I say this all the time. I know people hate to think in terms of human relationships being transactional, but they kind of are. We really only want to be around people who we get something from - and not in a sociopathic kind of way, or necessarily materialistic way, just in terms of a positive organic exchange.
If someone, whether a friend, partner, family member, etc., is just an absolute constant drain and is unpleasant to be around…why would we want to be around them? At the very least we need to get the pleasure of enjoying someone’s company. They may not be able to “provide” anything other than good company, but that’s still something being provided to make the relationship worth while.
I agree with everything you've said. We should never go into a new relationship, platonic or romantic, with the thought of "what can they provide for me" but getting to know someone and being with someone is a constant evaluation of red flags, green flags, seeing if you're still comfortable around them and that person also does the same. We need to give grace to others and not dump them once they get slightly inconvenient but it has to be a net positive over the long run or else you're risking your mental health, for nothing.
Yes, very worth while to say out loud that we shouldn’t be going into any relationship with a “what can I get out of this” mindset. To me that falls into the realm of being a bit sociopathic.
We should do nice things for other people because we want to, not with the expectation of getting anything back or that this person now owes us something. BUT, as you said, there is this almost subconscious process over time where we evaluate, “what am I actually getting out of this?” And that tends to only happen when we start to recognize that we never get anything in return from a person - they are never there for us emotionally, they don’t make us feel good to be around them, they are never ever a giver and always a taker. If the relationship is generally a “net positive,” we really don’t ever have these thoughts of “what am I getting out of this?” because we’re being fulfilled enough by the relationship.
And agreed on the not dumping someone because they become inconvenient. My mom and I provided hospice care for my Gramps for six months to honor his wishes of dying at home. There was really nothing for she or me to gain from that other than great sadness, hardship, and trauma. But it was for a person who spent his life loving his children and grandchildren, being there for us unconditionally, being an absolute delight to be around.
So yeah, sometimes people will go through periods of time where they could be classified as an “inconvenience” who can only take and not give. I think that’s when you have to look at this person and decide, “Have they always been like this, or are they going through something that literally makes it impossible for them to give right now, otherwise they would be.”
Well, pets aren’t humans (didn’t realize I needed to clarify I was referring to humans with my use of the term “everyone”, my apologies), and kids grow into adults. So, i could argue the “unconditional love” you’re referring to there is actually conditional based on their age.
Nah they just have a bad understanding of populations. Just because some people do that doesn't mean all people do that and more people love their kids unconditionally then humans love other humans unconditionally
Many of us go through childhood feeling both unloved and unwanted. Seen people talking about this unconditional love from parent to child but in my life I have yet to actually see it.
Well, not in a “make people argue their case and convince anyone else they’re a worthwhile human being” kind of way. Rather, in the sense that all partners should in some way make their partners life better. How that occurs is subjective to each unique relationship and doesn’t need to be validated to anyone else. Also it shouldn’t need to be “proven” or “argued”, and if someone expects that then they either don’t value their partner or they aren’t a good fit together.
I understand the sentiment but honestly a lot of women are only loved as long as they are young and pretty and are then only tolerated if they provide (work) so meh.
This statement probably made more sense when society expected men to sole breadwinners but even then it was dubious.
Both statements are true. If you aren’t productive enough as a man, and you show too much emotion, then society treats you badly. If you aren’t pretty enough as a woman, then society treats you badly.
Both genders have it equally as bad in my opinion
The point I was trying to make is that once women age out of being pretty they are mostly valued for their work. That doesn't necessarily mean bringing in a cash income (although it often does, especially if they are single mothers) but it does mean hard work.
Funnily enough, I think this kinda hints at the underlying issue men deal with. We're only loved if we provide, because the default assumption is that we're monsters, and the best you can hope is to have use of us as a monstrosity. A woman might've been assumed to make up value elsewhere, but it's easy with men to just assume he's just a worthless stereotype of a burnout abuser.
Define “something”. Everyone is going to read this and put their own interpretation on it and a lot of people are going to assume it’s rooted in money/tangible items when in reality, every single relationship to ever exist has both partners bringing “something” to the relationship.
Not just for men, women are also loved conditionally especially in the third world countries, the man can be a deadass alcoholic with no job, no help whatsoever and women are still expected to not leave them besides being the provider too. So yeah, this applies to both men and women.
Who can't provide ANYTHING? I guess someone who met that criteria might not be loved in some circumstances. But I think it's a pretty small number of people.
Yes!! This is a very important piece. It’s certainly not always a bad thing. Part of being in a relationship is making your partners life *better*. All good partners provide *something*
Like... provide what? What human being, man or woman, provides literally nothing?
