650. Independence And Interdependence

650.  Independence And Interdependence

Sometimes I am reading in men's profile their expressed wish to find an INDEPENDENT woman.    After some pondering I have come to the conclusion, that this is a huge red flag, because quite often it can mean something very different from what a woman herself would consider as being independent.   

Logically, dependence cannot be evaluated by probing only one person, instead dependence concerns at least two entities, of which one depends upon the other.   Absolute independence would mean, that there were no dependence whatsoever of no other entity.   

But to survive, humans do depend upon resources and usually also on other humans supplying such resources.   Any need creates a form of dependence upon the source of fulfillment, the stronger the need, the stronger the dependence.   

As therefore there cannot be absolute independence, all independence is partial and defined by the absence of the dependence upon a specified entity.    Calling oneself independent can mean a wide variety of even contradictory things.   A man wanting an independent woman and independence as a part of a woman's identity can be not only different but mutually exclusive.   

Personally, I as a woman value in both genders independent thinking, independence from social norms and especially the independence from being determined by instinctive urges.  

But I suspect, that a man preferring an independent woman means something very different.   He expects from such a woman the convenience of not being bothered by her with any relationship needs to be fulfilled by him.  He expect to be allowed to use her body without giving her anything in return.   

Not giving what is not wanted nor needed is subjectively for him very different from denying a woman to fulfill her expressed needs.   Independence understood this way allows him to use her body without any reason for having a bad conscience.   His imagines an independent woman as one, who is an animal like himself, not needing, wanting or demanding emotional attachment, cohabitation, a safe haven, bonding. 

This is a consequence of the biological differences between the genders in the situation of coping with being singles.    Singles organize the provision for their needs as well as possible by a network of many sources.   

• Emotional needs of both genders are fulfilled by the family of origin, by the own children, by close friends and buddies.   
• Intellectual needs of both genders are fulfilled at work, by educational institutions, in hobby groups and with colleagues.   
• Physical needs are asymmetrical.  Many female singles are content with their sources for emotional and intellectual needs and they do not miss the physical interactions with a man.   But many men are driven by their recurrent sexual dishomeostasis to need a female body, while all other needs are met.  

The worst male animals do not hesitate to pay for the abuse of prostitutes or to behave as alley dogs abusing any female body they can lure into bed.    

The more decent, mature and considerate ones consciously want to refrain from any such abuse.   They are willing to get involved in an exclusive long-term relationship with one woman.  As all their non-physical needs are already cared for, this leads to an imbalance of giving and taking.  Having only physical needs, nothing else a woman offers has any value or attraction for them.  Fulfilling a woman's needs is therefore perceived as a price and a sacrifice, which do not supply sufficient benefits.   Men in such a situation wish for independent women, who need and want nothing from them yet appear content to maintain these men's homeostasis.  

A female body is easily replaced, a man's mere physiological needs do not suffice for the stability and durability of a relationship.    A relationship is fragile, as long as a man's entire human cognitive needs are fulfilled elsewhere, while only the animal in him needs the woman.   

A relationship, which is a reliable and trustworthy safe haven for a woman, requires a balanced mutual and reciprocal interdependence, the stronger the better.    Interdependence between two humans develops, when also the man enters the relationship with unfulfilled cognitive, emotional and intellectual needs and when he chooses his partner for her individual personal suitability for these needs.    Interdependence then means, that both partners need each other as unique sources for a wide variety of aspects of wellbeing and that they are fully aware, that the other is not easily replaced.    Under such circumstances, interdependence is not experienced as a burden, but as a beneficial arrangement for both partners.  

Interdependence has two aspects.  

One is the mutual enhancement of the joy of any shared activity.   The other is the reciprocal fulfillment of each other's onesided individual needs.   
All those joys, which are gender-neutral and cognitive, can be mutual as is for example the visit to a museum and the exchange of thoughts and impressions   

But where there are biological differences, it is reciprocal concerning different needs.    Keeping one emotionally attached partner in homeostasis is a fair deal, when he in return protects her against the dishomeostasis of all other men, who as predators would otherwise attempt to abuse her body.    

As I really like traveling, this is a good example of the balanced giving and receiving of very disparate needs.  Traveling alone means for a woman the unavoidable stress of permanent vigilance, recurrent fear and hazardous situations.   Traveling with a partner makes it a relaxed and safe joy.    The reciprocity of homeostasis in return for secure traveling is a very beneficial deal for both partners.  

