Though open marriages are lifestyle choices free to be made by those engaging in them, Amelia Airheart appeared to believe that this was a choice synonymous with feminism. I believe that she took feminism too far in her stipulation for an open marriage because to assert oneself as a woman who is equal to a man, one does not have to foregoe the traditional union of marriage. She could have practiced a marriage where she and her partner were equal, while still remaining committed to each other exclusively. Her husband was not seeking an open marriage; Amelia insisted on the stipulation to assert her equal rights, but this was unnecessary since her husband was not seeking to enter into a marriage of double standards.
Yes, it is my belief that Amelia Earhart took feminism too far because she wrote in her prenup that she wanted an open marriage. In my opinion, what is the point of getting married if you are just going to be allowed to see other people? Marriage is about loving one other person, so an open marriage is counter productive.
Having an open marriage isn't necessarily feminist. Rather, it's just being upfront about the terms of marriage. She and her partner were able to agree on the terms of their marriage in writing. That isn't feminist. A pre-nuptial agreement can be for the protection of finances or it can cover relationship expectations. She was being a good partner by putting it out there at the beginning.
No, she did not take feminism too far by including a stipulation in her prenup. In many ways, this is not even a part of feminism. Feminism is abotu equality, but having an open marriage is not equal if both parties cannot agree about it. This is an entirely different view.