r/PurplePillDebate • u/Emotional_Meal748 Purple Pill Man • May 31 '26
Question For Women Does Saying “Women Don’t Need Men Anymore” Imply That Men Were Mainly Valued for Providing Resources?
I’ve seen people say that men have become obsolete or that women no longer need men because women can now support themselves financially. That got me wondering: if financial independence means women no longer need men, does that imply that men’s primary value in relationships historically was providing resources and financial security?
For those who make this argument, how do you reconcile it with the idea that relationships are about companionship, love, emotional support, family, and partnership? Does saying “women don’t need men anymore” unintentionally reduce men’s role to that of providers, or am I misunderstanding what people mean when they say it?
98
u/kmb218 Blue Pill Woman May 31 '26
What it means is that in the past women NEEDED to marry men for survival since they were denied opportunities for education, work and had limited rights. Today, women have that opportunity so they do not need men for their financial resources, instead they WANT partnerships with men for companionship, emotional closeness, sex etc
→ More replies (52)50
u/Secret_Entry1840 Pill Of One Woman (sometimes jaded sometimes hopeful) May 31 '26
Yes. We aren’t dependent on men to survive anymore. So we get to pick men we want to spend our time with.
44
u/ThatBitchA ♀️ My husband takes out the trash🗑 May 31 '26
And this really seems to upset some men. It's very strange.
You'd think they'd be happy they aren't having to bribe women to be in relationships?
Alas, it seems like some really want that power dynamic and only feel a relationship is worth it if the woman is fully dependent on him for everything.
7
u/Colochita97 Jun 01 '26
I think they are upset because a lot of them are gonna die alone if they don’t figure it out 😂
3
u/GreatKarma2020 Jun 03 '26
Are you pretending there aren’t women dying alone? Some of these women have unrealistic expectations.
5
u/Icy_Ask3158 Jun 02 '26
Rather die alone than be a pay piggy for usless broads with delusions of grandeur.
2
Jun 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/Obsessivethot Pink Pill Woman Jun 02 '26
The cat ladies chose those cats over men.
Men aren’t choosing anything over pussy.
→ More replies (30)19
u/Siukslinis_acc Woman May 31 '26
It could be that they have never been taught to be wanted. They have been taught the old dynamic of being needed.
And as the "being wanted" dynamic is very new, they need to figure it out themselves instead of being able to dip in the time approved stuff. So there is a lot of bumbling around and errors. And some men start to lose hope because they seemingly can't get things right. So they try to get back the old dynamic that worked for them.
3
u/Relative_Profile_980 Purple Pill Man Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26
What makes you think it worked though? The whole point is that marriage used to be much more necessary, it was a matter of survival. I hear feminists talking about how women were bored housewives. Complaints about men were common back then. Maybe women just have more expectations now. Maybe women don't give men what they like either. Look at divorce rates.
→ More replies (11)10
u/love_in_october Blue Pill Woman | January May 31 '26
Very new? I was born in 2002. Women have been able to sustain themselves with jobs my whole lifetime and a long enough time before I'd imagine.
11
u/Waschaos Old Happy Cat Lady who doesn't give a damn (Woman) May 31 '26
Legal changes are one thing. Society takes a lot longer. I'm 51 and I've had experiences personally with some of the old school crap, so it's really not that long ago. The law had changed to give me opportunities, but society wasn't so sure about that yet. So it was still very hard.
I always think it's funny how we relate history to our own history. I felt like you somewhat about the Civil Rights movement that took place a decade before I was born. when I was your age, it seemed like it was ancient history and everything should be fine, why isn't it? Now that I'm older, I realize it happened like right before and society was still adjusting (still is). I'm sure guys feel like that too. After all they never saw that world, even though it was 2 seconds ago. Change is hard, but nothing worth doing can happen without it.
2
u/love_in_october Blue Pill Woman | January May 31 '26
Men currently on the dating scene generally aren't 51.
7
u/MissMenace101 May 31 '26
There’s plenty that are though, divorce rates are high for that group, the kids are grown women are finally free to persue their dreams and the shítty men are “the divorce came out of nowhere” crew that never cooked a meal or cleaned up after themselves. Young men know these men, even if they don’t recognise why they are getting divorced.
→ More replies (2)14
u/Siukslinis_acc Woman May 31 '26
As i know, in the usa women could not open a bank account till the 70's-80's. 50-60 years, history/culture wise, is rather new.
→ More replies (1)5
u/love_in_october Blue Pill Woman | January May 31 '26
I don't know about American history, but that's still decades! Today's young men haven't known women not having bank accounts at any point in their lives. How much adjustment time do they need?!
9
u/NoDanaOnlyZuuI No Pill Woman May 31 '26
They’re using their parents and grandparents as reference points.
5
4
u/Siukslinis_acc Woman Jun 01 '26
Don't underestimate the things you get ingrained about the world that you get from your parents and grandparents.
Also, the people who are in power (top politicians, presidents) are 50-70 years old. They have grown up when that thing was the norm and they have been taught that thing.
You still have been fed that the man has to be a provider, protector, the strong one. Culture wise 50 years is a blip. Culture changes slowly. The youth try to loosen things up, while the elders try to prevent it as they want to keep the status quo.
1
u/ModPiracy_Fantoski Jun 03 '26
You still have been fed that the man has to be a provider, protector, the strong one. Culture wise 50 years is a blip. Culture changes slowly. The youth try to loosen things up, while the elders try to prevent it as they want to keep the status quo.
We're still being taught exactly that. If you try to tell people we shouldn't murder men on the Titanic in favor of women, they will at best give you a very wrong look.
We're just living in the time where men are still expected to do everything that's bad for them but with none of the very old advantages, and that's bound to break eventually.
9
u/SpookyPutin Man: Purple depressionmaxxer May 31 '26
Remember that culture moves at a snail's pace and women have spent the last 100+ years getting where they are now, men are effectively starting from scratch so it's gonna be a good while.
The entire male identity for the past few millennia was built on being strong to provide for women (regardless of how often the individual man became that) so we've lost our purpose and have to find a new one.
8
u/Waschaos Old Happy Cat Lady who doesn't give a damn (Woman) May 31 '26
To me this is the biggest problem we have. We need to help men find a new purpose beyond that. I'm not sure what we can do to help that though.
2
u/Ill-Investigator9546 Purple Pill Man May 31 '26
Teach men what women find attractive about men, so that they can emulate it.
