Some women say, "I don't need a man." Are they right?

[AgnosticBoy]

Checking on Youtube for talks on relationship, I found this interesting take from Jedediah Bila (it's probably less than 2 minutes long):

Her view is that women do need a man. Some of the important parts of her view is that women who say they don't need a man have reduced men to being a "wallet". She then goes on to explain reasons that women need men for beyond financial support, like needing men to reproduce and father the kids, for emotional support, for safety or protection, etc.

I tried to look for the full version of the video but couldn't find it. Maybe she made it as just a short and never did a full episode? The closest I found was this one. She has a different color top on so that's why I don't think it's the same video, although she makes the same case as the above point but from different angles.

For Debate:
1. What do women mean when they say they don't need a man? Is this just an expression of being independent (whereas historically, they needed to be dependent on men to be a provider and protector.)

2. Is Jedediah Bila's view correct, that women need men?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Here's one convo between a group of women, where one woman says that women need men because they control a lot of the infrastructure and mechanical stuff (e..g. fixing cars) while another woman says they don't need men for personal relations.

All of this got me questioning what does science has to say about any of this. I found one article that sheds light on the topic of if the field of engineering are dominated by men because of discrimination/ and social conditioning or is it because of biology? Even in a highly egalitarian society, would woman even be as interested in engineering as men are? Fortunately, I found one good comprehensive article that covers that. It is very long so I'll post some highlights as I read and reflect on it. For now here is one part that interests me:

Finally, the strong emphasis on increasing the numbers of women in male-dominated fields is arguably somewhat sexist. As Susan Pinker (2008) argues, it tacitly assumes that women do not know what they want, or that they want the wrong things and thus that wiser third-parties need to ‘fix’ their existing preferences. It also tacitly assumes that the areas where men dominate are superior. The psychologist Denise Cummins (2015) put the point well when she observed that, ‘The hidden assumption underlying the push to eliminate gender gaps in traditionally male-dominated fields is that such fields are intrinsically more important and more valuable to society than fields that traditionally attract more women.’ Given that traditionally female-dominated fields include education, healthcare and social work, this assumption is not only sexist; it is also clearly false.

In summary, any exhaustive discussion of the relative dearth of women in certain STEM fields must take into account the burgeoning science of human sex differences. If we assume that men and women are psychologically indistinguishable, then any disparities between the sexes in STEM will be seen as evidence of discrimination, leading to the perception that STEM is highly discriminatory. Similarly, if we assume that such psychological sex differences as we find are due largely or solely to non-biological causes, then any STEM gender disparities will be seen as evidence of arbitrary and sexist cultural conditioning. In both cases, though, the assumptions are almost certainly false. A large body of research points to the following conclusions:
1.
that men and women differ, on average, in their occupational preferences, aptitudes and levels of within-sex variability;
2.
that these differences are not due solely to sociocultural causes but have a substantial inherited component as well; and

Having looked at how our analysis of STEM gender gaps might inform the conversation about policy options, we should step back and ask another, more fundamental question: what should the ultimate goal of these policies be? Should we strive for a 50:50 sex ratio in every area where men currently dominate? Or should we strive instead simply to eliminate bias and equalize people’s opportunities, then let the cards fall where they may?14
If men and women were identical in their aspirations and aptitudes, these would quite possibly amount to the same thing: levelling the playing field would automatically result in a 50:50 sex ratio, or something close to it. However, given that men and women are not identical in their aspirations and aptitudes, we have no reason to expect gender parity, even under conditions of perfect fairness. On the contrary, the natural expectation would be that men and women would not be at parity, but rather that men would be more common in some fields, and women in others, as a result of their freely made choices.

All quotes are from the following study:
Stewart-Williams, S., & Halsey, L. G. (2021). Men, women and STEM: Why the differences and what should be done? European Journal of Personality, 35(1), 3–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890207020962326

 

[TracyRN]

1. What do women mean when they say they don't need a man?

That

Is this just an expression of being independent (whereas historically, they needed to be dependent on men to be a provider and protector.)

2. Is Jedediah Bila's view correct, that women need men?

Women can go to a clinic to get pregnant, but why would they? Women can raise their own kids, but why would they?

I remember reading a New York Times article that gave reasons why women don't need men. I thought it was satire and funny at the same time until I realized that there were women out there that would buy into it. In this world we all need each other. Modern women are making it harder on themselves by being too independent. My relationship with my husband is complimentary. We both complete each other. I believe that is the way God made us.

 

[TracyRN]

What do women mean when they say they don't need a man?

Because they need to marry up. If he is not there yet then choose a man that is going somewhere at the least.

 

[ewomack]

As pressure for individualism and "meeting one's own needs," becomes stronger and stronger, relationships become more difficult. The calculus seems to have become "what can I get out of this other person?" rather than "do I like this person?" Dates become more and more like job interviews, scanning for possibilities, "what will I get out of this," etc. I think it can be true for both women and men equally. We seem to think that we need each other less and less as the 21st century progresses. But the question seems to be "do women need men?" That's hard to say. Some do, some don't. That's a question that will vary greatly person to person.

Edit: this thread showed up on the sidebar and I didn't realize that it was almost 3 years old.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Edit: this thread showed up on the sidebar and I didn't realize that it was almost 3 years old.

The first post here is from December 2022.

The calculus seems to have become "what can I get out of this other person?" rather than "do I like this person?"

Yes, very true! There is that practical part to relationships regarding doing things for each other but it should not be all about that. I believe love/romance should play the biggest role.

 

[ewomack]

The first post here is from December 2022.

Whoops! I was looking at the wrong date. Never mind! My mind thought I was on another forum where the post date is directly to the left.