310. Women's Insignificance

Women's Insignificance

Some days ago I read a young guy's complaints about how disappointed he was by his girl friend.  He had so much appreciated her independence, but after getting involved, now she wants togetherness, sharing, commitment.   I have read similar complaints before, from both sides, also from women disappointed because they did not get enough commitment.  

It is an unfortunate pattern for women.    Simplified, when a man wants an independent woman, he wants her not to find out, how insignificant she is for him outside the bed.  

Most women want a relationship providing closeness, affection, sharing and commitment.   There are many men, who in theory agree to want this too.  But in their behavior, they are the victims of their own innate animal affliction.    Their need for sexual homeostasis blurs their reason and their ability for sound judgement.   Their instincts determine, that they make the wrong choices.

Such a man gets infatuated with a body, but as soon as he reaches temporary homeostasis, he gets aware, that he is not attracted to spend any time with the woman.   He perceives the woman's body as a commodity with an insignificant personality added as an unwanted extra in the package.    If the man could, he would deposit her in a storage room and only retrieve her, whenever his need for homeostasis reawakens.   When the woman wants more than what he offers her, the relationship fails, and he attributes the failure to the women wanting more than her due, not to his own wrong choice determined by his instincts.
If this happens a few times to a man, he could gain the maturity and learn how to make a better choice.    An immature man concludes instead, that a woman is just not someone worth to spend time with.   He reduces a woman's place in his life to only serving his needs in bed.   From then on he consciously chooses a woman for being or appearing independent.   He assumes that an independent woman would not be interested in spending much time with him, thus she would never find out, that she is too insignificant for him to spend time with her.   With this woman, he is not only unable to get bonded and not expecting to get bonded himself, but also that she herself would not wish to bond.   Instead he intends to keep her as a convenience as long as possible.  

I am not even claiming, that wanting an insignificant independent woman is a conscious deceit.   It is more that the instinctive infatuation with a body disables most men's awareness for what they really want or what would really be the best for their own long term happiness.  They may even be disappointed themselves by their lack of interest in the woman, when homeostasis restores their reasoning ability.   The man's instincts lead him and the woman into a trap of incompatible needs.  
Many men are so convinced of being always rationally in self-control, that they are usually in denial of being misguided by their instincts to get involved with women, whom they then do not respect and appreciate.    Due to this denial, due to their full acceptance and even pride of being studs, they never learn to think very carefully, if they want a woman as a body or as a personality.   

It is pattern with detrimental consequences also for the men themselves.   It seems to be a bad trick of evolution.   The man makes the mistake to get involved with the wrong woman, and ends up with a subscription for homeostasis, while he does not give the woman closeness and sharing.   That subscription means, he may even marry her.   So if the woman is a breeder, she reacts to being treated as insignificant by having children.   She get bonded with the children, and the man is excluded.   Now he is insignificant but he is obliged to work hard to provide for them all.    Had he been wise and careful in his choice, he could be a bonded partner and live happily as a childfree couple.    In the end, he is also punished for using the body of a woman, who is insignificant as a person.   


Men choosing apparently independent women have a very wrong concept of the meaning of independence for a woman.    Independence does not mean bonding-disability or low interest in him or in any man.   Independence does not mean the consent to be friends with benefits instead of commitment.  

Independence is both, it is a survival skill and it is an attitude to acquire survival skills.   Being able to be independent can be an accomplishment, that can contribute to a woman's self-esteem.    There is no joy in being independent, nor is it emotionally rewarding.    It is an acquired skill and it often is compensatory, when someone develops this skill by having no other choice.  

Independence is the best way to cope with life while being alone.   But the interdependence of a couple is a much better form of coping together with the troubles and inclemencies of life.  
An independent woman can find ways to transport things at the edge of her physical strengths instead of moaning about being helpless, an independent man can learn to sew buttons even though he is clumsy, instead of throwing the garment without a button in the garbage.   Two interdependent people can pool their skills and make life easier for each other.  
An independent woman and an independent man can each go alone to a lecture and ponder about it.  But as a couple communicating they may supply a lot of additional food for thought to each other.
Independence is only a bad substitute for the benefits of interdependence.  
Interdependence means: A problem shared is a problem halved, but a joy shared is a joy doubled.  

