What is it about the sandwich that makes it such a common symbolic pawn in the gender wars? From the misogynistic "make me a sandwich" Sad Man Brigade, to this new story about a man who agreed to marry his girlfriend if she made him 300 sandwiches. I feel bad for the sandwich. It's not the sandwich's fault that we keep using them as the central metaphor in truly ugly conversations.
"Make me a sandwich" is so ridiculously misogynist that its use doesn't even bear discussion. I do find it interesting, though, that "a sandwich" is the best thing this guy can think of. In his imaginary total command of the subservient woman, the Sad Man Brigade demands: a sandwich. Not sexual favors, not money, not a stable income or health insurance or a new car or even a more interesting meal like pad thai or prime rib. No, he has one demand and it is: the sandwich.
Perhaps it is because so humble that the sandwich is chosen for this particular slur. The Sad Man could surely make his own sandwich. After all, they are not very hard to make. Perhaps that is why he commands his imaginary subservient woman to make one: because it is not challenging, and therefore he is not threatened by her (perceived) (imaginary) ability to make one.
As for the Sad Man who made his marriage proposal conditional upon the creation of sandwiches, and the Sad Woman who agreed. They seem to find nothing wrong with it. They seem very much in love with each other. It seems as though this is a private joke which they foolishly made public. I wish them the best. But once again I have to wonder, why sandwiches specifically? Why not 300 cleanings of the tub, or 300 trips to pick up the dry cleaning?
An anthropologist looking back from the future would no doubt think we had an unusual fixation on sandwiches. And I'm not so sure they would be wrong.
Image courtesy Flickr/Taric25
0 comments