call for discussion: item 1c.i

[JANET BING]

I'd like to respond to some of Kenneth Hyde's message, much of which I
agree with, although I totally agree with M.J. Hardman's ideas.

>. Objections to a feminist organization
> >b. We don't really want to be giving litmus tests on people's
> >feminist principles.

>This seems to me to be a very crucial point. While it is a good thing
>to affirm a "equal rights/equal access" policy in an organization
>like GALA, I really have to say that I think it would be impractical
>if we took that to mean that we had to administer some sort of
>evaluation to all prospective members to see if they were "toeing the
>party line."

I think we can safely assume that nobody is advocating this.  Somehow
the word "feminist" always evokes stereotypes like "toeing the party
line", in addition to "strident" and "bra-burning."

However, as Kenneth notes, being a feminist organization often
suggests a framework in which hierarchy and competition are not valued
as much as they are in the dominant culture.  Therefore, I don't agree
that any journal has to emulate current academic books and journals in
order to be academically respectable.  My own specialty is phonology,
and I've read enough boring, poorly written, mind-numbing prose in
that field to last me for the rest of my life.  However, the prose in
journals such as _Discourse & Society_ both clear and academically
respectable, and certainly not limited to teaching or "outreach."

 In the eyes of many linguists, by considering language and gender a
 serious field of study, don't we already " risk damaging our
 credibility in the eyes of the rest of academe"?

I agree that a language and gender organization should include all
genders.

Janet Bing
Dept. of English
Old Dominion University
Norfolk, VA 23529-0078
(757) 683-4030
FAX (757) 683-3241