okay so the first one has a paywall, the second one says that she fought for feminist ideals but doesn’t cite any examples, the third is literally a single paragraph description of a documentary. the fourth and fifth keep talking about how her personal letters show she was a leftist. the only thing I found her being active in was nuclear policy.
I am not sure if it’s because English isn’t your first language or what reason you aren’t able to understand that an idea being widespread proves a reputation exists more than the merits of it
okay so the first one has a paywall, the second one says that she fought for feminist ideals but doesn’t cite any examples, the third is literally a single paragraph description of a documentary. the fourth and fifth keep talking about how her personal letters show she was a leftist. the only thing I found her being active in was nuclear policy.
So you can recognize she has a reputation for being a feminist
which part of my summary gave you that idea? I’m not being sarcastic, I’d like you to be specific
The part where you read through many different sources that viewed her as feminist
so not only did you not read the sources, you didn’t read my summary. get fucked bro
It’s an argument on reputation
I am not sure if it’s because English isn’t your first language or what reason you aren’t able to understand that an idea being widespread proves a reputation exists more than the merits of it