Excellent article. Excellent woman. I like to think that there are still more good women around than there are gross harpies of the sort she rightly rips into.

Ms. Arndt speaks up for us blokes more than we do for ourselves.

Disgree, men denied women the vote acquired their property through marriage and raped their wives as though it was their god given right. And during that era women were no more than goods and chattels and brood mares forced to bear child after child.

Were expected to cook clean and plough the fields Had no more rights than common slaves. Yes, there was a movement of feminists that had little in common with females but rather, Feminazis. But that's a man hating minority.

The Author and the source she quotes from, are. believe, historical revisionists. Even today some of the above are true for some women and only one third of households the world over, have washing machines.

It must be nice to live in the Author's bubble, confident in the knowledge you're always right.
Alan B.

>,believe,< should be read as <,I believe,<
Alan.

I much prefer the kind of integral feminism promoted by Adrienne Rich. And Susan Griffin too http://www.susangriffin.com
And the kind of integral feminism promoted by the author of a book titled Voices of the Sacred Feminine -Conversations to Re-Shape Our World http://www.blogtalkradio.com/voicesofthesacredfeminine

Old time "education" was entirely and only about brain-washing the kiddies in what to think. Such was definitely the case when I went to primary and high school in the 50's and 60's. So too with must/most of the back-to-the-past "education" promoted by those on the right side of the culture wars.
And just as important, if not more so, was the function/purpose of TV and movie-theater films.

The purpose of which was summed up in the popular song by Malvina Reynolds titled Little Boxes All the Same.

Meanwhile in the now-time of 2023 the principal brain-washing (education) medium is of course screens of one kind or another - I-phones, I-pads, computers, and TV especially in the case of boys adolescents and young men ultra-violent video games. And big screen movie-theater films too.

More drivel from Arndt.

The Wikipedia link makes clear that the Declaration of Sentiments is closely modelled on the Declaration of Independence, using the same rhetoric to parallel Americans’ desire for rights and independence, and women’s desire for the same. So the “history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpation on the part of man towards woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her” is almost identical to this from the Declaration of Independence:

“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”

Either Arndt doesn’t realise this, or she chooses not to tell us.

A third of signatories of the Declaration of Sentiments were male - including Frederick Douglass.

Elsewhere, her logic is flawed. The fact that many men were not allowed to vote in national elections at the time the Declaration was published doesn’t in any way diminish that fact that no women were allowed to vote, because they were women. If the situation were reversed, and only educated property-owning women were allowed to vote, but no men, would she likewise consider that not discriminatory? Perhaps New York State had legislation protecting women’s rights to property, but the same protections were not applied elsewhere. The fact that marital rape was disapproved of does not detract from the fact that it was not just legal but considered a man’s right.

That “Britain's brave suffragettes” had a dark history is not “revealed” by Fiamengo; it is well known, and not just in academic circles. The early scenes of the 2015 movie Suffragette show a violent protest by suffragettes. It is still a matter of debate whether such tactics were justified, as it in many other freedom movements around the world (Nelson Mandela was a convicted terrorist).

Swiney’s views on men were weird and extreme - linked with her views on eugenics, theosophy, Gnosticism and occultism – but they were not representative, or particularly influential. Certainly no-one holds those views today.