What do you think about the saying “Are men only loved when they provide something?” in modern society? Is this notion still relevant today? Let’s discuss! #Men #Love #Relationships #ModernSociety #ProviderMentality #SocialExpectations #OpinionsWelcome
Exploring the Notion
Is the idea that men are only valued for what they can provide still prevalent?
– Do societal expectations still dictate that men must be providers to be loved?
– How has this concept evolved over time?
– Are women also expected to provide in relationships now?
– What role does emotional support play in modern relationships?
Unpacking Societal Expectations
Do we still adhere to traditional gender roles when it comes to love?
– Are men pressured to be the breadwinners in relationships?
– How do financial dynamics impact love and relationships?
– Are there alternative ways to show love and appreciation beyond providing material support?
– Are new relationship models challenging these stereotypes?
Sharing Your Perspective
What are your thoughts on the matter?
– Have you personally experienced or witnessed this concept in action?
– Do you believe love should be unconditional, regardless of what someone can provide?
– How can we shift societal norms to value individuals for more than just their material contributions?
– Share your insights and engage in a meaningful conversation!
Join the discussion and share your opinions on whether men are only loved for what they can provide in today’s society. Let’s unpack this age-old saying and explore its relevance in modern relationships. #LoveDiscussion #GenderRoles #ModernLove #RelationshipExpectations
I don’t know. For most of the women in my life, they love (or tolerate) their men for providing absolutely nothing. I wish I was kidding. It’s like watching mommy parent a grown man-child they didn’t even birth.
It’s just as valid as saying “Women are only loved under the condition they can provide something”.
Unconditional love only exists sometimes for parents towards their children, and sometimes for people towards their pets.
Many men believe that. If you are a straight man looking for any sense of belonging, avoid groups that believe that.
Some women believe that. If you are a straight man looking for a partner, avoid them.
I’m more of the belief women love how you make them feel, not who you are.
This applies to every gender, not just man.
My question is — do you think there are more conditions for men than for women? I don’t.
Oftentimes, what a woman “provides” is the effort of cramping herself to fit the mold of a perfectly shaven, made-up sex object/mother. If she fails to conform, she is shuffled into the pile of “failed women”.
(Source: i am fat and butchy, i have never been able to conform, and I am almost never taken seriously by men, except when I point out the double standard. Then everything’s suddenly as serious as a heart attack lol.)
The fact that men are largely valued for *providing* and women are valued for *nurturing* is a form of misogyny that’s often targeted at men. Nurturing is still on some level devalued as “woman’s work” (often subconsciously!). So society also devalues men who nurture. It also devalues women who act as providers as being “cold” or “emasculating”.
The truth is, any healthy relationship is one where both parties are partially nurturer (emotional labor), partially provider (physical/mental labor). That’s true no matter the genders involved. As others have said, the only form of unconditional love (between humans) is from a parent to their child. All other love has conditions, and that’s the way it *should* be. Mutual love and support is all we have, as humans.
I see nothing wrong with that idea. I work very hard to be stable. I have a house and a car. I provide stability for my man. He needs to offer something or else I am not being rewarded for my success. Men who provide nothing can have women who provide nothing. I thought one-sided relationships were toxic? Even emotionally, not just financially, I thought one-sided love was toxic too? There is literally no point in doing anything if you do not get something good from it. Please argue with me, I’m failing to see how expecting value from your partner is bad. Willing to change my view
It sounds harsh on paper, but for real normal people are able to provide basic stuff. And most women just ask for basic stuff.
Or it’s just my gf who asks for basic stuff, I’m not sure.
It’s not true now, just as it hasn’t been true for most of history.
That said, many insecure men are convinced that the love available to them isn’t good enough or what they want, and aren’t willing or interested in working to build or maintain real relationships, so they make excuses that place the blame on others for their emotional shortcomings rather than work on themselves or be vulnerable with others by telling them how they feel.
Not limited to men.
Such bullshit.
You think women are out here not providing anything? So many husbands out there would lose their shit if their wives stopped waiting on them hand and foot. Stopped doing all the cooking, cleaning, and most of all, the child rearing.