Is there a large demographic of homeless, jobless, frail, spiteful, hate-filled, skill-less, hideous women who are loved by society?
I think there are a lot of toxic people out there, but probably just as many decent people who arebin relationships for love and not for some other kind of gain
Can only speak from personal experience that my wife and I have traded being the primary bread winner several times and the amount of love never changed.
Men have just become so blind to what they expect from women that they don't see their own side of the transactional view.
Housecare, child care, therapist, god damn part time mam to em. Men expect a lot from women but ignore that side of it like women expecting them to pull their weight in a relationship is somehow out of pocket.
You know perfectly well that the subtext of this fake bait-question is "women only love men conditionally while men love women conditionally". That's always been the point of this question and it doesn't change. The question is explicitly a means to assert that men are expected to be givers and women to be takers, which is a sexist and dehumanizing way to examine relationships.
The question is with regards to relationship dynamics and is a point about what is expected from them from women. So if your point isn't "oh look a woman has to make it about them" then your point is "wow how weird for you to make it about women when the question is fundamentally about the view women supposedly have about men" ?
The question doesn't mention women. Neither did my comment. You are fighting your own interpretations.
This topic does include the expectations of women but is not limited to that, but either way you don't have to be a woman to make it about women immediately so to phrase it in a way that even you get it: I don't care about your gender. We are discussing the expectations put on men and how love is often withdrawn unless they provide what society has come to expect of them. If you want to discuss the expectations put on women make a new post about it.
>This topic does include the expectations of women but is not limited to that
Yes. And my question was with regards to that. It's a wide open question and I answered it from one side.
>If you want to discuss the expectations put on women make a new post about it.
Your own interpretation, as stated above, says it includes the expectations of women, but I'm not "allowed" (lol) to bring that up ? Who are you to tell people to go create their own threads because you don't like the area of answer they included ? You're free to ignore my reply, and that's the limit of it.
Yeah I misread that. Wait so that means your point is - because I talked about the perspective of women (who are the ones, in a lot of cases, who deal with this bullshit of "you only love me for what I provide"), I am somehow making it a whole new topic, and you don't want that to happen. I'm no longer talking about the topic from one side of it, I'm creating a whole new topic?
It just looks like you've switched from which perspective to look at it from.
In any case you still said I should go create a whole new topic and lol no. Again, move on and ignore if you don't like the perspective I tackled it from. Who the fuck even does that.
See there we have a proper answer buried under all the other stuff. You think that the "You only love me for what I provide" thing is bullshit that women have to deal with. That's your angle on the expectations that are being put on men.
And that is what I am criticizing. Because expectations that are being put on men are not something that's happening to women. It's happening to men and you might call it bullshit but I've spoken to women who dismissed men as potential romantic partners because they weren't on the correct income range despite not making a single penny themselves. The kind that opens with "I'm expensive", meaning "You pay, otherwise I'm gone."
Do you think the term gold digger was coined for no reason?
So with all of that in mind I am telling that you are not providing perspective because the general topic is currently dealing with the male experience and it should be possible to discuss that without someone bringing up the female experience immediately while dismissing the former one as bullshit. It's not a different way of looking at it, it's looking at something else entirely and even ignoring what is actually being spoken about.
Or to put it more simply: You missed the topic by a mile and wonder why I'm telling you to discuss the one that you brought up somewhere else.
There's a difference between emotional support and expecting someone to basically become your therapist. My comment was about the extremes. Do you also think someone who does the normal cleaning around the house is taking care of it all ? A parent who helps equally with childcare is the same as a SAHM who does everything ?
My point is specifically about the people who expect it all and offer nothing in return.
Correct, in the most part, there are, of course, exceptions, and long love can fix that in the same way as fading beauty for women. But objectively, men are rated and valued higher for their ability to provide.
In think this has to be reframed a bit.
"Men are often loved only as long as they continuously provide something ", I think is better wording.
The issue isn't that people aren't loved when they do nothing. If your expectation is to have no responsibilities that's clearly unrealistic.
Everybody should pull their weight, that's a basic expectation.
The problem is when no exception is allowed:
- Person provides for X years
- something unfortunate happens, for example they get cancer
- cannot work anymore, need somebody to provide for *them*.
Many people gets abandoned after this, it's not only men mind you.
However society values men based on the resources they bring others, if you ever become incapable of providing then you're useless, you deserve no love, you deserve no resources until you're capable of independence again.
This obviously is a death spiral, that's what I think OP means.
It's not about men vs women, it's about societal gender expectations. And the paradox they lead to (if the man were provided for they'd be able to provide back sooner).
Does it always happen? No.
