A Woman Needs a “Lover” like a Fish Needs Its Fins- Sankalp Malhotra

After our intriguing in-class discussion regarding the quote, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle,” I returned to my dorm in Tappan Hall and “discussed” the topic further with anyone who was willing to hear me rant about feminism, Gloria Steinem, and the often mutilated definition of love. I later found out that many of my friends thought that I was becoming overly passionate about certain ideas- which were nothing more to them than my philosophical, perhaps romantic reverie. As Professor Dunning said in class- it is simply “naïve” to believe in the ideal of “romantic love”… …of “soul-mates”…of “completion of self through another.” So I’ll admit it now. I am a romantic…and if romantics are naïve, then I accept that title as well. I am a naive romantic. And I am proud of that.
I believe that it is a fundamental human condition to “need” companionship in the form of romantic love- whether that is love between a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. That type of companionship is based on “need”- and in fulfilling that need, one does not lose his/her self-respect or independence. Moreover, between two people in love, that basic need is mutual. Dr. Dunning asked me- the only male student in the class- the question: “Do you believe you ‘need’ a woman.” There was no hesitation in my reply.
In this “treatise” of my beliefs, let me begin by offering my definitions of certain key elements of the quote being discussed. The quote, which is often attributed to the American feminist icon, Gloria Steinem, can be interpreted as the feminist principle to scoff at the mere notion of a woman’s dependence on a man. Steinem, who was known to use the saying repeatedly, was allegorically articulating the absurdity of any scenario in which a woman needs a man. In fact, in the feminist context, the saying actually implies that in “needing” a man, a woman would lose her self-identity, her self-respect, and most importantly, her independence. Because the word, “need” is so fundamental to the meaning of the quote, it is important to offer its definition. Merriam Webster Online provides a succinct, but apt definition of “need”: a physiological or psychological requirement for the well-being of an organism. The online dictionary further defines “necessity” as, “of an inevitable nature: inescapable b (1): logically unavoidable (2): that cannot be denied without contradiction.”
It is important to note that when the quote’s meaning was discussed in class, the discussion was problematized in two main ways: first, by taking into account the element of a woman’s sexual orientation (women may not necessarily seek a romantic relationship with a man) - and also debating the difference between “need” and “want” in regards to a romantic relationship. I truly believe that the central meaning of the quote doesn’t change even if one takes a woman’s sexual orientation into consideration. The meaning of the quote is rooted in very feminist ideas regarding loss of self, loss of independence, loss of identity through reliance on “men” OR through partaking in ANY romantic relationship based on “need.” In other words, if the word “man” was replaced by “lover,” I do not believe that the true meaning of the quote would be lost or altered.
And through this matter of “lovers”, we come to the issue of “need.” Why must “need” exist in any romantic relationship? More importantly, why do some (including myself) believe that everyone needs love- romantic love?
All you need is love?
Romance. Romantic love. Such love is different from the love one has for a parent (and love for any relative for that matter), for a pet (after all, even pets provide companionship), and even for a good friend. That much is obvious. Any well-read person also knows that love is one of the 5 basic needs described by the great psychologist, Abraham Maslow- proposed in his 1943 paper A Theory of Human Motivation. Part of that description of “love” is the “love of belonging”- felt through kinship. The other type of love is based on “sexual intimacy”- closest in meaning to the phrase that I have used- “romantic love.” Thus, being in love inherently implies “need”- but not necessarily a need for sex. Romantic love is so much more than just sex. The following passage was written by an online blogger:
A colleague who married at the relatively late age of 35 says that she's slowly realizing why marriage is such a good idea.
"It really is like having a 24-hour best friend," she says.
"Wake up together, go to work together, come home to someone to complain to, have hobbies together, go to sleep together. Ultimately, marriage is not about sex, financial security or even kids. It's about companionship and having a 24-hour friend who makes life easier most of the time."
I suppose you could argue that companionship and fulfillment needn't necessarily be from, and with, a man.
Surely what we all hunger for is just someone or something to love, and from which we get some feelings of love and appreciation back, and must this be in the form of only a husband [or a wife]? Can't it also be from a parent, sibling or child? From a pet, even, or an exciting career?
But, oh, who are we kidding? Let's be honest. Nothing beats the frisson of commanding the time and attention of someone…whom you fancy and who fancies you…
No amount of cake and coffee with your girlfriends (sorry, girls, but you do know what I mean), or a pet dog's unconditional love, can give a woman the same happiness as when she is in the company of [a lover] she adores and who loves her back.

