I wrote this as a response to a conversation about "needing" people.
As is the case with many of my responses, it is longer than the 3000 character limit imposed by Haloscan.
But I thought it was important to underscore. To me, it brings to the fore one of the greatest problems in marriages today: feminism's exaggerated notion of autonomy.
You’re correct that in the strictest sense of the word, nobody needs anyone.
However, the reality of human emotion and human relationships that we need to need people—and be needed.
Relationships in which two individuals do not meld—where the one person has “his stuff” and the other has “her stuff”—both material and intangible—are not satisfying. Someone will always be too vulnerable at some point, and it’ll be violated in the name of “this is mine, that’s yours.”
“This my career, that’s your career; this is my car, that’s your car; these are my values and priorities, those are your values and priorities.”
That’s the modern relationship.
To need and be needed means that you don’t think in terms of “this is yours, that’s mine.” Everything is “ours”.
When you need someone, their ideas, priorities, things, well-being become important. And in consequence, some of your ideas, priorities, things (and to a certain degree well-being) become less important. And when you are needed, you become more important, and vice-versa.
So when you need someone, you might re-prioritize. And when someone needs you, you also re-prioritize.
When you’re in a relationship, life is no longer just about you.
When I said that feminism pushes an exaggerated version of autonomy, this is what I meant. The woman, her wants and needs are the only wants and needs that matter. Nobody else’s does. And the feminist evaluates how well she is esteemed according to whether her wants and needs are accorded importance and value to the exclusion of others, especially when she’s perceived to be in a victim minority group.
So relationships where women work in function of promoting the man’s career to the detriment of her own—are adjudged to be oppressive (just to give you an example).
If women do things that consistently advance the interest of their husbands, while casting aside their own goals, that’s just wrong in feminist eyes.
But the nature of emotional need is that you do that. That’s how you create a stable and emotionally satisfying marriage.
I’m not arguing that women always have to put aside their wants.
But when you need and are needed, that’s what’s going to happen.
And you’re not oppressed if you do that.
My main point is that if women are being shafted, it’s not because women aren’t “allowed” to be autonomous.
It’s that men are “too” autonomous. They don’t live up to their responsibilities.
Feminist seeks that masculine framework of “autonomy”—this idea that men get to do whatever the hell they want, and nobody ever “co-erces” them (i.e. makes them live up to their responsibilities.)
So men can screw around 100 different women, and never have to worry about the pregnancies, and they can come home to a woman and have his dinner ready and not give a moment’s thought to her wants and needs.
That’s the feminist idea of how it was/is for men.
And they want an approximation of that same ideal: that women get to have the opportunity to do the same thing, without a double standard—as if the lack of a double standard makes that all well and good. Not that feminists approve of adultery—only that women get to act the same as men and live by that imaginary standard whereby men don’t get condemned for such behaviour.
And it so, in the name of preserving “equality “ and “equal power relationships” everyone’s crap is separate—because the moment you let yourself be vulnerable—the moment you start “taking care of man”, the moment you start “being dependant” on him, that’s when you set yourself up to be oppressed.
If you let him take care of you, then you have to take care of him. If you sacrifice for his sake, and he doesn’t sacrifice for yours, then you’ve screwed yourself.
In reality, the fault lies in the woman not having power, not in the man’s in exercising his power without responsibility.
The feminist solution, which is “empowerment”—requires analyzing what’s “fair” what “oppressive” who is getting their due, etc.
That is a recipe for a disaster.
Because the focus becomes on what you want, what you have, what you should have, and negotiating or arguing your way to that point.
The woman has her priorities, wants and values.
The man has his priorities, wants and values.
And when they happen to coincide—that’s really great. But when they don’t—and that happens in almost every marriage at some point—that’s when the fighting begins and it never ends because the relationship must satisfy a certain level of justice—instead of making everyone happy.
And sometimes, to be happy, you have to push aside your former priorities.
But feminism says that if you do that, then you’re being disempowered.
And on and on it goes.
If you act in any old way you want, you may very well be “liberated”, but the whole point is that we’re not completely and utterly independent of one another, especially in relationships.
And so, as far as abortion goes, yes, you can go out and be “liberated” by having an abortion, but there are at least two other people whose interests are at stake. And having to consider their interests is not “oppression”. It’s simply common sense.
But feminism says: you’re the one carrying the baby, you’re the only person whose views matter. The man’s input is secondary, if it counts at all, and the baby’s is even less important.
Feminism says: you are free to discount any and all opinions on your pregnancy/abortion.
That sounds liberating. But that's an exaggerated autonomy. Other people are involved in this decision.
That's why I call it feminist supremacy.