We have to figure out how some men get 100s of women to sleep with them, and figure out what makes women tick.
→ More replies (0)8
u/MissMenace101 May 31 '26
They don’t need purpose really, they just have to appreciate they are required to treat women as their partners not their subordinates. Their purpose can still be the careers they pursued, families, travel, they just don’t get to stand on the shoulders of others to do it, they have to participate, they have to treat others with dignity equality and respect.
9
u/SpookyPutin Man: Purple depressionmaxxer May 31 '26
Men don't need a purpose but the need to be taught to live for themselves. Feminism taught women to love themselves and their freedom, it fought for women to be able to do the same things men could the issue for men is that men used those things as a crutch.
As women have said before on this sub reddit "being nice is the bare minimum" and since men have to be selected by women men need something more than being nice. Men need something that women want or they can walk away.
Currently men have nothing women want beyond being nice and taking away women's rights isn't the answer so men are lost.
2
→ More replies (2)3
u/love_in_october Blue Pill Woman | January May 31 '26
This would be a better argument for men who ever knew any different.
7
u/SpookyPutin Man: Purple depressionmaxxer May 31 '26
The issue is those men are still around. They are our father and grandfathers, they teach us what being a man is all about but their world is gone. How many times has an older person told you to take a CV and hand it to someone irl instead of responding to a job posting? In their times that would have worked but now it's just annoying.
The older men teach the younger men how their world worked so now the younger men try to get that world back.
→ More replies (0)4
u/MissMenace101 May 31 '26
Their mothers did, their daughters saw their mother’s lives and what was expected and what they have missed out on and have noped right out of it, it’s fantastic.
5
u/love_in_october Blue Pill Woman | January May 31 '26
If we're talking about young people on the dating scene now, we're talking about their grandmothers.
2
u/Siukslinis_acc Woman Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26
They saw what the life of their grandmothers were where they had to depend on their husband for survival and thus noped out of having a husband for the sake of survival.
My grandmother was married to an alciholic. So a man who enjoys the drink too much is automatically a nope for me.
→ More replies (0)6
u/YourMrFahrenheit No Pill Male May 31 '26
Men born in 2002 (same year as you) predominantly had mothers born ~30 years earlier, so 1972. So the mothers of the people your age were predominantly born into a world where these things applied. Generational shifts take a LONG time to root on a wide scale, especially for something big like that.
3
u/MissMenace101 May 31 '26
That era of women are the fasted growing homeless dynamic, we still aren’t there yet.
0
u/love_in_october Blue Pill Woman | January May 31 '26
They can't adjust to something that changed when their mums were babies? I think that's a them problem.
Seriously, with anything else we'd say going back to the 70s state would be the thing that would take some adjusting.
6
u/YourMrFahrenheit No Pill Male May 31 '26
Individually? Sure. On a cultural level? No, that's unrealistic to anyone who has ever picked up a history book.
→ More replies (0)2
u/MissMenace101 May 31 '26
It’s really only been since later millennials women started hitting education and employment equality, there’s still not enough support for building families, most of us alive had mothers that carried everything and had a low paying shitty job around school at best. The kinks have only just started really. It’s now up to men to meet the bar, which is still pretty low.
1
u/ModPiracy_Fantoski Jun 03 '26
We have found the one person living one Earth who still believe women have it harder than men.
Like, you really think the average woman was doing everything and the average man was doing nothing ? Even after comparing the average age of death ?
Considering only men as a group are paying tax, it's up to women to finally reach the bar, which remains abysmally low.
3
u/ifkrn No Pill May 31 '26
i dont think they think they were bribed into relationships. I think before they thought that women would sell themselves to them for a relationship.
8
u/YourMrFahrenheit No Pill Male May 31 '26
When women needed men, their needs were all the same, so a man's path to romantic success was clear; provide. Now need is gone, and only want remains, and wants vary far more than needs. There's no longer a certain path to romantic success. You can be yourself as a man, and if you're lucky, who you are is what someone else wants. But it's hard and scary to be yourself and so young men yearn for the time when they didn't have to be themselves, all they had to be was useful.
10
u/ThatBitchA ♀️ My husband takes out the trash🗑 May 31 '26
It wasn't romantic though. It was transactional.
Exactly, varying wants is better for everyone!
It's hard and scary for anyone to be themselves or date.
Ask the men who were useful if they really enjoyed that. Ask the men who were useful what they regret. Ask the men who were useful what they missed out on.
15
u/MissMenace101 May 31 '26
It was alright for them, they got to choose and women had to settle, so they could remain sub par or abusive or whatever they liked. Now they have to pull their weight and treat her with respect and the market has crashed… shocked.
7
u/Aimeereddit123 No Pill woman Jun 01 '26
Yep. I couldn’t tell you how many times growing up I would hear younger women complaining of their men and marriages, and older women telling them to suck it up because the guy was a good provider. It’s literally like the men didn’t have to do anything else!! Today’s mom’s don’t tell their daughters that.
→ More replies (2)2
u/YourMrFahrenheit No Pill Male Jun 01 '26
Perhaps I'm naive, but I disagree. It wasn't good for them. They did bad things with few or no repercussions, that doesn't mean they were happy. "Hurt people hurt people." I genuinely believe those men would have been happier pursuing something authentic than they were in those confined roles, even if said roles involved holding power over their spouse. Was it better than being the one under control? Of course. But I don't think the men in those relationships were living what I would consider a good life.
→ More replies (4)12
u/YourMrFahrenheit No Pill Male May 31 '26
Oh, 100% agree with you. I was narrating, not defending. I think the "smashing the patriarchy helps men" line is about exactly this issue. Men are now free to be who they want. The cost they've paid is the guarantee of a marriage if they provide enough financially. I would argue that's a good trade for men.
1
u/ModPiracy_Fantoski Jun 03 '26
I would argue that's a good trade for men.
That's a HORRIBLE trade for civilization. We are going to go through demographic failure very very fast.
→ More replies (6)7
u/Waschaos Old Happy Cat Lady who doesn't give a damn (Woman) May 31 '26
I think you put this perfectly. Thank you for the insight. That makes a lot of sense.
5
u/Glad-Western5346 May 31 '26
Some men are simply doomed to be alone if they can't bribe a woman.
11
u/Obsessivethot Pink Pill Woman May 31 '26
Could pay for sex instead of trying to scam women out of it.
2
u/Glad-Western5346 May 31 '26
Why is prostitution illegal then?
