"Self-Partnered" - A Word for Intolerable People Who are Simply Too Difficult to Date? - Granite Grok

“Self-Partnered” – A Word for Intolerable People Who are Simply Too Difficult to Date?

Emma Watson, drawing

Some people are just difficult. Some are undatable. In the past, there was a word for women who could not or would not, for whatever reason, find a husband. Spinster. These days feminists have taken ‘undatable’ to a new level. Even lesbians find some women impossible. 

Related: Democrat NH Lawmaker Created Intimidating and Abusive Environment

I’m not saying men are some exception. On the contrary. I have known many who (regardless of looks or charisma) were wholly unattractive as a permanent fixture in anyone’s life. I wonder some days why my wife married me. But men never had to live with the social stigma. Yes, the patriarchy can be cruel. But it’s not just them.

Women are just as judgmental about relationships or what other women wear. So, the tendency to shame the girls who are behind the relationship curve is still a thing sans the patriarchy.

The culture has come up with “solutions,” to abet the scorn. The gender spectrum offers plenty of additional chances to find a partner. If one sex isn’t attracted, try another. If that doesn’t work, then invent your own.  You can date your pets, or, if you are Emma Watson, say you are self-partnered.

You are a relationship island. Completely happy being single.

There’s nothing wrong with that, but then there is a problem. It’s similar to another problem. Celebrity women who embrace the hook up culture and have and raise children out of wedlock.

If money isn’t something you have to think about, you can afford to do that. Pick a baby daddy, adopt, or get artificially inseminated. Your wealth allows you to have a massive brood without even a dent to your lavish lifestyle. But the majority of women and girls who look up to and emulate you, do not. The cost of their imitation is brutal and often falls on the backs of others.

Ms. Watson’s choice is similar. She is for lack of a better term, rich. Being self-partnered is no big deal. She does not need the added power of a second income or the reinforcement of a stable physical and emotional presence in her life when things go sideways. She has publicists, managers, therapists, fans, and if she wants sex, she can pick someone that appeals to her then throw them away.

It’s a very hollow existence to which she is entitled. But few of those who follow or admire her success and choices can duplicate it.

She is under no obligation to be anything but who she is, but making gobs of money by being famous and then using that fame to impose perceptions should come with some sense of responsibility. Many of the famous people from the last century understood this. Movie stars, athletes mostly knew the fame and fortune had a price, and it wasn’t just the loss of anonymity or privacy (though most could afford to buy the latter).  There was a sense of obligation to be a role model.

That s**t’s gone out the window. Many of the entertainment industries elite live train-wreck lifestyles advertised on social media and television while paying people to clean up after them. The message is to do what you want; someone else will take care of the mess. The Left’s politics feed off that to sell permanent welfare and massive interventions by government. But unless you are the liberal elite, that mess is yours, and it stays with you. You pay for it.

Ms. Watson may be accomplished in her art, and I congratulate her on turning her stint as a child star into a lifestyle few can afford. But even fewer can afford to go about their lives believing that being self-partnered is fulfilling or manageable without her wealth. 

She should preface her self-indulgence with the possibility that few can afford it. Or maybe she’s “self-partnered” because she is undatable? Any chance of her admitting to that?