Hi-

I guess I can start the Nomenus Membership discussion myself.

For me, there are a couple of issues.

The first is that Nomenus was formed in an era of Identity Politics. There also was a history of movements started by gay people being co-opted, and this was part of the reasoning that led to the choice of “gay identified man” as the parameter for membership. At that time, in the mid-80's, it was still radical to identify as “gay”. It was even more radical for men (of any stripe) to band together to form a group created to nurture and support one another. There was a feeling among the pioneers that we needed to learn to do everything for ourselves, and that this self-actualization could be manifested only in a group of likes.

To me, one of the most sacred tenets of Nomenus is the way in which we make decisions. We decide on the basis of true consensus, whereby the group can not implement a decision if there is even one person opposed (“blocking”). There are many decisions that would have been made long ago if we were to use “majority rule” as our decision process. As far as I can tell, one of these would have been a change in the membership policy.

It is true that there has been incredible change in the time since Nomenus was formed. Identifying as a particular “sexuality” has been supplanted by a system of affinity and acceptance that blurs a line once distinct. As a social construct, I identify as a “gay man”, in such places as my job, an outdoor group to which I belong, and Nomenus. It is still radical to do so in my job, where that alone is more than most can handle, much less all of the incredible variety of “sexualities” that my friends and acquaintances exhibit. It is markedly less so in Nomenus, where really I am known solely as Rula.

Even more distressing to some members of Nomenus is the fluidity of gender. What does being a “man” mean? At the last Great Circle, one member stated that he could not view another member as a “man”. How tightly should Nomenus parse the meaning of this one word? How can it be defined, as it is unlikely to pass consensus to change it, so as to not exclude. Is that even possible? Do we end up with some unreadable statement in excruciating detail that says effectively nothing? (Like some people view my sentences)

I have witnessed what I consider unmistakable displays of sexism on the part of Nomenus members, especially when they are telling us “how it is” in other communities of which they would have only superficial knowledge (e.g. In the “lesbian” community). “Why should Nomenus have to change?”, they posit, “when other communities still exclude on the basis of gender.” I have seen the taint of exclusivity and entitlement demonstrated by some members – at least partially for which I blame the Reagan administration when it became socially acceptable to be selfish – with a sort of smugness about the continued denial of membership to others in our community. They are correct, and I guess they can be smug about it, “membership” will not yet (ever?) be consensed to change.

On a practical front, what does “membership” mean? Lots of people use its limits as an excuse not to be involved. We get many comments from other communities, such as in Tennessee where Nomenus is referred to as “No women us”. Would a change in membership mean that there would be more people actually doing work for Nomenus and the Sanctuary? (I fear not) What do people in the Wolf Creek Sanctuary community want to do that not being a member of Nomenus precludes them from doing?

As with the last time that Great Circle met in Portland, I am proposing that at least half a day of the Circle be open to the larger community for a discussion of “membership”, and more importantly, how Nomenus can welcome and encourage the contributions of non-members.

Membership has been discussed in other posts with considerable rancor. I hope that the discussion in this can be inclusive without attack, and passionate without oppression.

Rula