Equality?

Sometimes "feminism" goes the wrong direction and I'm an "equalist" (whatever that entails - I honestly don't know why I even say that). What I mean is - when you start thinking that every female character has to be perfect, has to be a steeled role model, has to have a strong, perfect exterior - you're dehumanizing them again.

Everyone is entitled to their human sides, their pain and their joy.When you write a character, write a person, not a character fitted to a mold.The problem however is per usual the observers interception of what is presented and the translated interpretation after that. It's hard to avoid as everyone has their own experiences and reference libraries in their lives. In fact, what's even more wrong is that we LOOK at EVERY single character these days from the views of an "ist" of some kind. Colouring our opinions, instead of reading between the lines, instead of analyzing humanity, we analyze feminity and masuclinity.

This is too encompassing of a subject to isolate into our "ists" "isms" and beliefs - what is presented as a simplified form is basically "This is unfair, this sends the wrong message, this needs to inspire hopes and dreams." Ah, but that is good! Yes, we need more positivity in our lives and if it comes in a simplified form, it's easier to spread! But too much in the wrong direction turns it into pressure instead. The pressure to and must be perfect, similar to what the original "feminism" is trying to fend off. This is extremity and can be the result depending on how you inform and teach people about it.

And then, there's the other version "the opposing side needs to be pushed down, we need to gain more power than them, we're rightfully vengeful because of the past". This attitude speaks for itself.

This is why I'm saying that these "isms" are backwards to a certain degree, because you stop looking at the bigger picture. I'm not saying that the fights aren't needed, no - seriously, fighting battles around the fringe is needed, garnering attention to make the oblivious start thinking about important details is good. It's not wrong to stand up for your cause - but it's wrong to forget the larger picture. Where do you want it to fit in? Do you want to taint your cause?

Let me return to what I said earlier.
"Everyone has their own experiences and reference libraries in their lives"
So words may have a meaning - but in time, they evolve and become what people use them for. Isms of kinds, beliefs, religion - these are all loaded, even the word "Balance" has it's own load. (Complete and utter balance equals non-passion for some as an example. Meaning - no feelings.) In the end, there's just so many meanings - different to each and every ear that it no longer reverbs the original. In the end, it splits the cause between the factions (Much like Abrahamic religions - aka: Christianity, Judaism, Islam. And even more so within their own branches...) that, for example, feminism no longer means "equality" to some but "opposition and oppressors" to others.

What I'm trying to say is - look at what can improve humanity instead of purely the roles of an individual of certain character. But then again, I'm not telling you to overlook the aspects that may have influence, like gender, but you need to think in relativity. Make it a part of the larger picture instead.

But yeah, It's still not actually as simple as that. I really don't have all the answer.