But this is just not true.
Feminism has achieved very little for women. If anything, it has retarded the progress of women. And, furthermore, it is likely to push back the 'progress' of women in the near future.
Women enjoy greater freedoms today because of progress in the areas of science, medicine and technology, not because of feminism.
Those who have doubts about this should try to imagine how feminist policies or attitudes could possibly have succeeded 100 years ago - or in impoverished places in the world today.
Ask a poor woman in Afghanistan why she still wants to wear the burka when she walks about in the street. Ask her why she would still much prefer to be married to a man who has some real concern for her welfare.
Women - feminists or otherwise - have probably always got what they aimed for throughout History. They were biologically designed to manipulate and to use men for their own purposes. This is why they survive in so many circumstances in which men do not.
The less harsh is the world outside, and the less vulnerable that women are to it, the more do they venture out into it.
When human beings were living in caves the women said to the men, "You go out first."
And they did.
And this is the way that it has been ever since.
And only fools and feminists would think so.
It is science, medicine, technology and men that have today 'liberated' western women to an unparalleled degree, not feminism.
These are the sorts of things that have truly 'liberated' women - and, indeed, men.
Feminism has been of virtually no significance at all in comparison.
It is also often argued that women in western societies were unfairly discriminated against in the past with regard to various 'important' jobs and roles that were more or less denied to them. The truth, however, is that they were discriminated against on very good grounds indeed!
For example, the vast majority of women were going to end up having children. This is what they wanted to do.
And it was wasteful for society - and for individual families and organisations - to expend huge resources in training women over many years for jobs that they were extremely unlikely to end up doing.
And what makes anyone think that younger women in those days actually wanted to undergo the serious long-term training that was required in order to do such jobs when they knew full well that they were extremely unlikely to want to do them?
Even today, the UK's National Health Service is suffering from significant inefficiencies and failures because women doctors are dropping out of work for years on end in order to have children - with some never to return. (e.g. see Is the Training of Women Doctors A Waste of Money?)
In other areas of work where physical fitness and strength were important - such as in the police force or in the army - where was the value to society in employing women to do such work when men were not only available to do it but were also able to do it far more effectively? Even fifty years ago, such jobs were far tougher than they are now.
And, no doubt, the feminists of the future will then perpetuate the lie that today's women were discriminated against in the construction industry and that they were mostly desperate to lay bricks and climb scaffolding!
Furthermore, in the past, where paying jobs outside the home were not very plentiful, and where there were no significant welfare systems to protect the unemployed, it would have been absolutely disastrous for communities if many families had no bread-winners at all, while others had two, or even more. And it was clearly in the interests of everyone that jobs were distributed among families as best as possible.
You only have to look at impoverished communities today to see what happens when the men - particularly the young ones - are unemployed.
And these are the reasons why, in the past, women often had to give up their jobs if they got married. The idea was to make their jobs available to men who had to support families, and the assumption was that married women would be supported by their husbands - which they were.
And for similar reasons, women were sometimes paid less than men for the very same jobs.
For example, In 1936, a Gallup poll asked a national sample, “Should a married woman earn money if she has a husband capable of supporting her?” By overwhelming majorities, both men and women said that she should not.
But thanks to science, medicine, technology and men, - and, of course, the growth in the economy that they have brought about - women nowadays have greater access to the world of work, should they so desire it.
And feminism had very little to do with this.
Younger women also often claim that they are glad to be alive today rather than in earlier times not long gone. And they seem to believe that the feminists of the 70s are largely responsible for the better circumstances that now exist for them.
This is hokum.
There is no denying that life is decidedly better in many ways nowadays than it was in the past - for both men and women - but what, exactly, did feminism achieve - apart from the long catalogue of disasters listed in the piece sarcastically entitled The Benefits of Feminism?
It is often argued, for example, that feminists were at the forefront in loosening the shackles of traditional gender roles which made men masculine and women feminine.
But was it?
Surely, if any particular group is to be especially credited with leading the way in this area it was the gay movement not the women's movement.
It is also often claimed that men and women now stand far more on an equal footing than they did some decades ago.
In what areas, exactly?
Women can nowadays kick their husbands out of their homes, deny them access to their own children, and, in many western countries, even make them continue paying for children who are not even theirs! There are now some 20 times as many men in western prison cells as women. Men currently die, on average, some 5 years earlier than women. And so on.
This is greater equality?
Indeed, it would be interesting to know on what basis there is greater equality today than there was in the past. And how does one measure it?
For example, does the fact that women were once not entitled to vote (as was true for most men) not somehow balance the fact that men alone could be conscripted into the army?
The feminist trick that infects the ether is to hold up examples of what appears to be unfairness toward women in the past, but to hide the unfairness that was being heaped upon men.
The suffering of women is highlighted and exaggerated and the suffering of men is denied and hidden. For example, look at the way that the domestic-violence industry still caters only for women and denies the existence of such violence against men. (Indeed, the UK government's previous Solicitor General - Harriet Harman - and the Home Office itself purposely ignore domestic violence against men; e.g. see Good Luck Ms Harman.)