I am capable to be independent. But I do not want to be independent, I want to find a mindmate and live in interdependence.   
Any man, who wants my body as that of an independent and insignificant person, should just move on and find his victim elsewhere.      

193. Independence and Interdependence

Independence and Interdependence

Personal independence can be looked at as an innate personality trait of how much or how little independence a person needs to feel comfortable.    It can also be looked at as a description of the amount of entanglement with the social and material surroundings.

There are different areas of life where to be more or less independent:   Independent thinking, independent coping with practical every day life matters, and emotional independence.  

Independence is good, as long as someone can really supply himself with all that he needs without suffering deprivation.    But when interdependence adds quality to life by exchange, then it is preferable.   

Concerning a relationship, it is important that both partners have about the same need for emotional closeness.    I assume, that there is a bell curve.   At one extreme there are those, who are bonding-disabled, near the middle are those, who need a lot of independence, at the other side of the middle are those with the need for interdependence, and at the other extreme are those with the wish for a total fusion, that is not realistic.  

A couple of very independent persons may live peacefully as roommates with benefits, while people with a need for interdependence are those to form bonded, devoted, committed couples perceiving themselves as a unit.    But when one person with the need for independence gets involved with another person with the need for interdependence, this is bound for doom.

As this blog shows, I am an independent thinker.    Also I am very independent in practical matters, because I have accumulated enough survival skills.   Never in my life was I tempted to play the helpless female to instigate a man to do repairs for me.   Whenever necessary, I can be my own electrician, carpenter, computer technician or whatever else.   
But in contrast, emotionally I have a strong need for interdependence with a leaning towards as much fusion as is realistic.   When I am alone, I do not feel independent, but just lonely.  

Unfortunately, men who know me only superficially or who misinterpret and misunderstand my ad, often get a very wrong impression of me.    They jump to the conclusion, that a woman, who is an independent thinker and independent enough to be capable at DIY is also emotionally independent.  
As a consequence, the wrong men are getting interested in me, those who want a roommate with benefits and who assume, that I want the same.    But I do not want that kind, they are a nightmare.  

As I already explained in entry 105, it seems that I am intimidating and scaring off exactly the kind of men, whom I want most, those clingy, needy nice guys, who only feel alive as part of a bonded couple and who would be the perfect match for my own need for emotional interdependence.   

To reject the roommates with benefits is just a nuisance, but intimidating those, whom I am looking for is really tragic.  

Being a needy, clingy nice guy is unfortunately something, that does not correspond to the role model of successful masculinity in mainstream society.   They have very good reasons to be proud of not being jerks and to feel morally superior over those repulsive jerks.   Instead the most valuable men have the lowest self-esteem and that adds to their feeling intimidated by any woman, who appears to be strong and independent.  

Therefore they look for women, who are or who appear helpless enough, so that they can attempt to make themselves needed by doing the DIY jobs for the women.    They believe to only have value to a woman by buying her with services.   They are ignorant, that their emotional neediness and clinginess by itself can be of high value to a woman like me.  

I am using the words clingy and needy, even though they may be a bit stronger than what I mean.   I know, that they can in the extreme mean pathological behavior, when there is no balance between the needs of both partners.   Clinginess and neediness are only good, as long as the partner feels appreciated and loved.   When he feels annoyed and suffocating, then it is pathological, and of course I do not wish for it neither on the giving nor on the receiving side.    The limit of acceptable neediness is the reciprocal comfort for both, and this is a question of compatibility and of agreement.

The jerk's lack of needing a woman gives him the freedom to degrade and use her and discard her without hesitation.   The nice guy's neediness is the best guaranty, that he will treat her with care, consideration and responsibility.    So in the worst case, a too clingy nice guy is less detrimental than a jerk.   I just attempt to choose the risk, and suffocating under too much love is better than feeling pain by a jerk lacking caring love.   

While google mostly shows pages devaluing clinging altogether, I found one a bit more positive:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/health/06depe.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

"At least in the short run, dependent traits seemed to buffer the relationships in times of crisis, the authors suggest. Afraid of losing the relationship, “individuals high on dependency may actually behave in a more positive way to their partner, like being more complying, being more loving,” said Bénédicte Lowyck, "

"“But it is this love dependency that is the most adaptive,” Dr. Pincus said. “These are people that form very strong attachments,"