Even if that were true, I wouldn’t hold HRC responsible for it, at least not exclusively.
Amy L. Sacks

Sandra Day O’Connor, Shirley Temple Black, Condoleeza Rice, Janice Shaw Crouse, Phylis Schlafly, Barbara Kay, Janice Fiamengo, Margaret Thatcher, Julie Borowski, Corazon Aquino, Madame Sun Yat-sen, Aung San Suu Kyi, (yes, even) Sarah Palin….

As an exercise, add up the achievements, the output, the positions and titles held, the historic acclaim and the lasting impact, of these thirteen women, just as a sampling of women who had not made feminism their focus or their priority in their careers. Then offer me a list of thirteen women whose sole offering was about feminism and called themselves feminists as a raison d’etre for their public lives, and we can see how the two compare.

And no doubt such a list could be compiled. I could probably make it myself, knowing a thing or two about feminism’s history. But the qualitative achievements of the one versus the other, weighed against the mere quantitative, would be revealing in itself.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.