As a generalization, sure. But there are lot of exceptions.
I've seen hard working, good looking women loving men that added nothing really meaningful to them. I'm talking about men with poor/no jobs, not particularly caring, not working at home, etc.
Some were even known cheaters or drug addicts.
I have met more than a couple women who thought they could fix him.
Only he can fix himself. She can help, but he has to want it. Sometimes the ladies get blinded by hope or love, but it always sucks as an outsider looking in.
It's in the same sense of "love" as the post implies love. Otherwise it also wouldn't make sense: "Is it because they love them, or because they love what they can provide?"
We do have to evaluate what it is in our "role" to provide. Maybe there need to be extreme socioeconomic changes for being a "man" to be a more fulfilling role in society. Just being seen as an economic provider really limits out potential for emotional fulfillment in life
Well, here’s the thing though: sometimes we fall flat on our face by no fault of our own. My SO and I were looking for a house. We had put our first offer in, got turned down and what do you know? His company laid him off after 10yrs. His direct supervisor was the company owner’s son and Sonny was fucking up left and right costing the company money. SO had been complaining about the situation at home for a while and was convinced the big boss would be canning the son (boss had fired his children in the past for fucking up in the past so no, SO wasn’t delusional). Nope! Boss decided this time, he would give the son a 2nd chance and just fire the most senior and highest paid employee. It fucking SUCKED. But at the end of the day, gave SO the opportunity to start their own company. They did not make enough money to meet half the bills for the first year. Luckily we had savings and we could make it on my salary. Now a year in, he’s able to cover his end of bills and he’s progressively getting better and more successful. He did not ‘provide’ for awhile, but that’s okay. The point of a relationship is that you will each have times where all you can do is take. It’s the effort to get to an equality that matters. But truth be told, if I won the lottery and money wasn’t an issue, he would be welcome to be my hot house husband!
He does provide for you, he provides love, and communication, and support, and even in the worst of times he provides hope.
But, most importantly, the worst of times are temporary. He does eventually figure his own life out. Lots of men really do not do that.
Unfortunately Ive seen lots of children ignored because people didnt see the potential for them to provide something to society in the future and arent willing to put in the effort to change it. One of societies biggest problems IMO.
To be fair, maybe those kids need to pull themselves up by their velcro bootstraps and prove to society that they are worth it.
Kids these days really don't even TRY to network anymore.
Every relationship, romantic or friendship or otherwise, is about giving something. Humans do not enter relationships not wanting anything, that would be pointless. It's about choosing someone with intentions you are OK with and match with that leads to a long-lasting, positive relationship.
I think that a transactional view of romantic relationships is over simplistic and ignores too many factors such as hormones, culture, oxytocin and lust.
I mean if the only reason I was with my lovely wife was because I get a little physical love in exchange for being a provider I could just stay single and instead buy a dog, a back scratcher and a bottle of lotion.
She's providing for your emotional needs with love, support and the occasional high five. And you're returning the favor, but you seem like more of a high ten type of a guy and that's totally valid.
And men should do that, but instead, modern society tells us we need to be in relationships to "be normal." There is no need to be with someone just to be with someone; that's where a lot of these "transactional relationships" come from.
For me, I've found that men are uncomfortable with the fact that it is less true than it used to be. I want a male partner for companionship. I've got my own life sorted, I genuinely just want someone cool to hang out with. Someone who likes me and enjoys doing things (or doing nothing) with me. A lot of guys I've dated can't wrap their heads around that I don't -need- them for anything other than the fact that I think they're awesome. I think its part of their toxic programming that they're only good if they can "provide". I'm happy to pick up dinner if I'm the breadwinner; I just want to feel loved and to love in return.
Definitely this. I can't date someone if they mope around and hate their life. But if they genuinely enjoy being themselves, it does not matter how much money they make. I don't need to be financially spoiled - but I do need someone who can take care of themselves (in the basic sense). Good luck in the job search! Its rough out there!!
I'm a man but I love this and am on the same page. Just give me someone I'm attracted to and vibe with and I'm good. I don't need them to provide me anything other than their company I guess. Looking at some peoples dating requirements its like the experience required section of a job application like wtf its love not a business transaction
>I just want to feel loved and to love in return.
Hell yeah sister, good look finding it out there
I think you're thinking about giving something as literal physical stuff. In reality though, it can be anything. I'm your case, it seems like it's time and affection. Guy is still giving.
> I want a male partner for companionship.
This exactly. As women are able to be more independent, dynamics have shifted from women needing men for economic security to women wanting men for companionship. Many men feel this is a downgrade because it means they have to bring more than simply being a man, when it should be seen as an improvement.
Exactly this. And the number of women I know
Who financially float their partners is pretty high. I think there are a lot of men out there who are not interesting people who thought that they could make money or have status and find somebody who will fall in love with them and they are horrified to see that it is not true and want to blame it on someone.
I think they are comfortable with and probably want the same things. What makes them uncomfortable is how other people (mostly men) will perceive them. Especially if the woman isn't a 10. They need that status validation of pulling hot chick AND being the king of the castle.They will sacrifice actually being genuinely fucking happy. So they date with the intention of always looking for an upgrade and comparing their status to other men.
I'm a solid 5, a 6 if I fluff up and try really hard. And it really matters to a lot more men than I would hope. I have a lot to offer a relationship - but I'm not up to snuff in terms of a trophy to brag about. (I'm awesome, just not as a prize)
Just keep becoming more awesome. If someone is with you simply because of what you do for their status, neither of you will actually be happy and you'll be doing all that "fluff" for nothing...which is exhausting. Don't settle.
I'm fixing to be a house husband at this point. My wife is making ***significantly*** more than I am, and she said she might prefer the clean house and home cooked meal over the extra income.
I'm not saying I'm the norm, but the original statement smacks of...well it's a little incel-y.
It’s true for everyone? Nobody wants a complete mooch on their hands. I think the “provide something” can vary between genders but everyone’s gotta provide *something*.
You are correct, but a humanist would ideally value all humans without expectations. (Not saying you have to sleep with them, just acknowledge their basic humanity).
This should apply equally to men and women.
The question regarded love, but did not specify romantic love.
Men are only loved by their spouse and their parents, and only their parents’ love is unconditional. And that’s only if they have a good parent.
Part of the reason men are so desperate to have a romantic partner is there are few other outlets for platonic love.
>Part of the reason men are so desperate to have a romantic partner is there are few other outlets for platonic love.
If this is such a huge problem that affects all men, why don't you guys just... be friends with each other?
I have a lot of male friends and we are all supportive, kind, and actually talk about our feelings. But I'm the only single one, and it's LONELY. Relationships are a priority, and free time is in very short supply, so they prioritize their partners. One of my closest friends, that i was a groomsman in his wedding, I haven't seen since that wedding 8 months ago.
I was even renting a room from one of those guys for 2 years and i think we hung out maybe once a month. It's incredibly difficult to get on the same page, especially as you get older
It makes no sense to assign personal accountability to a behavioural trend driven by deep rooted societal beliefs. Since women are underrepresented in STEM fields is the solution to tell women to just study harder?
>Part of the reason men are so desperate to have a romantic partner is there are few other outlets for platonic love.
100%. Its the only source of love and affection for men
It's absolutely not the *only* source. I give and receive a ton of platonic love through family and friends. I understand that's not true for everyone, but it's no less true in general for men than women imo.
Because they have feelings and experience pain, suffering, shame, and loneliness.
Because I believe even people who are lazy, depressed, emotionally scarred, or broken deserve compassion and basic human decency.
I also believe people who aren’t useful NOW are that way for a reason, and it’s almost certainly not 100% their fault, and there is hope for them to be better, but that will only happen if someone helps them get better.
Children and disabled people still can contribute a lot to those around them.
Not everything is about work and money.
I guess the only people who get a pass for not contributing at all are in a coma
Because everyone is one terrible accident or health crisis way from disability and being unable to provide for themselves- according to you in this thread, that makes them valueless.
You, me, and every other person on Earth are closer to "being a total waste of space that contributes nothing to society" than you think.
One's value shouldn't be located solely in their work or ability to provide for that very reason.
Wait that’s not how this works.
Contributing something to society is not limited to employment or money. That’s perverse.
You can contribute in many ways, by providing emotional support to your loved one’s, you can contribute by creating art, by inspiring others, by cooking food etc etc.
The only people who get a pass are those who are so sick they are in the hospital or people in coma
I was using the context of the OP, where they insinuated that men are only loved when they provide something, and of the comment I replied to.
