For some, even in the first generation of American feminists. Second-wave feminism didn't start off as a good movement which was then hijacked by the sexual revolution. "Equal opportunity" implies gender equality; if the sexes are unequal, you can't complain about unequal "treatment" or oppotunity. Secondly, because the sexes are unequal, their responsibilities to others are also unequal, and these differences are also taken into account in the political economy. It seems to me that it is liberalism (and its child feminism) which assumes that the (self-defined, autonomous) individual is all that matters for one's personal identity. Any natural (and even voluntary) social identity is irrelevant for moral and political considerations.
This sort of feminism-friendly social conservatism needs to go.
New: "Subverted: How I Helped the Sexual Revolution Hijack the Women's Movement"
Now available from Ignatius Press: Subverted: How I Helped the Sexual Revolution Hijack the Women's Movement
by Sue Ellen Browder
Contraception and abortion were not originally part of the 1960s women’s movement. How did the women’s movement, which fought for equal opportunity for women in education and the workplace, and the sexual revolution, which reduced women to ambitious sex objects, become so united?