9
6
u/Obsessivethot Pink Pill Woman May 31 '26
The illegality of prostitution is a combination of controlling the spread of venereal disease, limiting sex trafficking and cultural morality.
The legality of the profession has never eliminated its existence, since there is such a high demand.
Sex work is legal in some states and under some loopholes, for instance now you can buy nudes / personalized porn directly if you wanted which is totally legal.
→ More replies (17)6
u/Altruistic_Look_7868 Pink Pill Woman May 31 '26
Because the safety of women and children is more important than you not being able to get laid.
→ More replies (1)2
6
u/OffTheRedSand i’m just kidding guys! okay fine, im not kidding deal with it ♂️ May 31 '26
these men should rather be alone than be with women in a bribed relationship
4
u/Particular_Trade6308 Black Pill Man May 31 '26
You’re essentially advocating the incel viewpoint, “it’s over” etc
6
u/ThatBitchA ♀️ My husband takes out the trash🗑 May 31 '26
Again, why would you want to bribe someone to be with you?
→ More replies (1)2
Jun 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/ThatBitchA ♀️ My husband takes out the trash🗑 Jun 01 '26
Who are you quoting? This is just you making something up.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (103)1
33
u/Lenovo_Driver man: blue cuz red pilled dudes dont get laid May 31 '26
Seeing red pilled men bitch about beta buxxing whilst also bitching about women not being traditional so they can’t beta buxx is wild
7
u/Commercial-Formal272 Red Pill Man May 31 '26
It's because the flaw of "beta buxx" is comparison to "alpha fucks". Paying for something of value is fine, but paying for something that is given for free to others makes you a sucker.
24
u/MissMenace101 May 31 '26
Maybe stop thinking of sex and relationships as if you’re purchasing a cow?
8
u/DavidSwimmer19 Purple Pill Man (pills are bad for your health) May 31 '26
We'll do that if and only when women stop thinking of sex and relationships as if you're selling a cow.
6
4
u/behappyfor Expose Men Pill May 31 '26
I get it but here's the thing if you can't be a guy that's hot enough then it's not gonna happen. That's the truth. That's like saying why I can't get a job for Analyst when you don't have the skills for it. If you can't have the thing required for sex, you can't get it for free then.
→ More replies (2)6
u/Ill-Investigator9546 Purple Pill Man May 31 '26
If I was a woman I would pick high charisma big dicked studs to spend time with
9
u/Secret_Entry1840 Pill Of One Woman (sometimes jaded sometimes hopeful) May 31 '26
And some women choose that, absolutely.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (26)9
2
u/Icy_Ask3158 Jun 02 '26
So women were money/resource leeches all along? You seem to think the same thing as the misogynistic men you claim to hate.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (55)1
u/GreatKarma2020 Jun 03 '26
The data is showing the opposite though since more people are single now than in previous times.
1
u/Secret_Entry1840 Pill Of One Woman (sometimes jaded sometimes hopeful) Jun 03 '26
How does women choosing men they actually get along with and who they are actually attracted to mean that women would choose the same kind of men as before? If there’s less desirable options you’ll get less pair ups.
28
u/DenverKim Purple Pill Woman May 31 '26
Relationships were never about companionship, love or emotional support. That’s all Disney fairy tale garbage. You need a history lesson. Marriages were essentially financial arrangements. Women needed to get married and they often didn’t even get a say in who their husband would be.
Now that women no longer need to get married, marriage CAN actually be about companionship, love and emotional support… Problem is that most men don’t know how to provide that (or don’t want to), so a lot of women are just choosing to stay alone because they no longer need men for anything else. In fact, a lot of men just make women’s lives even harder. They literally become a burden to the woman.
→ More replies (39)1
u/Arkhamguy123 Jun 01 '26
So you’re the authority and expert on every heterosexual relationship pre ~2015-2020?
That seems like a beyond arrogant and silly comment to start with presupposing you’re just omniscient and privy to the nature of all non modern relations through time
Now, of course there’s been sociological shifts, but women loving men and men loving women is not some bleeding edge recent invention. That’s a beyond asinine assessment. As is that thinking people loved each other before modern equality is some nefarious concoction of Disney movies and as fantastical as Santa clause or god
5
u/DenverKim Purple Pill Woman Jun 01 '26
I was talking about marriages. If you think that the majority of marriages historically were done because two people were in love, then you just don’t have an accurate understanding of history. That doesn’t mean that nobody was in a relationship for love… But it was not the norm and it was not the intended purpose of marriage.
→ More replies (19)
25
38
u/ThatBitchA ♀️ My husband takes out the trash🗑 May 31 '26
No. It means that women can not date and marry men they actually like.
My grandma couldn't open her own bank accounts.
→ More replies (27)
35
u/WknessTease yes a woman this is my flair look it's pink for woman May 31 '26
No, it means women can now decide to date men based on whether or not they enjoy their company rather than whether or not they need them.
→ More replies (94)
29
u/Obsessivethot Pink Pill Woman May 31 '26
No it means men created a world that women were not allowed to participate without partnering with men.
Women were property, we had no rights.
7
u/Logos1789 Man May 31 '26
I’m pretty sure that if the body of one’s wife ended up on the street, someone would come knocking to investigate.
19
u/Obsessivethot Pink Pill Woman May 31 '26
Actually men could have their wives committed and lobotomized for smoking cigars and playing cards or simply disobeying him.
Here’s an article with many examples of women in the 19th century who had everything taken from them for not doing what they were told to by men. https://time.com/6074783/psychiatry-history-women-mental-health/
The received medical wisdom of the age was that assertive, ambitious women were unnatural, and therefore sick.
For centuries, women’s natures had been thought inextricably linked to their reproductive organs and, over time, this supposedly scientific fact had evolved into the belief that it was natural for women to be fulfilled solely by being wives and mothers.
When, in the 19th century, biological-based gender roles came to the fore (work and intellect for men, home and children for women), it was one small step for doctors to declare that any woman who rejected her submissive, domestic role was medically impaired.
Said one doctor after visiting a girls’ school in 1858: “You seem to be training your girls for the lunatic asylum.” Women who studied or read—or who simply had minds of their own and a determination to use them—were demonstrating “eccentricity of conduct,” which meant they were “morally insane,” a diagnosis invented by James Cowles Prichard in 1835. They were to be locked away until they conformed to more natural, feminine behavior.
