My reaction to Angry Mouse’s post on DailyKos criticizing the mainstream feminist organizations for inactivity and lack of political influence mirrored those of other feminist bloggers: there was certainly some truth to the author’s words, but the post glossed over the practical challenges faced by such organizations, especially in a recession. And as Miriam Perez points out at Feministing, “Feminism, Inc” is hardly singlehandedly to blame for the health care mess or Bush’s re-election.

But the effectiveness factor is a valid concern. Without disrespecting the passion and hard work of those who work at mainstream feminist groups, the fact is that many such groups have struggled to appeal beyond the older, seasoned-activist set and have thusly seen their political influence wane. The result is their inability to appropriately mobilize the millions of young, smart women who would probably be on board with a feminist agenda if it were just articulated to them. Rarely is choice, for instance, couched in a broader context connecting reproductive freedom to the way today’s woman leads her life. Every young women in this country should know that of course she should control her own sex life – just like she controls her bank account, her wardrobe, her car payments, her grocery list, and the host of other economic and societal issues women face on a daily basis.

I think many of these strategy struggles stem from the lack of younger women’s leadership at virtually all of these “Feminism Inc” organizations. Indeed, as younger feminists continue to clamor for power with second-wave leaders, I find myself searching the ranks for our own version of Amy Gardner, the head of the Women’s Leadership Coalition.

Before you Google either, I should point out that both the WLC and Gardner are not real. They are figments of Aaron Sorkin’s imagination, brought to life on the television show The West Wing. That both Gardner and the WLC are mere television creations is frustrating, but a few lessons can be learned from their fictional example. One, losing “the women’s vote” is something that the key White House players on the show are legitimately concerned about, and the frequent lobbying by Gardner and her ilk exerts obvious influence on the quality of legislation and public debate.

The second is Gardner herself (played by Mary-Louise Parker). Amy Gardner is not only brilliant, sassy, and effective, but she’s young, having worked her way (fictionally, that is) through Yale Law School, NOW and EMILY’s List before coming to the helm of the WLC sometime in her early-to-mid thirties. With more women than ever coming out of BA programs, as well as law and business schools, it’s insane that we haven’t selected more of them as leaders or at least found a way to tap into their concerns as women of the 21st century. Instead, the reins of power have yet to be turned over, with the exception of 36-year-old Stephanie Schriock’s recent ascension as president of EMILY’s List. Keeping younger women out of power hurts mainstream organizations in terms of strategy, marketing, and relevance. There is a new generation of feminist leaders bubbling up, and somewhere in that group is our own real-life Amy Gardner: young, fearless, and with the intellect and skill set required to move the feminist movement back from the margins to strong political influence. It’s time for the movement to let this shift happen.