dialog

My invitation to friends to write joint essays recieved the following comment from an anonymous reader:

"things remain white and or male because males of all shades like to elevate the importance of one another----and decree one another the experts in all things or find women who will agree with their decrees----liberal, conservative, 'social democratic' or whatever label you want to apply---that's what ya'all do---I've watched it happen in the "progressive" arena for many years; seems to be a resurgence of it in the Santa Barbara area; young men---some white, some straight, but most of all men---decreeing themselves the great hope----and its really tiresome....many of us are just waiting for this tide to pass......so please, get over yourselves, ok?"

This comment had a rather large effect on my thinking lately, and I wanted to respond substantively. Forgive me if I am not completely coherent- there’s a lot to think about here.
First, I think the point that s(he) is making is important and true. Anyone who has worked in progressive activism has seen the ways in which men dominate discussion, strategy and leadership- often in subtle and "legitimate" ways. I've seen it, I've done it, I've been called on it, I've ignored it, and I've tried to challenge it. We see it in academia, punditry, journalism, and the “blogosphere”, despite the latter’s constant self-congratulationism to the contrary. And, of course, as the author notes, we see it in local politics here in Santa Barbara.
I have some idea of the issues and individuals alluded to, and, unhappily, would say that I am part of the problem. Some of us who are working to change local politics haven’t been doing a good job of making sure that women and their perspectives are front and center, though I know that people think about it more than the author implies. I don’t think that anyone really believes that they are the “great hope”, though I understand why others might say this about a number of local activist boys.
It is difficult to know, however, where the argument outlined above ends and where the often knee-jerk reaction to “young turks” begins. There are people who would make the above statement from an honest sense of exclusion and injustice. There is also a part of local feminist politics which is sometimes inattentive to questions of race and economic justice, and looks with suspicion toward new politics and new leaders. I have no doubt that the author of the above comment belongs in the first group.
Furthermore, while gender and sexual privilege are obviously in play here, people’s behavior is also informed by a desire to overcome barriers of age, class and oligarchy. Getting involved in electoral or “formal” political institutions often leads to some degree of grandstanding, networking or deal-making: three sets of behavior which can perpetuate the marginalization of women, and which are often generally anti-democratic.
I’m not sure, however, that some degree of entrepreneurship isn’t inevitable. It is part of the political terrain. This doesn’t mean, however, that we can’t be a whole lot better about how we define, develop and practice leadership in the movement. We have to simultaneously engage in politics while fighting to transform politics fundamentally. I don’t know exactly how to do that, and I want to hear from lots of people. I do think that I have something to contribute to the discussion, as does the anonymous commenter.
So, let’s talk.