COMMITMENT

I think that the female focus on male commitment, or lack of it, is mostly projection--that is, about the extreme difficulty which femininity has with any commitment past their genes and babies. Males, basically, are far more committed to outside endeavors than are females. We have this ingrained urge to draw lines, to symbolize, to name things, to identify self with words, to be patriotic (committed to country), than do females.

Females are, of course, extremely committed to their offspring, to the well-being of their genetic carriers--children, grandchildren, etc. Past these genetic extensions, however, females are rarely inclined to make any of the more typically male type commitments. Their focus on male "uncommitment" is not so much about male commitment itself, as it is about their urge to have a male committed to their own endeavors (themselves and their children).

In this quest, females more easily act sexually faithful because their genetic endeavors are best served by keeping a good man than by having many sexual partners. Below the surface of sexual faithfulness, not fooling around, however, actual facts belie appearances. Females may be faithful to the letter of the law--not going to bed with other men, but they never cease their diligent efforts to be appealing, beautiful, and seductive of all men. At the same time they speedily leave any commitment to being sexual with owned men (spouses, etc.) except in service of pregnancy, which is, obviously, rare, and wielding power through sex.

Male commitment to being sexual is obviously not shared by females. We consistently want to know: will you or won't you? Women, with even greater consistency, avoid any such commitments, even with those they love. "Maybe I will, maybe I won't," is, when females are most being themselves, the standard. Even till the time of intercourse, good females consistently avoid commitment to wanting sex. In the act itself, they often try to remain unconscious (it seems to me) of what they are doing, that is, to avoid personal commitment to their own sexual endeavors.

I think that attention to female beauty, trying to be attractive, is so ingrained and cut off in consciousness from what I believe its genetic roots to be (to secure male sperm and support), that the blind, willy nilly, for-itself-alone, urge to be pretty, is seldom recognized for what it is: namely, inherent female unfaithfulness to any single male, and near universal urge to the female counterpart of male sperm-spreading, that is, to sperm-reception and male-support.

Males are obviously genetically devoted to sperm-distribution rather than monogamy. But females, though more easily adapted to the appearances of monogamy, are, I think, equally if not more so, devoted to their own genetic roles of consistently appealing to any and all potentially good sperm-spreaders. They reasonably want faithfulness from their males, but with good genetic reason and much conscious denial to cloak it, they pretend degrees of personal commitment to their males which they seldom make in reality. They are committed only to that which is necessary in keeping useful males, all the while continuing their ingrained urges to a universal appeal to males in general. They may remain faithful in body, even in consciousness, but I think that their existential commitments are almost nil and void, that is, non-existent.

Specifically, I do not see females as committed to words in general, to accepted meanings or dictionary definitions, nor to their own words in particular. Freely they change both the meanings of words and their commitments to words they have given. "I changed my mind" is, of course, a proverbial "female prerogative," meaning that there is no real commitment to anything they say. They possess freedoms with words which men seldom acquire.

This freedom with words expands into the realm of ideas, principles, and beliefs as well. Female theologians, for example, are almost all eclectic, that is, free to pick and choose which ever doctrines fit them at the time. And so are females in general, all the way from the smallest commitments to the meaning of words, to their commitments to their word given. "It all depends" is the only consistent female "commitment."

The reason "you can never win an argument with a woman" is because of this fact; arguments are based on words, and without a commitment to words, no success in arguing is possible. Female freedoms with words give them infinite advantages in all arguing. Then past the verbal exchanges, females hold the ultimate freedoms of non-commitment to any immediate encounter. They can, with freedoms which males seldom ever acquire, easily abandon any current scene, that is--disengage themselves, stop any commitment to presence or connection with a male, say, in effect, "Well have it your way," without any personal meaning or bending at all.

Being naturally more self-contained (I think), they do not even see how easily they "cut off" themselves from male connections, how uncommitted they are to any present encounter when it does not go the way they want it to. Unconscious of their own degree of commitment to self and genes alone, rather to any others, spouses and lovers included, females rarely realize how uncommitted they are in practice to the very relationships they think they value so highly.

In summary, I conclude that the appearances of male "uncommitment" and female commitment cloak profound facts to the contrary. I think that males are commonly victimized by female demands for male commitment and put-downs about male "fear of commitment." This, while in fact I see female talk about commitment to be mainly a cloak for their own lack of same. Males are made out to be "uncommitted" to cloak the deeper fact that females remain the major uncommitted ones, even in relationships apparently based on commitment.

Males may be sexually unfaithful while females are sexually faithful; but these outward physical facts easily cloak the deeper male commitments to female connections and the deeper female lack of commitments in any real and existential ways past sexual fidelity and into the dailyness of immediate encounters. Just as females are uncommitted to words, so they are uncommitted to the bonds of human connections which are formed and structured through conversation and verbal exchanges.

I do not think that these matters involve virtue at all. Male commitments are not inherently virtuous; nor are female refusals to commit, past sexual fidelity, lacking in virtue. Both, I think have genetic and social roots, that is, have pragmatic basis. But my long failure to acknowledge my observations as noted above are evidence of my own uncommitment to what I do see, and my tendency to fall for what females say rather than honoring my perceptions of them.

Back To Index