whether we are
>nonfeminists being challenged by feminists or the reverse, or indeed
>feminists being challenged by other feminists, which is where most of this
>field's vital energy has been over the past few years.

Or, rather than 'challenging' -- a war metaphor -- maybe we could build
on each other's work, collaborating, compare and contrast?
>
>Discussion is now open on the following question: What will GALA's
>relationship to feminism be?