All: Do men and women need each other beyond purposes of reproduction?

submitted by [deleted] from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

You make a compelling case for women to not need men. Do you think the same is true of men, that they don't need women beyond reproduction? I'm inclined to agree with you, but I did like what some of the other commenters said about people needing people as a whole, everyone needing everyone (unless I misunderstood what they were saying). Do you think that there might be any truth to that at all?

You and a couple other people mentioned the nature of humans being social animals, and how that sets apart our needs from other animals. I think I'm going to have to look into exactly what that means, or all the implications of being a social animal. There probably is more purpose there that I'm just having difficulty seeing.

Thank you for sharing the articles and video!

[–]comradeconradical 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Do you think the same is true of men, that they don't need women beyond reproduction?

Then who would manage the household and provide non-reproductive sexual pleasure?

Sarcasm, but really studies show that single women are the happiest demographic, and single men are miserable. It's common knowledge in feminist dating circles that men rely on women not only for sex but to keep their lives together. This is of course intensified by childcare and "wifely duties", but is slowly changing as women gain independence from men and no longer need to live as slaves to them, at least in some countries, but not everywhere sadly.

In sum, in developed countries where women can support themselves financially, I think men need women more than women need men.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So for men it's less about needing women to have children with, and more about historical expectations of women to perform certain supportive roles and duties that ease life for men. That's very interesting, it makes quite a lot sense though.

[–]Penultimate_Penance 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Self sufficient men don't need women either. The men who won't do well without women are the NEETS, Husbands who have been treating their wives as free domestic servants for the past few decades, men who need caregivers and boys.

Women do the vast majority of the work raising children even in two parent households. If women and girls suddenly vanished there would be a lot of orphans and a lot of irresponsible dads who would need to start picking up the slack and actually take care of their boys. "At the same time, solo parents remain overwhelmingly female: 81% of solo parents in 2017 were mothers, as were 88% in 1968." Source

As per usual women are doing the most thankless and difficult tasks when it comes to caregiving. "Estimates also suggest that the majority of caregivers are female. The percentage of family or informal caregivers who are women range from 53 to 68 percent, according to the Family Caregiver Alliance. While men also provide assistance, female caregivers tend to spend more time providing care than male caregivers (21.9 versus 17.4 hours per week). Further, women are likely to assist with more difficult caregiving tasks, such as toileting and bathing, while men are more likely to assist with finances or arrange for other care (Family Caregiver Alliance, 2012). " Source

Stats like these are why I believe women are the backbone of civilization. If we weren't around doing all of this free essential labor, the disturbingly high percentage of irresponsible men would have to shape the fuck up or society would collapse, because they outnumber the good non parasitic men by a good margin. Especially in more misogynist cultures where women are basically property passed from the father to the husband.

People are social animals, so they do need social interaction and benefit from it, they just don't necessarily need that social interaction from the opposite sex.

Being social doesn't set us apart from other animals. There are countless examples of animals with complex social hierarchies and systems. Scientists are discovering more and more animals actually have culture and pass it down to the next generation, communicate with each other and teach things to their young. Tool use is more common than once thought.

This is one of my favorite articles about animal culture and inventiveness. I found it funny that even in this troop of monkeys males were less inclined to learn from females. A pattern that is also frustratingly common in human societies.
"Masao Kawai, another of Imanishi’s students, described this phase as “pre-cultural propagation.” Imo had innovated a new behavior that spread to her peers. Age and sex both influenced its transmission: Younger monkeys and females were more likely to learn potato washing than adult monkeys and males. The next stage began when Imo and her peers matured and reproduced. Now the behavior spread to the next generation with every new baby, males as well as females, learning sweet-potato washing from its mother. Age and sex were no longer factors. “Pre-cultural pressure is working,” Kawai wrote. A new behavior had become fixed within the troop." Source

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you for quoting and sharing those articles, that's very interesting to know!

I'd never heard of a 'NEET' before, but it does seem like those types of men who would be more dependent on people in general. Much of their reliance on women seem related to caregiving of all manner, so it would behoove them to spend more time doing that and learning how to be better caregivers themselves (just doing it!).

Based on what you and others have shared, the reliance of either sex on the other beyond matters of reproduction all seems to boil down to needs of companionship, general social stimulation and sex-based or sex role-based expectations. The first two needs could be more based on our needs as social creatures, whereas the latter is only related to sex based on stereotypes. If humanity was totally sexless, then the first two points would stand, and the sex-based ones couldn't exist. Really, then, beyond reproductive purposes, it seems like the only true need women and men have for each other is based on sex stereotypes and sex role expectations. As long as we are sexed, we'll have needs of companionship and social interaction perhaps with people of specific sexes, but only because women and men exist. So maybe someone of one sex may need someone of the opposite sex for something, but there are people who maybe don't need someone of that sex at all, or maybe even anyone of their same sex.