A (female-identifying) reporter on Facebook:
Emma Watson says she doesn’t like the term single and prefers “self partnering.” this sounds empowering to me–how does it strike you? Let me know for a possible [newspaper] article?
(Under California family law, there are only a handful of people in the world whom the high-income, high-wealth Ms. Watson could marry and not expose herself to alimony and child support lawsuits. See “Burning Man: Attitudes toward marriage and children”:
We had a lot of high-income women in our camp. All recognized that they could be targeted and potentially become the loser under California’s winner-take-all system. A medical professional said “There is no way that I’m going to pay to support a guy. It was bad enough the last time that I lived with a boyfriend and I had to pick up his socks all the time and do his laundry. Thank God I didn’t have to support him financially.” A finance executive said “I worked my ass off for 17 years for what I have. I am not going to risk losing it.”
If Emma Watson gets sued by a husband in her native England, she could lose half of her accumulated fortune after one or two years of marriage (prenuptial agreements are not enforced by the courts there).)
I’m not sure why at least some Americans who identify as women think that “self-partnered” is more “empowered” than simply “single,” but I wonder if a person with a lot of cats could be considered “cat-partnered”.
2 thoughts on “Self-partnered versus Cat-partnered”
Relationships are less attractive to generation X as they get older & have more net worth to lose, even professional blog commenters who have no net worth other than their blog comments. Net worth for millennials however comes from having a relationship. Having a girlfriend or boyfriend on a leash is millennial money.
She is setting herself up for a divorce with herself, LOL:) It appears she divorced reality already.
Comments are closed.