Preface
I was inspired by this video.View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzCO0G8AGLU&t=2061s
Introduction
As been said or implied many times before, the modern relationship dynamic is parasitic; In this case, it is beneficial to women while exploitative to men. To make this more understandable, I will introduce a famous philosophical term coined by German philosopher Georg Hegel in his Phenomenology of Spirit. This term is called the Lord-bondsman dialectic, an idea that was used by Marxist theories when applied to economics.In this context, I will apply it to the modern dating dynamics as I notice some similarities in it with the dialectic. But first, what is the Lord-Bondsman dialectic?
1. Lord-Bondsman Dialectic
As the definition suggests, the Lord-bondsman dialectic is - in simple terms - the struggle of two people for recognition (or power), the subsequent enslavement of one of them by the other and the ensuing paradox where the master becomes dependent on the slave. I will explain how the dialectic works.
It first describes how when two people first meet, they both would engaged in conflict in an effort to be recognized as the superior one. The fight is initially to the death but they realize that if one of them dies, the none of them would be left to recognize the superior one (Constant recognition is important for them).
This brings us to our current situation; One person - the Lord in this context - values their power more than their life and as a result is resilient to surrendering. On the contrary, the other person - The Bondsman in this context - values his life more than power and - due to his fear of death - puts up little resistance and submits to the Lord, agreeing to recognize him as the superior one.
This creates the aforementioned parasitic relationship: The bondsman gets to work, supply the Lord with recognition and his labor as well was putting up with his commands as he fears of incurring the Lord's wrath. Meanwhile, the Lord benefits from the bondsman's labor as well as enjoying being recognized as the superior one.
However, this creates a paradox; The Lord becomes lazy and dependent on his bondsman. His "power" is now just a facade due to his dependence. Meanwhile, the bondsman starts to become independent through his labor and - seeing how his labor changes nature - realizes he is now the free "one". The Lord's threats falls flat and his power has no use.
To put this in perspective, take an example of a business entrepreneur and his employee: The rich business owner (representing the "Lord") employs a worker (The bondsman). The owner thinks he is superior and independent due to his position of power but in actuality he's actually dependent on his worker; If his employee stop working, the business dies off and the owner loses his power.
On the contrary, the employee learns skills and creates products that give him value and/or self-worth. Even if the business fails, he can use his skills to find other employment, while the owner suffers badly from the loss of his business. Here, the employee becomes independent while the owner is helpless without him.
The point of this dialectic that true recognition or independence or power are achieved not through dominance but through mutual recognition and teamwork.
2. How does this apply to the modern dating dynamics
This is almost similar to the predicament that is the dating crisis we observed.First, a man and a woman meet. There is a death struggle to recognize who is more important. The man argues his role as a breadwinner and his ability to provide/gather resources makes him more important while the woman argues that her mere ability to produce children and create families makes her more important.
This creates a conflict which ends when both of them recognize both of them will lose if one or the other dies: Women cannot survive without men or vice versa (though I will say that men are more better equip at surviving without women).
However, the woman - due to her ego - refuses to surrender and craves to have power over the relationship; She then leverages the only two power she got but is important; reproduction and sexuality. She withholds it from the man and threatens him unless he compromises. Meanwhile, the man fears being unable to reproduce/have a family so he agrees and submits to the woman.
This leads to the dialectic situation I explained earlier. The two enter in a kind of transactional relationship (e.g. marriage), with the contract dictating that their assets should be invested in the wife and their children if they have any. This has massive drawbacks for the man; If the relationship fails, the assets and the custody of children will go to the wife. Here, the man has everything to lose while the woman has everything to gain.
So the man labors, providing for his wife and their family. He lacks authority like a slave and any attempt to assert authority could mean divorce. Because of this, he may not even try to contest.
Meanwhile, the woman enjoys the spoils of his labor and demands more of it, incessantly nagging him, She keeps the man in check with her expectations through the threat of divorce and may poorly reward him with starfish sex.
But here's the kicker; The woman is really powerless. Her only source of power - sexuality and fertility - gradually depletes with age. She becomes deeply dependent on the man because she does not know how to navigate or thrive in the real world, unlike the man who gains this ability due to his labor. To add on to this, the rest of benefits I may or may not have mentioned before is only gained from relationships or marriage.
On the contrary, the man becomes independent through his knowledge on how the world works. He can easily thrive and survive.
If the man simply refuses to provide or even participate, the woman will die off without the resources she wants because she does not know how to get it.
To end this, we cannot compromise and slave ourselves for this gynocentric system. That's all I have to write.