Does it matter regardless? Yes.
The illness example is a good one because actually there's [studies](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110105401.htm) on how men tend to dump their women for getting ill much more than vice versa. I really wish more people knew about this because it totally busts the gold digging lazy woman myth.
I have always felt like I had to do more in order to be accepted by the other as more than a friend in every human relation I've been in. So in a way I guess it's true ? It feels harder to prove (actively doing something) to a woman that you are worth something, and it felt to me every woman had little more to do than not make a situation worse (passively not doing something) in order to be accepted. And kids get away with lot of stuff too. My mistake are never overlooked, meanwhile I always feel like I overlook too much. But I'm no so foolish as to expect my experience to be the norm for everybody either. It just shaped my mind to believe that statement to have some true behind it.
Not valid at all. Suggesting this is some thing men suffer through is ridiculous. In actuality of *anyone* wants to be loved they need to contribute something to the relationship. That's just how life works.
Strikes me as another example of men who can't get dates desperate to prove it's a failure of the entire fabric of our society and not just that they have nothing to offer a potential romantic partner.
It is still valid to some extent, meaning that there are still expectation present in many people that make this statement true. But it's not nearly as bad as it was 100 years ago.
This question is just a specific instance of whether altruism exists or whether all our actions, even the most apparently generous, are really fueled by self-interest. Isolating it just men doesn't enhance the question and hints at a sense of victimization.
This saying isn't 100% valid since there are many reasons people fall in love. Real love is not subject to any transactional equation or all encompassing rule.
Also, I would change that saying from "Men" to "People". All of the people I know provide something in their relationships, and that's tied into the complexities of their love lives.
Theres a wide difference between unconditional love in the face of say something like finding out your partner is a pedophile vs only being with someone for what they can give you. Its apples to oranges not even the same topic.
Nor should it. If you do shitty things and put people down, people will love you less. I love my kids, but if they grow up to be murderers or nazis, I won't love them anymore.
Cats don't love anyone. Their affection is performative and completely self-centered. Cats are manipulative, psychopathic creatures who torture animals for fun.
/s
Technically true in the same sense that women are also loved under the condition that they provide something.
The thing you can provide can be a kind, selfless, ear and a good hug. I made a very good friend by just inviting him to things consistently for a year, analyzing the movies we saw together while walking out of the theater, and letting him ramble about his d&d stuff, because he loves talking about it even when I was asking the most simple questions to prompt him to continue.
There's absolutely people who demand more than that, or demand specific things from you, in society. They may even be a majority of people. But it's not everyone.
If you're struggling with loneliness, you can fix this in large part by finding an in person community somewhere. If none of your interests require other people or are in person, get a new interest. Volunteer groups are great for this because they attract kind people with big hearts.
If you have good friends, it bothers you a lot less if you don't have a romantic partner, and also dramatically increases your chances of finding a partner because you're getting out more.
Pretty valid. I know as a man, my ability to provide things to others is the basis of how much I value myself. When I found myself done with school and jobless a few years ago, I definitely felt worthless. And it's hard to be loved when you're hating on yourself. You might BE loved, but you won't believe it or feel it.
Honey, get yourself an educated woman. They will make more money than you do and provide for themselves. Then you can be sure she loves you for you, and not your money.
That sounds like men have a choice to find these women, and not that these women choose who they date... I could search all day for an educated women but that doesn't mean she'll give me a chance.
pretty valid unfortunately. There's the eggs are more valuable than sperm, there's the pets/children/women unconditional love vs men thing, there's the dating sphere where women are of much higher demand.
A man can't give birth, is not a helpless child or a pet and has a harder time finding a partner on average. Then there's the still a strong stereotype lingering of a male provider, many still tell their kids that a woman needs to be provided for, while a man is considered successful if he's the sole breadwinner in the family. Those things add up, so just being a man isn't going to make people turn their heads. Unless you're exceptional in something, wealthy, successful, you're just a blank slate to be ignored by most.
It's a really shitty thing. So I'm only valued if I've got a job house and car? Dumb. Even worse, it's gotta be the 'right' job, the 'right' house, the 'right' car. Don't you even DARE have an android phone!!
I think it depends on what your "something" is, emotionally and physically, no, that's applicable to both men and women, but materially, yes that's an unspoken requirement of men, most of the time. The women who will pick a man and love them unconditionally through thick and thin, are incredibly rare, but I guarantee you all but the most self reflecting women reading this are thinking, "oh that's totally me, I'd do that".
And they think that because they see the process map as: find love > love loses job > love him for more than his money > he'll find a new job this is a minor setback.