The thing that blows my mind within my own social circles is, how many men expect their wives to take care of all household and child matters like they are stay-at-home-moms…when in actuality, the women are working full time as well! The audacity, I swear.
I mean. Technically speaking it’s true. They need to provide something. Love, affection, protection, income. If they provide absolutely nothing then they won’t be loved by a partner. But that doesn’t just fall under men but everyone. You go into a relationship with no motive or drive for anything and nothing will come about it. You can’t give nothing and expect everything.
I think it’s pretty rare for anyone to love someone who’s not providing something they need/like/want. What is love without appreciation?
I think no one but parents will love you without interest
I guess valid, but you don’t have to provide much — like good vibes is enough
Yes. People think that the “something” is material or financial but it isn’t. It’s about personality and the ability to engage with other people and to be emotionally available.
From my personal life experience, this saying doesn’t really apply. Most of the women I know tend to fawn over shitty men who don’t “provide” them with anything, not even the bare minimum like being *nice* to them.
One has to be deserving of love in one way or another. Providing material and physical security is surely a way to deserve love. And on the other hand, not providing said things puts you a bit too close to being a deadweight on your partner.
Nobody wants a deadweight in their life.
I got chronically ill in 2019 to the point where I really wasn’t working at all, and my wife stuck with me through that and essentially nursed me back to health.
Keeping in mind anyone who sees us as a couple will definitely observe that I am “punching above my weight grade” with her as well.
So as far as the saying goes, I think it really depends on the person in question. It’s not been my experience.
For whatever reason (maybe she’s psychic and knows I win a billion dollars in the lottery in the future or something) my wife seems quite attached to me.
No one loves anything that doesn’t fill some need.
There are plenty of people who love men who are abusive dead beats. There are also plenty of people who love and support men who get injured or fired or whatever else.
I think it’s horseshit in most situations. I’ve seen people welcome everyone into their lives and ask for nothing in return. In my experience, usually if a guy’s saying this, it’s a red flag to look at the situation as a whole.
That said, there are situations where it’s the truth. And those make me sad; people should be loved and valued for being themselves, not for whatever they provide.
I have two friends who are literally with men who don’t work. One plays videos games all day while she goes to work/school. The only one is very into adult sports. Golf, disc golf and some other crap that he has to go do every day. They actually just broke up. But when they broke he literally said “this is why men have a higher chance of killing themselves”.
I think that it should be fair and even. If someone has to stay at home because of children or what ever maybe they should do most of the house work. While the other is more of the breadwinner. It doesn’t matter the gender. Just for it to be mostly 50/50.
There probably should be conditions or else you are just going to hate each other. You should want to do things for your partner and help them.
If the implication is that ONLY men (and not women) need to make an effort in the relationship, it is simply untrue. If it’s implying that men need to provide FINANCIALLY it’s straight-up old-fashioned horseshit. If you believe it, you are in a repressed society or are over the age of 60.
I think it is probably true in some relationships but less often than is the case for women. My reason for believing that is how often men leave women if they get chronically or terminally ill.
Everyone is loved under the condition they can provide something.
Even kids. They carry our genes. We are programmed to love them. Anyone who doesn’t like kids and doesnt have them have their gene line ended. The remaining lines all love kids, love fucking, and love gathering resources to be ever more secure.
Grandparents legit get mad if their grandkids don’t have kids. Wives get made if their husbands are deadbeat. Husbands get mad if their wives cheat. Yada yada!
Love is give and take. Unconditional love is bullshit.
I’ve become disabled due to an ankle injury in the last 3 years. Most of my friends joke and treat me with contempt sometimes. I miss out on a lot. My gf gets frustrated with me not being able to still be the person she expected to be.
I have to say no to a lot and as I’m in constant pain I find it hard to think outside of my own box which let’s her down a lot of the time, however I do try. More than she acknowledges.
It would be easy to say I give up and stop working and live off the state entirely, get a cheap council house. I know she wouldn’t want to live with me in one so I still have the expectations upon me of a normal healthy functioning man, which I’m not.
And when I don’t meet them people get frustrated which makes me less in their eyes. The only people this hasn’t happened with is my parents and a couple of very close friends.