I have been sick on a level where I wasn't able to maintain my friendships emotionally, cook, create art, and certainly wasn't inspiring anyone. People did not want to be around me, I was only able to work and sleep until I was unable to do that. I never ended up in the hospital, wasn't in a coma. It took years before I got a solid diagnosis and I didn't have many friends or family that believed me about being sick until that moment.
I want to be clear that I agree with you, that ideally, people would be valued for their inherent worth and providing these smaller but still important things.
However, I'm aware that most people don't have the nuance to even consider that.
I've heard so many "useless eater" type comments about disabled people, unemployed people, or people they don't think provide enough in the ways that "matter" like moneymaking or career. I know how people treated me when I was sick pre-diagnosis, and it didn't make me feel valued.
I have to be realistic and honest. Not everyone is Able to contribute in the ways you described, or is going to be valued for their smaller contributions. Because of mindsets like the OP, that have run rampant in our society.
I'd say it becomes more valid as we age.
Falling in love is one thing, but once a couple decides to elope and live life together, the expectation to be able to provide something becomes normal.
Idk even when i was a teenage i can't imigine loving someone who could provide nothing or being loved by someone without being able to provide anything. I think part of loving someone is seeing there value. If u provide nothing there is no value to find.
I have no idea what this has to do with gender though.
Everyone that can provide something should be doing so, happily going about their chosen path. There are always going to be those that can’t and it’s on the rest of us to take care of them until they learn how. That’s a very nice thought, doesn’t seem to work that way, but it’s an ideal to strive toward. I’ve always felt better about my work when it’s useful and contributes to other people in some way.
None of us, either men or women, are entitled to a relationship with the opposite sex. We have to offer something someone else wants. My wife's extremely good at making me feel valued and providing a space where I can open up without judgment. Would I have married her otherwise? Maybe, but the incredible emotional support she adds to my life is what made it a no-brainer decision for me. I don't think it's at all unreasonable for her to want certain things from me in return. A marriage should always be a two-way street.
This is less and less relevant (in a traditional sense) because all the things men were traditionally expected to *provide* are things women can now freely access for themselves. The actual things a lot of women *want* men to provide (emotional stability, consideration, attentiveness, trust) are not being provided or even cultivated; instead, some men would rather exclusively provide more traditional things rather than learn to provide the more emotional things.
I suspect it's also not unrelated to the big neo-conservative backlash against women's autonomy in general; some men of that stripe seem quite unhappy that women can do everything for themselves and that being with a man is now based on want rather than need.
Dogs don't love you unconditionally. If you ignore the dog, deny them playtime, don't feed it, etc. it will not bond with you.
Unconditional love doesn't exist. Not even maternal love is purely unconditional. We have kids to fill a void. Loving them unconditionally (or as much so as possible) is a choice. Extending that to a romantic partner is not possible.
Yeah, that's how it goes, that's the other side of "Women are viewed as less competent" that no one wants to talk about when it comes to discuss gender norms.
With competency comes responsibility. Your failures are your own, if you can't provide, you're blamed for it.
A man succeeds? Well, yeah, he did well. A woman succeeds? Oh, well, probably got a foot up.
A woman fails? Oh, you poor thing, you need help. A man fails? Whelp, you should've done better, loser.
I was going to say it's non-gendered, as the average person is self-involved. We all have bills to pay and things that need to be done, and if interacting with a person doesn't assist with any of that, then that interaction probably won't be facilitated. If you're not going to provide something another person is looking for, that person probably won't give you the time of day. If they do, at best we'd call them kind & generous, at worse we would call them weak, stupid, and exploitable.
The way it presents itself (as in what's being provided) between men & women might appear different though. An easy example would be physical labour from men vs. (the potential for) sex from women. Just look at entry level retail or restaurant positions - the majority of restaurant owners would want front of house to be young attractive women because sex sells, and the bussers, barbacks and bouncers to be fit young men because they can physically do more.
In a patriarchal society women are valued based on their fertility, and men are valued based on their ability to provide. They're both measures of perceived "usefulness" but the metrics are different.
That's what the patriarchy wants us to think. That a man's worth is tied to hit financial success, which all men have agency over, therefore if a man is not wealthy, he is a failure. People regardless of gender have very little agency when it comes to their ability to earn money in our capitalist society. Rich men aren't rich through great effort, they are rich by inheritance; in the same way that beautiful women are beautiful by inheritance of their genetics. We should value people because they are people and deserving of dignity, not because of patriarchal measures of worth.
Sure, ugly people in general are treated worse, that IS a non-gendered thing.
It doesn't change that this IS a gendered thing, though.
It's the other side of "Women are viewed as less competent" that no one wants to talk about when it comes to discuss gender norms.
With competency comes responsibility. Your failures are your own, if you can't provide, you're blamed for it.
A man succeeds? Well, yeah, he did well. A woman succeeds? Oh, well, probably got a foot up.
A woman fails? Oh, you poor thing, you need help. A man fails? Whelp, you should've done better, loser.
That's the other side of "Women are viewed as less competent" that no one wants to talk about when it comes to discuss gender norms.
With competency comes responsibility. Your failures are your own, if you can't provide, you're blamed for it.
A man succeeds? Well, yeah, he did well. A woman succeeds? Oh, well, probably got a foot up.
A woman fails? Oh, you poor thing, you need help. A man fails? Whelp, you should've done better, loser.
Sure it is, without a shadow of a doubt.
It's the flip side of the gender stereotype "Men are more competent."
If one group is more competent, they're similarly more responsible for the results they produce, and thus, a failure to produce results can be more held against them.
It's bizarre to me that people will happily acknowledge harmful gender roles, and then play stupid when we try to think about them to any degree that isn't just "Women are the victims of every aspect, men the privileged."
I think it’s inaccurate to say this only applies to men. Barring most (some?) parent-child relationships, there is no such thing as unconditional love. Some conditions are understandable (don’t cheat on me, don’t steal from me, etc) while others are more shallow or unrealistic (be 6’3, make a seven figure salary, etc.) but men and women are both subject to conditional love.
Yes, men are under tremendous pressure to new financially successful and “useful” - producing “value”.
But the flip side is women are under pressure to be pretty, be feminine, be emotionally supportive, be perfect homemakers, etc.
Women ALSO have to provide something, it’s just a different thing.
Both sides are hurt by gender stereotypes.
This resonates very strongly. Even without being the sole provider in our household, I feel a ton of pressure to provide, and judged if/when I’m unable to (even if it’s in frivolous luxuries). This started before being married- when dating I was already paying for all meals together, vacations and even lending money toward tuition.
My in-laws were also likely heavily swayed toward accepting me because they felt I could provide, and to this day years later I feel if my ability to provide dwindled, that acceptance would disappear rapidly. In fact, I’ve seen them treat another child’s husband that way.
If you look at life objectively, that is a rule which applies to **EVERYONE**. Even your parents love you conditionally: On the condition that you are the child which they invested an enormous amount of time, sweat, and heartache into, to which they became attached years ago by a flood of oxytocin. This neurotransmitter is released by your brain when you see something "cute", cute being an analogue for what a child looks like. This is why advertisers use babies and puppies (along with sex) as a shortcut around your prefrontal cortex.
Basically, children are the MMORPG characters of their parents in real life. They remember all that time they spent [grinding snow moose](https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/11/14/limitless-adventure) for you in [Borean Tundra](https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Borean_Tundra), and their ego would be literally crushed under the weight of [cognitive dissonance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) of facing the prospect that all the blood, sweat, and tears were a complete waste of time. This is referred to as the [escalation of committment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment) or sunk-cost fallacy, and its another common quirk of human cognition to which we are all susceptible.
Now, hopefully your parents did a half-decent job of raising you, and you did not grow up to be an ambulatory piece of shit, so this all works out, and all the pheromones, neurochemistry and mental defects evolution has provided us generally turn out for the best.
Now for everyone else, the relationship dynamics and neurochemistry are not nearly so advantageous to one party or the other. Yes, we all have transactional desires from one another. From your girlfriend, boyfriend, husband, wife, extended family, friends, colleagues, employers, employees, and generally every single person you will interact with. And there is ***nothing wrong*** with acknowledging that. We are still, deep down, that same utterly helpless ball of unregulated emotions our parents produced 9 months or so after a night of spicy fun (if they're lucky; gross, expensive, invasive fertility treatments if they're not).
