What Does a Woman Want?
Freud famously expressed a frustration born from his inability to fathom the feminine mystery: “The great question that has never been answered, and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is ‘What does a woman want?’” That Freud, one of the most insightful thinkers ever, failed to answer this question satisfactorily speaks less to the difficulty of the question and more to the thickheaded nature of men when it comes to women. Because this is actually not in the least a difficult question to answer. A woman’s core desire is to have a desirable partner of her choosing, and, more importantly, to be the most important thing in the life of her chosen partner. There are of course individual exceptions, but by and large if you spend any time with women and listen to them talk it becomes clear how central the desire for this ideal union is to almost all of them. Women may want more out of life than this, but never less.
And yet we all go around acting as if the answer to Freud’s question remains a mystery. I think that we do this because we focus on the “more” that women may want out of life, while ignoring the foundational desire common to almost all women. The “more” will of course be unique to each woman, and certain patterns may emerge in the female collective. The great mistake is to look at these patterns as if the answer to the question of what women want is to be found there, rather than in their (mostly) uniform central desire. Women themselves make this mistake, too. Carol Queen, noted author on female sexuality, wrote an essay in which she lists top five things that a woman wants, and the entire list consists of trends that exist in the “more” of female desires: 1) Equal pay for equal work, 2)Respect, 3) Trust, 4) Communication, 5) Sexual Permission. While each of these desires is reasonable, and while numbers two through five would be elements of a harmonious partnered relationship, a woman with all five of these elements in her life but who lacks a partner for whom she is the most important thing of all, would still exist in a state of fundamental discontent. Whereas a woman who has a desired partner for whom she is the most important thing of all, but who lacks one of these five elements, is still likely to feel a core of contentment that is unavailable to a woman who has a fabulously high paying job that has burst through the glass ceiling, and even has a desired partner who gives her respect, trust, communication, and sexual permission, if, for example, this partner’s career is more important to him or her than the woman in question.
Everyone knows this, but we like to pretend we don’t, so the obvious question is why? Freud posed the question well before feminism had achieved its greatest accomplishments, so we can’t lay the blame for our collective faux-beffudlement at the feet of the feminists, but they may play a role in its current version. Feminism, rightly, demanded the right of women to pursue the “more” that had been denied to them down through the ages. So when a feminist like Carol Queen thinks about what a woman wants she is going to emphasize those aspects of female desire that have traditionally been denied to women. A feminist who responded to the question of “what does a woman want” with the real answer would risk rolling back all of the triumphs of the past century which allow women to pursue the “more.” So, by definition, a committed feminist is someone who can’t correctly answer the question, “what does a woman want?” Of course, that does not stop women, feminist and otherwise, from constantly talking about what they really want, the aforementioned chosen partner for whom they are the most important thing of all. They just can’t have this discussion in the context of the question, “what does a woman want?” If asked what they want, feminists must provide answers that only provide “the more”, or, if they reveal their desire for a chosen partner who values them more than anything else, this desire must be portrayed as an ingredient to satisfaction in life, thereby disguising its true status as the sine qua non of female happiness.
Men take this opening and run with it as an excuse not to do the hard relationship work involved in valuing their female partners above all else. The cost of doing business paid by the feminists is that they have allowed men the stance that as long as they are respectful, trustworthy, etc. towards their wives/partners, then they have done their best to give women what they want, even if they have not made their women number one. It is, as one of my astute female colleagues pointed out to me, easier for a man to stay late at work then it is to come home from work and take equal responsibility for helping to raise the three children and do a fair share of housekeeping. But it is only by doing the latter that a man will communicate to his female partner that he values her above all else. This is called doing the dirty work, and men too often like to keep their hands clean under the cover of career advancement or by simply spending too much time attending to their own set of interests. But the price paid for this is to never experience the truly adoring female partner, which is the best that life has to offer (straight) men. Nothing in the world glows like the woman who feels that her chosen partner values her above all else, because nothing comes close to a woman who has her central desire in life met consistently. The selfish man pretends that he doesn’t know what women want in order to avoid the labor necessary to achieve relationship greatness. Labor is a term not coincidentally connected with giving birth, that other greatest thing that life has to offer, which underscores the fact that anything in life worth having requires labor. The love of a man’s life should be his central labor. I would argue that what you choose to labor for most intensively should be something that can love you back.