Depends on the man and the people he’s around. When my man was sick and bedridden, I took care of him and the house. When he had a bunch of bills at once and was having a hard time with payments, I took extra money out for the rest of the bills no questions asked. Him and I have had our issues but we’ve always loved and chosen each other. Some genuinely good men get treated like shit though.
With today’s younger crowd, the perception is that relationships are transactional. The perception. Don’t know if that’s true (though if you read AITH or those rage bait threads, you’d swear it was).
Look, I’m Gen-X, married 20 years, been laid off since Sept 23. My wife has stood by my side (also Gen X) and continues to be my rock.
I think that question is a very red pillesque question.
I’d argue everyone on earth is loved under one form of condition or another. Humans aren’t really an altruistic bunch. That said, most of the conditions aren’t terrible. For instance, I belong to AA and feel very loved in that community, but the condition on that love is that I’m an alcoholic and help others while they help me.
My family loves me on the condition that I’m also a member of their family and don’t treat them poorly.
Society is largely set up so that we all (men, women, everyone else) need to provide something to others in order to be loved/included in some way because that is how humans have survived as a collective species. I don’t even see this as a bad thing.
Often women and men want different things though, and to women more often than men, what they want is emotional over material (obviously this is not a set rule so don’t come at me with “gold digger” stories please, lol)
I think there are many ways to provide something, and that all relationships should be conditional- you should not stay with someone who makes your life worse.
So, both parties should be bringing something to the table. Does my husband provide me money? No. But me provides company, humour, support among other things.
In a traditional dynamic a man might provide money, but you better believe the woman is providing her services as a chef, house cleaner, nanny, EA, etc.
Miserable men who are projecting their insecurities are not the people I take advice from.
Call me cold, but I don’t think I could love a useless woman.
For 9 years I was in love with a man. He lives in his mothers garage, no job. Told me he would give or do this and that for me. Never happened. I really loved him. He made me laugh. All he could provide was his love, and it was enough for years.
It’s the opposite. Studies show that the percentage of husbands who leave if their wife becomes extremely ill (like cancer) is several times higher than if the husband gets sick and the wife leaves.
Also, how much do we hear about man-babies who are husbands who really just wanted a mommy to take care of them?
Same as women are only loved if they look good, and cook and do household chores
I suppose I can’t speak for everyone, but for the hetero relationships I know, the “something” their femme partners want is Usually emotional intimacy, time, and respect. So I guess men do need to provide Something, but I don’t think it’s a paycheck.
I dunnoooo. I see women dating bum ass mooches all the time. Only providing subpar dick and crippling debt lol.
It goes both ways right? If it’s true for men it’s true for women.
I also don’t think it’s true.
It applies to all sides of the relationship, not only men.
Idk it seems like women who are responsible and make alot of money, just love scumbag, broke, useless men. It’s like the last requirement for becoming a nurse is to get yourself a drug addict abusive boyfriend.
I think many men believe that about themselves, and implicitly believe others agree. In practice, I think society only values people for the work they can perform or the votes they can provide in an election, regardless of sex.
Women are statistically far more likely to stick with their partners when they get sick or injured. It’s very common for the men to just abandon them.
It’s so common that nurses and doctors will tell women diagnosed with cancer that divorce is a distinct possibility.
So take that under consideration.
Statistically, women aren’t likely to leave men when they get sick but the inverse is often true
That said, in my personal experience, a lot of my interpersonal relationships are very transactional and only work if I put in a lot of effort to be the one to maintain it
If men were able to be reciprocal adults in a relationship, I don’t think as many people would judge them so much on their ability to provide something. It’s a narrative ‘they’ve’ created and it’s also used to justify lack of contribution to other areas of family like or relationships. I mow the lawn, therefore I should have to do laundry. You reap what you sow.
Husbands are more likely to leave their wives when they fall ill than wives are to leave their husbands. So respectfully I don’t think it’s valid at all.
Most of the women I know go overboard to support men that they should dump. Just my experience.
My fiance earns more than I do, and likely will long term into the future. I have ADHD and struggle to keep up my end of household/homemaking duties.
She still loves me anyway.
Maybe it’s the oral…
I think it’s hilariously wrong and actually it’s the opposite. The stats on men leaving their sick wives counters this nonsense perfectly.