Read on Twitter
I think a lot about the "Tyranny of Structurelessness" -- the idea that, in groups that explicitly set out to abolish rules and hierarchies, even more unfair informal hierarchies tend to take hold. Instead of making decisions by rule, you make them based on who's hot or popular.
It seems like a minor complaint, but it's not, because what you're measuring with "popularity" is often who comes from the same class & social background, who's neurotypical, who's got a socially stigmatized identity... the same injustices tend to subtly reassert themselves.
But this time, there's no rule that says you can't do that. There's no supposedly impartial system meant to impose "fairness." Hey, we're all equal here, is it our fault no-one listens to you? By making "hierarchy" invisible, you just make it all the more entrenched.
Anyway. If people were super into reading '70s feminist infighting, you might realize the problems inherent in a leftism that constantly complains about "the HR department" but also allows its national agenda to be set by, like, random podcast hosts.
Anyway. It's been a long time since I've read this, but: "Structurelessness becomes a way of masking power, and within the women's movement is usually most strongly advocated by those who are the most powerful." https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
Some of the reactions to this are... odd, and not really premised on any reading of the text. For one thing, it's a helluva leap from "we need transparent and democratic decision-making and accountable leadership" to "we need kings."
In second-wave feminist groups, people would often shy away from "power" or "leadership" because those were seen as inherently patriarchal. Women were supposed to be cooperative, supportive, loving, sisterly. But some sisters always had more pull than others.
What resulted was an environment in which the word "leader" was an insult (and women perceived as bossy or powerful were often disliked and ostracized) and so leadership operated informally, secretly, often in ways that were even more unjust than a clear power structure.
Naming leadership makes it possible to challenge leadership. Having rules means that you're not governed by some in-group's whims. I mean, it's a long essay -- and, being from the '70s, is I'm sure problematic in some ways -- but it's worth actually engaging with.
