text: Whenever a movement is began whether it be political, religious, or artistic, stereotypes are quick to form. People normally associated with politics, religion, or art are quickly lumped into categories regardless of individual differences. This tragedy is worsened by the tendency of those outside the movement to remember the radical and ignore the common or ordinary. This is especially true of the Women's Liberation Movement in America.
  
  Since its beginnings in the late nineteenth century, Women's Liberation has been met with adamant, and often obstinate oppostion. Some of the first radicals, Susan B. Anthony and George Sand (although French) were noticed and ridiculed, thus defeating their cause, because of their aggressive action. At the same time other feminists such as Emily Dickinson were virtually ignored during their lifetime and only acknowledged posthumously as being part of the movement. This ignorance of other less aggressive feminists, made it seem as though the feminist movement was headed only by wild, disgruntled zealots and was therfore, detrimental to the good of society.
  
  Although "radicals" such as Sand and Anthony seem docile and backward in modern standards, the problem still exists. From the very beginning the Women's Movement in America has been fighting a losing battle. However, I contend that the fault does not lie with the radical members of the movement, but rather, in the perception of those observing the movement. 
  When Women's Lib really took off again in the late 1960s, it was again destined for failure. Immediately, the focus was on radicals like Stein, instead of the housewife who returned to college and made a career for herself. Those outside the movement could only see the differences between "normality" and Women's Lib.
  
  This is still true twenty-five years later. Women supporting equal pay for women and and other "liberal" causes like affirmative action are only seen in the shadow of the bra-burning, anti-shaving leaders of the 1970s. The good of their cause is undermined by the perception of the radicals.
  
  So what am I getting at? Only that so-called feminists have not in and of themselves harmed the Women's movement.
  
  However, the popular perception of them has. For so many years the good that feminists have promote for women has fallen by the wayside in lieu of other more interesting, i.e. radical ideas. Like many other aspects and movements in life, they would be more readiliy received if the public it was being aimed was not so jaded.
edits.text: begun, opposition , , therefore by , , promoted , readily  at