The reason a man’s status is so important to a woman’s erotic desire, if Meana is correct, is that a higher status man’s attention is directly related to a given female’s desirability. If he is the kind of man who can have any female he wants, then the woman he chooses must be intensely desired by a great many men. His attention fuels narcissistic fantasies, and therefore triggers erotic feelings in the woman who receives it. It is a simple and elegant answer to the question of what turns women on, and explains the popularity of princess fantasies, female fixation on beauty pageants, model shows and figure skaters. It is the basis of hypergamy. Even the seemingly puzzling contradiction of female rape fantasies makes sense when seen in this light  the “rapist” of these fantasies is typically some handsome prince, officer or other high-status male. Imagining themselves as the object of attention and lust is deeply erotic to women, and the higher status the man the more validation it provides.

Given this primal desire, it stands to reason that women would seek out situations that place them in the company of high-status men. Perhaps this explains the crowds of attractive young women who flock to Washington DC, which is not otherwise known for particularly beautiful people. The attraction of Mad Men likewise makes sense  what woman wouldn’t want to be surrounded by high-powered executives?

So, if we create a society that raises female status at the expense of men around them, women will have fewer opportunities to fulfill their erotic needs  the atmosphere of “equality” will have a deadening effect on their libido and provide them with less sexual fulfillment. This in turn will result in less happiness. And this is exactly what we have done, particularly in the Anglo world.

Women in the United States have reported steadily decreasing happiness since the 1970s, when equality feminism took off and society began to change to accommodate more women in positions of power. A University of Pennsylvania study from 2009 reported that women’s happiness, while higher than men’s in the 70s, has steadily declined to the point that men are now, on average, happier than women[.]

...

Perhaps we could do the authors, and women, a favor by “decoding the paradox.” The feminist triumph has deprived women of an essential element of their erotic lives. By raising women’s status and emphasizing “equality,” feminism has performed the psychological equivalent of a clitoridectomy on our society’s women. Rather than objects of lust and passion, they are now competitors, rivals and colleagues  their erotic capital is significantly diminished. The men around them are no longer strong and dominant, but cowed, vacillating and timid. Women’s opportunities to “feel like a woman” have been radically curtailed. Hypergamous needs are left unfulfilled by their “equal” husbands and boyfriends.

Is it any wonder that women report less happiness?

For all the trouble feminism has caused us men over the decades, it appears that it has been a significant source of misery for women as well. This is why feminism will ultimately fail: in their hearts, women don’t want it.

[Bonus comment by the same fundie, found below the article]

I think feminism has already failed, to be honest. If you ignore the rhetoric (remember: never listen to what they say, watch what they do) the slutwalks are a total repudiation of feminist ideals, and a desperate attempt by American women to collectively declare their status as objects of desire.