A Forthright, Hopefully Beneficial Philosophy on Feminism

Now, *shuffles feet* I've been remiss for not posting last Wednesday, but I'll remediate that by breaking my plan into a hundred pieces and posting two or three ranty essays on The Rants of Opinionation soon.

 First on the list is... A concise (paroxysms of laughter -- brevity is not my strong point), and hopefully mildish rant about the perception of femininity. You may have just read that as "feminism", that being the title of the previous piece; and there is less of a difference than one thinks. One should be free to behave as befits oneself, and if you are "feminine", isn't that keeping with it? 

Femininity is merely an aspect of a personality -- loving  to read Jane Austen, or liking, say, pink ribbons --  it's not weakness, and does not prohibit strength, fortitude, or substance -- asserting that they're mutually exclusive is selling it short, not to mention deriding one's identity.

As long as "femininity" is authentic (i.e. not to conform to stereotypes), it's unobjectionable. 

An Impassioned and Long-Pondered Persuasion Against Sycophancy

In the first of these these serial installments of my blog, I shall diatribe on the odious practice, sycophancy.

It is common, undoubtedly, and all for the more odious that it is. To not question is in-and-of-itself remarkable, but doing so to ingratiate oneself and give one's opinion falsely is a sacrifice to one's alteration of a conversation with a Midas touch, or supporting those who have not spoken but wish to.

Chief among its detriments is its unthinking or conscious subservience in order to pursue its own objectives, without acknowledgement of other's feelings, and whether its motivation be loyalty, agreement, custom, as I suspect is routine, supercilious advancement or in-security and unintentional ingratiation misguides others, and is unseeing, unempathetic adultery of common sense, qualification of a position philosophical or official and thought of others' involved.



Aaaaaand, with all due respect, I shall close the article of this blog with the greatest license to be called a diatribe. 

Next week, shall be a thinly disguised fangirl rave about Jane Austen. Very much obliged was this perusal, and I wish you a fine Thursday.

 Sincerely with the wish that you find perspicacity and insight in this article, and benefit,
-Anacostia Mirabow-Marignac. 

A Long-Belated Post, A Long-Unnoted Topic, Closing with Disturbing Optimism

N.B. I have formed a resolution to post Wednesdays, be it rant, essay, review, or posited assertion.

Of late there has been a surprising propensity for feminism's meaning to be confused to say, "Women should change" or "Women should do things like men do."

It is not a question of "they" or "them" or "trying to be someone else". The principle of all civil rights is equality, in perception and belief. We shouldn't see women as fundamentally different, or to be treated any different, and we should realize all that needs to change is discrimination, any form of it.

Now, the whole point of chauvinism is that women should change, and hence it is ironic to see feminism, in any capacity like that.

The crux is that women are compared to men frequently "Women can do everything that men can", naturally, but why should they even be compared? Why shouldn't the rule be, "Anyone can do anything?" Why do "they" have to be like men?

"They" are people, whoever they are, and besides, yes, their differences, should be measured by the very same yardstick, without alteration for gender or race or belief or any singularity -- that is uniqueness, and uniqueness makes a difference in everything.

The founding principle of civil rights is that there should be no prejudice on account of intangible differences, and feminism is a branch of that -- call it what you will.

It is meant to halt prejudice towards women. Each and every one can be whoever they like without expectations being superimposed, everybody can be frail, or emotional, or shy, or quiet, or sensitive, or silly, dependant, or they can be bold, or brave. . . willful, stubborn, brash, bombastic, crass, grouchy, wise (It's important to be brave and considerate) People, they can be all of those,and should not be judged to their attributes. And are all of those