Would it have been better for the founding fathers to have instituted a family vote then? As in a family gets the right to vote with their marraige certificate?

Let's see if I can offer a few challenge questions to this post without being called an idiot a thousand times.

So, I agree with everything this person is saying, but I disagree on their conclusions.

What if we were to say, one family one vote, but that vote is determined by the woman? If it's truly meant to pit husband vs wife, then why not let only women vote, not men?

As for working outside of the home, I get it that it follows logically for the woman to stay home and raise the children, since they do have to give birth and women are predisposed to actually wanting to stay home and raise children whereas men are more inclined not to. However, should women be arbitrarily barred from pursuing a different coarse in life? How would men feel if they were specifically told they must spend their lives doing something they don't want to do and are absolutely banned from doing what they do want to do? I get the whole wage slave idea and how that applies to anyone, male or female. But let's not pretend that ALL women should be mothers. Some very specifically should not be. Some women, as represented in history, were of far more use to humanity by pursuing their passion than being mothers. Granted, it's been fewer females than males, and I'd wager that most women would choose to be mothers. But I think you get my point.

Let us also not candy coat the past. The truth is, women working outside the home had far more to do with industrialization than feminism. The moving of society away from agricultural life and into an industrial one is what started this whole thing. I'd have to look up specific statistics, but since the industrial revolution, most mothers have worked outside the home. I think the 1950's was the decade of the most SAHM since industrialization, and even then it was only 20-25% of mothers if memory serves.

Moreover, I don't think modern men are equipped psychologically to be the head of household providers that men of the past were. Men would have to step up in a way that very few do anymore. Granted, increased wages would help with this, but it would require an entire 180 in the way men view responsibility. So, it's not JUST a woman thing.
So, ultimately, feminism wasn't entirely borne out of the minds of evil marxists or psychopathic oligarchs. There was a genuine desire to be seen as a full fledged human being on the behalf of women. It's complicated for sure. Because feminism ultimately has harmed more than it has helped, but it's erroneous to say that from a female perspective it has done ONLY harm.

Look at it this way, what if the shoe was on the other foot? The truth is, women for most of history were always in a very precarious position. If your husband chose to leave you (and let's not pretend that men always do the right thing) or he died, you were fucked. Totally fucked. You had to rely on a brother, an uncle, maybe even a grown son for your survival. If you had none of that, then a life of prostitution was basically the only way. I mean, it wasn't some fucking storybook tale. Do some actual research. Try to understand why feminism started or at the very least, why women came to support it.

How would men feel if they were wholesale treated as sub-human? How would men feel if their entire lives depended upon the actions and kindness if the women around them? How would men feel if they were told they were too stupid, childish or otherwise inferior in every way?

Well, we already know don't we. Look at the typical male response to the average feminazi who does state such things. Not that they shouldn't be rightfully angry. But maybe then you can understand why feminism started.

In fact, I'd argue that much if the rage and anger I see from men in regards to feminism is the idea that women want to dominate men. But these same men argue the point by stating that feminists are evil and wrong because it's men that should be dominating women!

As such, I disagree with both. I personally wish for a society where men and women ARE free to choose their own life path without ridicule. Modern women are ridiculed for choosing to be SAHM, which is totally fucked. But the answer to that isn't "men need to rule women lives with an iron fist".

That was a good read, but there is one thing I don't understand and I see it in American politics all the time. When the author talks about liberalism and conservatism as opposites it he must be wrong? The very thing American conservatives are trying to preserve is liberalism, is it not? I've never understood what American conservatism is all about if it isn't the preservation of liberalism(or classic liberalism).