And the modern-day history books have been cleansed by the left wing and the politically-corrected in the educational establishments and in the media in order to hide the suffering and the achievements of men and to elevate unduly into the public consciousness those of women.
And the extent to which these lies are continually perpetrated is absolutely astonishing.
And, sure enough, the men could be seen standing in an orderly line without the pushing and shoving that was taking place among the women.
And so what these images really showed was that the women were completely unafraid of the policemen wielding their sticks while the men dared not put a foot out of line.
The truth of the matter was the complete opposite of what the media were persistently trying to portray.
(Indeed, if you watch TV footage of scenes in poorer countries wherein the inhabitants are standing up to their governments, it is very often the women who are leading the charge!)
Even men's rights activists seem to think that feminism has benefited women in some major way. For example, in his truly excellent piece Fundamental Feminism even Richard Davis says,
"In contrast to progressive feminists, fundamental feminists do not seek gender equity. Their goal is gender superiority and authority. There is no question that women and men now live in a more gender equitable world than the one this author was born into. As a father of three daughters and two sons this author expects and demands equity of behavior and equal opportunity for all five of his children. Most of the credit for this contemporary view of gender equity must be given to progressive feminism."
"Most of the credit for this contemporary view of gender equity must be given to progressive feminism."
Where is the evidence for this?
And what on Earth is 'progressive feminism'?
I have never even heard of it! - despite years of being involved with the men's movement.
How can it possibly be that this 'progressive feminism' can be given the 'credit' for our current view of 'gender equity'?
Where? How? When?
What the Hell is it?
And what about the 'independent' feminists, the 'equity' feminists and goodness knows what other types of feminists who are also often alleged to have brought about this current view of gender equity?
Do they count at all?
And have the gays not contributed most significantly to the current view of gender equity?
And what about black people?
Yes. Even the black racial activists witter on about gender equity.
And even many raging white male anti-feminists, if not most of them, are pretty sold on the idea of 'gender equity'.
And so the idea that feminists - of any kind - have some superior claim when it comes to the successful promotion of 'fairness' and 'justice' toward women is just nonsense. They are but a small fraction of the hundreds of other groups that have sought goodwill, justice, fairness and peace on Earth etc.
And the worthwhile achievements of feminists are almost non-existent.
Richard talks about wanting the same opportunities and the same fair treatment for his sons and his daughters.
And quite right too!
But if you travel back fifty years in time and beyond, what meaning could this possibly have had?
For example, how could it have been 'equitable' to insist that your son and your daughter both train hard for several years and to imbue them both with high professional expectations when the daughter would most likely want a completely different life for herself as an adult? - i.e. marriage to a suitable young man.
Do loving parents who believe in 'equitable' treatment fill their children's heads with grandiose ideas and expectations knowing full well that they are extremely unlikely to achieve them, or when they do not even want to achieve them?
And what, for example, if one lived in a mining community?
Would it have been 'equitable' to treat the boys and girls in the same way, and expect them both to work down the mines for 12 hours a day as a future career?
Similarly, allowing your 15 year old daughter to stay out until midnight and not requiring her to have an escort home would have been the height of madness fifty years ago. Even today, most responsible parents will have somewhat different rules for their boys and their girls when it comes to how they view their socialising habits.
And, of course, girls who got pregnant fifty years ago would have found themselves in all sorts of trouble.
Indeed, if feminism had been of major influence in those days our societies would have collapsed completely.
You only have to look at the effects that feminism has had on our poorer communities to see what a disaster it has been for so many people.
Indeed, if western economies were to deteriorate significantly in the future, and if millions of jobs were lost on a permanent basis, there is no way that feminist policies could be implemented or enforced.
And just imagine what would happen if, for some strange reason, abortions became unsafe and the contraceptive pill disappeared.
When you look back even fifty years ago, it is quite clear that women were not being oppressed by the 'patriarchy'. The patriarchy was serving them very well indeed, given the circumstances in which people lived.
In summary, feminism has achieved very little indeed.
It is science, medicine, technology and men that have today 'liberated' western women - and men - to an unparalleled degree, not feminism.
Feminism has damaged our society. It has damaged all of us.
And it continues to do so.
Not only is it a hugely destructive force but any society that is largely influenced by it is actually doomed to disappear.
The birth rates in feminist-dominated societies have plummeted to well below their population replacement rates, and the children who are being born are increasingly the offspring of those with lower levels of ability.
Well, with any luck, science, medicine, technology and men will, once again, manage to deal with the problems that will arise from such things.
But, firstly, this will not be easy. And, secondly, feminism has got to go.
If you really want to see just how hopeless and how highly destructive to all of us is the bogus search by feminists for 'equality' then please read my piece entitled Equality Between Men and Women Is Not Achievable and you will discover the real motives behind this continual 'search for equality'.