So you're not a "10" in every which way. But you're probably pretty spectacular in some way, and definitely good enough in most areas of life. If ever there were a time to stop beating yourself up for being human, it is now.
Emma Watson, who rose to fame as Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter films, has just broken out with a new definition of her status: She prefers to define herself as "self-partnered" rather than single, as she approaches her 30th birthday.
She used the phrase in an interview with British Vogue's Paris Lees, in which she discussed the pressures of turning 30. She said she initially did not understand the "fuss" that surrounded the milestone.
However, she has started feeling "stressed and anxious" about her upcoming birthday recently.
She told British Vogue: "If you have not built a home, if you do not have a husband, if you do not have a baby, and you are turning 30, and you're not in some incredibly secure, stable place in your career, or you're still figuring things out... There's just this incredible amount of anxiety."
Speaking of how she had never believed the "'I'm happy single' spiel," she added: "It took me a long time, but I'm very happy [being single]. I call it being self-partnered."
In fact, the very limited number of definitions of relationship status on Facebook, for example, or in any governmental document, should be changed. They are strongly influenced by the cultural definition and subjective perception of singlehood in a heteronormative world: the unquestioned assumption that people are heterosexual and should conform to ideals of family life. Singlehood, in this sense, is still viewed as a deviant category, or a “deficit identity."
But, being self-partnered is more than just a mirrored identity to family-oriented values. In a very dry sense, being self-partnered is a more nuanced version of the already common phrase: sologamy. Sologamy means self-marriage, and is, of course, based on the term monogamy that originated from monos ‘single’ + gamos ‘marriage’.
Sologamy, or self-marriage, represents a fundamental focal change from responsibility to independence and from obedience to self-expression. It is not a semantic modification; this change has rattled societies everywhere.
Starting in the developed world and spreading to developing nations, it demonstrates a transition away from focusing on the social collective (further divided into families as functional units of work and reproduction) toward supporting the aspirations of each individual.
Although still on the fringe, the self-marriage movement is growing. In Kyoto, for example, one can find a two-day, self-wedding package promoted by an agency specializing in travel for singles. The package, reportedly costing around $2,500, includes a gown, bouquet, hairstyling, limousine ride to the ceremony, and a commemorative photo album. These types of services are thriving now in the United States, East Asia, and Europe, and there are plenty of virtual packages and books on this.
Self-marriage has also started to appear in the media. In a 2010 episode of the television show Glee, Sue Sylvester decides to marry herself, following in the footsteps of Carrie, from Sex and The City, who married herself so that she could open a wedding gift registry to replace a lost pair of Manolo Blahnik shoes.
In this context, self-partnered might be a more accurate term because Sologamy is about marriage and, in fact, still refers to the marriage and wedding world and industry. Self-partnered is a fresher term that takes one step further apart from marriage. However, there is still a way to go to be fully at peace with being single at heart, a term promoted by Bella DePaulo.
"In order to go out into the world and be the vivacious, active, creative, and ambitious person that I am, I also need this deeply personal sacred time. And I need a lot of it.
"In a relationship, a lot of this time seems to, for me, get negotiated away. It disappears under the expectation that being involved with someone means wanting to spend ALL free time together... It was very difficult, in many of my past relationships, to have this private, quiet, reflective time."
Such a shift influences the way we think about every social and interpersonal function in our lives. In particular, changes in the importance of the family – once the bedrock of the larger social structure – played a major part in this shift. Aspirations other than marrying and reproducing are taking center-stage now.
Why "Self-Partnered" Is a Pro-Women Term
Emma Watson is also known for her pro-women advocacy, and she does it again in advocating the term "self-partnered."
The fact that singlehood is often understood as a passing or preparatory phase is an indication of the stronghold of heteronormative culture on the definition of singlehood. Rather than being viewed as participating in the “normal” life trajectory, single women are viewed as being downwardly mobile, especially in light of the derogatory term of the 'ticking womb.'
Not only are single men and women perceived in different ways, but heteronormative ideas about marriage, family life, and valid trajectories have an influence on the subjective experience of singlehood and identity. Accordingly, women are more likely than men to describe their singlehood in negative terms. These gender biases are also noticeable in the ways singlehood has been studied: Single women are studied more than single men.
No doubt, singlehood is increasingly viewed as a viable and non-disruptive option. In these narratives of choice, singlehood is commonly described in terms of autonomy, self-development, and achievement rather than in terms of deficit or lack. "Self-partnered" is, therefore, a well-justified term on the scale of relationship statuses and Watson is right in promoting it.
References
Adamczyk, K., & Segrin, C. (2015). Perceived social support and mental health among single vs. partnered Polish young adults. Current Psychology, 34(1), 82-96.
