Uh, since when were early feminists abolitionists anyway? She's wrong from her very first point. (Not to mention, an utterly ridiculous string of arguments following on.)
Since when...well, how early do you want to go? There was more than a bit of overlap between the suffragists and abolitionists of the 1800s -- Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the Grimke sisters, Lucy Stone, Martha Coffin Wright, and Susan B. Anthony, just to name a few, were all active in both movements. In many cases the second-class treatment these women received during their abolitionist activitism was a factor in inspiring them to advocate for women's rights as well. Admittedly there was something of a schism following the Civil War, with some continuing to work for black civil rights and others, like Anthony, insisting that female suffrage should be a higher priority. But in the earlier portion of the 1800s, at least, many of the luminaries of the American first wave were also abolitionists. And if that's not early enough for you, Mary Wollstonecraft was arguing against the slave trade in the late 1700s.
Which isn't to say that the original poster linked isn't grossly oversimplifying this association, and otherwise generally a few slices short of a sandwich, of course; but there are plenty of other nits in her argument that are more deserving of being picked than this one.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-02-21 08:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-21 09:37 pm (UTC)Which isn't to say that the original poster linked isn't grossly oversimplifying this association, and otherwise generally a few slices short of a sandwich, of course; but there are plenty of other nits in her argument that are more deserving of being picked than this one.