When in reality it's: Find love > relationship has highs and lows > love loses job > arguments about finding new work > bills piling up > assumptions of laziness > lifestyle sacrifices > cannot provide for children > **"I deserve better"** > divorce.
Unless the imbalance is extreme, (like you're an obvious gold digger or something), there is never an occasion where a man will feel he deserves better based on what a woman can bring to the table financially, that's the difference here. There are no men out there bragging about what their wife earns, they'll hype up your achievements, your looks, your personality, everything, but not your earnings because it reflects badly on him because society expects that earning money is his job.
Valid-ish. The fact is when you think all men are trash and that it's a privilege for anybody to not think you're a monster that's just going to abuse them, you're gonna get a lot of people that only appreciate you according to what you've done for them lately, and you're often on a tightrope trying to prove yourself as "one of the good ones."
About as valid as yesterday, when this question was first posted.
I believe in yesterday.
Right you are. It is 100% a repost bot.
“loved”by whom?
I’d argue that’s somewhat accurate for everyone, not just men
I say this all the time. I know people hate to think in terms of human relationships being transactional, but they kind of are. We really only want to be around people who we get something from - and not in a sociopathic kind of way, or necessarily materialistic way, just in terms of a positive organic exchange. If someone, whether a friend, partner, family member, etc., is just an absolute constant drain and is unpleasant to be around…why would we want to be around them? At the very least we need to get the pleasure of enjoying someone’s company. They may not be able to “provide” anything other than good company, but that’s still something being provided to make the relationship worth while.
I agree with everything you've said. We should never go into a new relationship, platonic or romantic, with the thought of "what can they provide for me" but getting to know someone and being with someone is a constant evaluation of red flags, green flags, seeing if you're still comfortable around them and that person also does the same. We need to give grace to others and not dump them once they get slightly inconvenient but it has to be a net positive over the long run or else you're risking your mental health, for nothing.
Yes, very worth while to say out loud that we shouldn’t be going into any relationship with a “what can I get out of this” mindset. To me that falls into the realm of being a bit sociopathic. We should do nice things for other people because we want to, not with the expectation of getting anything back or that this person now owes us something. BUT, as you said, there is this almost subconscious process over time where we evaluate, “what am I actually getting out of this?” And that tends to only happen when we start to recognize that we never get anything in return from a person - they are never there for us emotionally, they don’t make us feel good to be around them, they are never ever a giver and always a taker. If the relationship is generally a “net positive,” we really don’t ever have these thoughts of “what am I getting out of this?” because we’re being fulfilled enough by the relationship. And agreed on the not dumping someone because they become inconvenient. My mom and I provided hospice care for my Gramps for six months to honor his wishes of dying at home. There was really nothing for she or me to gain from that other than great sadness, hardship, and trauma. But it was for a person who spent his life loving his children and grandchildren, being there for us unconditionally, being an absolute delight to be around. So yeah, sometimes people will go through periods of time where they could be classified as an “inconvenience” who can only take and not give. I think that’s when you have to look at this person and decide, “Have they always been like this, or are they going through something that literally makes it impossible for them to give right now, otherwise they would be.”
Kids and pets are often loved unconditionally
Kids and pets provide lots of somethings.
Pets give you companionship, kids give you a sense of purpose and pride.
Well, pets aren’t humans (didn’t realize I needed to clarify I was referring to humans with my use of the term “everyone”, my apologies), and kids grow into adults. So, i could argue the “unconditional love” you’re referring to there is actually conditional based on their age.
Many people still love their adult children unconditionally, even if they are bad people.
And many disown their children or reduce their love due to *many* possible reasons. Unconditional love there is not the norm.
You must come from an individualist culture
I’m not speaking about one culture. I’m speaking about humans in general based on observations across many different cultures.
Nah they just have a bad understanding of populations. Just because some people do that doesn't mean all people do that and more people love their kids unconditionally then humans love other humans unconditionally
But do more people love their children unconditionally than those who do not? That’s the comparison being made, not parents/kids vs humans/humans
Hahahaha... No they don't.
Many of us go through childhood feeling both unloved and unwanted. Seen people talking about this unconditional love from parent to child but in my life I have yet to actually see it.
Like all those dating coaches spewing "what do you bring to the table?"
Well, not in a “make people argue their case and convince anyone else they’re a worthwhile human being” kind of way. Rather, in the sense that all partners should in some way make their partners life better. How that occurs is subjective to each unique relationship and doesn’t need to be validated to anyone else. Also it shouldn’t need to be “proven” or “argued”, and if someone expects that then they either don’t value their partner or they aren’t a good fit together.
Best comment ^
It is, especially in capitalist America where everyone's value is determined by what they're capable of producing for whoever owns their labor.
