The FIRST Feminist: Mary Wollstonecraft w/ Dr. Carrie Gress 

It's interesting to learn about the family of this woman. And when you look into it, it is no wonder why her daughter made Frankenstein. And even the events that happened to Mary Shelley after wrote that book.

I have heard some young girls in their early twenties sarcastically saying "who's idea was it that we should work. Thanks a lot" lol. I would bet there are more and more every day. The inflation is making it hard for single people to get by..., college education costs highway robbery and multiple degrees are needed to make a very good living. Things turned out very different from the optimism of the 90s. Teachers pushed all kids in 80s and 90s to go to college because that was the only path to a decent life. They made having children instead of career seem like you'd be living in a shoebox and be dumb and uneducated.

It's all a class game, the first wave of feminism were aristocrat women with zero intention to talk about the rights of anyone but themselves and their peers

Would Ms. Gress consider Christine de Pizan a feminist or a proto-feminist?

Interesting

Wordz

Not really it's a manifestation of a demon Lilith molech the screech owl don't sacrifice your children to molech.

Too short.

God bless you and thank you for your show. I must comment and share my perspective. Mary Wollstonecraft was absolutely right. At the time of the revolution, the French Aristocracy was a corrupt government. The oldest son of the king became prince and future king, if he were still a child the Queen mother ruled as regent, until the child king was old enough to take over, the second oldest became the leader of the military and the third oldest became the cardinals and archbishops, the Catholic Church tacitly and politically, approved, corrupted and immoral hierarchy. The aristocracy collected taxes from the common people - both males and females - and lived on luxury while giving very little in services and support of the common man. Both males and females of the common people were being deprived of their rights by the society. Two hundred and fifty years of corruption is precisely what caused the revolution, and unfortunately the Vendee massacres of the innocent Catholic common people as well. This corruption is why the revolution against the aristocracy was so popular and Napolean was so successful, at least at the beginning arguing that the entire European aristocracy must be defeated, not only in France, but from England to Spain and Portugal to Russia. Mary Wollstonecraft merely spoke from the perspective of a woman. I don’t know that she necessarily blamed the common man, but certainly men - males - were in charge of the government, the military and the Catholic church in France for the most part during that period. Even when the queen mother was in charge as the regent, the child king was still the actual authority. The common men and women were the exploited have nots - forced contracts. This was all in spite of the Catholic Church teachings that “all human beings are created equal” in the image and likeness of God - and deserve to be treated with dignity and integrity to be and to become who God created them to become. This of course in political terms became, “all men are created equal.” Of course, when Christianity - in the name of Protestantism and Catholic in name only French abusive aristocracy somehow implied that slavery and participation in the slave trade was acceptable Christian behavior, the waters again became muddled. Four hundred years of papal proclamations vehemently protested against the Christian participation of the slave trade as was supported by the 1200 years of cultural destruction of slavery and the slave trade in historic Christian Europe. Of course, it was not called feminism yet because there were females in the aristocracy who were also part of the Marie Antoinette style exploitative ruling government, muddying the conceptual waters. Following the example of King Henry VIII, the French king, King Henry V (of Aquitaine) Catholic in name only to save a religious war in France, began participating in the slave trade to enrich the coffers, further exploitation of - the lease of God’s children, against the 1500 year culture, social pressures and finally legal establishment that a Catholic Christian culture does not participate in the human mistreatment and abuses of the slave trade. This abusive slave ownership became seed capital for the industrial revolution in England and France with the newly discovered process of melting and forming steel - the steel era with steam engines, trains and ships and cars, and now planes and high-rise buildings. The workers - both men and women - were the exploited, unnamed economic “slave” class by the new, industrial, wealthy, profiteering, owners and political influencers. So where does feminism come in and the politics in a democratic society? When Elenor Rosevelt drafted the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1947, she researched the word “man” and discovered and agreed historically the political expression that “all men are created equal came form the historic Catholic Church teachings based upon the teaching that all men are children of God and created equal in His image. Of course, St. Paul got that message very abruptly on his way to Damascus, “Why are you persecuting me?” and of course “the least of my brethren.” But because of the confusion that had developed by December 10, 1947, when she established the declaration in the United Nations, she chose “Human” for clarity. The Protestant form of Christianity lead to the opinion that Christianity permitted Christians to prosper in the slave trade and market, as well as in the industrial workers in industry during the corrupt time of the industrial revolution - even at the expense of mistreating other human beings, as authors such as Charles Dickens and other authors and political writers as well as historians have described and personified. So, how do the female have-nots become feminists? Even from the beginning of democracies or democratic governments, there has always been discussions of who should have the right to vote in response to this historic aristocratic and government and industrial exploitation of other human beings - the common man. And how does a democratic society ensure that the voters have the best interest of the society, the governed, in mind. How do we protect the vote from the ignorance of the majority of the common man (human)? We make sure that the people of value have a stronger say in the vote than those who have not demonstrated that they are persons of value, those who have prospered in society - those who have shown prosperity in serving society - the virtuous. We allowed the Lords - the landowners to vote. We allow the men - the males - who have accepted the responsibility of raising and providing for the families to vote, because they have the duty to protect their wives and families and to vote in a manner that protects their families. It was too dangerous for women to travel alone through Indian country to vote. The women would protect the children at home while the husband is travelling to vote. But the common people were still exploited. And what about a “modern day“ woman who didn’t want to rely on a family and a husband, and did not want to raise children and remain in poverty? They were not given a voice. They were left out of the political system. And what of families that were not so healthy and ended in divorce in a “divorce friendly” protestant country? How are they protected as individuals in a democratic society focusing on the rights of the individual? What about the women and men who want a professional career and don’t want children, whether they are married or not, and do not want children or a family. What about their rights? As the earlier discussion indicates there are two types of people, those who are selfish and those who understand the wisdom of being unselfish, although don’t always practice unselfishness very well. Democracy and the right to vote must be protected by those who will vote for what is best for society, not necessarily for those who will vote for their selfish motives. So, woman’s rights installed woman’’ rights to vote and to their individual goals to be “equal” and receive “equal treatment in the society including in the industrial market - the workplace. As Justice Ruth Bador Ginsburg pointed out on multiple occasions, the technologic advances require the US Constitution to be reinterpreted to support individual woman’s rights to control her procreation. Women and men will fall in line to protect their rights to sexual behavior without subjecting themselves to the slavery of the unpaid raising of children and being burdened with a spouse to interfere with her career goals. The right to privacy is created in Griswald v. Connecticut. The number of selfish people now outnumber those who would vote for the wisdom of what is best for society and the governed. No female - and no husband and wife - is paid for raising children and the destruction of society and a democratic form of government meets its destruction. No industry or employer wants to pay and budget for raising someone else’s family, who chose to create by irresponsible sexual behavior. Individual’s rights are more important than the wisdom of supplying the future generations with virtuous men and women, and the very survival of society, confronted with multiple wars, natural disasters, and communicable diseases, especially voluntarily contracted sexual transmitted diseases. The feminist movement’s unintended consequences are that it destroys the democratic society.

Of course she had that face.

Dr. Gress' credentials are impressive, as well as her resume. She would not have either without some sort of push for women's rights, is that not true? Women still have trouble getting tenured in many universities, so I would be interested to know if she is tenured.

Feminism seems like a religion.