Re: about feminism

We simply note that for over 1800 years the religious zealots did not persecute us, and that the persecution began in earnest with the rise of feminism.

You had me up till this point. Nonsense. Most Christians--at least since Luther--would not have openly stood for sex with prepubescent girls, and they certainly never would've allowed it with boys. The fact that they seem to raise no historical objections doesn't mean they weren't opposed to it. It just means it wasn't enough of a problem to warrant objection. They made exceptions for royals (though generally those were marriages of convenience and weren't consummated till years later), but I doubt very much they would've agreed to, for example, a marriage between a 7-year-old girl and a 40-year-old man in the general sense. Besides, it's mostly moot because the early Christians did support the patriarchal system in which the father had dominion over his daughters and thus gave or denied permission to her suitors. And finally, the general anti-sex attitudes of the Church for most of its history (adjusted for some oddball policies here and there) are enough to provide the answer to how we arrived at the place we're at today.

Read Sex and Sensibility by Marcia Pally. The Church, recognizing it's increasing loss of influence on sexual matters after the Sexual Revolution, latched onto and provided support for those feminists who made certain sexual issues their pet projects. Pally focuses primarily on adult pornography and obscenity, but CASC would certainly fall into that category too. Without the support of the social conservatives in the Church, those neofeminists never would've gotten a foothold because the general tone of the 60s movement was toward liberalization of everything, including sex.