F aversion?

[marsha chuk]

Chris Beckwith <beckwith at indiana.edu> writes:

'Of course, there is no reason GALA could not be a 'covert feminist'
 organization (sounds cool!); it appears to be likely anyway. The
 problem is the open expression of such views.'

interestingly, this is the turn of words that stirred me to respond.
do i detect a thread of aversion to the idea of feminism running through
the responses? a fear of openly declaring such a proclivity?

yes, there are problematics inherent in the expression of views, open or
otherways. one may well ask 'why an aversion to the open expression of
views'.

others have already posted eloquent, solid arguments on taking a
'feminist stance'. there is a body of scholarly feminist enquiry that
has informed and continues to inform research in social, cultural, and
science-based studies, especially in the last 25 years. this is (the)(a)
contextualised base of gender, as well as engendered, discourse.

i'm not convinced that a recognition of feminist scholarship need exclude
the diverse interests, concerns and viewpoints already expressed, yet to
come. as well, jef deby, raises the valide point of Other voices - queer
studies, &c., 'register-appropriate' commentary ... [although i don't
see that gender implies binary and can see an ongoing description of
gender as an important part of our discussion.] the mandate of the group
could reflect this general inclusion, as well as the specific natures (if
you'll pardon the expression) of this collective. this is some-of-the-
stuff that can make for a lively international, transdisciplinary
exchange nez pas. a multi-GALA, if you will.

ainsi, jef, mon vieux, the name needn't take on the acronymic proportions
of the unwieldly - just the mandate.

anyroad, it's a delightfully hot and sunny spring morn here; a convivial
time to go about the opening and airing of cupboards and closets nez pas.

mit einem freulingischem cheerio,
marsha chuk
              ___________________________________________