“Some 19-year-old girl doesn’t know her talents, goals, and ambitions. She doesn’t know that life can be very hard and very heart-breaking yet. There’s a lot she doesn’t know, but there is one thing a 19-year-old going to Yale and desiring the lifestyle of the upper middle class does know very well–the stay-at-home wife is a must-have accessory to that life. The whole child-rearing rationale doesn’t hold water and is a recent cover story for the real truth, which is that a lot of men still put their egos into having dependent wives. Back before feminism made it gauche to just come out and say this, my grandfather was blunt with my grandmother–he was not going to be humiliated by having a wife who worked, because then people would think he couldn’t take care of his business. That attitude has largely faded by necessity amongst us worker bee types, but I assure you that people who are grabbing for the other trappings of the upper class lifestyle are going to want the whole package, and that includes the dependent wife.
“If you doubt it for a second, take a gander at this load of anti-feminist trolling at Hugo’s blog. Wear a mask and goggles, because it gets ugly in there. But Hugo’s post was on the now-infamous ‘listless lads‘ article at Salon, and how women’s financial independence is going to inevitably reshape our relationships with men, to the benefit of women and to the detriment of certain illusions men have had that women have conspired in the past to keep for them. (Illusions like the ones being touted in that NY Times article, which reads like porn for social climbers if you look at from a certain angle. Women love dependence! No, really!) It doesn’t take long for the anti-feminists out there to bitterly whip out the ancient quote, ‘A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle,’ and attempt to confuse the meaning of that saying.”
WAIT A MINUTE. I thought the conversation was about “listless lads.” I thought it was a WOMAN who was complaining about these guys. How did we move from an article on commitment-wary males to a sermonette on how men want to keep women dependent and needy??! Well, I guess that’s the modus operandi of feminists like Amanda: Hijack any discussion concerning men and women and turn it into a diatribe about “Patriarchy” no matter how much a ridiculous non sequitur such a detour is.
But anyway, Amanda enlightens us on the real meaning of the “fish” needing the “bicycle” …
“So let me make it clear what the word ‘need’ means in this instance. I need a man if I want some [___].”
My, my, I thought feminists were against sexual objectification. Reducing someone to that person’s reproductive organs! How dehumanizing. Do you think I could get away with saying something comparable about women? Or should I know the answer to such a question by now?
“I need a man if I am to have a boyfriend. I need a man to lift some furniture.”
I really think men should tell women like Amanda to lift the furniture their cotton’-pickin’ selves. After all, men are expected to do their own laundry and cook these days.
“I need a man in that I need my male friends, family, coworkers, internet buds and every other man in my life I lean on or just enjoy. What I don’t need a man for is to define me or make me worthy of existence.”
Good enough. While we’re renouncing attempts to defining one sex in terms of commitment to the other, we can chunk asinine statements like the following:
“Men need to focus on confronting one another in love, and encouraging our brothers to be willing to do the difficult and ultimately rewarding work our sisters are calling us to do.”
Oh, wait a minute, Hugo Schwyzer said that. Never mind. Continue, Amanda:
“But after reading that article and of course reading stuff from the religious right and the anti-feminist squad and all the other conservative [___] out there, it’s clear to me that even this small, hard-won truth for women–that we have a right to define ourselves and not be defined solely through men–is sorely resented by a lot of people. It strikes me as wholly pathetic for men to fantasize about being needed to give some woman her reason to exist. On the surface it seems like a good deal, I guess, because if someone is dependent on your financially and also for identity, she won’t be giving you much grief by disagreeing or anything like that, but still, it’s pathetic. Because if you’re needed by someone, you can never rest assured that you’re wanted by someone. Jane Austen illustrated that fact to a T a couple of centuries ago in Pride and Prejudice by having a sympathetic female character hold her nose and marry an odious male character because she needed to have a marriage to basically exist in her society. Something for men to consider before they get all excited about the idea of having a dependent, subservient wife who stays out of your way and never disagrees with you openly–you’ll never be sure, on one level or another, if she even likes you.”
Ok, guys. You know the drill: We are a bunch of culturally conservative loonies that want to strip women of their their right to live their lives as they see fit. The next meeting of the Dark Society of Patriarchal Losers and Creeps will be held at a location yet to be disclosed. George Bush, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Osama bin Laden, Jimmy Hoffa, and Elvis Presley will be present.
But seriously, I wander why Amanda continues to harbor some delusion that MRAs want to keep women barefoot and pregnant. I think of a homely girl fantasizing about men stalking her. No stalkers exist, but the girl is so starved for a sense of importance that she craves even negative attention. It reminds me of an old proverb in the Bible: “The wicked flee when no one pursues.” I cannot but believe that the same is the case for Amanda and many other feminists of her generation. There is not enough drama in their lives, so they have to create it. Don’t believe me? Here’s what Amanda recently wrote ..
“I was listlessly looking at some pathetic conservative writers continue to blame women who aren’t married for Hurricane Katrina and despairing for idiots to make fun of, and then glorious day! [emph. mine]“
Anyway, here’s the truth about nearly all the MRAs I know: MRAs have no interest in keeping women down. It’s too much work. In fact, “too much work” is the point. Hugo Schwyzer got the point; Amanda didn’t. Hugo tries to inspire men to take on the challenge of relationships with contemporary women. I suggest that if men want that kind of a challenge, they might want to consider the Peace Corps. Many a man has already asked just what can a contemporary woman offer him. Indeed, what can Amanda offer? I have an idea about that; let’s see the quote again ..
“I was … despairing for idiots to make fun of, and then glorious day!”
I rest my case, your honor. LOL. At any rate, Amanda told us what she “needs” from men. Now let me tell you what men need from Amanda – We need for her (and her like-minded sisters, for that matter) to leave us alone and to get a life.