Saturday, May 7, 2011

Man's New Search for Meaning


Undoubtedly, many a relationship therapist has pontificated that the ideal male/female relationship is a partnership based on trust and compatibility. You ought to know that these claims are false, and that these therapists are imbeciles. The best partnerships are, and always have been, based not on compatibility, but on mutual need. Abbott & Costello hated each other. Lennon & McCartney hated each other. Simon & Garfunkel still hate each other, and, still, need each other. Not only is “whether two people get along” not a pre-requisite for a great partnership—it’s completely irrelevant.

This is why successful long-term male/female relationships have never been about rapport, and have always been about mutual need. The truthfulness of this principle has been validated by, ostensibly, the whole of human history.

Since the beginning of time, man’s primary concern in life has been to ensure the propagation of his own bloodline1. This outcome is dependent upon a binary function where the value “contains uterus” = 1. Woman, on the other hand, has always been principally concerned with the obtaining of food. No, really, she is. Not convinced? Find the woman nearest you and ask her how much she likes the taste of food. Better yet, attempt to deny food from her for any quantifiable period of time, and record the results2.

Back when food could run, and/or had horns, teeth, and claws, the obtaining of it required a certain amount of muscles and sinews; items of which man was in greater supply. And thus a woman’s need for man, and her willingness to enter into a partnership with him where A) she would ensure the progress of his bloodline, in exchange for B) the regular procurement of food that would otherwise maul, trample, or claw its procurer to death. Interestingly, a woman’s need for man (and, consequently, the strength of the partnership) would increase over time. In accordance with provision A, she would spend spend copious amounts of time in an altered physical state called “pregnancy.” In this altered state, she would need her man much, much more. After all, it’s hard to slay a wild buffalo with nothing but a sharpened stick. But it’s harder to do while you’re pregnant3.

This harmonious needs-based partnership between man and woman would endure for anywhere from a few-thousand to many-tens-of-thousands of years4. Even after wedding bells were first hung between Mr. and Mrs. Tigris and Euphrates, the partnership would go forth undeterred5.

Until the industrial revolution and the advent of machines, when it became clear that woman could perform an awful lot of important work at least as competently as man. While man is typically oblivious to the most apparent details immediately before his eyes6, he was able to foresee that as soon as woman became able to feed herself satisfactorily, the plight of man would fall into dire circumstances. His role would pass very quickly from “absolutely essential” to “space to fill.” In a desperate act to maintain his standing as at least “necessary,” man would engage in an unseemly practice now known as “gender discrimination in the workplace7.”

As you know, this subversion of equal rights would, for the most part, be overcome—allowing woman to provide for herself the one thing she has truly ever desired. Though also coming with many positive by-products, woman’s ability to obtain food for herself has resulted in the dissolution of the partnership that supported male/female relationships for the entirety of human existence. Now, man has no definable role in the relationship. Woman knows this, man knows this, man knows that woman knows this, and woman knows that man knows that woman knows this—knowledge which yields an unconscionable amount of relationship leverage in woman’s favor. And man, all too aware of his under-leveraged position, is choosing evermore to not take his seat at the negotiating table (or “seat at the dinner table on a traditional first date,” as it were).

And thus we see the true cause of man’s modern refusal to engage in traditional dating practices. ‘Tisn’t that he doesn’t understand them. ‘Tisn’t that he refuses to grow up. ‘Tisn’t that social media has compromised his ability to interact directly with other humans. ‘Tis a matter of leverage, and he has none. Forced to give up on the dream of preserving his bloodline, he’s been reduced to a new search for relevance and self-respect. He seems to have found it in XBOX Live, where he straight pwns those n00bs.


1. This is, really, the height of male hubris: he thinks so highly of himself, he actually believes the world should be populated with more of him.

2. Please observe proper safety measures before attempting this.

3. Pause for a moment to reflect on how these circumstances would swallow up any potential “relationship issues” between man and woman. For instance, the unsatisfying thoughts a woman might have along the lines of “oh, he just doesn’t understand me anymore,” would most certainly disappear the moment Captain Sinews arrived home with a wild buffalo carcass on his back.

4. Depending on where lies the intersection between your scientific and religious beliefs on the subjects "the origin of man" and "carbon dating."

5. Substitute the concept of "slay the wild beast" with "operate a back hoe from dawn until dusk," and you get the idea.

6. As woman nods, vigorously.

7. Man’s mea culpa being, of course, that he wasn’t using wage discrimination for societal dominance, but rather to maintain relevance within his own home. Somehow he feels this is more noble8.

8. I know, I know: "more noble" is improper English. The correct usage is "nobler." But really, try "nobler" at the end of a sentence. It sounds awful. Sure, William Shakespeare may have used "nobler" in the single most famous paragraph in the history of writing (Hamlet, people); but you see, Billy Shakes used it in the middle of a sentence, not at the end. It's at the end of a sentence that "nobler" becomes a phonetic nightmare. Go ahead, use "nobler" at the end of a sentence some time today. I bet you sound pretentious.

1 comment:

Lydia said...

I would also add, electricity, World War 2, and birth control as contributing factors to this same theory.