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

kmb218 · 2026-05-31T17:47:37+00:00

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

ThatBitchA · 2026-05-31T17:49:49+00:00

No. It means that women can not date and marry men they actually like.

My grandma couldn't open her own bank accounts.

Obsessivethot · 2026-05-31T18:40:15+00:00

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.

DenverKim · 2026-05-31T20:26:22+00:00

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.

Beneficial_Oil_5089 · 2026-05-31T18:01:41+00:00

You’re misunderstanding.

Women do not have to be financially dependent on men to survive anymore. They don’t have to put up with fucked up behavior. They don’t have to put up with men who aren’t partners in life.

companionship, love, emotional support, family, and partnership is what it should all be about and a lot of men who women were tied to didn’t hold up that end of the bargain

NoDanaOnlyZuuI · 2026-05-31T20:10:13+00:00

“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.

WknessTease · 2026-05-31T17:46:18+00:00

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.

NiaMiaBia · 2026-05-31T18:29:02+00:00

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.

Icy_Ad_4544 · 2026-05-31T18:06:08+00:00

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”.

toad-wrangler · 2026-05-31T18:44:57+00:00

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.

KayRay1994 · 2026-05-31T18:06:47+00:00

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)

ValeWho · 2026-05-31T19:34:55+00:00

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)

theminxisback · 2026-05-31T21:41:05+00:00

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.

pie-mart · 2026-05-31T17:50:09+00:00

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

sablesalsa · 2026-05-31T18:18:58+00:00

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.

love_in_october · 2026-05-31T18:51:07+00:00

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.

cb8585b · 2026-05-31T17:47:49+00:00

Altruistic_Look_7868 · 2026-05-31T17:55:44+00:00

Yes, what did you think it was?

Tylikcat · 2026-05-31T19:01:48+00:00

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.

KoninginVanRotterdam · 2026-05-31T20:40:10+00:00

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.

Objective_Ad_6265 · 2026-05-31T18:16:39+00:00

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.

AutoModerator · 2026-05-31T17:40:12+00:00

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.

Lost_Reaction_5489 · 2026-05-31T19:02:02+00:00

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?

YveisGrey · 2026-05-31T23:37:18+00:00

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

EmpressJJ · 2026-06-01T00:29:13+00:00

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.

PlantRake · 2026-05-31T20:00:42+00:00

I’m skeptical when women claim stuff like that because irl my friends who are single are on antidepressants and complain about loneliness and they say things like that.. I would believe a woman who had de-centered men enough they stopped shaving or doing make up that “just so happens” to enhance features men find attractive, rather than choosing something less conventionally appealing like bold goth makeup. Or if they never complain about loneliness and aren’t on antidepressants. Pride is on hell of a drug

I’ll admit I would never be brave enough to be single. I care about what my husband thinks of me and put effort into my appearance because I deeply care about him finding me attractive

Gilmoregirlin · 2026-05-31T21:20:29+00:00

No it means we want to date men for who they are now, not for what they provide.

-Shes-A-Carnival · 2026-06-01T00:50:58+00:00

Aimeereddit123 · 2026-06-01T01:46:58+00:00

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.

Title	Does Saying “Women Don’t Need Men Anymore” Imply That Men Were Mainly Valued for Providing Resources?
Author	Emotional_Meal748
Upvotes	90
Comments	490
Date	May 31, 2026 5:40 PM UTC (1 month ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1tt1x0x/does_saying_women_dont_need_men_anymore_imply/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/does-saying-women-dont-need-men-anymore-imply-that.1581748 https://theredarchive.com/post/1581748

Comments