Even Merriam Webster’s Online offers a poetic definition of love: “affection and tenderness felt by lovers.” Yet even this definition is more of a description than anything else. Love is above the realm of definition because it is, by its very nature, so all-encompassing that to define it would be impossible. AND EVEN SO- WE KNOW that love- specifically romantic love and companionship- is necessary for psychological and physiological well-being (Maslow). And it is this conception love that is at stake when feminists overuse the quote in question: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” A woman does need a man…or a lover…to fulfill her need for romantic love- that is a fact. Why then is this fact being denied? The answer is simple: because feminists are afraid to admit that they need anyone but themselves to “function” as independent beings in society. They are also afraid of men “hurting” them or taking advantage of them in a relationship. That is why feminists create distance between themselves and their lovers- by denying the very existence of “need-based” love.
Yet, feminists would never say that because they must drink water to survive they have lost their independence or their self-respect. Such a reliance on a commodity for survival is not shameful. Then why is the reliance on a lover (man or a woman)- who provides a basic need of romantic love and companionship- such a disgraceful idea?
What feminists also fail to realize- as is apparent through Steinem’s quote- is that MEN ADMIT THAT THEY NEED WOMEN- not for bearing children or doing domestic household tasks. MEN NEED WOMEN because their companionship and their LOVE is priceless! So, my answer to Professor Dunning’s question was quick and emphatic: “YES. I need a woman in my life.” Why must feminists demonize men who actually admit that there is a human condition that is based on mutual affection? Why must women deem men-who understand the definition of love- naïve romantics? Aren’t feminists being naïve when they deny the existence of a fundamental part of human nature?
The proof of working relationships based on romantic love is everywhere. Over Thanksgiving break, I discussed this topic with my parents. My mother and father had an arranged marriage in India and have never been the type of people to overtly express their love for one another. In essence, they do not go around the house blowing kisses at one another and mouthing “I love yous.” I am well aware that this condition does not manifest itself in the average home either. However, there has always been a real sense in my mind that they do indeed love each other very much. After all, they have been happily married for 20 years. So I asked them about it. Initially, the topic made for an awkward conversation…
Nonetheless, it is important to note that my parents barely knew each other before they were married. Thus, they did not marry for love. They married one another out of respect for their parents’ wishes. Therefore, when I asked them if they “needed” one another, I did not expect a romantic reply regarding love. However, they both answered in a similar fashion. They both said that they had come to love one another and they both required the company of the other because they felt like they could not “be whole” without the other. There was an intangible force (which they both described as “true love”) that kept them together for the past 20 years. When asked if their love had caused them to lose their self-sufficiency or independence, my parents replied by saying they both believed that they retained their independence as persons. They go about their own lives during the day- my father is an accountant and my mother is a teacher’s aide in a pre-school. However, neither of them would trade each other’s company in the evenings and on the weekends for anything. As my father said, they need that companionship to “function as normal human beings.”
In the end, perhaps feminists should take a leaf out of their heroine’s book. This is the very woman that spent a lifetime condemning marriage. She saw it as nothing more than a feudal property contract- something to be abolished, dismissed, and avoided at all costs. She even once said, “You became a semi-nonperson when you got married.” And still, in September of 2000, at the age of 66, Gloria Steinem got married to man named David Bale, a South African-born anti-apartheid activist who also happened to introduce the skateboard to England. So…even the staunch feminist found her need for romance and love too hard to resist.
Thus, feminists should change their saying to the title of this blog- A Woman Needs a “Lover” like a Fish Needs Its Fins.” It is the truth. It is a truth that even applies to all men- those men who are “naïve romantics” and even those men who are not. A famous Hindi film ends with the line, “Somewhere, someone is made for you.” Steinem found that man and my parents found each other…as billions others across the world have found their companions. Then why is this need for love so hard to swallow for some people?
As C.S. Lewis famously remarked: “Why love if losing hurts so much? The answer is simple.


We love to know that we are not alone.”