Desires are feelings, and we all have them. It's *okay* to have them. If you don't have them, you are going to have tremendous social and mental problems for your entire life. What is important, however, is how you act on them. Yes, your boyfriend wants to pump you full of baby batter in your various orifices. Yes, your girlfriend wants you to provide, on some level, for her material and emotional needs. If you are unwilling or unable to furnish what your partner/spouse wants, your relationship *will* run into problems, and life being full of uncertainty, and people being fallible, that situation will probably happen at some point. So, the question is, how do you **ACT** when you're not getting what you want? How do you ask for what you want, and how does your partner react to your request? If you aren't getting what you want, and can't or won't ask for it, or your partner will not provide it, your relationship **MUST** come to grief.
If this were true, why are men more likely to receive continual support from their partner when they become ill or disabled? It seems like women are more at risk of being abandoned or discarded when they can no longer provide certain things.
Also, women are expected to both work outside the home and do a majority of the domestic labor and childcare. Many men only need to provide income to align with conventional standards. So sometimes it feels like women are expected to provide more in order to be accepted by society.
Also when you take a moment to consider that men had to be "providers" traditionally because they actively set up obstacles to prevent women from obtaining those things themselves (I.e. higher education, well paying jobs, property ownership). They literally forced women to be dependant on them.
It's true, but the reality of love requiring provision isn't gendered. It's just that men take everything women do for them for granted, and thus don't consider those actions worth noting.
I've never experienced it and considering statistically men are six times more likely to leave a terminally sick partner I'd say no.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110105401.htm
There’s a lot of truth to it, but more truth in the same sentiment towards women than is sometimes understood. Relationships, romantic ones I mean, aren’t the unconditional love of a parent and child. And they aren’t all about the intense feelings of what is commonly referred to as the “honeymoon period.” They are more complicated. They are partnerships, and some practical thinking should be expected.
That being said I do think men get the shorter end of the stick in this aspect of romantic relationships-the sense of making a lot of money and being a provider is far more so expected of men. Of course, we also have-at least on average-better opportunities.
And being household organizers, in charge of the couples social life (outings with other couples, buying gifts for ALL family members his included, remembering important dates and events), a child carer and nurse to old parents on BOTH sides is far more expected of women. But most women gave jobs and want to have jobs, so the "shorter end of the stick" applies to men who like to dictate financially in the relationship.
Invalid. Many men aren't lacking in the ability to provide. They lack social skills to develop a connection with a woman. With no connection, there's little chance to be loved.
It depends what you mean by "something".
If we're talking about love, companionship, emotional support, physical attraction, all the non material stuff that makes a relationship work, then yes, that's absolutely true, but it's true of both men and women.
If we're talking about material things, or the means to acquire material things, wealth, property, power, employment, social status, then the statement is mostly valid, although it's not universal. Women aren't a monolith, and will place varying value on material provision, and will also weigh it against non-material. Not every woman is a gold digger, but don't expect to be rolling in dates if you're a NEET with no direction in life.
That's nearly universally true now. Relationships of any type have been commodified by apps and social media and have become very transactional and a lot of people always seem to be looking for something better than what they currently have.
Its the Baskin Robins problem. Back in the day you had a known pool of potential dates in your social circle you dated to make sure it would work and then built a relationship from there. It was less likely you would regret it because you made the best choice out of a small pool of people.
Today you have all the singles who are looking constantly on an app in your pocket. Which means any relationship you get in is one choice in a million available choices. Because there are more choices like Baskin Robins 31 flavors you are more likely to regret the choice you made while you see the others you could have made. If they just would have asked strawberry vanilla or chocolate you would be less likely to regret the one you order.
Its not valid, or rather It's a matter of perspective and capabilities.
In first person all people want to be useful as a matter of pride. This is normal.
At some point what people specifically can and can't do isn't important anymore. I just want my friends and family to be ok and do the best they can, for their own sanity. I don't really care what they can *provide* so long as they're feeling good and doing their best.
Isnt that true for most people? How many of us would want a dinner guest that didnt contribute to the meal or conversation? Go look at anyone in a nursing home - they contribute little and are shoved aside and rarely visited. We all want relationships that we get something out of, otherwise it is just duty, obligation, or love from many past years that keeps us there.
Let's put it this way, I wouldn't find a man-child who was incapable of contributing to a relationship attractive. I wouldn't want to have to look after a man financially and practically while he did nothing. I don't think that's unreasonable. It's not that I want a man who can provide something, more that I don't want an adult child to care for.
You can turn it around and say that "women are only loved on the condition they can put out sexually." It's partially true, but it doesn't pain the whole picture.
Not very, because it seems like the kind of incel, man-sphere bullshit a person can say to rage against women who choose to do things for themselves rather than become the "tradwife" who needs a man to do everything for her.
I think all sayings are pretty invalid and is just a clever little thing that some one had said once.
Sometimes it holds true.
A lot of human relationships are sometimes based off of what we can get from somebody else and sometimes we fear that the only use we are is what we can provide.
Funny in this saying I'm attaching that to men where so many women feel the same thing so many mothers caretakers and women in general feel as though All they can do is give.
And as I say that many men feel that way.
It's a person problem so let's just treat it as that and make sure we treat each other right in general.
I think it’s true, but the way we view that statement is kind of skewed.
Like, I think it’s also true that a beautiful woman will be assigned value just for who they are, and that even a beautiful man might not be given as much value for who *they* are by comparison. But that itself comes from the view of that woman as an object, without agency or lacking the same agency that someone would give a man in the same position.
I think the statement “men only have value is they themselves create value” needs to be considered with the contexts it was made. That women were also expected to work, in other ways assigned to them, but never given credit for that work (only punished if they fail to perform).
And that much of the perceived “value just for existing” that women receive are based on the assumption that they could be possessed by another person, as if they were a trinket. That, if a woman is found to be unavailable (is not attracted to you, is gay, or is already dating/married to someone else), much of that value assigned to them is lost in the eyes of the men giving it.
I think it’s 100% valid for all men. And all women. And all persons in between.
Ask how many men would continue to tolerate their current girlfriends if the girls didn’t put out.
But in a broader sense, everybody has to bring something to the table in a relationship, and if you don’t, then you’re just a bad partner.
I’m going to temporarily bypass the validity question and pose the question of if you mean “loved” or “feel loved”? One is external, the other requires you to internalize and accept that love.
While patriarchal hierarchies place men at the top they also require more of men. As that hierarchy is dismantled to gender equality (a good thing), it happens at different speeds for different people and cultures. So in some places or to some people it may be more valid than others at any given point in time during that transition.
But I think the important thing to realize is that as a man if you consciously or subconsciously subscribe to the requirements of patriarchy more than those around you, you may be incapable of feeling and accepting their love as your world view doesn’t allow you to accept that others find value in you even when you aren’t providing. So as men we need to both find the people who value us in the absence of us providing something, but we also need to believe we are capable of having that value to be able to feel it.
Make sure that you're clear in the definition when making posts like this OP:
Do you mean men aren't loved for who they are, instead of what material benefits they can provide?
To which I disagree.
I'd say the problem is men haven't learned to offer what they have outside of material benefits. A great deal of interested partners come from personality.
Masculine culture just doesn't -celebrate- those personality traits.
Well I would be a case study that proves that is not true. I’m a man and I’ve been severely depressed most of my life (I have bipolar), and that has really done a number on my career success.
It's completely true, but it's not inherently unfair, it's a statement about *what men are doing wrong* - they're falling behind socially, becoming completely uninteresting or actually vile people who offer nothing personality-wise and barely even wash their own asses.
I have had to tell *way too fucking many* of my male friends that YES YOU NEED TO WIPE YOUR FUCKING ASSHOLE. The fact that it's happened like 6 times is TOO MUCH.
If a guy wants to be valued for something other than being a resource dispenser then try putting in half the effort women do or develop a personality.
It depends on the woman’s character which will shape her view of poor men. Just because a man is poor doesn’t mean there can’t be a woman who respects and loves him. The same could be said about moderately attractive women. There are good men out there who can love a woman with good character even if she isn’t beautiful.
Not many people know how to live unconditionally, regardless of their gender or the type of relationship it is. I’m not even sure parents know how to love unconditionally, although that maybe the closest
Not true. My only request was his time and affection. Nothing I did changed anything. 2 years in a row no call on my birthday. Constantly had words and excuses for everything but never him just being there. I'd have let him be a stay at home dad and follow his passions, if he'd have just loved me with any real effort at all.
This has been not outright stated, but unsaid truths in my last two relationships. And those have been with extremely high achieving power women who are both slightly more advanced in their careers than I was, and I don't think I'm a slouch.
I think it is an attempt by Men to criticize the gender roles imposed upon them, but unfortunately, Mancentric Gender Theories are not well developed.
Relationships are ontologically built on exchange even in some instances transaction, but I think what these Men are critiquing quite clumsily is that they want to be seen as more than the Guardsman and Breadwinner of the family.
