Far from claiming finding a partner is the paramount of happiness or a sine qua non, I must admit the prospect of half-arsed, semi-contractual romance as a default for the future is indeed dystopian.
Regarding the opposite sex with distrust, as a habit or acquired reflex, diminishes (or destroys) the chances of natural bonding, which has been known as unreserved throughout history, at least as a matter of principle. When this is caused by the effects of artificially created conditions (laws, education which pushes women to believe they are typically victimised etc), acquiescence to an “us and them” stance is capitulation to this transitory, blatantly artificial nonsense.
Nature will obviously prevail in the end, as it always does. But given the general consensus that we only live once (though I don’t personally believe that), does it make any sense to sabotage our lives by not fully engaging, mentally and emotionally, with the opposite sex, just because our current culture prods us towards distrust?
Convincing yourself that this is how things genuinely are – that the opposite sex is disingenuous, profiteering, destructive and downright dangerous – is a bit like shackling yourself inside Plato’s cave, with the full awareness that there is another world outside, one of infinite nuances and choices, allowing you to be selective without barricading yourself for presumed self-preservation.
As humans, we are all aware (well, most of us anyway) that we are more than a cluster of basic needs, and that the people around us are more to us than those who happen to meet those needs at one point in time. Otherwise, we could all safely (clinically even) refer to ourselves as sociopaths. Which most of us, I dare hope, are not.
Given that third wave feminism was the first to poison the well in recent years, one morally tends to empathise with men’s activism as a stance of supporting the underdog, considering how much influence feminists have garnered lately. Except, when analysing their discourse, one can’t help but detect this tinge of bitterness, even anger.
The MGTOW movement for instance generates the most peculiar mixture of repulsive arrogance, heartbreaking defeatism and underlying psychological issues you can ever imagine.
Just like feminists picking on innocent men, these men have the full potential of rejecting (not necessarily sexually but as a chance of bonding) and vitriolically mocking women who have nothing but the best intentions towards them.
Cui prodest, you might wonder? What do men or women actually gain out of thinking this way? Who are they really getting back at by hardening their hearts in this manner?
My experience of life is, of course, subjective; by no means do I claim everyone naturally places the same empahsis on being open to others.
But I suppose if ever there was an actual effort to destroy the nuclear family, this would be the ultimate goal – getting men and women to give up on each other.
Some people acknowledge that and still play the game.