...speaking of and BTW, I forgot to mention, to Dwayne re your post Twilight of the Super Heroines, thanks. That whole mess -- well, I've given up trying to understand any of it. If you have insight, I'd love another perspective.
................
I won't claim to have special knowledge, only a few observations.
What I noted, what I think lies at the heart of the problem, is a strong belief that there is (or should be) a 'sisterhood' which smooths out - maybe even prevents - conflict. Such a belief sets you up for a hard fall when conflict makes its inevitable appearance.
Needless to say, feminist bloggers disagree on a lot of topics. I know for example, that your understanding of the US' role in the world is a lot more, shall we say, developed than that of many of the women you met via the feminist blogosphere. Some of them were radical (when compared to the general population) on the topic of women's relation to men within a patriarchal framework but still liberal interventionists who were willing to be swayed on the topic of Iran, etc. and who wanted to believe in 'America's Mission' and other bedtime stories.
Also, there is a difference - a very big difference - between what I'll call pop feminism (for example, articles in magazines and anecdotes about how dim witted, natively violent and awful men are and how organized, marvelous and goal oriented women are - the sort of ripping yarns 20-somethings, such as the cohort over at Jezebel.com, feed on with shark-like abandon) and the kind of deep theory, sociological research informed stuff you presented.
If a blogger's approach to what she's calling feminism is to post article after article about the regrettable habits of 19 year old white guys (usually the ones magazine "researchers" can talk to) and then wait for the angry comments re: male suckitude to roll in, you're not necessarily going to relate to the woman over there who's deconstructing Dworkin with an electron microscope.
I witnessed a lot of standard issue anti-intellectualism whenever you posted a series of complex posts on topics which challenged pop feminist leitmotifs (not from your readers, of course, who were there to learn and discuss but from your adversaries who grew like sunflowers). How could you know all these things? What were your "qualifications"?
To return to the first point: when such differences exist, there will be disagreements, misunderstandings, even hurt feelings. But if these tussles happen within the purported bubble of 'sisterhood' - if, in other words, they happen within a discourse protocol which denies the validity of honest conflict between women and which imagines all unpleasantness to come from a pernicious male influence ("male identified") - even the smallest dust ups can get completely out of hand.
Then there's the practical matter of the wretchedness of email and blog comments (particularly quickly written in the rush of events) as a conveyor of subtlety.
Just a few thoughts, incompletely worked through. There's a lot to think about there.
.d.
-- "We're candies, not job applicants, give us a shot!"
...................... http://monroelab.net/blog/