Bernard-Allan, V. Y. (2016). It is not good to be alone; singleness and the Black Seventh-day Adventist Woman. UCL (University College London).
DePaulo, B. (2011). Who Is Your Family If You Are Single with No Kids?
DePaulo, B. (2014). Single in a society preoccupied with couples. Handbook of solitude: Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone, 302-316.
DePaulo, B. M. (2007). Singled out: How singles are stereotyped, stigmatized, and ignored, and still live happily ever after: Macmillan.
Kislev, E. (2018). Happiness, Post-materialist Values, and the Unmarried. Journal of happiness Studies, 19(8), 2243-2265.
Kislev, E. (2019). Happy Singlehood: The Rising Acceptance and Celebration of Solo Living. Oakland, California: University of California Press.
Kislev, E. (Forthcoming). Social Capital, Happiness, and the Unmarried: a Multilevel Analysis of 32 European Countries. Applied Research in Quality of Life.
Lahad, L. (2017). A Table for One : A Critical Reading of Singlehood, Gender and Time. PB - Manchester University Press.
Moore, J. A., & Radtke, H. L. (2015). Starting “real” life: Women negotiating a successful midlife single identity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(3), 305-319.
Morris, W. L., DePaulo, B. M., Hertel, J., & Taylor, L. C. (2008). Singlism—Another problem that has no name: Prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination against singles.
Reynolds, J., Wetherell, M., & Taylor, S. (2007). Choice and chance: Negotiating agency in narratives of singleness. The Sociological Review, 55(2), 331-351.
Sandfield, A., & Percy, C. (2003). Accounting for single status: Heterosexism and ageism in heterosexual women's talk about marriage. Feminism & Psychology, 13(4), 475-488.
Suen, Y. T. (2015). What's Gay About Being Single? A Qualitative Study of the Lived Experiences of Older Single Gay Men. Sociological Research Online, 20(3), 1-14.
MGTOW men fear being destroyed in divorce court, so they shun marriage, Cohabitation carries similar risks for men, so that is avoided, as well.
Many MGTOWs shun women entirely, both at work and socially, out of fear of being falsely accused of any number of crimes.
Some MGTOWs will date women, but only on terms that are favorable to the men. Women that are male-positive, and reject feminism, are the only eligible candidates.
Getting a vasectomy is a must, both for birth control, and to defeat "sperm-jacking" and paternity fraud (from a known or unknown woman).
False accusations of rape and other crimes by women remain a concern. Video evidence proving consent will help - except in Canada: Canadian feminists have made video evidence of consent inadmissible in court.
P.S.: I see you are Israeli? I hear that in Israel, a woman that makes a PROVABLY false accusation against a man CANNOT be prosecuted under Israeli law. On Facebook alone, I see there is a large MGTOW community in Israel.
Because women have the right to refuse parenthood, but ,men don't, situations like the one mentioned below can and do happen:
A gay physicist in Texas recently went to the DMV office to renew his driver's license, but was told he could not renew it, due to unpaid child support. He was stunned, of course. What happened is that a single woman with a baby wanted to get child support money - and the more the merrier - so she selected a high-income man off of Facebook - him - and named the gay physicist as the father to the Child Support authorities.
He had to hire a lawyer and go to court, of course. This was posted on Youtube, and I don't know the final outcome, as that was never posted.
But situations like this one are one of many driving forces for MGTOW.
I totally get the MGTOW movement. I didn't at first, but having spent time on MGTOW forums actually reading the messages (rather than what I was told they said by feminists), I understand it.
Most women I know are either openly feminist (the 'men are all evil' sign waving idiots) or covert feminists (the 'I'm just traditional and expect a man to hand over his wallet' spoiled brat types). The second group just turn into loud feminists when you are out of the room. I was raised by a mother who fell into the second group, but grew up watching the sh*tshow of a marriage my parents had and fortunately that left a mark.
My brother fell for a woman much like my mother. She was a 'career woman' that spent £90k of (mostly) her parent's money on a degree, a masters, and then a phD. Only to quit her 'career' to pop out one child in her 30s. She now works part time and my brother gets to pay for their huge mortgage, exotic holidays, pets, drinking problem, and everything else she demands. Her parents paid for everything growing up, including the expensive wedding, her sports car, and a deposit for a house. Now my brother has taken over that parent role. In return she switches between insults, sarcasm, humiliation, shouting, low level violence, and blaming him for everything that isn't perfect.
