I think job security is a huge issue for younger feminists starting out their careers and why we seem to be drawn to anonymous forms of activism. What if my boss finds out that I’m a PP escort? The career guidance at my uni is pretty much “don’t say anything controversial that can be associated with your name” and I think it’s a legitimate concern.

Also, I’d like to be on the record as saying I absolutely refuse to accept this totally bizarre and unfair notion that we’re not doing any work for women or for feminism, but that’s another story I guess.

Ha! That totally matches up with something I was trying to explain to someone else ages ago – about how, when arguing with (good faith) dissenters on feminist blogs, it actually seems to work best to have a “good cop/bad cop” dynamic going on.

It’s never intentional, as far as I can tell, but the best way to get a dissenter to admit they were wrong seems to be to have one person (or more) arguing passionately, without any regard for “tone” and then have another (or more) back the other(s) up, but in more measured, patient tones.

The dissenter does still tend to be all “why can’t you meanies be like her????” but (from my limited observation) they are much more likely to admit the original point is valid.

However, if you only have the patient, measured comments replying to the dissenter, the dissenter is much more likely to stick to their original view.

My guess is that both the passion and the logic are needed. The passion is needed to jolt them out of complacency – or treating it all as simply a logic exercise, the patience is needed to make it hard for them to get away with only reacting to the passion and not also the actual arguments.

Also, getting to make the “tone” argument, even while agreeing they were in the wrong, helps them save face and feel less threatened by admitting wrong.

At the very least I think another March for Women’s Lives is in order.

What does everyone think? I’m not sure I agree, but it’s definitely an interesting theory.

I don’t have much chance to be proud of WI politicians, especially the ones in DC. But GWEN ROCKS.

Verity Khat: I cried too!

Less on topic:

The fact that voting frequency increases with age – as it always has done – has squat to do with which direction people vote.

Also, while activists leaders tend to be older and more experienced, the activists foot soldiers have always tended to be younger. And always will be. For the same reason their peers are less likely to vote: they are more mobile and their lives are less stable. Making activism less of a risk, and the habit of voting newer and less ingrained.

I realize that facebook, twitter, and blogs are hardly the gold standard litmus test of political activism, but I just have to say that the only places that I’ve seen this topic mentioned are:

tweets – generally by women under 40

facebook posts – both by women under 40

blogs like this one – which are again, generally run by women under 40 (the ones the I read, in any case)

So I have to second Becky’s request that you kindly knock off the “kids nowadays” hand-wringing. All it does it make “young” women like us feel like trying to work with “older” women (like you?) is a lost cause.