First, an example of too much of a good thing.
This is about the “savings paradox” discussed in a high school or college course called Macroeconomics. Savings is a good thing, right? What if everybody was convinced of it, became conscious about their expenses and proceeded to save, on the average, say, five percent of their income? But such a good thing to do quickly descends to a sour misadventure. The economy would most likely tank with recession claiming people’s jobs, businesses shutting down and income falling, not to mention savings. This so because the volume of goods and services already produced was now faced with a drop in demand by five percent. It is a paradox because what appeared to be a good idea turned into a pretty bad experience.
Now, for an example of bad things gone wild.
Every society has its share of bad apples, liars, thieves, cheats, thugs, opportunists, two-faced individuals, etc. Yet no society implodes. Unless. Unless the threshold point of tolerance over corruption, crime, violence, nepotism, favoritism and treachery is crossed. Then strange things begin to happen. Society begins to unravel. A total collapse of law and order ensues. Spurned and injured, respect for people in political authority, judges, administrators, policemen, and even educators evaporates wholesale. With allegiance to the state and patriotism wearing thin, people detach from society, becoming exceedingly self-centered, paranoid, giving up bits of their integrity while coalescing into sub-groups. Still others, disgusted, disillusioned and in despair, seek to emigrate in even larger numbers. Finally, another small minority plan and plot political revolution, by force if necessary.
The point is, some things widely and obsessively pursued, whether good or bad, disallow a stable, fruitful society to sustain.
Thus, conversely, when gender relations unravel wholesale, then one of two things must have happened: too much of a good thing or too much of a bad thing.
This narrative suggests men and women are like toasting bread for each other.
Now, both men and women have strengths and weaknesses. They shine and wilt under different circumstances. Expectations and timelines differ by gender. Each gender arguably “sensibly” and organically looks out for its self interest. Socially and morally, it is programmed to look out for each other.
Again, modern relationship between genders appear to have two phases: short and long run.
The key connecting observation is: if in the short run the parties do not pay attention to the opposite gender’s weaknesses, the nature of the other party may become so dramatically altered that, when it comes the “time” to settle down, stable long run relationship becomes infeasible. The carefree fun of the short run rapidly changes to pain in the long run.
This is what we mean by burning one’s toast while still hoping to eat it.
If this problem happened like a random smattering, the society would get by this type of occurrences and be OK as a whole. However, when short run mindless exploitation in the name of “fearless” fun or as a sign of “responsibility” happens like an epidemic, the long run pain will be endemic and permanent. Some people will be lost and others will be hurt. The earlier twains of love will graduate to become parallel tracks of detached, non-intersecting paths disappearing into the horizon.
What a let down, but what was one thinking would happen ultimately?!