What Color is Jesus? ... By Kaitlin McCune

Some people may have never wondered this and some people may have been troubled by the question. James McBride shares in his essay, "What Color is Jesus?" and in his novel, "The Color of Water" about a time when his brother Richie was troubled by the fact that the books they used in Sunday school depicted Jesus as being white. He wondered why Jesus was not gray in the picture if He was not supposed to be white or black. There have been numerous guesses as to what Jesus actually looked like.

In 2002, Israeli and British anthropologists and computer programmers got together in order to construct an image of what they believed Jesus' phenotypic appearance would have looked like. Since there was little evidence about Jesus' appearance they based Him off of a typical man found during the time He would have lived in the Middle East. He is depicted as a smaller man, a little over 5 feet tall and weighing about 110 pounds, with a broad face, short curly hair, a bigger nose, and a dark olive skin tone (here's the link to see this depiction http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/25/face.jesus/). This portrayal is quite different than the popular Christian idea of what Jesus looks like. But is this scientifically produced phenotype the actual truth? Is it wrong for people to view Jesus differently?

One man by the name of David Learner shares how he has noticed that children of different races, if asked to draw Jesus, will draw Him like themselves. He found that this seems to be a natural response among children unless they have been taught differently. In my opinion, this makes a lot of sense. I believe that God has made everyone in His own image. I believe that he can be black or white or tan or olive because we are made in His likeness. But after reading James McBride's work I have become to think of Jesus in a somewhat different light.

When James asks his mother what color Jesus is, she tells Him that Jesus does not have a color because He is the color of water. Thinking about this makes my belief that Jesus can be like any of us even stronger. Obviously to Christians Jesus did have a phenotype since He was a person, but I personally prefer to think of Him in a more spiritual sense, rather than a physical sense since it is His spirit that connects me with Him. Being the color of water, or colorless, or clear actually, Jesus really can be any color He wants. In a way He's kind of like a chameleon I suppose, taking on the color of His surroundings. I think that if Jesus was clear and He stood in between a black person and myself, He would look black just like that person. Likewise if He were standing between me and a white person, He would look white, and I could go on to say the same for any race, or complexion. So I have come to the personal conclusion that Jesus does not have a color, yet He can be any color. I also find it amazing that there is an entire Book about God and Jesus, yet there is little evidence as to what He actually looked like. I believe that this is because appearances didn't matter to Him, and He made all of us as His children to look the way we are. He is the color of water, and for anyone who believes, He can be whatever color they choose to view Him as.

Appreciating the Best of Both Worlds by Deepika Chona

I enjoyed reading "The Double Helix" because I found it interesting that the author, Roxane Farmanfarmaian, was able to incorporate both the American and the Persian aspects of her identity into her lifestyle. Although she initially has misconceptions about each country and its culture, Farmanfarmaian is able to overcome the obstacles of her new surroundings and eventually accept and love the cultures for their special characteristics.

Prior to her arrival in the United States, Farmanfarmaian states that she considered herself American, only to find a stark difference between her perception of American and the true classification. After her first year in the United States, she notes that she has become more American than ever. This author experiences a similar culture shock when she visits Iran for the first time. While she always knew that she was an outsider in terms of being familiar with the country and its people, Farmanfarmaian still believed there was an innate connection that would allow her to recognize her fatherland. Although she felt estranged in Iran, this author gradually became so accustomed with everything about the place that even today she regrets not being able to return.

What struck me about this piece was the author's courage to overcome her differences and willingness to learn about the cultures that compose her identity. Characters in other novels we have read, such as Maibelle in Face, considered themselves outsiders even though they truly did belong to the society in which she lived, Farmanfarmaian never feels isolated from the people around her regardless of whether it is in Iran or the United States. I also found this story interesting because I can relate to the author in that I am also bicultural.

Although I have lived in the United States all my life, I still consider myself both American and Indian. Like the author was able to incorporate both cultures into her lifestyle, I have grown up learning all the Indian traditions in addition to those of the American culture. When asked which culture I like better, I always have trouble answering the question because I have come to love both equally, each for different reasons. For instance, while I eagerly await Christmas, when my family decorates the tree with all the ornaments collected over the years, I count down the days until Diwali, or the Festival of Lights, when we distribute sweets to friends and light candles all over the house in hopes of lighting the path for the Goddess Lakshmi to come bless us in the new year. Someday, I hope to go stay in India for a couple months, but until then, I'm glad I there are sufficient resources in the United States that enable me to maintain awareness of my Indian heritage. I have to say, as a biracial individual, I truly do get the best of both worlds!