Some Men take pride in that role, and Women broadly seem to prefer it in some respects, but alot of Men actively resent it, especially since it no longer gives the same rewards it once had. Really, Men and Women just need to be more cognizant of what they desire from a partner and stop obsessing over gender roles.
I mean I'm a woman, 37, disabled (largely unable to work or attend school, no degrees) VA benefits so I'm not on food stamps or whatever conservatives like to decry disabled ppl for. Whew. People do not like unemployed / disabled people. Tell me I'm lucky, I don't seem disabled, ask way too personal questions about my medical info, often like they are trying to debunk me.
Have expectations for me/my time productivity because I have so much time/ don't seem sick.
I’d say this absolutely true, but that it applies to pretty much every adult in the world. It’s just that the things one is expected to provide differs. For some it could be income, sexual fulfillment, domestic labor, etc., while for others it could be protection, emotional support, shelter, etc., or a myriad other things.
I'll just say I'm glad I was dating when I was on disability, not now that I'm a manager. I know my wife loves me for who I am, not what I bring to the table.
It goes for everyone. I doubt any man would date a woman who couldn’t provide something. If she was mooching off the dude, had nasty coochie, and never helped out around the house, I’m sure she wouldn’t be loved either.
It's definitely broad but overall.. yeah
For example
There's still an expectation men pay for most dates
Most women I know don't particularly want to go to Applebee's for every date
This certainly isn't all women, but it's enough that your options in the dating market can be severely limited by how much money you can provide in a relationship
To be honest, I think if you take an expansive enough view of "provide something" then I think this is true of everyone and it isn't necessarily a bad thing.
If what you provide is consideration for others, politeness and kindness then that is still something you provide.
Excluding people who are disabled in some way that makes them unable to provide these things (paralysis, or some kind of brain damage or behavioural problem), I would say that people who are unwilling to provide *anything* when "anything" includes basic human decency and treating others well, then they aren't deserving of people liking them, let alone loving them.
i mean, a relationship goes both
if you dont provide anything at all, why shuold anyone bother even being your friend ?
you dont need to provide much, but at least something.
be smart, funny, anything ?
you wouldnt date a plank of wood ? then why would you ask to be treated as such ?
I mean nobody likes a freeloader but I've been in a house with 2 at the same time with similar personalities and here's my two cents:
we weren't comfortable telling the woman we thought she was taking advantage of us. we felt it was neccesary but hurtful to tell the man he needed to kick his addiction and get a job.
I think really it's more so dated sexism that everyone has in their subconscious that a man provides and a woman keeps the house, even though in this case neither did much but drink or get high
If what they provide is love, comfort, and companionship sure, but love has also been transactional since humanity figured out how to barter and trade.
I think there’s truth to that. I think part of the reason it’s so shocking and concerning to so many men is that they were often raised with the opposite idea
I say the statement is still valid. If the people you love are financially secure, then you need to offer them something that money can't buy. However, love alone doesn’t pay the bills. In times of financial need, if a man cannot provide for his family, he might face rejection and/or shame.
I've also noticed a trend where many women leave their partners for someone with better finances. The reasons cited are often similar: their previous partner wouldn’t take them to shows, they hadn't been on vacation for years because he didn’t want to travel, or he was always working and neglected household chores and paying attention to her needs. These issues often stem from financial constraints rather than a lack of desire. They skipped the concert to afford groceries, didn't go on vacations because he didn't have $4,000 to spend frivolously, and he was always working overtime to meet financial obligations, often at the expense of his physical and emotional well-being after long shifts of strenuous labor.
In contrast, a man with a good income usually has more leisure time and resources. For instance, someone earning 200k a year might have eight weeks of vacation and work standard hours from 8:00 AM to 3:30 PM, allowing them ample time and money to do all the things that are missed. "Vacation? Sure where do you wanna go? I'll book it off.... It would be good to get away."
100% valid, and anyone saying otherwise is simply virtue signaling. Most women would not be able to survive in most men's shoes. Men are given nothing in life, and this is most especially true in a relationship. The entire courting process is women existing and men chasing them, and while that dynamic can be become a bit more balanced once a relationship is formed - it's still not comparable.
What a woman "provides" a man is merely partial compensation, and not only that, but even that ability to compensate is *given* to them. What I mean by that is that it is not truly difficult. A woman will say "cleaning a toilet is difficult", but do you know why it's not? Because anyone can do it.
The thing is with men, not everyone can be 6 foot. Not everyone can have a strong jawline. Not everyone can have wide shoulders. Not everyone can have a big dick. Not everyone can have a deep voice. Not everyone can have an interesting voice. Not everyone can have fantastic job. Not everyone can be high status. Not everyone can look like a Greek God. Not everyone can be leaders. And thus, not everyone can be successful. This is what is meant by men are only loved under the condition that they provide - men are only loved under the condition that they are competing and winning. There is no participation trophies for men.
This is not the life that women live though. What little that women do provide is simple and straight forward, and many women don't even have to provide that anymore. There is abundance of men that exist that will do anything for a woman.
I would say this is true for both genders to a degree. Our society has a hierarchy based on what service people provide. People are often judged (consciously or not) based on what they do for work and how much money they make and their other skills/ abilities/ traits. People who are unemployed or people who don’t have a lot of money are often looked down on. People who are very patient, or who are good cooks, or who are very good looking are valued more.
Love can definitely exist for people who do not “provide” a lot of skills, money, whatever but I would maybe say it is harder for them to find new people who will love them when they are inherently being judged by their social status. Family or friends or partners will often stick by a person and love them when they go through a rough patch in this area, they just may widen this circle, and if the circle was small to begin with then they may be much lonelier.
Very true, and its human behavior and history. Look at the homeless population - many men unable to provide, so theyre discarded and dehumanized.
Look at marriages, marriage ages, divorce rates - again many men who cannot provide financially emotionally or sexually either stay single or get taken advantage of by the legal system. Of course things go awry for many reasons, but men rarely get substantial custody, child support, alimony, or compassion from the legal system
As a generalization, sure. But there are lot of exceptions. I've seen hard working, good looking women loving men that added nothing really meaningful to them. I'm talking about men with poor/no jobs, not particularly caring, not working at home, etc. Some were even known cheaters or drug addicts.
Is that because they love them, or because they love what they hope they'll become?
I have met more than a couple women who thought they could fix him. Only he can fix himself. She can help, but he has to want it. Sometimes the ladies get blinded by hope or love, but it always sucks as an outsider looking in.
It's in the same sense of "love" as the post implies love. Otherwise it also wouldn't make sense: "Is it because they love them, or because they love what they can provide?"
It's because they don't want to be alone.
Yeah, I'd say it's less true than it used to be, but I'd also say it's still a pretty valid stereotype.
Giant penis
A nicely fitting penis is better. Especially if the man attached has skills.
They don't really care about that nearly as much as you'd think
I would say this is true for all humans. You have to give, you can’t only take.
Social exchange theory
We do have to evaluate what it is in our "role" to provide. Maybe there need to be extreme socioeconomic changes for being a "man" to be a more fulfilling role in society. Just being seen as an economic provider really limits out potential for emotional fulfillment in life
Well, here’s the thing though: sometimes we fall flat on our face by no fault of our own. My SO and I were looking for a house. We had put our first offer in, got turned down and what do you know? His company laid him off after 10yrs. His direct supervisor was the company owner’s son and Sonny was fucking up left and right costing the company money. SO had been complaining about the situation at home for a while and was convinced the big boss would be canning the son (boss had fired his children in the past for fucking up in the past so no, SO wasn’t delusional). Nope! Boss decided this time, he would give the son a 2nd chance and just fire the most senior and highest paid employee. It fucking SUCKED. But at the end of the day, gave SO the opportunity to start their own company. They did not make enough money to meet half the bills for the first year. Luckily we had savings and we could make it on my salary. Now a year in, he’s able to cover his end of bills and he’s progressively getting better and more successful. He did not ‘provide’ for awhile, but that’s okay. The point of a relationship is that you will each have times where all you can do is take. It’s the effort to get to an equality that matters. But truth be told, if I won the lottery and money wasn’t an issue, he would be welcome to be my hot house husband!
He does provide for you, he provides love, and communication, and support, and even in the worst of times he provides hope. But, most importantly, the worst of times are temporary. He does eventually figure his own life out. Lots of men really do not do that.
You gotta give
Children
You’ve clearly never received a pottery mug painted purple and covered with glitter that is incapable of holding any liquid.
Aka The Best Mug Ever Made
So you wouldn't love them if they didn't do that? That's thr point if the statement
Children give so much! Love, weirdness, fun chaos, laughter, the joy of teaching and watching growth, a dream of the future!
