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