Even in this country, women were not allowed to vote in political elections until the 20th century, and the case was similar in countries around the world.
How does your argument that "all issues which feminists (make no mistake, feminists of the 1920's were "radical") seek to fix are a result of empirical reality" fit with that? Women couldn't vote, and that was just the natural outcome of "empirical reality", now they can, and that is, what exactly? Did "empirical reality" change? Or is the fact that women now vote in virtually all countries a terrible crime against biology?
Women in the United States gained the right to vote in 1920. The majority of men (non-landowners) received the right to vote only 50 years prior in 1870 [1].
This doesn't seem to be the work of a nefarious patriarchy behind the veil, but a continuing democratic movement that began with the Magna Carta.
Although of course, once again, this information does not fit the feminist narrative, and is blasphemy to a movement whose only goal is political power.
So you're saying that women getting the vote two entire generations after men is not a sign of some sort of gender discrimination? (Let me guess, you're a guy.)
That would be a pretty rich claim on its own. Perhaps if were the single historical or present example of discrimination against women, maybe it would be worth considering. It isn't, of course.
Two easy examples were women not being allowed to own property:
Definitely. Those (mostly dudes) who believe feminism is no longer necessary seem never to be able to say when they think true fairness was achieved. But they're awfully sure we have it now.