Perhaps we are also all invested in maintaining the “mystery of woman.” This element of mystery could be seen as a necessary ingredient for the sexual dance, and as such our blindness to the lack of mystery as to “what does a woman want” could be seen as biologically determined. But I’m not so sure. I believe that it is us humans, men and women alike, who are mysterious, and that this mystery comes from the “more” that each of us wants out of life that is so individualized and can be so inscrutable to the other. Every individual on Earth wants something different, but all women want the same thing, and all men (or women who love women) would be wise to give it to them; it is our surest route to happiness, “more” notwithstanding. Another astute married female colleague of mine taught me the phrase “happy wife equals happy life.” These are words to live by. The real mystery is why we so often don’t.
11 comments:
Cool post! Some women too contribute to this dynamic you describe. Women are trained to (1) at least simulate but hopefully actually achieve emotional warmth and interpersonal generosity BUT (2) to act like they don't need anything emotionally from others. So sometimes you see women cultivating the needs of others because that makes them feel secure; their own needs are too frightening and might alienate people. They definitely WANT to be taken care of, to be in a relationship of emotional equality, but they are also ambivalent about vulnerability. Some women don't know how to identify or to communicate their needs. So sometimes their needs go unacknowledged and unstated. They may just blow up during an argument, or freak out about something unrelated to what they really want, which is focus, affection, care. I've dated women who seemed to want me to read their minds, to know what they needed when they couldn't figure it out. Obviously I couldn't do that. In "Nonviolent Communication," the author describes how his mother was angry at his father for decades for never meeting her needs. Then one day she realized she had never articulated her needs to him. She had to go walk around the block because she was so upset about this.
Thanks for reading and commenting Elise! Men and women both have a terrible time balancing the competing needs for attachment and autonomy, and women have a particularly difficult time with it due to the legacy of masculine domination. The first step, of course, is being honest about what we need, that we need both elements to be basically happy people. And we have arranged our civilization such that people are blocked from striving for this balance. Thus my effort to get real about what women want....
So, if this is what women want, what do men want? Is sauce for the goose also sauce for the gander?
I would call the need to be the most important thing in a partner's life the problem of woman, but I think that the problem of man is slightly different. The problem of man is the male ego, and male desires are generally centered around reenforcing the ego. So, for example, for Jennifer the most important thing is for me to keep her at the center of her life, while for me it is much more important that Jen communicate to me that I am, e.g., the world's best husband. Jennifer and I are happy in our relationship because we both consistently meet these fundamental needs for one another. I put Jen at the center of my world, and she lets me know that I am The Man, so to speak. Everyone's a winner.
Any person for whom relationality is central to identity will feel insecure if relationality isn't central for their partner. And any person for whom a relationship is one important thing among others will feel a slight tension being with a more relationally defined person. Those dynamics can occur between two women and two men as well-- and are more likely to if one person is at home with kids.
Elise, I think that feminism has attempted to accomplish two basic things. The first, towards which they have had significant success, is the liberation of women from masculine domination in the public arena. This would include things such as equal access to career success, political enfranchisement, Title IX access to playing high school or college sports, just to name a few. These are all to the good, and in the context of my essay are all about allowing women access to the "more" of life. But I think that feminism has just as much attempted to do something different, which is to solve what I call the problem of woman, which is the aforementioned core need for a woman to be at the center of her partner's life. Feminism has attempted to offer alternatives to this core need by way of "the more", so that not only are women allowed access to these important things, but they are taught that these important things are enough to give them deep, lasting happiness, and that perhaps the real happiness for women comes from finally having the choice of how to achieve happiness. I don't believe this to be true for the vast majority of women. In other words, while feminism has been a great success (while work yet remains to be done)in achieving access for women to the "more", I believe it has not been successful in solving what I call the problem of woman because feminism has given a culural answer to an existential question. The existence of woman is problematic, just as is man's, and the problem of woman can not be overcome by equal rights. I guess this makes me something of a biological determinist, but I don't believe in free will anyway (which is another conversation). Of course, same sex relationships put a different twist on things, and I have not yet gotten my head around how such relationships speak to the problem of woman, and I think your post moves in that direction. So do you believe that in a relationship between two women there is the possibility being the most important thing in her partner's life is not a necessary (if not sufficient) condition for an individual woman? I guess I am suggesting that it is necessary, if not sufficient, and that the woman who loves a woman that you are describing may need to be the most important thing in her partner's life AND e.g. have her play well reviewed in the New York Times?