Mixed Race Identity and Relativity - Michelle Filanovsky

Our discussions in class about how one's environment and the people someone surrounds themself with affect the way they identify themself has got me thinking about how this idea can be applied to many other aspects of our lives. For instance, someone may be considered rich in another country, but upon immigrating to the US, they may be considered to be poor. Even small things in our lives that we may not even realize are dictated by comparisons of ourselves to those who surround us. For example, I've heard some honors students here at Miami say how, at their high school, they were at or near the top of their class; but at Miami, especially in the honors program, these same people find themselves as being just average. Someone who is of average size when compared to their friends may define themself as being large compared to models. The examples of how we define ourselves based upon others are endless. All of this has made me realize how so many ways in which we categorize ourselves are all relative. We may be considered one thing in one place, but we may be something polar opposite in another.

As we have seen through our readings, race can be viewed in this same context. Depending on who they are surrounded with, mixed race individuals in the stories we have read find themselves forced to identify with different parts of their ethnicity. As Malcolm Gladwell wrote in his essay "Lost In The Middle," "I never feel my whiteness more that when I'm around West Indians, and never feel my West Indianness more that when I'm with whites" (p. 123). Malcolm Gladwell was able to identify himself with the opposite race as those surrounding him because those traits were what made him relatively different in that particular situation.

In the same essay, Malcolm Gladwell then goes on to say, "And when I'm by myself, I can't answer the question [of my ethnicity] at all, so I just push it out of my mind" (p. 123). In this quote, Gladwell suggests that he needs people to compare himself to in order to identify as one ethnicity or another. This quote got me thinking about whether or not we all need people to compare ourselves to in order to categorize ourselves (in all areas, including ethnicity), or if we are able to categorize ourselves without comparison. I have realized that although we may ultimately define ourselves without directly comparing ourselves to others, our initial ideas for characteristics of different "categories" we may place ourselves in come from the people that surround us and our culture as a whole. This is why many of the characters in the books we read often experience an identity crisis when they move to a new area -- they categorized themselves based on their surrounding in their previous home, and then move somewhere new where they are categorized completely differently through relativity.

But, simply because their differences are highlighted by people who are different from them, does this mean that the characters in the books we read maintain these different characteristics of theirs? In most cases, the answer has been no. A prime example is Birdie in Caucasia. When she attended a black school, Birdie tried to act, dress, and talk like the girls at her school; but, while she lived in a white community, Birdie acted, dressed, and talked like her white peers. While Birdie was more conscious and afraid of revealing her "other" ethnicity in both of the situations, she always assimilated to those around her, thus decreasing the relative difference between herself and those around her. Almost everyone has had this same experience of changing their outer persona in different sutuations. I myself have had many experiences like this growing up. As a young girl attending a Jewish elementary school, my family was not religious at all compared to my classmates' families. As a result, I made an effort to attend synogogue more often so I could be more religious, like my classmates. Even things which we may not consciously realize, such as following clothing trends, are attempts to assimilate to our friends, culture, and surroundings. All this need to assimilate comes from our natural need as humans to feel as though we are part of a "group" of some sort. And the easiest ticket into a group is to have something in common with them.

The way through by which we identify ourselves in all aspects, including ethnicity, is very complicated. There are many levels to our self-identification process, and often the way we present ourselves in a certain environment is polar opposite of how we present ourselves somewhere else. In the end, we often may have trouble deciphering our true self out of all the "masks" we have put on and assimilations we have made throughout our lifetimes.

Salad Bowl or Melting Pot?

