There seems to be a growing sentiment among many of today’s men and women that, romantically speaking, we no longer need one another.
Ding, ding, ding! In one corner: The “I-am-woman-hear-me-roar” variety, the kind who touts female independence above all else and trots out anti-male books and articles with titles like “Are Men Necessary?” and “The End of Men.” In the other corner: The “fed-up man,” the kind who feels dicked over (no pun intended) by what he feels is an increasingly misandrist society, so much so that he decides to forgo the “trappings of male servility” altogether for a life of blissful bachelordom. Fueled by past and present societal resentments, the boxers defensively yet defiantly retreat to their respective corners.
I’ve seen evidence of the latter mentality on various Web sites, in which men write about their frustrations and anger. Despite the feeling that they’re being castrated, they’re, well … pissed off. They argue: I don’t need a woman in my life. Why would I subject myself to an unjust court system and a nagging wife who professes to not even need me, when I can be perfectly happy having no-strings-attached sex and eating my Wheaties in peace?
I’ve also seen the former attitude proudly on display at a “Battle of the Sexes” event, hosted by Steve Santagati, author of the bestselling book “The Manual.” The premise: three men on one side; three women on the other; Santagati in the middle moderating. At one point during the debate, one of the female panelists shouted: “This is what you guys don’t get. We can take care of ourselves. We don’t neeeeed you in our lives. We want you in our lives.”
Is it so awful nowadays to admit that we need—not just want—one another? I used to think so. For years, I bought into the aforementioned female panelist’s mentality but perhaps not for reasons in which I firmly believed.
A few years ago, when I was around 30, during a summer jaunt to Nantucket, I met a guy out at a bar. We hit it off and decided to take a stroll together around the cobble-stoned streets. Eventually, and I don’t know how we stumbled onto the subject, we began to discuss dating and gender relations. I can’t remember exactly what it was I said that prompted his response but it was a response I’ll never forget: “Oh no, here we go again. We get it: You’re independent and self-sufficient and you don’t need us.”
That moment has always stayed with me. I was surprised. All that time, I thought men wanted a woman who proudly admitted her independence and self-sufficiency, a woman who could rely totally on herself for everything. Don’t get me wrong, I was (and am) proud of being an independent, educated woman, but it dawned on me at that moment that while men surely appreciate women who have these qualities, they also want women who need them and openly rejoice in that sentiment.
Women, too, need men, and we want men to need us.
Of course, I’m not talking about needing one another in obsessive, insecure ways, but I am saying that it should be socially acceptable for men and women to admit to ourselves and those around us that we need one another. Maybe it’s not in the same way we needed each other 60 years ago—women can change their own tires and make their own money; men can cook and clean for themselves. But we still and will always need each other for companionship, emotional support, intimacy, to feel special and valued and cared for and safe, to be inspired. We don’t just want those things. We, as human beings, need those things.
I am reminded of a scene from the inimitable movie “Say Anything,” in which a distraught Diane Court (played by a wonderful Ione Skye) seeks solace in the arms of her ex, Lloyd Dobler (an unforgettable John Cusack character). Diane has just been betrayed by her father, whom she adores, so she rushes to the only other man in her life for support. “I need you,” she implores. Hesitant, Lloyd asks, “Are you here because you need someone, or you need me?” only to follow up his question (he knows the answer) with, “Forget it. I don’t care.” Diane doesn’t want Lloyd. She needs him. And he needs her.
The bottom line is this: We should celebrate that we need each other and say and do everything we can to convince one another to take off the gloves.
—Photo: Gustty/Flickr
About Neely Steinberg
I’m still left with a hypothetical question: if men and women really didn’t need each other, would that really be so bad?
There are all sorts of wonderful parts of life that are completely unnecessary. No one really needs bacon or chocolate frosting, but I for one am glad that they are part of my life.
im pretty sure the costs of chocolate and bacon aren’t quite the same as what happens when a relationship goes sour for one reason or another.
Depends on the amount, I suppose. After a few decades of a love affair with chocolate and bacon, I am afraid to find out what my cholesterol level is now, and I have chosen to ignore my family’s history of diabetes. Perhaps a bad relationship is a faster-acting poison….
My main point is that I don’t see why “not being needed” would really be a big problem. Very few of us really live a life in which we only have what we need and nothing else. I’m okay with the idea that men are no longer necessary, whatever the hell that means anyway. When have we ever dispensed with everything that’s not necessary?
Another lovely point.
I do have a problem with it being termed “men” aren’t needed, leaving an implication that men are the disposable ones, that have become nothing more than a recreational commodity. Men have enough issues relating to that male disposability as it is without reinforcing it further. If you want to say meaningful relationships aren’t needed, or romantic relationships, that’s fine. To each their own. I bring this up because, even though you don’t even know what it means to say “men are no longer necessary”, you seem perfectly fine in accepting it. And that’s not a good place for men, IMHO.
Imagine if someone said they were okay with the idea that (insert minority group) are no longer necessary.
Imagine the shitstorm, the outrage and indignation. No one would dare say there was anything “lovely” about it.
I believe they do and I like the article. Couples are a wonderful thing with strengths to weather the storms of like together.
Very good!
I pretty much agree with your stance.
Need and being needed are part of basic human features. Denying it is just foolish.
Yes, we can shield us from pain and need… but that would make life much more boring and uninteresting.
Better enjoy the ride, while it lasts.
So now, in her earlt 30′s, the author suddenly decides” hey, maybe I do need a man in my life!” . One can’t help but wonder if this revelation was influenced at least in part by that ‘ticking clock’ that seems to get louder to women right about at this point in their lives?
“But we still and will always need each other for companionship, emotional support, intimacy, to feel special and valued and cared for and safe, to be inspired. We don’t just want those things. We, as human beings, need those things.”
Exactly. We’re a social, interdependent species in a social, interdependent ecosystem. We need each other not in an “I’m incomplete with you” sort of way but in a mature, human “you make life so much more enjoyable” sort of way. Good relationships make the good times even better and the bad times a lot more bearable.
What I dislike about the term ‘need’ in this context is that it co.es with an implication that we deserve it. As a society, there’s a general sense that needs should be provided for, so we have welfare and food banks and all that stuff. What’s the sexual/emotional equivalent of a food bank? Suicide hotlines? As dar as each of us are concerned, it’s well and good to hear that the other gender needs us, but it’s a very different situation if the need is felt by someone who we don’t need back, i.e. someone who isn’t attractive to us. Want just makes so much more sense to use, as far as all the little implications go.
@mad adam: “As a society, there’s a general sense that needs should be provided for”
Nope. “Rights” are provided for (or they – theoretically – should be).
Needs, of course, aren’t (unless they are basic needs and are considered rights).
We have lots of needs, who should provide for them? Santa Claus?
Only a child has his needs provided for by someone else; and, conversely, a person claiming his needs have to be provided by someone else is, basically, childlike. It’s a “gimme gimme gimme” attitude.
A “need” is something necessary to our well-being and happiness. We can survive without it, but we aren’t really happy or fulfilled without.
“Want” – OTOH – is something I desire, but I can do without; is “optional”. I need to be loved; I want to be rich: love is a necessity (although nobody can grant it to you), being rich is nice but not vital.
I think the author’s meaning was something like “We need a deep and meaningful relationship with the opposite sex, to live fully – And denying that need, is delusional and hypocritical”.
Many people like to think they don’t need each other, because that way they will not suffer; but they miss something big.
I love how Neely tries to peddle herself as a non-misandric writer, yet all of her articles discuss what men should do for women and none of what women should do for men. I prefer dealing with honest misandrists than conniving ones like Neely.