It's complicated. I know what you mean by "the problem of women." In my taxonomy and map of the mental/emotional world, female psychic vulnerability is replicated, generation to generation, by the general economic picture (lack of national health care & day care, discrimination, low minimum wage, family law that is organized around marriage and the couple), generations of women who experienced psychic isolation and dependency within the family, and ongoing inequality within relationship dynamics. But the most powerful force is the culture women create among themselves. Women grow up (largely) within a feminine culture, which overemphasizes relationships and conformity. This culture impairs women's psychic autonomy and confidence. Women are socialized to think that relationships confer status and well-being. They are not challenged to be independent or to develop the skills of self- soothing, self-knowledge, and self- direction. Then they enter into what my friend calls "the heterosexual dynamic," which I don't really understand, and have relatively little experience with. Wanting to be the most important thing in a man's life (I would GUESS) would be a mix of healthy and unhealthy. It is both wanting a relationship to be mutually caring and respectful (healthy), and wanting the other person to be as relationship-dependent as you are (unhealthy). As in Louise Bogan's poem:
Men loved wholly beyond wisdom
Have the staff without the banner.
Like a fire in a dry thicket
Rising within women's eyes
Is the love men must return.
Heart, so subtle now, and trembling,
What a marvel to be wise.,
To love never in this manner!
To be quiet in the fern
Like a thing gone dead and still,
Listening to the prisoned cricket
Shake its terrible dissembling
Music in the granite hill.
Some lesbian relationships are pretty codependent, it's true. Especially in certain demographics, there's an over-the-top emotionality and tons of drama, enmeshment. But in other queer social worlds, qualities like autonomy, success, and self-direction are privileged. This is partially just about what it takes to attract women. Needing to be important to others, codependency, is considered unattractive, a sign of weakness.
Many young women enter queer culture with some of the vulnerabilities and codependencies of the old female world: boundary problems, instabilities that neither they nor others can soothe. But they find that their vulnerabilites are not accomodated or rationalized as "how women are," as they might be by men and by straight women. I've heard both lesbians and straight men say "women are crazy"; but they then have very different takes on why that is and whether or not it can be changed. For some women, it is an arduous process to overcome their vulnerabilities. Some never really overcome them, they just get good at seeming stronger than they are. There's a lot of posturing and performing. Other women embark on a more genuine process of self transformation. A few always possessed deep inner strength and self-definition. But in general most women in these worlds view themselves as a work in progress, attempting to overcome their socialization.
Among some young queer women there's an anti-monogamy bias. On the other end of the spectrum, there are women in their 50s and 60s who have never had children. They have often had many relationships and developed quite differently, emotionally.
I would like a relationship that is caring and respectful, but I don't need to be in a relationship. I didn't like living with my partner, so I tend to imagine a non-domestic relationship. I worry about the opportunity cost of relationships. Sometimes you need to be alone to work on yourself. Also I get more done when I'm single. Any relationship brings out some sides of my personality and represses others, so sometimes it's good to take a break from those dynamics. But if you have kids, a very different set of constraints are applied.
Let me clarify a bit: In the 70s, among lesbian-feminists, there was a sort of "oh I'm so relieved to be in a relationship where I am as important to the other person as they are to me" thing. So they very much acknowledged women's emotional needs-- emotional needs that I think are unhealthy side effects of millennia of patriarchy. They made a big deal of it-- "let's separate and be with our 'sisters,' with 'womyn,' " this kind of thing. But I'd say that they took the unhealthy symptoms of oppression and painted them as virtues. It took something historical and acted like it was natural. It was a dangerous path of evasion. Women need a combination of support and challenge towards change.
A lot of those relationships became asexual pretty quickly. Too much love and sweetness. Too little identity and definition.
