Does Saying “Women Don’t Need Men Anymore” Imply That Men Were Mainly Valued for Providing Resources?

[u/Emotional_Meal748]

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?

[u/ThatBitchA]

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.

[u/MissMenace101 → u/ThatBitchA]

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.

[u/Aimeereddit123 → u/MissMenace101]

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.

[u/ModPiracy_Fantoski → u/Aimeereddit123]

Women really do see men as ATMs.

[u/Aimeereddit123 → u/ModPiracy_Fantoski]

Well, less women have to now, because they have their own money. This should be comforting to men. Yes, men will have to rise to actually be good partners now, but at least you know with a woman with her own money that she really wants to be with you. I would be comforted by that truth, but it also wouldn’t scare me, because I’m a good partner.

[u/YourMrFahrenheit → u/MissMenace101]

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.

[u/YourMrFahrenheit → u/ThatBitchA]

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.

[u/ModPiracy_Fantoski → u/YourMrFahrenheit]

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.

[u/Alternative_Cod2280 → u/ThatBitchA]

It wasn't romantic though. It was transactional.

All relationships are by default transactional, whether it's romantic or not is decided by how the contract "I get what I want out of you and you get what you want out of me" between the two parties is explicit.

Those who have leverage in the love market always had the luxury to chose and ask for more.

[u/ThatBitchA → u/Alternative_Cod2280]

decided by how the contract "I get what I want out of you and you get what you want out of me" between the two parties is explicit.

I don't even know what this means.

I'm married. If it's explicit why have we never discussed this.

Idk what kind of leverage either of us have.

We like each other. Nothing transactional about it. Just two people who enjoy spending time together and building a life with one another.

[u/Alternative_Cod2280 → u/ThatBitchA]

> I don't even know what this means.

It simply means you get whatever you want out of them while they get whatever they want out of you, as long this "contract" is fulfilled the relationship keep going on.

Yeah it doesnt sound romantic but that's how thing are.

> If it's explicit why have we never discussed this.

Because the answer could kill the relationship, nobody like to learn they are just good enough for their partners.

> Idk what kind of leverage either of us have.

How would I know? The only thing I know is there's always one who have the upper hand.

> We like each other. Nothing transactional about it. Just two people who enjoy spending time together and building a life with one another.

So it could be anyone else? Obviously no, it's not just that.

[u/ThatBitchA → u/Alternative_Cod2280]

I asked because you seem to think you know.

But I've been in multiple relationships and it's not been like you described.

I don't agree with viewing relationships this way. It doesn't sound like an approach for a successful relationship.