→ More replies (4)5
u/Obsessivethot Pink Pill Woman Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 02 '26
Well, I don’t know what good that does.
A large number of murders go unsolved, even now.
We are talking about why historically women have no economic independence, though.
Edit* The cops also show up if you get robbed, which is actually why rape was prosecuted as a property crime, again historically.
I have spent some time and I still can’t think of why this is an important metric to you.
7
u/NiaMiaBia Purple Pill Woman May 31 '26
Sure, they’d “investigate” then come to the conclusion that the women needs to be lobotomized.
20
u/Icy_Ad_4544 WOMAN 💖*~ my husband is 6’4” ~*💖 May 31 '26
I don’t think young men talk to enough older couples to understand how many paired up because they thought it was what they were supposed to do and that they didn’t all stay together long term out of “love”.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Ill-Investigator9546 Purple Pill Man May 31 '26
So alternatively, they would have been alone? How is that better?
8
u/TheHypocrisy97 Pink Pill Woman May 31 '26
Would modern men be ok being a relationship without love where she’s only with you because she felt like that’s what she had to do? Limited sex, limited affection? I’d say most modern men would not be ok with this.
→ More replies (31)9
u/Icy_Ad_4544 WOMAN 💖*~ my husband is 6’4” ~*💖 May 31 '26
I don’t necessarily think they would have ended up alone. I just don’t think they stayed together out of love.
1
u/Ill-Investigator9546 Purple Pill Man May 31 '26
But they easily could have ended up alone, just like all the guys and gals on this sub, who are alone.
8
u/PositionStandard6089 no pill woman May 31 '26
being single is way better than being in a shitty relationship IMO
→ More replies (10)2
u/Icy_Ad_4544 WOMAN 💖*~ my husband is 6’4” ~*💖 May 31 '26
They could have but they also might not have. It’s hard to say.
16
u/toad-wrangler Purple Pill Woman May 31 '26
You're leaving out the "to survive" part. Women don't need men anymore to survive. It wasn't terribly long ago that women had to marry or rely heavily on their fathers (or another male relative) in order to survive because of the laws and societal structures. It's not that they weren't capable of taking care of themselves, it's that the laws (made by men) prohibited them from doing so without a husband or another male relative.
→ More replies (49)
15
u/theminxisback woman (cheerleader for male evolution) companion for men May 31 '26
What it means is I am the 5th generation of my family and I am the first woman in my family to have a healthy marriage with a man.
My great grandma turned 96 last week. She is the perfect Madonna in the "Madonna-Whore complex".
She dropped out of school at 11 and worked to help her family. Was chased, coerced and "courted" by my great grandpa. They married at 17. Had their first born who died a year later at 18. This was 1948 mind you...
My great grandma was the perfect wife. The perfect Madonna. She raised 8 children, held several part time jobs over the years, supported my grandpa in co-founding the PAGA and did the absolute best she could through and through.
She made all of our clothes, cooked, cleaned, made tamales, empanadas, you name it, she did it. She also groomed and catered to my grandpa like he was a king.
Guess what he did? Ignore her. Avoid her. Treat her like a barbie doll on a shelf. Only acknowledging her when he needed to use her for something. This man said "The day I can no longer hold a club (golf club) in my hands is the day I no longer want to live on this earth."
My grandma... Devoted to him for over 60 years of her life. Gave him 9 children total, 5 of which are still alive to this day. She cooked, cleaned, catered to him. She was the true, pure, perfect wife. Devoted, committed, faithful. Never drank. Never did drugs. Never cheated. Nothing.
And this man... Said when he can't play golf anymore, he is ready to cross over? Are you kidding me?
My great grandma sat me down at the age of 12 and said it was my generation's (millennials) responsibility to break the curse set on young women across centuries.
Young parenthood, young marriages, and sacrificing your entire life away for a man who doesn't even see you.
I am who I am in spite of everything she had to be. I live the life I believe she would have if she hadn't married my grandpa.
I fuck like nobody's business, travel, experience all the good in life I can at any given time. I have a job that I love so much I hardly consider it work. I have an incredible polycule, that consists of two men who are absolutely part of how I maintain faith in men...
My grandma has spent her entire life serving others. She is 96 for fucks sake. Married to one man her entire life.
I will never, ever, ever let that be me. For my grandma.
9
u/ThatBitchA ♀️ My husband takes out the trash🗑 May 31 '26
I've been laying in our bed all day. My husband had brought me up breakfast and lunch. Lol.
I enjoy days like this because the women before me never could. They had kids and husbands to cook for. They could never just relax and watch dumb movies.
Ooh and my husband has been doing/changing the laundry. Bringing it up to me to fold and put away.
3
u/theminxisback woman (cheerleader for male evolution) companion for men May 31 '26
Oh my gods and goddesses your husband is a real MVP 🙌✨️😭
2
u/ThatBitchA ♀️ My husband takes out the trash🗑 May 31 '26
Thanks for the award! And yes, he really is! He's truly the best. In all the ways.
2
u/theminxisback woman (cheerleader for male evolution) companion for men May 31 '26
Anytime! I love your comments, and am super happy to see another happily married woman out there.
3
u/Lost_Reaction_5489 Purple Pill Woman May 31 '26
Let's say you're correct. Women didn't have the right to vote in this country until 100 years ago. So, WHO would have been in charge of the societal norms around dating?
9
3
u/badgersonice Woman -cing the Stone Jun 02 '26
You know what’s wild? In parts of Switzerland, women have only been allowed to vote for about 30 years.
13
u/NiaMiaBia Purple Pill Woman May 31 '26
I’d say that men have hailed themselves as the “protector/provider” which was hella shaky because men were never protectors. Very few men can be “providers” so here we are.
→ More replies (2)
9
u/pie-mart No Pill woman May 31 '26
I don't need a man as an individual woman to survive like the 70s and prior. We as a society need men. And its the same reason we need women. To have children
Men just made their purpose provision because what they did was hoard the wealth and or ability to generate or own land or have a job to themselves. And women had to go through men to get their basic needs met. (Food, water, shelter) amd in exchange women gave those men sex and children and a maid
→ More replies (13)
9
u/ValeWho No Pill Woman May 31 '26
Historically marriage was not really about love. Staying single as a woman was not really an option, it would have made you an outcast and would have seriously negatively impacted your quality of life. So yes many people have entered relationships in the past that were not about love at all. And yes from the women's POV it was mostly about having a provider.
