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.”