The Black Community. The Asian Community. The Hispanic Community. The White Community? Why is it often so separate like that? Why can’t it just be the American Community or even just simply a Community? I realize this is not the case for everyone but in many ways I’m beginning to see why people have begun to say that America is more of a “salad bowl” rather than a “melting pot.” I never really noticed this when I was younger because I’ve always lived in a small town and had a fair amount of friends of different ethnicities and if someone there did only make friends with people of the same ethnicity as them (and they weren’t Caucasian), they probably wouldn’t have had too many friends. Since I’ve come to college, though, there are now many more people around me, including more people who are a different ethnicity than me. What I often see, though, is that people of similar ethnicities seem to gravitate towards one another. This is understandable, considering people typically prefer to have friends with something in common with them, but if people become almost exclusive to whom they are friends with, it almost cancels out what diversity there was in the first place (and Miami didn’t have much diversity to begin with…). This is not just a problem of Miami, however. I have heard that there are similar situations at other schools, such as OSU, and probably in many cities, too. This is even seen in some instances in the books we have read where people such as Birdie or Rayona aren’t accepted into certain groups (Birdie at the Nkruma school and Rayona in the Reservation’s youth group) simply based on skin color (a reflection of their slightly differed ethnicity). Apparently, this phenomenon even occurs within “ethnic groups” as well. I recently clicked on a friend’s event on Facebook when I was bored one day and was lead to Kappa Phi Lambda’s 4th Annual Asian Awareness Week (Kappa Phi Lambda is an primarily Asian sorority on many college campuses). On the itinerary for this event is a discussion on “Asian Segregation on Campus – Why do we do it?” questioning why “the Chinese kick it with the Chinese. The Koreans only stick to themselves. The international students don’t like to mingle.” Though I believe it is in many cases a good thing to maintain one’s cultural identity, I feel that in many ways this “salad bowl” trend (which, as I stated before, is only a generalization and NOT the case for everyone) actually inhibits cross-cultural understanding.

Nooses

Because of the art projects displayed on Patterson Avenue last week, Miami University has taken one step backward in its mission towards diversifying the campus. All of the talk and gossip about it has led me to question why the idea of race takes such an important place in our lives. Why is it that so many people took offense to the nooses hanging from our trees? I think the reason that Miami University has had problems and, obviously, is still having problems with race is because of our country. Because the country has historically had difficulty accepting and always struggled with race, kids still focus on it today.
To begin, Miami is not the only campus that has problems like this. It has happened at the University of Maryland when a noose was hung outside of a black studies building. It happened at Columbia University when a student hung a noose outside a black professor’s home.
I didn’t really understand why the hanging of the nooses was even a controversy in the first place. I knew that blacks had been hung in the past, but to me the image of the noose represented suicide, not racism. Others see the noose as a symbol of justice. The CNN special on nooses brought to life the feelings that an African American goes through seeing a noose. The interviewees voiced the remembrance of the past and their ancestors who had been hung in the cruelest way possible—by hanging and then burning the corpse. It brings fear that something like that could happen to them in the future.
I also learned that each state has a list of hate crime laws. They dictate against burning crosses in public or putting swastikas on public property. More surprising is that they do not include nooses. People are fighting that concept to this day.
What I think has taken over the country recently is the result of the media. Had the media not repeatedly talked about Jena Six, the country would never had been exposed to the idea that race was the reason for this conflict. It has put the idea in the public’s mind that not only is the conflict divided into two sides- a black and a white, a right and a wrong, but also that they must choose which side to support. It brings us backward in our mission towards diversifying.
Another thing that can help is education on topics like this one. I am taking a class on Cultural Diversity in addition to Everyday Hybridites. These classes are are focused on race. I can honestly say that these classes have helped me to be more aware and to understand the feelings that others go through.
What we need to do as a country is to stop listening to the media, or if you are to listen to it, make sure you have all the facts. Do not listen to just one side, or one biased side. If we get the chance, we need to share our knowledge with others without pushing our opinion on them. And listen to other opinions without letting them push their opinions on you.

Mixed Race Families in America by Deepika Chona

Reading various books that deal with families of mixed race got me thinking about the increasing prevalence of mixed race families in our society today. Whereas many children in the past were born to parents of the same racial ethnicity, today it is becoming more common to see children of mixed race. What effects could this new trend have in the future?


I believe that the percentages of mixed race vs. single ethnicity are going to flip so that the majority of families will be mixed rather than identify with one shared ethnicity. Unlike in the past, where certain traditions and rituals could be identified with specific races, there will probably be a greater blending of cultures. I can already see this happening in my extended family. My cousin, who is half American, half Indian, is engaged to an African American. Regardless of what religion or racial ethnicity my cousin's children choose to identify with, they will probably celebrate most of the holidays of their different backgrounds.

To me, this increasing mesh of cultures can prove beneficial to our society, because in America specifically, it would portray the true "melting pot" vision that people like to refer to this country as. Today, this classification is sometimes rejected and the "salad bowl" is embraced in an attempt to more accurately describe the concept that people may be open to new ideas and people but ultimately identify with their own kind.