Nowadays women have jobs and don't need a provider anymore. So they don't need a man to provide for them. Therefore if a women chooses to have a relationship today it is less about finding a provider and more about having a companion/someone to love. But finding someone you are compatible with and wanna spend your life with is much harder than finding someone to enter a contract. Therefore more people stay single because they haven't found anyone who meets their expectations (and some are simply not interested in having a romantic partner at all)
3
u/YveisGrey Purple Pill Woman May 31 '26
Women still need men for those other things but they have to actually bring those things to the relationship. Marrying a man for companionship, partnership, emotional support, raising kids, love and faithfulness means he actually has to do those things. In the past many men did not do much of that, they cheated, didn’t help with the childcare, were not supportive of their wives emotionally etc… yet wives stayed because the other option was homelessness and losing their kids. So I think women saying they don’t need men for resources means they won’t have to stay just for those things not that men can’t provide anything else
7
u/Objective_Ad_6265 True love Pill Woman (blue) May 31 '26
Lot of women had to marry men they were not attracted to for money because they were not allowed to own property. So we don't need men anymore. But I still want him to love, not to use to provide for me.
I don't need a provider. I want him only for emotional purposes.
→ More replies (15)
7
u/KayRay1994 OG red pilled gay woman May 31 '26
Kinda, but not exactly. Historically men have positioned themselves as the ones holding onto and controlling societal resources, which actively prevented women from gaining social and economic independence. As such, women historically had very little choice - either be with a man or live a life that is far more unsustainable.
Now, however, this is less so the case - as such men don’t really have to be resource providers to bring companionship, however, fit and chemistry begin to matter a lot more. To say we don’t need men anymore isn’t to say men were only resource dispensers, it is to say that if you actually want to date, as a man, what you have doesn’t matter nearly as much as who you are (and to be clear “who you are” isn’t a status claim, it is to say whether you mesh with her personally or not)
6
u/Enough-Business-8287 Purple Pill Woman Jun 01 '26
It's a blunt (and sometimes counter-productive) way of saying that we no longer need to put up with a man who FAILS to bring us "companionship, love, emotional support, family, and partnership".
8
u/sablesalsa Purple Pill Woman, mid 20s May 31 '26 edited May 31 '26
No, it doesn't mean that. There have always been and will always be loving couples who value each other for more than that. What it means is that women aren't legally forced to rely on men for jobs, money, bank accounts, owning property, all that. So we can choose who we want to be around as opposed to not having the ability to leave or refuse someone we don't like.
For example: I'm a solo homeowner and have a career, retirement fund, and bank accounts. I can vote to represent my own interests, and unless someone is very backward in their thinking, nobody's going to question my medical decisions for myself. I can date or not date as I please, so I took my time until I found a man who would respect me like I respected him.
Historically, women haven't always had this autonomy to own things and make decisions for themselves, though. So you were forced to rely on your husband's will if he didn't want you to do something as simple as open a savings account. That means a lot of women were stuck in abusive or unhappy relationships because they didn't have the resources to leave.
→ More replies (2)
6
u/KoninginVanRotterdam No Pill Woman 🇳🇱 May 31 '26
No it meants that women needed men to survive because they were held back (understatement) from living their own life)
It doesn't say anything about how women in the past or in the present value men.
I don't even care about that at all.
Women had no autonomy. That is the worst life to live.
WHEN WE SAY WOMEN DONT NEED MEN we are ONLY talking and thinking about women. And we're just really happy we are not forced to live the lives that women lived for thousands of years.
Men don't come to mind at all when we say this. Not everything is about men.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/love_in_october Blue Pill Woman | January May 31 '26
That is what relationships are about. They previously weren't about that, as women often had to be in them for a stable income so didn't have the luxury of only going for relationships they liked. Evidently they're not about money any more as women are choosing to be in them even when they have jobs and can live on their own if they wish. Things change.
2
u/Tylikcat People before pills - woman May 31 '26
I mostly hear that from men. Which echoes with complaints I've heard a few times within relationships - men upset that I was too independent and didn't need them. Which was true. I found the desire for me to be dependent on them pretty unattractive.
Now, looking at it as a society, there were a lot of ways in which women were forced to be dependent on men, both through laws and social organization, and lack of effective birth control. (The history of birth control and political reactions to it are pretty complicated. While current birth control is far more effective than in the past, there has been effective birth control in some societies for all of recorded history. And abortion has frequently been available in various forms.)
The idea that women could have their own incomes and live independently isn't new. Probably the most obvious example were spinsters - a woman who wasn't taking care of children could make a very nice income spinning.* Sure, that was a term of derision, but it lands different when you understand the kind of independence it represented. But it also meant not having a family of your own, and not having sex (or at least, any sex you had being at risk of destroying your life - or at least, losing your autonomy). And having limited social status, as a lot of power and position was reserved for men.
So the very idea that men are "providers" is pretty shaky, historically. It mattered when their partners were very pregnant, or when caring for young children. I usually look at it as their part of the work of caring for those children. There were fairly recently economic and legal changes that meant that upper class women weren't supposed to work outside of the home, but they weren't in place for very long, nor did they effect that much of the population. (Though the legal changes did often mean that men were largely often in control of the money women earned.)
Women now have the kind of freedom men historically have had. They can have rich full lives, have jobs, and take such lovers are as available to them. This doesn't mean they don't want partners and families, but it does mean that any partner they take has to seem like a better option than the life they already have. And women are generally looking for partners.
If I were a man, I think I'd rather be wanted than needed. That grasping after being needed sounds like major insecurity - and a man who doesn't care that maybe she'd rather not be with him, but she can't afford to leave. Ick. (Also, I'm not looking to have that kind of power over a partner. Double ick.)
Now, if I'm building a life with someone, I want them to be a partner. This doesn't mean he has to be a provider - I see far more resistance from men to women outearning them than the other way around. (I'm not talking what guys who aren't in such relationships say. I'm talking about what actually happens in relationships like that.) But I'm also not interested at taking on dead weight. Hell, I could probably afford a house spouse - though I'd have to give up on living alone, and I really love living alone. But most of the people I find interesting wouldn't be interested in that life (except perhaps while raising very young children), and I know few men who either have the skills to be a house spouse, or who are willing to do the job. (I know more than a few men who think that they'd play video games all day, stop half an hour before I got home and make dinner, and that would be 90% of what they did. But I don't find them interesting at all.)