When Chekhov wrote the short story "The Darling," about a woman without a clear identity outside of marriage, Tolstoy wrote him a letter saying "why are you criticizing that aspect of women? It's a holy thing." Chekhov disagreed.
One last anecdote: Not all women need this. A friend of mine is married. When I ask her if she gets her emotional needs met by her husband, she says, "Well he needs less interaction than I do." This is both because she is a woman-- socialized as a woman within the family and within society -- and because he works in an office, whereas she works full time at home, and is thus more isolated. Yet she never expects him to make up for their imbalance. She has close female friends whose lives and emotional needs resemble hers more closely. She accepts that men and women are emotionally different, for many reasons, and plans accordingly. She's only been married two years though; maybe this will be hard to keep up.
Great stuff Elise! As a result of this lively exchange I think I see two basic points of disagreement in our perspective on what I have been calling the problem of woman, the need to be the most important thing in a partner's life. If I am reading you correctly, you conceive of the problem of woman as a result of masculine domination, i.e. as socially constructed. I would put forward a contrasting view, that masculine domination itself is socially constructed but that the problem of woman is the result of the evolution of the species. This would be why feminist efforts to gain access for women to what I have been calling the "more" of society have been successful, and why further efforts hold the promise of a sexually egalitarian society. The aspects of reality which are socially constructed can be reconstructed. But the problem of woman does not fit into this category; as a result of evolution it is, essentially, existential. This status is why the second major effort of feminism, to construct an alternative answer to the core problem of woman, has largely failed. We can not socially reconstruct evolution.
The second area of divergence is our respective emotive stances towards the problem of woman. Again, if I am reading you correctly, I would say that you are a pessimist about the problem of woman while I am an optimist. What I mean by this is that you appear to see the problem of woman as something from which women need to be liberated, and in this your line of thought would agree with the second, failed strand of feminist efforts, the effort to offer an alternative answer to the problem of woman. I think the rapid pace of change in technology fuels this stance, but the speed with which technology advances is not mirrored by human evolution. We remain largely the same creatures we were before the advent of the industrial revolution, social construction notwithstanding, and face the same existential dilemmas.
I am an optimist about the problem of woman because I see its basic answer, making human relationship the pillar around which one erects a human life, as a gracious solution, especially once we factor in sexual equality via feminist successes. And, while this may be a heterosexist stance, I see the welfare of men as intrinsically tied up in the basic answer to the problem of woman. We have evolved as a species such that we need each other. This is good news, and is the core of the Good News preached in church. Long live the problem of woman!
Very interesting. we definitely disagree about the evolutionary basis of women's emotional needs. And even the fundamental nature of the emotions that women experience as love. My question for you is: If women just want mutuality, if they want a relationship with someone who puts them at the center of their emotional lives, if this is all healthy stuff-- qualities needed for the continuation of the species and honored within christian doctrine-- why are so many women attracted to men who are ambivalent and withhold affection, rather than men who are caring and involved? How do you explain the fact that many women, time and time again, choose partners who are cold, when nice caring men are available? I think that we're talking about a combination of something psychically universal and basic to all human beings, the attraction to psychic ambivalence and aggression, something that results from babies' reaction to the unavoidable parental ambivalence toward children, PLUS we're also talking about a fear-based and relationship-defined female psychology, a reaction to thousands of years of male domination of women.
I am neither an optimist nor a pessimist. I am a materialist, and think that economic solutions are required, so that emotional life isn't so tied up within economic constraints. Once we've set up a world where women can survive and thrive economically even after divorce, and once we've got a fairer economic system, you'll see the possibility for the kind of genuine mutuality and true love that is honored (rightly so) within Christian doctrine. This is my interpretation of the scripture that shows Jesus' ambivalence about traditional family:
If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children
and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
-Jesus (Luke 14:26)
But let me add that I completely agree with you that deep care and respect, a relationship that is a pillar of both parties' life, is a wonderful thing. I'm not anti-relationship. I'm anti-bad relationship, and I'm anti- conditions that distort people's heart and lives. So I don't think we really disagree, because I think we're using the same words to talk about different things, people, experiences, and emotions. I think we share the same ideals, but have slightly different ideas about how to get there.
Post a Comment