Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Is the National Women's Caucus lying to us?
As I have written here in the past, the National Women's Caucus has been embroiled in controversy over the request for membership by a pre-operative male-to-female transgendered person. I call her a woman, but then again, I ain't one, so what do I know, eh? Only women can be feminist I reckon.
At any rate various members of the National Women's Caucus contuinue to claim that they have been told by their lawyers (the NATIONAL party doesn't have an attorney, but a caucus has one?) that they can't talk about this for THREE years! That is OUTRAGEOUS.
I ask absolutely any member of the National Women's Caucus to tell me and my few readers if they have allowed Stephanie Loveless to join the caucus, and if not, why not. I further ask that *someone* from the National Women's Caucus give a time line for when Ms. Loveless applied for membership, and how her case was handled.
Frankly, I am growing absolutely disgusted with the National Women's Caucus and their behavior in this case. I must wonder if the caucus, which has apparently got a tiny membership, even by GPUS standards, is not living up to it's potential, and is working at cross purposes to the Green Party's objectives.
Nothing behind the "Read more!" link, but I sure would like someone to explain to me how the Green Party is willing to allow a formal party caucus to refuse to talk with anyone in the party about problems in the caucus because "my lawyer said I shouldn't talk to you."
Has the time come to change the Party's caucus structure? Would a "National Feminist Caucus" be more appropriate than a "National Women's Caucus"?
At any rate various members of the National Women's Caucus contuinue to claim that they have been told by their lawyers (the NATIONAL party doesn't have an attorney, but a caucus has one?) that they can't talk about this for THREE years! That is OUTRAGEOUS.
I ask absolutely any member of the National Women's Caucus to tell me and my few readers if they have allowed Stephanie Loveless to join the caucus, and if not, why not. I further ask that *someone* from the National Women's Caucus give a time line for when Ms. Loveless applied for membership, and how her case was handled.
Frankly, I am growing absolutely disgusted with the National Women's Caucus and their behavior in this case. I must wonder if the caucus, which has apparently got a tiny membership, even by GPUS standards, is not living up to it's potential, and is working at cross purposes to the Green Party's objectives.
Nothing behind the "Read more!" link, but I sure would like someone to explain to me how the Green Party is willing to allow a formal party caucus to refuse to talk with anyone in the party about problems in the caucus because "my lawyer said I shouldn't talk to you."
Has the time come to change the Party's caucus structure? Would a "National Feminist Caucus" be more appropriate than a "National Women's Caucus"?
// posted by Gregg Jocoy @ 8:23 AM 