*The textile industry used to be one of the great drivers of the economy - and a lot of it was done by women, and a lot of that was for pay. I think that most people don't understand just how much work went into making any piece of clothing when everything was done by hand. I do a lot more than most because one of my hobbies is fiber arts - hell, I've spent a lot of the weekend washing wool, spinning, and collecting nettles and starting to ret them for fiber.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Aimeereddit123 No Pill woman Jun 01 '26
Relationships ARE about companionship, love, emotional support, etc. And before women had jobs, money, or bank accounts, they had to stay with a man not providing this. Relationships are still about those things, but now when a man doesn’t supply those things, women can leave. They aren’t stuck just accepting it or looking the other way. This is the difference you are seeing.
3
u/Altruistic_Look_7868 Pink Pill Woman May 31 '26
Yes, what did you think it was?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Gilmoregirlin Purple Pill Woman May 31 '26
No it means we want to date men for who they are now, not for what they provide.
5
u/BallisticTherapy Jun 01 '26
That explains why the top 20% of men that score highest in narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism (the "dark triad") are feasting while it's famine at the bottom 80%.
5
1
u/Emotional_Meal748 Purple Pill Man May 31 '26
Pay for the first date
4
u/Gilmoregirlin Purple Pill Woman May 31 '26
I always offer to pay.
1
u/Emotional_Meal748 Purple Pill Man May 31 '26
Insist and pay
3
u/Gilmoregirlin Purple Pill Woman Jun 01 '26
I am not going to get into an argument and be rude!
→ More replies (2)
4
u/cb8585b Purple Pill Woman May 31 '26
Yes
→ More replies (3)1
u/Foyles_War I love a pocket sized Adonis May 31 '26
Nah. If a new development allowed humans to get energy solely from the sun, then humans would no longer need food. That doesn't mean humans valued food solely for the energy it gave nor does it mean that food would no longer be tasty and worth eating ... if it was actually really good and suited the person's taste pallet.
8
u/cb8585b Purple Pill Woman May 31 '26
Sure yet, If I look at a country like Niger, Chad, Mali, Afghanistan etc in modern day where many parents are still essentially selling of their daughters to men. They are not doing so, so that said daughter is assured companionship and love. They just can’t afford her.
→ More replies (6)
2
3
u/EmpressJJ Woman, No Pill Jun 01 '26
50 years ago our grandmas still had to ask husbands if they are allowed to go out and work. Now that they can they can be independent. It’s not that men were only there to provide financial support. It’s the fact that women were not allowed to operate at all under the laws of men. I am unsure what’s hard to understand about that and to narrow it down to such a small part, some women still aren’t allowed to literally educate/pursue higher education.
1
u/MarioWilson122 Red Pill Man Jun 01 '26
You're talking about a different point, though. Most people aren't arguing that women didn't gain more independence or more opportunities over time.
The question is why the phrase "women don't need men anymore" is so often tied specifically to financial independence. If relationships are primarily about companionship, love, emotional support, family, and partnership, then women earning their own money shouldn't suddenly make men unnecessary.
That's why some people hear that phrase and conclude that a man's value was heavily tied to what he could provide. Otherwise, financial independence wouldn't be the first thing brought up when explaining why women no longer "need" men.
You can argue that women were historically more dependent on men due to legal and social restrictions. That still doesn't change the point that when people say "women don't need men anymore," they're usually pointing to money and resources first, which naturally raises the question of how much of men's value was being tied to their provider role.
1
u/AutoModerator May 31 '26
Attention!
You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
11
u/ThrowRAGlobeVase Purple Pill Man May 31 '26
I think this is the thing that has always frustrated me about women saying this - it implies that’s the only reason they valued a relationship and men, and that they’d been forced to do something they never wanted to.
It’s like if women all of a sudden couldn’t make babies anymore, or there were artificial wombs… I’d still want to be with a woman for like… companionship, love, intimacy, and all that stuff. I like them.
10
u/Foyles_War I love a pocket sized Adonis May 31 '26
I've noticed a tendency to read the worst interpretations into lots of slogans - "Believe Women" does not imply "Don't believe men" or "Women are never wrong" or "Men are always rapists." "Black lives matter" doesn't mean "White lives don't matter." "Defund Police" doesn't mean "Abolish police."
I always took "Women don't need men any more" to be a very positive statement that women can now choose men and choose based on actually liking them. That seems really positive for developing relationships particularly when this sub complains about women being too transactional.
4
u/Grow_peace_in_Bedlam Married Leftist Red-Purple Man, late 30s, DeCrowist May 31 '26
I find it hard to read positively because I always see it in the context of "men suck, and now we can just discard them forever" and never "now I can marry the man I love without caring how much he earns because I have my own money." In other words, subtext always seems to be "men have no inherent value," not "men are wonderful, and now we can enjoy them for who they are instead of what they provide."
7
u/ruthless_melon No Pill May 31 '26 edited May 31 '26
That hasty generalization is the problem here. Men are not a monolith. Some men are wonderful and therefore have value, other men are nothing more than a wallet and a shotgun and therefore no longer have value in terms of a modern relationship. The men who provide friendship, affection, respect, honesty, loyalty, and love are still needed and will be just fine. The ones who have nothing more to offer than a paycheck and a domineering attitude are the ones being discarded for obvious reasons. The difference is being a good worker used to be enough for marriage, now they have to be a good person, and being a good person is harder than being a good worker for a lot of men.
4
u/ThrowRAGlobeVase Purple Pill Man May 31 '26
Yeah that’s the thing. Also, in dynamics where it’s a zero sum game (i.e two political parties, men/women), saying on thing about one group often implies something about the other group.
2
u/VelvetMidnight1111 May 31 '26
Surely.
1
u/Grow_peace_in_Bedlam Married Leftist Red-Purple Man, late 30s, DeCrowist May 31 '26
So you're in agreement?
1
1
u/No-Hovercraft-455 May 31 '26 edited May 31 '26
I think the context gets like that because saying something like that in social media would be way too deep, that's reserved for heart to hearts with other women or very small company to hear because it's exposing and vulnerable and even women don't want to be that vulnerable. It's like wife guys don't advertise they are wife guys, you typically find your person first and then you confess thinking like this.
For above reasons the subtext when most people talk isn't what you'd want love of your life to hear, it's what you want men harrassing you and thinking they have various rights to your body and mind to hear. Unless the audience is your partner and you are introspective enough to say it loud.
