Was surfing on Huffington post, which I like to consider a relatively OK media source, and fell on an article written by a Black American woman thrice divorced, pontificating about Singlehood /Celibacy and women.
In that article she argues that if women (referring to American women I suppose) are not married by a certain age it's because of some deep fault of their own. They are either bitchy (angry) "about the military industrial complex or Sarah Palin"(her words), shallow, sexually promiscuous, gold diggers, dishonest, selfish or constitutionally impaired in their self esteem.
The author is entitled to her opinion which is probably a reflection of her three divorces, however what I found quite shocking is that this black American woman is so ignorant of the plight of the women in her own community - namely that over 60% of Black American women are unmarried and/or single mothers, and this is proving to be a huge sociological problem among the black community in the USA. In a way she is insulting the 60% of her own gender and people.
What I found interesting were the comments - naturally the commentators who gave her a 5*, were bitter American men who in the end went to Eastern Europe or Asia to marry someone less bitchy and less selfish as per their comments.
But what was more shocking on the other hand, is that this article was hailed as a revelation of absolute Truth to be commanded and cherished like a verse from a Bible.
Of course, the implicit assumption behind this author's stand is that single women are single because not virtuous enough and married women are still married because they have the necessary virtuous qualities to make it work.
The major quality behind all these little qualities that make a marriage last is Submission - which she in, her politically correct language, calls compromise but seems to it attribute mainly to one side - the female. In other words, if you submit well enough and long enough, then you are not only virtuous but also you are worthy of marriage.
Of course the first question to ask the author is why did she end up with 3 divorces then when she clearly mentions that her last marriage was to a notorious liar and cheater? I would have thought following her "advice" -- had she submitted to that reality she would have qualified for the role of a virtuous martyr worthy of being wedded to longer...
Moreover, it seems that in mainstream American "renaissance" psycho babble, new age ideology - being angry at political crapology like Sarah Palin and Co or being angry at a military industrial complex that is literally raping the rest of the world in particular her black brethren in third world countries are sure signs of being "bitchy" and not being "nice" to the opposite sex. Because it is also implied here that to land a man, you need to not have any opinion on any matter or that God forbid you should show passion for any issue (outside of him or romance) for which you strongly feel or are committed to. Which in turn also implies, that whatever knowledge a woman may have acquired must be muffled, dumbed down, so as not to contravene the would be suitor, and hence hamper her eligibility as marriage material.
Had I not read that on the Huffington post, I would have automatically assumed it must have come from some "repressive/oppressive culture that objectifies women into submission" but no, it came from mainstream American culture that prides itself on its o' political correctness.
Ironically, this author reminds me of one of my aunts who kept repeating to the family that the reason I never remarried is because I read too many books and that was not a good thing for a woman, or the remarks of others that would accuse single women in some major area - she is not married yet because she is 1) loose 2) ugly 3) selfish 4) not well domesticated 5) difficult (insert more...) in other words - deficient. And in the mind --deficient when it comes to women is associated with a lack of some virtue or the other.
Of course no one would say that about a single man - he's the "entertaining, carefree, bachelor" (not the "bitter male hating spinster" like in the case of a single woman) who doesn't want to be tied down and likes much his freedom or is in pursuit of higher causes - he is not considered selfish, dishonest, angry, promiscuous, deficient just because he's not married.
After reading this American article and the mental reverberations it caused from all too familiar arguments I've already come across from my own culture, I will settle for another explanation that run counters to all this bullshit - and that is the concept of "Naseeb" or "Fate". I prefer these concepts where the individual even though has the capacity to choose, is still in some ways directed towards his "Destiny" that unfolds according to a much higher plan than the explanations offered by both American pop psychology and Arabic folk culture.
And as the Saying of the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) mentions "the name of your spouse is written on your forehead and only the Almighty knows it".
No question here of demonizing single women (and men) and no question here of attributing negative traits to them for not being married. Quite the contrary, the assumption is that God is at work in your life even in your personal matters.
Now that is way more freeing - it unchains you to go for your higher desires and callings, trusting that you are looked after in matters of your heart.
Just keep the intention pure. Nothing more is asked of you.