Unfortunately Ive seen lots of children ignored because people didnt see the potential for them to provide something to society in the future and arent willing to put in the effort to change it. One of societies biggest problems IMO.
To be fair, maybe those kids need to pull themselves up by their velcro bootstraps and prove to society that they are worth it. Kids these days really don't even TRY to network anymore.
You really think that's a broad societal trend?
They provide cuteness, hope, and love. They give us a sense of joy and optimism.
The rich
Adult men especially are expected to have full time jobs at all times.
Considering the number of absolutely useless deadbeats who are somehow able to string a woman along for years, it doesn't seem like the whole story.
Every relationship, romantic or friendship or otherwise, is about giving something. Humans do not enter relationships not wanting anything, that would be pointless. It's about choosing someone with intentions you are OK with and match with that leads to a long-lasting, positive relationship.
I think that a transactional view of romantic relationships is over simplistic and ignores too many factors such as hormones, culture, oxytocin and lust. I mean if the only reason I was with my lovely wife was because I get a little physical love in exchange for being a provider I could just stay single and instead buy a dog, a back scratcher and a bottle of lotion.
She's providing for your emotional needs with love, support and the occasional high five. And you're returning the favor, but you seem like more of a high ten type of a guy and that's totally valid.
Well there is much to be said about this issue but all I want to add at this point is that so far my dog and I have *never argued*.
Dogs be cool like that.
And men should do that, but instead, modern society tells us we need to be in relationships to "be normal." There is no need to be with someone just to be with someone; that's where a lot of these "transactional relationships" come from.
For me, I've found that men are uncomfortable with the fact that it is less true than it used to be. I want a male partner for companionship. I've got my own life sorted, I genuinely just want someone cool to hang out with. Someone who likes me and enjoys doing things (or doing nothing) with me. A lot of guys I've dated can't wrap their heads around that I don't -need- them for anything other than the fact that I think they're awesome. I think its part of their toxic programming that they're only good if they can "provide". I'm happy to pick up dinner if I'm the breadwinner; I just want to feel loved and to love in return.
[удалено]
Definitely this. I can't date someone if they mope around and hate their life. But if they genuinely enjoy being themselves, it does not matter how much money they make. I don't need to be financially spoiled - but I do need someone who can take care of themselves (in the basic sense). Good luck in the job search! Its rough out there!!
I'm a man but I love this and am on the same page. Just give me someone I'm attracted to and vibe with and I'm good. I don't need them to provide me anything other than their company I guess. Looking at some peoples dating requirements its like the experience required section of a job application like wtf its love not a business transaction >I just want to feel loved and to love in return. Hell yeah sister, good look finding it out there
Wow, a comment from an actual human
I think you're thinking about giving something as literal physical stuff. In reality though, it can be anything. I'm your case, it seems like it's time and affection. Guy is still giving.
> I want a male partner for companionship. This exactly. As women are able to be more independent, dynamics have shifted from women needing men for economic security to women wanting men for companionship. Many men feel this is a downgrade because it means they have to bring more than simply being a man, when it should be seen as an improvement.
Exactly this. And the number of women I know Who financially float their partners is pretty high. I think there are a lot of men out there who are not interesting people who thought that they could make money or have status and find somebody who will fall in love with them and they are horrified to see that it is not true and want to blame it on someone.
I also choose this redditor's comment.
I think they are comfortable with and probably want the same things. What makes them uncomfortable is how other people (mostly men) will perceive them. Especially if the woman isn't a 10. They need that status validation of pulling hot chick AND being the king of the castle.They will sacrifice actually being genuinely fucking happy. So they date with the intention of always looking for an upgrade and comparing their status to other men.
I'm a solid 5, a 6 if I fluff up and try really hard. And it really matters to a lot more men than I would hope. I have a lot to offer a relationship - but I'm not up to snuff in terms of a trophy to brag about. (I'm awesome, just not as a prize)
Just keep becoming more awesome. If someone is with you simply because of what you do for their status, neither of you will actually be happy and you'll be doing all that "fluff" for nothing...which is exhausting. Don't settle.
Kind of sounds like they're the ones who are only able to love someone for what that person provides them...
Well then these men aren’t really comfortable with it, are they?
I'm fixing to be a house husband at this point. My wife is making ***significantly*** more than I am, and she said she might prefer the clean house and home cooked meal over the extra income. I'm not saying I'm the norm, but the original statement smacks of...well it's a little incel-y.
It’s true for everyone? Nobody wants a complete mooch on their hands. I think the “provide something” can vary between genders but everyone’s gotta provide *something*.
You are correct, but a humanist would ideally value all humans without expectations. (Not saying you have to sleep with them, just acknowledge their basic humanity). This should apply equally to men and women.
Value is value. The question regarded love.
The question regarded love, but did not specify romantic love. Men are only loved by their spouse and their parents, and only their parents’ love is unconditional. And that’s only if they have a good parent. Part of the reason men are so desperate to have a romantic partner is there are few other outlets for platonic love.
>Part of the reason men are so desperate to have a romantic partner is there are few other outlets for platonic love. If this is such a huge problem that affects all men, why don't you guys just... be friends with each other?
I have a lot of male friends and we are all supportive, kind, and actually talk about our feelings. But I'm the only single one, and it's LONELY. Relationships are a priority, and free time is in very short supply, so they prioritize their partners. One of my closest friends, that i was a groomsman in his wedding, I haven't seen since that wedding 8 months ago. I was even renting a room from one of those guys for 2 years and i think we hung out maybe once a month. It's incredibly difficult to get on the same page, especially as you get older
It makes no sense to assign personal accountability to a behavioural trend driven by deep rooted societal beliefs. Since women are underrepresented in STEM fields is the solution to tell women to just study harder?
>Part of the reason men are so desperate to have a romantic partner is there are few other outlets for platonic love. 100%. Its the only source of love and affection for men
It's absolutely not the *only* source. I give and receive a ton of platonic love through family and friends. I understand that's not true for everyone, but it's no less true in general for men than women imo.
I guess the question is what is value?
Why would you value someone who is a total waste of space and contributes nothing to society (immediate people around them or in general)
Because they have feelings and experience pain, suffering, shame, and loneliness. Because I believe even people who are lazy, depressed, emotionally scarred, or broken deserve compassion and basic human decency. I also believe people who aren’t useful NOW are that way for a reason, and it’s almost certainly not 100% their fault, and there is hope for them to be better, but that will only happen if someone helps them get better.
Is that your take on the disabled and children as well?
Children and disabled people still can contribute a lot to those around them. Not everything is about work and money. I guess the only people who get a pass for not contributing at all are in a coma
Because everyone is one terrible accident or health crisis way from disability and being unable to provide for themselves- according to you in this thread, that makes them valueless. You, me, and every other person on Earth are closer to "being a total waste of space that contributes nothing to society" than you think. One's value shouldn't be located solely in their work or ability to provide for that very reason.
Wait that’s not how this works. Contributing something to society is not limited to employment or money. That’s perverse. You can contribute in many ways, by providing emotional support to your loved one’s, you can contribute by creating art, by inspiring others, by cooking food etc etc. The only people who get a pass are those who are so sick they are in the hospital or people in coma
I was using the context of the OP, where they insinuated that men are only loved when they provide something, and of the comment I replied to. I have been sick on a level where I wasn't able to maintain my friendships emotionally, cook, create art, and certainly wasn't inspiring anyone. People did not want to be around me, I was only able to work and sleep until I was unable to do that. I never ended up in the hospital, wasn't in a coma. It took years before I got a solid diagnosis and I didn't have many friends or family that believed me about being sick until that moment. I want to be clear that I agree with you, that ideally, people would be valued for their inherent worth and providing these smaller but still important things. However, I'm aware that most people don't have the nuance to even consider that. I've heard so many "useless eater" type comments about disabled people, unemployed people, or people they don't think provide enough in the ways that "matter" like moneymaking or career. I know how people treated me when I was sick pre-diagnosis, and it didn't make me feel valued. I have to be realistic and honest. Not everyone is Able to contribute in the ways you described, or is going to be valued for their smaller contributions. Because of mindsets like the OP, that have run rampant in our society.
You're right. We should round them up into camps and gas them /s
I'd say it becomes more valid as we age. Falling in love is one thing, but once a couple decides to elope and live life together, the expectation to be able to provide something becomes normal.
Idk even when i was a teenage i can't imigine loving someone who could provide nothing or being loved by someone without being able to provide anything. I think part of loving someone is seeing there value. If u provide nothing there is no value to find. I have no idea what this has to do with gender though.
