|
"I can't speak for any GLO except my own, but I personally think that no organization should be forced to accept a person of a different sex if it goes against the founding principles of the organization itself." -- dzrose
Take the word "sex" and substitute "race," and that's exactly what some organizations would argue to justify keeping other races out of their group.
"For example, Delta Zeta was founded specifically for women and her ceremonies and rituals were designed with women in mind. To accept someone of a different sex would make no sense, because the standards that make Delta Zeta what it is are applicable only to women. I certainly can't go into detail, but believe me when I say that it would be pointless to initiate a man into our circle. Our rituals are meaningless to men, and have no symbolism associated with them." -- dzrose
So because an organization has goals and principles designed to facilitate growth and advancement for women, you're saying that a man has no place taking part in that? What if a man wants to help in the growth and advancement of women and believes in the organization's principles? Shouldn't he be allowed to join? The NAACP's focus is the advancement of the African-American community, and it has White members. What makes it any different for a man to join a group that has principles designed to help women if he really wants to help (chances are most men won't WANT to, but why shouldn't they be ABLE to)?
"I just don't think that every organization should be forced to be all things to all people, just for the sake of equality. (I'm talking about gender here, not race.)" -- dzrose
What makes exclusion based on gender different than exclusion based on race?
|
Threaded Mode