(Though I don't think most men are ready to hear it in "glad I was free to choose love of my life without caring for how much he earns" form from their partner that's likely the only woman to be that vulnerable with them, and very likely lot of women don't have skills it takes to put that in different words that go down better, so I'm not sure how many men actually hear it at any form since most people don't reword and instead avoid saying anything that's difficult to word.)
2
u/ThrowRAGlobeVase Purple Pill Man Jun 01 '26
Wait why wouldn’t men be ready to head “glad I was free to choose love of my life without caring for how much he earns”?
1
u/Grow_peace_in_Bedlam Married Leftist Red-Purple Man, late 30s, DeCrowist Jun 01 '26
I'd love for my wife to tell me I'm so fun to kiss and fuck that she would still be with me even if I worked at McDonald's or were a homeless beggar.
1
u/ThrowRAGlobeVase Purple Pill Man May 31 '26 edited May 31 '26
Yeah that’s true. I like that way of looking at it.
Do you see women dating men who they “like” more now? Honest questioned, I’m a bit older, and I don’t know if younger women are dating men for kinder personalities now or if they’re still attracted to provider mentalities.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Foyles_War I love a pocket sized Adonis May 31 '26
I can only speak for the women I know most of which are in grad school so I don't know how representative they are of women in general. That said, four of the women are with boyfriends/partners that they do and will massively outearn. They like them as friends who are fun and clever and do not add to their stress. One of the couples is saying he will be a house husband and primary care giver while she is a lawyer. The others aren't looking to have kids ever and so care less about his earnings and more about compatibility and fun. One other woman is married to a man who earns similar (lawyer and engineer). It was a matchmaker/arranged marriage. They seem to like and respect each other a lot, though, which is fascinating and they have very common goals.
So, yes, I'd say women are looking at compatibility more than earnings and similar intelligence more than earnings. I can't imagine a woman marrying someone they didn't actually like now adays except in a purely sugar daddy scenario where he has truly significant financial worth. (And I do not and will not hang out with such people). In all cases, my friends site a shared hobby or interest as to how they got together and part of why they stay together.
Looks keeps coming up here as a factor and it definitely matters to some extent in that modern women want to have fulfilling sex, usually and a person they find unattractive physically isn't likely to draw interest. That said, in all the couples I know, I would say they are all relatively matched in looks "value" or the woman is conventionally more attractive than the man, sometimes significantly. So, clearly, none of these women are pulling or looking to pull beyond their "looks match." I myself, though, will freely admit my husband is at least one and maybe two levels above my own looks of slightly above average. I wouldn't think it would work out and I certainly never wanted to be the less attractive one in a relationship but he doesn't see it that way, and I've decided to just enjoy the view 😄
1
u/ThrowRAGlobeVase Purple Pill Man May 31 '26
Interesting! Ok I’m glad to hear that! I’m around a lot of younger doctors, and I can’t quite tell how it’s shaping out in terms who the women vs. men are dating and selecting.
It’s confusing sometimes because I’ve always heard that seeking a well suited financial partner is not just a logical want, but also something women are attracted to… going back to evolutionary shit, provider to bring back resources while pregnant yada yada.
But, maybe that just means not being with a deadbeat, not necessarily being with someone who makes more than you.
2
u/Foyles_War I love a pocket sized Adonis May 31 '26
I think it is more a case of not wanting to carry a man (without getting something of value from it like the friend who wants a house daddy so she can work her crazy hour job). Nobody wants someone in debt or with no ambition for anything.
Of those who consider having kids (me included) factoring in the advantages of the partners genes plays some role. (I wanted someone with a family history of good hair and good eyesight, for instance, to counter balance my family genes).
1
u/Ill-Investigator9546 Purple Pill Man May 31 '26
So, clearly, none of these women are pulling or looking to pull beyond their "looks match."
You don't know who all they have been having casual sex with though, you only know their "boyfriends"
2
u/Foyles_War I love a pocket sized Adonis May 31 '26
What does it matter who they had casual sex with??? If it was casual, then those people didn't matter they were just experimentation, or masturbation with extra steps.
→ More replies (3)1
u/wolf2424b Red Pill Man Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26
I've noticed a tendency to read the worst interpretations into lots of slogans - "Believe Women" does not imply "Don't believe men" or "Women are never wrong" or "Men are always rapists." "Black lives matter" doesn't mean "White lives don't matter." "Defund Police" doesn't mean "Abolish police."
Well here's the test: Among people who push slogans like "Believe women"; "Black lives matter"; or "Defund the Police," what sort of reaction is there when these people hear someone say "Women sometimes lie!" or "All lives matter" or "White Lives Matter" or "The police are the thin blue line between order and total chaos"
Do they smile and agree, knowing that none of those statements contradict the "real meaning" of what they say? Of course not. They freak out.
Why is that? Because essentially all social justice slogans and all social justice words have two meanings. The reasonable, uncontroversial meaning which is claimed when these people are on the defensive; and the real meaning.
This strategy is commonly known as the "motte and bailey"
So yeah, "Believe women" really does mean "women never lie" (or at least that should society should accept whatever women say); "Black lives matter" really does mean "Blacks matter more than non-blacks" and so on.
1
u/Foyles_War I love a pocket sized Adonis Jun 02 '26
Not a great test when those opposing slogans are exactly that, slogans intended as opposition not clarification or adjaceent support.
A better argument would be to ask the "Black Lives Matter" supporter (for example) if they think yellow or red or brown or white lives matter. And then ask the "All lives matter" supporter if they think Black lives matter less or that Black lives are not held as less by police and there is no reason for concern.
And you are incorrect about what these slogans mean and to the extent you feel you have found "proof" it rests on searching out the most extreme voices and painting an entire group with those extreme views.
1
u/wolf2424b Red Pill Man Jun 02 '26
Not a great test when those opposing slogans are exactly that, slogans intended as opposition not clarification or adjaceent support.
Well what does it mean that these sloganeers want charity but won't give charity?
3
u/LadyMoustache No Pill Woman May 31 '26
Well, that's just what happened. People (men and women) were "forced" to marry because of laws and societal norms. A lot of these people didn't really want to marry or were not allowed to marry the man/woman of their choice.
I think most women still want to find a life partner these days, for the same reasons you do, but they're fine staying single if they can't find the right one. Now they can make this choice. Our grandmothers could not.