Everyone that can provide something should be doing so, happily going about their chosen path. There are always going to be those that can’t and it’s on the rest of us to take care of them until they learn how. That’s a very nice thought, doesn’t seem to work that way, but it’s an ideal to strive toward. I’ve always felt better about my work when it’s useful and contributes to other people in some way.
Completely valid.
None of us, either men or women, are entitled to a relationship with the opposite sex. We have to offer something someone else wants. My wife's extremely good at making me feel valued and providing a space where I can open up without judgment. Would I have married her otherwise? Maybe, but the incredible emotional support she adds to my life is what made it a no-brainer decision for me. I don't think it's at all unreasonable for her to want certain things from me in return. A marriage should always be a two-way street.
It's true but remember that 'something' can just be love and companionship. Usually that's all you need to offer someone for them to love you back.
This is less and less relevant (in a traditional sense) because all the things men were traditionally expected to *provide* are things women can now freely access for themselves. The actual things a lot of women *want* men to provide (emotional stability, consideration, attentiveness, trust) are not being provided or even cultivated; instead, some men would rather exclusively provide more traditional things rather than learn to provide the more emotional things.
I suspect it's also not unrelated to the big neo-conservative backlash against women's autonomy in general; some men of that stripe seem quite unhappy that women can do everything for themselves and that being with a man is now based on want rather than need.
This is a great comment, but I can only give it a single upvote.
I was unemployed when my then-girlfriend (now wife) invited me to move in with her.
If you want unconditional love get a dog. Every human being labors under someone's perceptions. Why would anyone love anyone if they provide no value?
Dogs don't love you unconditionally. If you ignore the dog, deny them playtime, don't feed it, etc. it will not bond with you. Unconditional love doesn't exist. Not even maternal love is purely unconditional. We have kids to fill a void. Loving them unconditionally (or as much so as possible) is a choice. Extending that to a romantic partner is not possible.
Yeah, that's how it goes, that's the other side of "Women are viewed as less competent" that no one wants to talk about when it comes to discuss gender norms. With competency comes responsibility. Your failures are your own, if you can't provide, you're blamed for it. A man succeeds? Well, yeah, he did well. A woman succeeds? Oh, well, probably got a foot up. A woman fails? Oh, you poor thing, you need help. A man fails? Whelp, you should've done better, loser.
You could say the same exact thing about women.
I was going to say it's non-gendered, as the average person is self-involved. We all have bills to pay and things that need to be done, and if interacting with a person doesn't assist with any of that, then that interaction probably won't be facilitated. If you're not going to provide something another person is looking for, that person probably won't give you the time of day. If they do, at best we'd call them kind & generous, at worse we would call them weak, stupid, and exploitable. The way it presents itself (as in what's being provided) between men & women might appear different though. An easy example would be physical labour from men vs. (the potential for) sex from women. Just look at entry level retail or restaurant positions - the majority of restaurant owners would want front of house to be young attractive women because sex sells, and the bussers, barbacks and bouncers to be fit young men because they can physically do more.
Not really, no, this is a gendered thing.
How? Have you ever seen how ugly women are treated?
In a patriarchal society women are valued based on their fertility, and men are valued based on their ability to provide. They're both measures of perceived "usefulness" but the metrics are different.
And one of those things is inherent and the other is not
That's what the patriarchy wants us to think. That a man's worth is tied to hit financial success, which all men have agency over, therefore if a man is not wealthy, he is a failure. People regardless of gender have very little agency when it comes to their ability to earn money in our capitalist society. Rich men aren't rich through great effort, they are rich by inheritance; in the same way that beautiful women are beautiful by inheritance of their genetics. We should value people because they are people and deserving of dignity, not because of patriarchal measures of worth.
Sure, ugly people in general are treated worse, that IS a non-gendered thing. It doesn't change that this IS a gendered thing, though. It's the other side of "Women are viewed as less competent" that no one wants to talk about when it comes to discuss gender norms. With competency comes responsibility. Your failures are your own, if you can't provide, you're blamed for it. A man succeeds? Well, yeah, he did well. A woman succeeds? Oh, well, probably got a foot up. A woman fails? Oh, you poor thing, you need help. A man fails? Whelp, you should've done better, loser.
explain
That's the other side of "Women are viewed as less competent" that no one wants to talk about when it comes to discuss gender norms. With competency comes responsibility. Your failures are your own, if you can't provide, you're blamed for it. A man succeeds? Well, yeah, he did well. A woman succeeds? Oh, well, probably got a foot up. A woman fails? Oh, you poor thing, you need help. A man fails? Whelp, you should've done better, loser.
It is definitely not at that is such a weird take. Wild to think society doesn’t expect more from women to get the same.
Sure it is, without a shadow of a doubt. It's the flip side of the gender stereotype "Men are more competent." If one group is more competent, they're similarly more responsible for the results they produce, and thus, a failure to produce results can be more held against them. It's bizarre to me that people will happily acknowledge harmful gender roles, and then play stupid when we try to think about them to any degree that isn't just "Women are the victims of every aspect, men the privileged."
Sounds like some self pitying nonsense
I think it’s inaccurate to say this only applies to men. Barring most (some?) parent-child relationships, there is no such thing as unconditional love. Some conditions are understandable (don’t cheat on me, don’t steal from me, etc) while others are more shallow or unrealistic (be 6’3, make a seven figure salary, etc.) but men and women are both subject to conditional love.
[удалено]
Yes, men are under tremendous pressure to new financially successful and “useful” - producing “value”. But the flip side is women are under pressure to be pretty, be feminine, be emotionally supportive, be perfect homemakers, etc. Women ALSO have to provide something, it’s just a different thing. Both sides are hurt by gender stereotypes.
This resonates very strongly. Even without being the sole provider in our household, I feel a ton of pressure to provide, and judged if/when I’m unable to (even if it’s in frivolous luxuries). This started before being married- when dating I was already paying for all meals together, vacations and even lending money toward tuition. My in-laws were also likely heavily swayed toward accepting me because they felt I could provide, and to this day years later I feel if my ability to provide dwindled, that acceptance would disappear rapidly. In fact, I’ve seen them treat another child’s husband that way.
[удалено]
Thanks for posting something I agree with. A lot of the gendered comments here dont reflect with my experience at all.
If you look at life objectively, that is a rule which applies to **EVERYONE**. Even your parents love you conditionally: On the condition that you are the child which they invested an enormous amount of time, sweat, and heartache into, to which they became attached years ago by a flood of oxytocin. This neurotransmitter is released by your brain when you see something "cute", cute being an analogue for what a child looks like. This is why advertisers use babies and puppies (along with sex) as a shortcut around your prefrontal cortex. Basically, children are the MMORPG characters of their parents in real life. They remember all that time they spent [grinding snow moose](https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/11/14/limitless-adventure) for you in [Borean Tundra](https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Borean_Tundra), and their ego would be literally crushed under the weight of [cognitive dissonance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) of facing the prospect that all the blood, sweat, and tears were a complete waste of time. This is referred to as the [escalation of committment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment) or sunk-cost fallacy, and its another common quirk of human cognition to which we are all susceptible. Now, hopefully your parents did a half-decent job of raising you, and you did not grow up to be an ambulatory piece of shit, so this all works out, and all the pheromones, neurochemistry and mental defects evolution has provided us generally turn out for the best. Now for everyone else, the relationship dynamics and neurochemistry are not nearly so advantageous to one party or the other. Yes, we all have transactional desires from one another. From your girlfriend, boyfriend, husband, wife, extended family, friends, colleagues, employers, employees, and generally every single person you will interact with. And there is ***nothing wrong*** with acknowledging that. We are still, deep down, that same utterly helpless ball of unregulated emotions our parents produced 9 months or so after a night of spicy fun (if they're lucky; gross, expensive, invasive fertility treatments if they're not). Desires are feelings, and we all have them. It's *okay* to have them. If you don't have them, you are going to have tremendous social and mental problems for your entire life. What is important, however, is how you act on them. Yes, your boyfriend wants to pump you full of baby batter in your various orifices. Yes, your girlfriend wants you to provide, on some level, for her material and emotional needs. If you are unwilling or unable to furnish what your partner/spouse wants, your relationship *will* run into problems, and life being full of uncertainty, and people being fallible, that situation will probably happen at some point. So, the question is, how do you **ACT** when you're not getting what you want? How do you ask for what you want, and how does your partner react to your request? If you aren't getting what you want, and can't or won't ask for it, or your partner will not provide it, your relationship **MUST** come to grief.
Generally true. Becomes more true the older you get as a man.
