Moved from
APA: not open to conservative planners?
Vlaude said:
APA is getting out there in my opinion... Planning in China - what the heck is that all about? Sure its growing, opportunities there, and a need for it but why the "BIG" push through the "American" Planning Association??? Second, Gay & Lesbian planning??? GET A GRIP!!! I'm still waiting for Heterosexual Planning. WHAT THE HECK does sexuality have to do with planning. I'm afraid they missed the mark on these issues and I could go on. ..... Thinking about it, I guess I am to blame along with other APA members who don't speak up. Maybe its time to start pushing back???
Plan-it said:
I do not see what issue there is for a group of people regardless if it is gay, women, african-americans, or christians to decide that they would like to expand their networking options within a larger organization. The only time groups like this even meet is during the annual conference. Not only that, but general membership dues are not going towards these groups. An individual has to pay extra money to join one of these networking venues. How is that interferring with your experience in APA if your dues are not even going to support it?
Oh dear...
First of all, Vlaude, it isn't "Gay and Lesbian Planning", it's "Gays and Lesbians
in Planning." Not exactly the same thing. The division exists because there is some commonality among gays and lesbians
in planning regarding challenges in the workplace and the group was established for exactly the same reasons as the divisions for females and African-Americans in planning. And there
was a substantial amount of "pushing back" by folks who agree with you that took place when the division was first formed. There are always the classic retorts about why aren't there Straights in Planning or Whites in Planning divisions. And the classic response is that almost any professional planning situation you're in is predominantly white and straight (and largely male, too) already. People that fall outside of that norm sometimes have workplace issues related to that. The gay-women-black divisions exist so those things can be shared.
Plan-It is absolutely right in saying that you aren't paying for it, so it's no waste of your APA dollars (which are just wasted elsewhere, of course). And you are perfectly welcome to try to establish Fisherpeople in Planning as an official division too and you can go through the same approval process GALIP did. APA does have certain standards you have to meet as far as projected membership, etc., and GALIP did not come into existence overnight without some hashing out of those issues. (Incidentally, one of the major concerns was that the membership numbers might be too low because people would be afraid to join and have their names visible to employers - an illustration of the primary "workplace issue" when you live in a country where many states still allow an employee to be fired for no other reason than that they're gay.)
So, that said.... I was a member of GALIP for awhile and found it to be, like every other APA division I belonged to, a waste of money. Which goes further to prove that gay people are just like everyone else.
