What all expressions of Feminism seem to have in common is: there is no good plan for raising children. Because, once you are raising children — especially more than one, and any society that persists is going to need more than one child per woman — then that takes a lot of a woman’s time; or she needs to find some alternative, which are not very good.
We already saw that Mary Wollstonecraft was basically a 30+ spinster that was trying to find something interesting to do with the rest of her unmarried, childless life. This makes sense for 30+ spinsters, but not for women as a whole. And today we have Margaret Fuller who … was basically a 30+ spinster that was trying to find something interesting to do with the rest of her unmarried, childless life.
Like Mary Wollstonecraft, who basically began hanging around with “anarchists” (communists) and became a single mother, Margaret Fuller began hanging around with revolutionaries in Italy, and also, it seems, became an unmarried single mother although she still had a “relationship” with the biological father. Like Mary Wollstonecraft, she died young, sparing us the spectacle of growing old as a single mom.
Fuller was big on education for women, but wanted to avoid the “strong mental odor” of female teachers.
Does any of this make sense? Typical of feminists, it doesn’t make a lick of sense.
Cornerstone 