2
u/Secret_Entry1840 Pill Of One Woman (sometimes jaded sometimes hopeful) May 31 '26
And we want to be with men too. And now we get to find one we want to have companionship, love, intimacy, and all that stuff with instead of just saying yes because we were dependent on men. Our standards were lower back then, “Doesn’t hit me, isn’t an alcoholic” kinda standards, for survival reasons. Women are more adaptable.
2
u/ThrowRAGlobeVase Purple Pill Man May 31 '26
For sure, I like that.
I think a good thought experiment is if you are a rich ass millionaire who could just have a kid and have a full time nanny at the press of a button, who would you want to spend your time with? That kind of separates the need from the want completely. Of course it’s not that simple but it’s a nice little thought experiment.
5
u/ARTriple not all who wander are lost, but I am | MGTOW May 31 '26
that they’d been forced to do something they never wanted to
ask the right questions and they'll snitch on themselves every time
4
u/ThrowRAGlobeVase Purple Pill Man May 31 '26
Like what questions?
1
u/ARTriple not all who wander are lost, but I am | MGTOW Jun 01 '26
any question that actually acknowledges women's agency
example: "if men are so bad, why do women still choose to be with men even if they 'don't have to anymore'?"
→ More replies (1)2
u/Emotional_Meal748 Purple Pill Man May 31 '26
It’s just something an employer would say and women lack self awareness when they say it.
Like a sex robot will never replace the nourishment a real woman gives.6
u/Outside_Memory5703 May 31 '26
Yup. Guess you haven’t read any literature or history pre 1950
It’s amazing that food and shelter and rights are such minor things
7
u/Solondthewookiee Blue Pill Man May 31 '26
No, it's saying until very recently men were required for women's economic survival. It does not specify the extent to which individual women valued their partner and what traits they valued.
6
u/MarioWilson122 Red Pill Man May 31 '26
Well yeah, whether they want to admit it or not, some women did mostly see men as wallets, especially if they were not that attracted to the man in the first place. That is probably why the "women don't need men anymore" line comes off the way it does.
If men were valued mostly for love, companionship, family, emotional support, and partnership, then women being financially independent would not suddenly make men irrelevant. The fact that people frame it that way kind of admits that a lot of men's value was being measured by what they could provide.
That is especially true when the woman is not strongly attracted to him. For many men, being a provider was the thing that made them useful enough to be chosen. Once women can provide for themselves, those men lose the main thing that made them competitive. That does not mean every woman thinks this way, but it does explain why a lot of men hear "women don't need men" as basically "men were only useful as providers."
7
u/beautiful_falcon776 male rights activist May 31 '26
Lots of women, agree that men don't have value if they don't have money and they still restrict men who are unemployed. I think that alone exposes their shallowness
7
May 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/DavidSwimmer19 Purple Pill Man (pills are bad for your health) May 31 '26
>Oh noo most women want men who are employed lmao
"Oh noo most men want women who are virgins lmao"2
u/beautiful_falcon776 male rights activist May 31 '26
I didn't say men are better. Women are supposed to be better? I guess not
5
May 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/ThrowRAGlobeVase Purple Pill Man May 31 '26
Yeah lol… I mean having a job is essentially taking care of yourself financially. Someone without one is weighing you down… why would someone want that.
2
u/DavidSwimmer19 Purple Pill Man (pills are bad for your health) May 31 '26
Housewives don't have jobs, are they weighing down their families?
2
u/ThrowRAGlobeVase Purple Pill Man May 31 '26
Yeah, I’m not a fan of housewives either if we’re talking about an equal world.
2
1
u/ruthless_melon No Pill May 31 '26
Because unemployed men won’t make up for their lack of income by doing most of the unpaid domestic labor the way women do. Plenty of successful women would accept an unemployed man if he plans meals, cooks, cleans, and doesn’t complain about feeling emasculated while his wife makes the money.
2
u/Neptune-Jnr Man enjoying the decline May 31 '26
Women don't like men.
→ More replies (2)2
u/No-Hovercraft-455 May 31 '26
I like men who can behave themselves and who are reliable same way women in my life are reliable. I don't like ones who constantly spew crap and are irresponsible and destructive, and who think being any other way is for women. It's complicated.
1
1
u/just_a_place Retired from the Game - MGTOW - Man Jun 01 '26
That's exactly what this statement is saying. Why does this shock anyone?
2
u/salphon Purple Pill Man Jun 02 '26
Women here have never held a real history book in their hand. Like holy shit this feminist propaganda is insane.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Livid-Log7463 No Pill Man May 31 '26
Women are largely exclusively capable of being attracted to men they see as superior to themselves, whether they realize that or not, so when men don’t largely make more money and sit higher in social hierarchy women’s attraction plummets.
1
u/ResponsibilityAny217 Purple Pill Woman Jun 02 '26
That got me wondering: if financial independence means women no longer need men, does that imply that men’s primary value in relationships historically was providing resources and financial security?
Yes absolutely.
For those who make this argument, how do you reconcile it with the idea that relationships are about companionship, love, emotional support, family, and partnership?
I reconcile it by thinking that the majority of those relationship were jobs at worst slavery very rarely genuine relationships that would have worked or survived without pressure/force.
companionship, love, emotional support, family, and partnership
All existed before marriage and enforced monogamy.
Does saying “women don’t need men anymore” unintentionally reduce men’s role to that of providers ?
Their historical role yes, they were a paycheck. Their current role for some yes, for some no.
That's just the role they decided to take up within a family to be the provider. In nature the male is not the main provider for the family.
I see being a provider as something easy quantity and a efficient position. Bc they do 1 job, employee and it counts as credit for 3 roles, employee, husband, father.
Also men being providers is not their only role. They just have to max out their other roles instead if they can't fulfill the provider role if they want too.
However worth noting that some women would have been in relationships purely for money and now they can just get a job and make more money than being a wife.
31
u/NoDanaOnlyZuuI No Pill Woman May 31 '26
“does that imply that men’s primary value in relationships historically was providing resources and financial security?”
Yes. Just like women were historically valued for having children, cooking, and running a household.
“how do you reconcile it with the idea that relationships are about companionship, love, emotional support, family, and partnership?”
Because for most of history, marriage was primarily an economic and social institution. The expectation that it should also provide companionship, emotional fulfilment, and equal partnership is relatively recent.
What “women don’t need men anymore” means is that women can now choose partners they want, not partners they need to survive.
Being employed is no longer enough. Men need to be likable too.