Is it not accurate to put that a woman, especially as we see her in today’s time, speaks aloud about the word “choice”? Choice, as it should be seen, relates directly to the words “diversity” and “number”. When in a shop, we are presented with choices. When a woman was liberated from the household, she was presented with the two words “choice” and “opportunity”. All of these things feed into an inevitable way with a woman, to see numbers, as she may have, in olden days, see many children.
Is it not accurate to put that a man can, for a woman, offer her the oneness that disposes of such materialism? It is not also what Christianity speaks of about God, naming God to be both male and a father? If it is proven, not even from a religious point-of-view, that a woman craves choice and independence, then it is inevitably a man who wants for oneness. Why is that? It is because oneness relates to a beginning. A woman cannot any longer want for numbers, if loyalty has already directed itself upon her. Abandonment is something most potent for a woman. Any woman can feel the abandonment of a man’s heart, as that heart can somehow be related to God’s own, because his physical presence is all that is around.
How is it not objectively true that a woman’s addiction to a “wide variety” of assets and resources, relates to how much she has, in today’s world, been disconnected from oneness? It seems to be, that when a woman is disconnected from oneness, being offered by a man, she is connected to the numerous. When a woman rejects the union within marriage, she automatically seems to embrace the numerous choices offered in the world. From this, it seems that a woman’s psychology only offers her either oneness or the numerous, as either union or division, as either love or fear.
What of that oneness, of that creation, of that unity?
Creation. Creation relates to a seed. A seed relates to a sperm cell, when only one ever gets to the egg. Oneness. That is the beginning of something. It is the beginning of life. For a woman, a man makes oneness, and keeps her collected. It is what defines loyalty only from a man to a woman, because were it not, then perhaps multiple seeds would be in competition to create a beginning. It is the case, at first, when a million sperm cells race to the egg. Yet, when one gets there, it has been inaugurated into leadership. Leadership. That is the oneness. The collection, the gathering of a population, to be unified. Perhaps this is the objective reason why a man desired a son, in the past.
If that is not enough, then why is the infant meant to be born head-first? See the head as the leader, as Christianity sees God as the head, and you will find Atheism to be full of ignorance.
When is it not written in a mournful love song that a woman sees herself too incapable, when once in that relationship, to ever keep the man close to her? Yet, a woman feels “capable” without a man, among the “numerous” that she clings to. Multiple magazine subscriptions, many celebrities voices to hear and gain advice from, podcasts to listen to… the list goes on.
A woman feels abandonment, like the star in the universe among the millions spread across, never chosen. Can one easily see God collecting the stars, like a woman collects children? If so, then a man will see all women as his children, if only for there to be one to truly love. Perhaps that is also the reason why a man desires a son, not a daughter, because what point is there to see another face of his beloved wife? That confusion merely sets apart the oneness within the definition of love.
A man is challenged to gather the weak together, if only to create that oneness through the love that creates the unity.
Modern Romanticism 