Fractured

Via Feministe:

The women disgruntled with the dKos marginalization of liberal women have started their own sounding board free from the “frat boy” mentality that seems to rule the dKos site.

See this particularly interesting conversation on the parallels between the now-infamous dKos argument and the second wave as a splinter of disaffectation with the 1960s left.

Food for thought, invested Democrats.

Indeed, the complaints about the male-centric upper echelon of the lefty blogosphere almost perfectly mirror the complaints about the male-centric leadership of the 1960’s anti-war movement—namely, that women were excluded from positions of power and influence. (I would broaden the modern comparison, however, to include, in many cases, truly progressive smaller male bloggers who believe adamantly in the importance of gender politics, thereby necessarily aligning themselves more often with female bloggers than the big dogs whose gender they share. Sorry, guys—you’re just grouped in with the gals for the rest of this post.)

In the mid-to-late sixties groups began to form, especially on college campuses, and the younger generation began to voice its opposition against the forceful techniques used by the United States government. Both women and men felt sentiments of disgust and betrayal when the government began to draft young men into the army and reports of civilian slaughter in Vietnam came home. Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) emerged as the most prevalent anti-war group of the 1960’s. It had chapters on most college campuses with the most powerful residing at Michigan State University, Pennsylvania State University, University of California at Berkeley, and at the Ivy League institutions. Each school had its own flavor and techniques within the common agenda, however, without exception, each chapter had a male dominator. Until 1965, the group at Pennsylvania State University banned women from leadership positions. Although no rules specifically prohibited it, the situation after 1965 remained the same. Women remained in subordinate positions as the backup forces instead of helping on the "frontlines."

(Emphasis mine).

In other example of the more things change, the more they stay the same, women were expected to bear the blame for their own diminished role, paralleling current theories about how there “just aren’t as many women blogging,” “women don’t write about things that interest male bloggers,” or “women just can’t hack the political food fight.”

Women often caught the blame for hanging back and acting reserved even though this behavior often resulted from the influence of condescending, chauvinist men. For instance, "The feminists complained that influence was bought at the price of establishing sexual liaisons with male leaders." The thought of becoming involved with group leaders simply to achieve a more substantial status in the movement exemplifies the core problem; women had to do something extra besides simply being themselves to achieve the same rank as men.

Similar indeed to the conundrum facing many female bloggers, particularly those who focus on issues that have been deemed “secondary” by the more influential male bloggers. And not to put too fine a point on it, but when the biggest female blogger—you know, the one who ends up on all the panels—is famous for anal sex jokes, it sort of starts to make one feel we’ve barely moved an inch in the right direction. Sex appeal is still the best way to get attention. If all a girl’s got to offer is brains, what’s the point? Dudes already have those.

The women who did get involved ended up with mostly mindless tasks such as handing out flyers, getting petitions signed, and doing "household chores" for the men. The men who did the planning and who drove the movement saw women as a "distraction in the workplace."

Gosh, swatting away women’s concerns like an annoying gnat, like a distraction from the “important shit”…I know that sounds familiar…where did I just see someone doing that…?

Oh. Right.

And so it looks like a fracture is beginning again, for the same damn reasons. The “leaders” would tell us it’s our fault, for not listening to their dictates that our concerns are of secondary importance. Just do as we say and march in lockstep with us toward a common goal, and you’ll eventually get what you want.

You know something…? I just don’t believe them.