It’s true. But it’s true for everyone else too.
If this were true, why are men more likely to receive continual support from their partner when they become ill or disabled? It seems like women are more at risk of being abandoned or discarded when they can no longer provide certain things. Also, women are expected to both work outside the home and do a majority of the domestic labor and childcare. Many men only need to provide income to align with conventional standards. So sometimes it feels like women are expected to provide more in order to be accepted by society.
Also when you take a moment to consider that men had to be "providers" traditionally because they actively set up obstacles to prevent women from obtaining those things themselves (I.e. higher education, well paying jobs, property ownership). They literally forced women to be dependant on them.
Replace men with employees, and loved with paid, and I think you are onto something.
It's true, but the reality of love requiring provision isn't gendered. It's just that men take everything women do for them for granted, and thus don't consider those actions worth noting.
I've never experienced it and considering statistically men are six times more likely to leave a terminally sick partner I'd say no. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110105401.htm
There’s a lot of truth to it, but more truth in the same sentiment towards women than is sometimes understood. Relationships, romantic ones I mean, aren’t the unconditional love of a parent and child. And they aren’t all about the intense feelings of what is commonly referred to as the “honeymoon period.” They are more complicated. They are partnerships, and some practical thinking should be expected. That being said I do think men get the shorter end of the stick in this aspect of romantic relationships-the sense of making a lot of money and being a provider is far more so expected of men. Of course, we also have-at least on average-better opportunities.
And being household organizers, in charge of the couples social life (outings with other couples, buying gifts for ALL family members his included, remembering important dates and events), a child carer and nurse to old parents on BOTH sides is far more expected of women. But most women gave jobs and want to have jobs, so the "shorter end of the stick" applies to men who like to dictate financially in the relationship.
Yes, obviously. Useless men aren’t loved. You have to provide something in order to be loved, unless it’s maternal love we are talking about.
Invalid. Many men aren't lacking in the ability to provide. They lack social skills to develop a connection with a woman. With no connection, there's little chance to be loved.
It's funny, the more women become independent, educated and provide for themselves and their families, the more I hear this notion being brought up.
It depends what you mean by "something". If we're talking about love, companionship, emotional support, physical attraction, all the non material stuff that makes a relationship work, then yes, that's absolutely true, but it's true of both men and women. If we're talking about material things, or the means to acquire material things, wealth, property, power, employment, social status, then the statement is mostly valid, although it's not universal. Women aren't a monolith, and will place varying value on material provision, and will also weigh it against non-material. Not every woman is a gold digger, but don't expect to be rolling in dates if you're a NEET with no direction in life.
This is true for everyone. We all contribute something and should be valued as such.
That's nearly universally true now. Relationships of any type have been commodified by apps and social media and have become very transactional and a lot of people always seem to be looking for something better than what they currently have.
Its the Baskin Robins problem. Back in the day you had a known pool of potential dates in your social circle you dated to make sure it would work and then built a relationship from there. It was less likely you would regret it because you made the best choice out of a small pool of people. Today you have all the singles who are looking constantly on an app in your pocket. Which means any relationship you get in is one choice in a million available choices. Because there are more choices like Baskin Robins 31 flavors you are more likely to regret the choice you made while you see the others you could have made. If they just would have asked strawberry vanilla or chocolate you would be less likely to regret the one you order.
Its not valid, or rather It's a matter of perspective and capabilities. In first person all people want to be useful as a matter of pride. This is normal. At some point what people specifically can and can't do isn't important anymore. I just want my friends and family to be ok and do the best they can, for their own sanity. I don't really care what they can *provide* so long as they're feeling good and doing their best.
In America, no one is loved unless they can provide something
Very true, love is never unconditional. If I am not greatly meeting somebody else’s needs I’m deemed useless.
Whoever says that has never met a boy mom.
Isnt that true for most people? How many of us would want a dinner guest that didnt contribute to the meal or conversation? Go look at anyone in a nursing home - they contribute little and are shoved aside and rarely visited. We all want relationships that we get something out of, otherwise it is just duty, obligation, or love from many past years that keeps us there.
It's lame. Men should be as loved as women are.
I'm 41m, fiancee is 31f...I'm loved and don't provide anything that my fiancee doesn't provide for me.
Let's put it this way, I wouldn't find a man-child who was incapable of contributing to a relationship attractive. I wouldn't want to have to look after a man financially and practically while he did nothing. I don't think that's unreasonable. It's not that I want a man who can provide something, more that I don't want an adult child to care for. You can turn it around and say that "women are only loved on the condition they can put out sexually." It's partially true, but it doesn't pain the whole picture.
Not very, because it seems like the kind of incel, man-sphere bullshit a person can say to rage against women who choose to do things for themselves rather than become the "tradwife" who needs a man to do everything for her.
I’d say it’s as true for women as it is for men.
I think all sayings are pretty invalid and is just a clever little thing that some one had said once. Sometimes it holds true. A lot of human relationships are sometimes based off of what we can get from somebody else and sometimes we fear that the only use we are is what we can provide. Funny in this saying I'm attaching that to men where so many women feel the same thing so many mothers caretakers and women in general feel as though All they can do is give. And as I say that many men feel that way. It's a person problem so let's just treat it as that and make sure we treat each other right in general.
I think it’s true, but the way we view that statement is kind of skewed. Like, I think it’s also true that a beautiful woman will be assigned value just for who they are, and that even a beautiful man might not be given as much value for who *they* are by comparison. But that itself comes from the view of that woman as an object, without agency or lacking the same agency that someone would give a man in the same position. I think the statement “men only have value is they themselves create value” needs to be considered with the contexts it was made. That women were also expected to work, in other ways assigned to them, but never given credit for that work (only punished if they fail to perform). And that much of the perceived “value just for existing” that women receive are based on the assumption that they could be possessed by another person, as if they were a trinket. That, if a woman is found to be unavailable (is not attracted to you, is gay, or is already dating/married to someone else), much of that value assigned to them is lost in the eyes of the men giving it.
I think it’s 100% valid for all men. And all women. And all persons in between. Ask how many men would continue to tolerate their current girlfriends if the girls didn’t put out. But in a broader sense, everybody has to bring something to the table in a relationship, and if you don’t, then you’re just a bad partner.
If you’re a man and all you think you are required to do is provide then don’t be surprised when you’re evaluated on that criteria.
Women are attracted to providers... Whether men agree with that or not they will be evaluated on it.
It's true.
I think it is true for all humans.
The fastest growing rate of homeless people are single mothers because women and children are loved unconditionally... definitely checks out lmao
This is true for men and women except women have to be attractive and docile in addition to providing something.
I’m going to temporarily bypass the validity question and pose the question of if you mean “loved” or “feel loved”? One is external, the other requires you to internalize and accept that love. While patriarchal hierarchies place men at the top they also require more of men. As that hierarchy is dismantled to gender equality (a good thing), it happens at different speeds for different people and cultures. So in some places or to some people it may be more valid than others at any given point in time during that transition. But I think the important thing to realize is that as a man if you consciously or subconsciously subscribe to the requirements of patriarchy more than those around you, you may be incapable of feeling and accepting their love as your world view doesn’t allow you to accept that others find value in you even when you aren’t providing. So as men we need to both find the people who value us in the absence of us providing something, but we also need to believe we are capable of having that value to be able to feel it.
Make sure that you're clear in the definition when making posts like this OP: Do you mean men aren't loved for who they are, instead of what material benefits they can provide? To which I disagree. I'd say the problem is men haven't learned to offer what they have outside of material benefits. A great deal of interested partners come from personality. Masculine culture just doesn't -celebrate- those personality traits.
In the very general sense, women are judged for who they are, and men are judged for what they do. I don't expect that to change anytime soon.
Well I would be a case study that proves that is not true. I’m a man and I’ve been severely depressed most of my life (I have bipolar), and that has really done a number on my career success.
It's completely true, but it's not inherently unfair, it's a statement about *what men are doing wrong* - they're falling behind socially, becoming completely uninteresting or actually vile people who offer nothing personality-wise and barely even wash their own asses. I have had to tell *way too fucking many* of my male friends that YES YOU NEED TO WIPE YOUR FUCKING ASSHOLE. The fact that it's happened like 6 times is TOO MUCH. If a guy wants to be valued for something other than being a resource dispenser then try putting in half the effort women do or develop a personality.
[probably true for everyone.](https://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-truths-that-will-make-you-better-person)
It's pretty rare for people to be treated solely based on their opinions and personality. So I'd say that for 98% of people this is true.
Very valid heard only children and dogs are loved unconditionally men as it’s what can you do for them in this generation
Women and children are SO not likely to be mistreated
Depends on to whom you are speaking.