I wanted to marry when I was younger. I liked the idea of having a business partner and being half of an alpha couple (I always wanted my own company and wanted someone who I could talk to about finance, marketing and things that interest me - since most of my female friends can't and most of my male friends aren't really allowed to talk to me). I also liked the idea of dressing up for the day, and was trained to think only married women were valuable and single women must basically be ugly, worthless and rejected scum. It was mostly the 'traditional' women in my family who encouraged this belief. I was proposed to twice but fortunately turned them down.
In my 30s I saw everyone else marrying and having kids while I focused on my career and felt terrible. I was never bothered about kids, so didn't have that pressure. But the men that asked me out always wanted a family, so the relationship never lasted. I was very tempted at times to just tie the knot with anyone so I'd fit in. When everyone is coupled, you don't get invited to a lot of social events.
Now in my 40s, most of those married people are either divorced or in borderline abusive (at best) marriages. I am so relieved I didn't follow them. Most of the women put on weight after marriage and are in terrible shape now. And they lack even basic life skills, since they behaved like dependant children throughout the marriage. They got half of their husband's wealth after divorce, but have blown through most of it since they've never had to think about that stuff for themselves. It's pretty pathetic to watch. Half of me feels pity for them, the other half knows they are aging gold-diggers that leeched off their husbands for 5-10-15 years and deserve everything they get. The men on the other hand have done most of the work for the last decade and now have a significantly easier life. They essentially halved their expenses, no longer come home to abuse and more work, have full control over their own lives (albeit some have to stay in the area to share custody of kids), and are a lot happier and stress-free. Having watched this pattern repeated over the years, if I was a man today I would NEVER in a million years agree to marry!
I have far more respect for the average man compared to the average woman, having dealt with them in business and work. Yes there are men that cheat, are violent, narcissistic, etc. But I've found most men have a much stronger innate sense of fairness and will at least give you an open, equal fight. Women on the other hand will covertly destroy someone's life for personal gain and feel no remorse whatsoever. In the boardroom, a male client or colleague can be an absolute pr*ck over some contract or project, then shakes hands and go back to being friendly right after. They can focus on the subject and not drag personal stuff into it. Very few women do this. Outside of the boardroom, they tend to be just as bitchy towards you. I can't stand dealing with most women, as they have no ability to compartmentalise. The ones that can are absolute gold dust.
There are decent, non-parasitic, non-abusive women out there who want an equal partner rather than a cash machine, servant or punchbag. But they are few and far between. I would advise any young men reading this to be incredibly careful about who you agree to commit to (in any way). If you must get married for whatever reason (religion, etc), then treat it like a business partnership. It is a very cold, clinical way of looking at it, but emotions will just blind you to things that will bite you in the ass later on. Spend several years getting to know the woman very well (long after the infatuation stage has passed). Ask to see her credit score, debts (if she has any), savings, find out her spending habits, work ethic, etc. Discuss all the boring normalities of marriage - how she expect housework/DIY to be shared, what her career goals are (and her plan to actually achieve them), what she considers a 'good' sex life, what type of lifestyle she wants (house, holidays, pets, etc) and how she plans to fund it, how she resolves conflict (can she calmly debate with logic like a sane person, or will she use emotional blackmail), etc. The boring stuff is the most important. Go through these things in detail right from the start. If there are any red flags, do NOT ignore them!
The marriage vows should be several pages long, in my opinion, and read like any other corporate document!
The author wrote: "Single women are either depicted as leading empty, meaningless lives and being morally lacking, or as occupying a confrontational position against the patriarchy".
If there really was a patriarchy, women would not be able to commit paternity fraud against a man, as I have described above in the case of the gay Texas physicist.
Submitted by Michael McVey on November 9, 2019 - 9:10pm
I would say that for a typical western woman, "self-partnered" means being partnered with the only person she loves or will ever be capable of loving. In some ways it might not be such a bad thing - it is certainly preferable from a man's perspective to being partnered with a gold-digger or a feminist.
You are right that "self-partnered" women present one less threat to men.
However, women that appear to be "non-self-partnered" often morph into gold-diggers and feminists, and a man doesn't learn about this until it is too late.
There is a very very easy way to tell if a woman is one of the rare non-feminist, non-golddigger, non-parasitic ones out there.
If she has her own money, plans to remain in work rather than sponging off a man, and wants an equal partner instead of a walking cash machine or verbal punchbag... she won't care about marriage.
Marriage has no real benefit to a woman like the above. Think about it: she stands to risk almost as much as a man and will be incredibly wary of agreeing to it. A committed partner will be a much safer option for her. She gets everything she wants > love, sex, friendship, etc without having to legally chain herself to anyone.
Honestly, you won't find many women like this today. Most are trained from a young age to be gold-digging, abusive parasites, and have women like that as role models growing up (either family, friends or in the media).
Verified by 
7COMMENTS
