The following is an excerpt from my article, “feminism femininity: my take.” The re-post here is to highlight my pro-commitment position as woman, wife and mother, having been personally experienced and observed for decades, and having come to the conclusion that a goal of life-long commitment to a partner, most especially when offspring are produced, is the best possible life scenario, supported not only via our biology but also fiscally, socially and in practicality for optimum productivity and outcome of self, of partner, and for our human legacies, our children.
Cinderella obsessiveness, hash-tagged and pinned to new heights, has skewed partnership commitment focus to the self-serving attention garnering via ever more costly, grandiose weddings and related celebrations. The deeper happiness of long term committed relationships, which requires positive effort and the giving of self in order to get back in greater measure, is not in line with younger generations’ social media-fueled self-centeredness and materialism. Partner selection has been psychologically confused by these distractions and even chemically confused by medical use, in particular contraceptive reliance, * as those seeking life partners are no longer physiologically able to un-/subconsciously recognize best genetic matches, which also helps point to best partner selection. And feminism, in particular current, new wave feminism, confuses and undermines the goals of selection and commitment, which is explored in depth in my feminism/femininity article.
On long-term commitment, there is a great saying that goes something like this: better to read every chapter of a book than to scan the first few pages of a stack of books.
I have highlighted below the partnership positive statements of the excerpt as well as the concluding statement, for, despite all feminist cries for independence, I have yet to find a single person who does not want or hasn’t had a committed relationship at some point in their lives. Partnership is the preferred goal. When individuals claim to want “no one,” Id believe they are not being honest to themselves or to whomever is there to hear such a statement; at best, commitment deniers are rationalizing their single status, making do in the most positive way any typical, solo adult would.
Partnership Denigration: Feminist negativism, separatism and dissatisfaction breed disharmony between adherents and their partners and family, for Feminism’s collective platform is counterintuitive to women’s very existence as female humans. Feminist negativism, separatism and dissatisfaction chip away in particular at the evolutionarily consistent (aka traditional) familial partnership structure of provider male and nurturer female by damaging the perceptions and self-perceptions of both roles. It seeks to undermine the unifying, cooperative and collaborative co-dependence which defines long-term, partnership – in particular parental partnership – between two committed adults, where skills and focuses are complementary, where efficiency and expertise as illustrated in any successful business paradigm evolve to define two individuals as a successful couple. Feminist negativism, separatism and dissatisfaction attack this positively and organically developed co-dependency via social construct by 1) creating, promoting and perpetuating competitive divides between men and women and 2) by pitting the members of a couple against each other.
To share and do for each other, which is a source of personal and paired satisfaction and happiness within a committed relationship, has been skewed negatively and come to be viewed as a form of subservience, thanks to Feminist partnership nay-saying. This confuses and diminishes the emotional and physical aspirationality that allow each member of a partnership to evolve a self-actualized contributing individuality. Not only does each individual attain a personal best, but the “sum,” of a couple can far exceed its “parts” when the multipliers of teamwork are manifested.
Feminism, with its sexual empowerment focus (testosterone-reliant, ongoing/multiple partner pursuit, sexual insatiability ideations and displays thereof), also denigrates the value and satisfaction potential of partnership commitment by supporting commitment transience (infidelity/serial monogamy, multiple/broken marriages, multiple partner accumulation). Feminists likewise hold affirmativized regard for the resulting “broken” familial households through 1) anti-male support and 2) sole sustainer (you-can-do-it-all-alone) support, which includes governmental handout facilitation to spur reproduction by singles, and the ideological support of the single lifestyle, where the pursuit of outside others for sexual and social satisfaction is prioritized.
Additionally and, most damaging of all, Feminism 3) fosters the crippling societal climate in which it is OK to default one’s offspring to second tier, incidental consideration. Feminism, with its independence at all costs stance supports unsustainable reproduction, part of the you-can-do-it-all-alone ideology, which includes dissatisfaction from within existing partnerships. Convenience and the handing off of children to others, whether due to necessity or “bad mom” time-off trends, are framed as normal, harmless and even beneficial. Using offspring as human shields to manipulate emotional agendas is supported, even in courts of law. And in the war against men, the de-masculinization of our sons in efforts to reign in what is inherently their biological and evolutionary legacy as male humans has become not only accepted but socially and psuedo-intellectually and affirmatively dissected, re-constructed and then championed.
Has Feminism formulated these solo-reliant platforms to excuse the society-crippling states that are? Is this an affirmativized “personal truth” re-write for 21st c. women, who are selfishly fulfilling their human role as reproducers by self-serving and/or coercive reproduction with unwitting/unwilling males? Is it the rationalization of feminized, anti-domestic, non-giving/sharing women of subsequently failed partnerships, now faced with less comfortable circumstances and single parenthood? Has the current Feminist climate been formulated by and for women, who, once having embraced Feminism’s full-spectrum of anti-traditional role acceptance, wind up unwanted and alone, who, thanks to Feminist’s blame-shifting and tapping into the surging victimhood culture, likewise refuse to accept any personal responsibility for their situations? Are fabled Sour Grapes at the root of current, new wave Feminist individualistic ideology? Can women understand, that one cannot truly win, achieve or possess that which one also despises and seeks to destroy? To win, achieve or possess that which one also despises and seeks to destroy is a construct of war.
* Promiscuity support aka persistent and ongoing, multiple partner pursuit, the legacy of the free love and women’s lib movements of the past century, where the sex act has become fully integrated into casual, immediate and short term interactions among consenting adults.
Women who are consciously seeking a long-term commitment partner, especially if with the goal of procreation, would be well-served to abstain from reproduction-conducive sexual activity (generally speaking, intercourse, though pregnancy can even occur via proximity contact) at this point in their lives so that they are not on contraceptives it at all possible, so that their (biological, unconscious and intuitive) system can detect, recognize and zero in on a best-suited partner. This will help filter out the distracting lures of superficial affluence, prevalent in materially-oriented, Free Market societies, where false affluence markers are displayed via faux/knock-off sourcing, debt-incurring over-spending, and facilitated by (Millenial/Trend Gen especially) ongoing reliance on family/parent funding of fundamental expenses so that disproportionate percentages of an offspring’s discretionary funds remain available to spend on self for wealth/status markers (see my HP post entitled Whine Time: the Trend Gen). Important to understand in the quest for best partner, is that providership is not merely any current existence of affluent display, but the potential for generating affluence (income is today’s the freshly-killed wild game. dragged in from the forest to the cave), for the trajectory of affluence generation is generally in line with personal growth over time. Positive qualities in potential partners to this end are: The ability to dedicate to chosen causes and work commitments as goal, not sacrifice; mental and physical good health (personal preservation inclination); the ability to make choices in life that keep honesty and commitment as aspirational goals, not sacrifices. And, simply put, when the “chemistry” in a partnership is “real,” the physical connectivity early on builds a bond that helps carry a committed couple over time and circumstance.