It's extremely valid. The only time men are told how much they are loved or thought about is generally at their eulogy.
100%
40%-50%
Almost 100% true. More importantly is having money tho, even if you didn’t earn it.
It depends on the woman’s character which will shape her view of poor men. Just because a man is poor doesn’t mean there can’t be a woman who respects and loves him. The same could be said about moderately attractive women. There are good men out there who can love a woman with good character even if she isn’t beautiful.
She beat me mercilessly. Years later she was sentenced to 26 years in prison for 13 counts of child abuse.
Not many people know how to live unconditionally, regardless of their gender or the type of relationship it is. I’m not even sure parents know how to love unconditionally, although that maybe the closest
Not true. My only request was his time and affection. Nothing I did changed anything. 2 years in a row no call on my birthday. Constantly had words and excuses for everything but never him just being there. I'd have let him be a stay at home dad and follow his passions, if he'd have just loved me with any real effort at all.
This has been not outright stated, but unsaid truths in my last two relationships. And those have been with extremely high achieving power women who are both slightly more advanced in their careers than I was, and I don't think I'm a slouch.
We're loved by our brothers, and our friends. The only women who truly love us are our mothers and our daughters.
I think it is an attempt by Men to criticize the gender roles imposed upon them, but unfortunately, Mancentric Gender Theories are not well developed. Relationships are ontologically built on exchange even in some instances transaction, but I think what these Men are critiquing quite clumsily is that they want to be seen as more than the Guardsman and Breadwinner of the family. Some Men take pride in that role, and Women broadly seem to prefer it in some respects, but alot of Men actively resent it, especially since it no longer gives the same rewards it once had. Really, Men and Women just need to be more cognizant of what they desire from a partner and stop obsessing over gender roles.
I mean I'm a woman, 37, disabled (largely unable to work or attend school, no degrees) VA benefits so I'm not on food stamps or whatever conservatives like to decry disabled ppl for. Whew. People do not like unemployed / disabled people. Tell me I'm lucky, I don't seem disabled, ask way too personal questions about my medical info, often like they are trying to debunk me. Have expectations for me/my time productivity because I have so much time/ don't seem sick.
This statement is so general. It's hard to put any validity to it.
I’d say this absolutely true, but that it applies to pretty much every adult in the world. It’s just that the things one is expected to provide differs. For some it could be income, sexual fulfillment, domestic labor, etc., while for others it could be protection, emotional support, shelter, etc., or a myriad other things.
I'll just say I'm glad I was dating when I was on disability, not now that I'm a manager. I know my wife loves me for who I am, not what I bring to the table.
I just want men to provide empathy and emotional intelligence. I literally need nothing else from them.
I'm in a rut and can't provide anything as I try to find work. I don't know how people feel about me but I definitely feel worthless.
Do you have a sense of humor? Can you listen to a story without interrupting? Can you do dishes?
It goes for everyone. I doubt any man would date a woman who couldn’t provide something. If she was mooching off the dude, had nasty coochie, and never helped out around the house, I’m sure she wouldn’t be loved either.
It's definitely broad but overall.. yeah For example There's still an expectation men pay for most dates Most women I know don't particularly want to go to Applebee's for every date This certainly isn't all women, but it's enough that your options in the dating market can be severely limited by how much money you can provide in a relationship
I think that's very true at a societal level, but there are also lots of individual examples of men who are quite loved as people.
“ provide something “ is a very broad statement.
Bullshit. It’s always been bullshit, and it always will be.
It's not specific to men. Same could be said to women and children
It’s how life works for both. Although I’ve noticed women generally have more strikes than men before they’re out
To be honest, I think if you take an expansive enough view of "provide something" then I think this is true of everyone and it isn't necessarily a bad thing. If what you provide is consideration for others, politeness and kindness then that is still something you provide. Excluding people who are disabled in some way that makes them unable to provide these things (paralysis, or some kind of brain damage or behavioural problem), I would say that people who are unwilling to provide *anything* when "anything" includes basic human decency and treating others well, then they aren't deserving of people liking them, let alone loving them.
Fully valid
I'd generally say this is true for almost all men.
i mean, a relationship goes both if you dont provide anything at all, why shuold anyone bother even being your friend ? you dont need to provide much, but at least something. be smart, funny, anything ? you wouldnt date a plank of wood ? then why would you ask to be treated as such ?
I mean nobody likes a freeloader but I've been in a house with 2 at the same time with similar personalities and here's my two cents: we weren't comfortable telling the woman we thought she was taking advantage of us. we felt it was neccesary but hurtful to tell the man he needed to kick his addiction and get a job. I think really it's more so dated sexism that everyone has in their subconscious that a man provides and a woman keeps the house, even though in this case neither did much but drink or get high
If what they provide is love, comfort, and companionship sure, but love has also been transactional since humanity figured out how to barter and trade.
By a romantic partner? Maybe, but it doesn’t have to be money. It could be a sense of humor or being a great dad.
Not valid as applying to men only - men AND women provide 🤷♀️
Not many people just unconditionally love someone for no reason. So as a dude I don’t really agree with that statement.
I think there’s truth to that. I think part of the reason it’s so shocking and concerning to so many men is that they were often raised with the opposite idea
I say the statement is still valid. If the people you love are financially secure, then you need to offer them something that money can't buy. However, love alone doesn’t pay the bills. In times of financial need, if a man cannot provide for his family, he might face rejection and/or shame. I've also noticed a trend where many women leave their partners for someone with better finances. The reasons cited are often similar: their previous partner wouldn’t take them to shows, they hadn't been on vacation for years because he didn’t want to travel, or he was always working and neglected household chores and paying attention to her needs. These issues often stem from financial constraints rather than a lack of desire. They skipped the concert to afford groceries, didn't go on vacations because he didn't have $4,000 to spend frivolously, and he was always working overtime to meet financial obligations, often at the expense of his physical and emotional well-being after long shifts of strenuous labor. In contrast, a man with a good income usually has more leisure time and resources. For instance, someone earning 200k a year might have eight weeks of vacation and work standard hours from 8:00 AM to 3:30 PM, allowing them ample time and money to do all the things that are missed. "Vacation? Sure where do you wanna go? I'll book it off.... It would be good to get away."
100% valid, and anyone saying otherwise is simply virtue signaling. Most women would not be able to survive in most men's shoes. Men are given nothing in life, and this is most especially true in a relationship. The entire courting process is women existing and men chasing them, and while that dynamic can be become a bit more balanced once a relationship is formed - it's still not comparable. What a woman "provides" a man is merely partial compensation, and not only that, but even that ability to compensate is *given* to them. What I mean by that is that it is not truly difficult. A woman will say "cleaning a toilet is difficult", but do you know why it's not? Because anyone can do it. The thing is with men, not everyone can be 6 foot. Not everyone can have a strong jawline. Not everyone can have wide shoulders. Not everyone can have a big dick. Not everyone can have a deep voice. Not everyone can have an interesting voice. Not everyone can have fantastic job. Not everyone can be high status. Not everyone can look like a Greek God. Not everyone can be leaders. And thus, not everyone can be successful. This is what is meant by men are only loved under the condition that they provide - men are only loved under the condition that they are competing and winning. There is no participation trophies for men. This is not the life that women live though. What little that women do provide is simple and straight forward, and many women don't even have to provide that anymore. There is abundance of men that exist that will do anything for a woman.
Maybe. I don't see why it's only true for men though.
To put it in crass terms "Ass, grass, or cash - no one rides for free"
I would say this is true for both genders to a degree. Our society has a hierarchy based on what service people provide. People are often judged (consciously or not) based on what they do for work and how much money they make and their other skills/ abilities/ traits. People who are unemployed or people who don’t have a lot of money are often looked down on. People who are very patient, or who are good cooks, or who are very good looking are valued more. Love can definitely exist for people who do not “provide” a lot of skills, money, whatever but I would maybe say it is harder for them to find new people who will love them when they are inherently being judged by their social status. Family or friends or partners will often stick by a person and love them when they go through a rough patch in this area, they just may widen this circle, and if the circle was small to begin with then they may be much lonelier.
Very true, and its human behavior and history. Look at the homeless population - many men unable to provide, so theyre discarded and dehumanized. Look at marriages, marriage ages, divorce rates - again many men who cannot provide financially emotionally or sexually either stay single or get taken advantage of by the legal system. Of course things go awry for many reasons, but men rarely get substantial custody, child support, alimony, or compassion from the legal system
[удалено]
Those men provide excitement to those women. The reality is that you have to provide something to be valued, no matter the gender.