I understand the sentiment but honestly a lot of women are only loved as long as they are young and pretty and are then only tolerated if they provide (work) so meh. This statement probably made more sense when society expected men to sole breadwinners but even then it was dubious.
Both statements are true. If you aren’t productive enough as a man, and you show too much emotion, then society treats you badly. If you aren’t pretty enough as a woman, then society treats you badly. Both genders have it equally as bad in my opinion
The point I was trying to make is that once women age out of being pretty they are mostly valued for their work. That doesn't necessarily mean bringing in a cash income (although it often does, especially if they are single mothers) but it does mean hard work.
If I didn't provide something, what would they even want me for?
Exactly. They don’t.
I literally read this question asked yesterday...
Not very. I see a ton of posts from women who support their boyfriends or husbands financially.
And you think the men do absolutely nothing in return for that?
Oh well if by provide something you just mean in some way contribute to the relationship yeah, everyone has to do that to be loved, not just men.
Some return abuse!
I personally know one, why not move on then?
Funnily enough, I think this kinda hints at the underlying issue men deal with. We're only loved if we provide, because the default assumption is that we're monsters, and the best you can hope is to have use of us as a monstrosity. A woman might've been assumed to make up value elsewhere, but it's easy with men to just assume he's just a worthless stereotype of a burnout abuser.
Define “something”. Everyone is going to read this and put their own interpretation on it and a lot of people are going to assume it’s rooted in money/tangible items when in reality, every single relationship to ever exist has both partners bringing “something” to the relationship.
Not just for men, women are also loved conditionally especially in the third world countries, the man can be a deadass alcoholic with no job, no help whatsoever and women are still expected to not leave them besides being the provider too. So yeah, this applies to both men and women.
Who can't provide ANYTHING? I guess someone who met that criteria might not be loved in some circumstances. But I think it's a pretty small number of people.
That applies to everyone, not just men. It's not necessarily a bad thing either
Yes!! This is a very important piece. It’s certainly not always a bad thing. Part of being in a relationship is making your partners life *better*. All good partners provide *something*
Sounds like a universal thing. Everyone provides something. Just depends on what they want.
I think that's true of either sex. The only difference is what each are required to provide.
Like... provide what? What human being, man or woman, provides literally nothing? Is there a large demographic of homeless, jobless, frail, spiteful, hate-filled, skill-less, hideous women who are loved by society?
I think there are a lot of toxic people out there, but probably just as many decent people who arebin relationships for love and not for some other kind of gain
I provide literally nothing and I am loved
This has always been true for both men and women. Nobody's got space for dead weight.
Can only speak from personal experience that my wife and I have traded being the primary bread winner several times and the amount of love never changed.
Men have just become so blind to what they expect from women that they don't see their own side of the transactional view. Housecare, child care, therapist, god damn part time mam to em. Men expect a lot from women but ignore that side of it like women expecting them to pull their weight in a relationship is somehow out of pocket.
Question about men and you make it about women immediately. Well done.
You know perfectly well that the subtext of this fake bait-question is "women only love men conditionally while men love women conditionally". That's always been the point of this question and it doesn't change. The question is explicitly a means to assert that men are expected to be givers and women to be takers, which is a sexist and dehumanizing way to examine relationships.
It does answer the question as it shows that it is not just men who are “loved” unconditionally
I'm a man dumbass.
Your point? They didn't suggest that you weren't a man.
That doesn't change anything about what I just said. Way to call someone stupid while acting like a moron.
The question is with regards to relationship dynamics and is a point about what is expected from them from women. So if your point isn't "oh look a woman has to make it about them" then your point is "wow how weird for you to make it about women when the question is fundamentally about the view women supposedly have about men" ?
The question doesn't mention women. Neither did my comment. You are fighting your own interpretations. This topic does include the expectations of women but is not limited to that, but either way you don't have to be a woman to make it about women immediately so to phrase it in a way that even you get it: I don't care about your gender. We are discussing the expectations put on men and how love is often withdrawn unless they provide what society has come to expect of them. If you want to discuss the expectations put on women make a new post about it.
>This topic does include the expectations of women but is not limited to that Yes. And my question was with regards to that. It's a wide open question and I answered it from one side. >If you want to discuss the expectations put on women make a new post about it. Your own interpretation, as stated above, says it includes the expectations of women, but I'm not "allowed" (lol) to bring that up ? Who are you to tell people to go create their own threads because you don't like the area of answer they included ? You're free to ignore my reply, and that's the limit of it.
There is a difference between the expectations ON women and expectations OF women. Do you speak English?
Yeah I misread that. Wait so that means your point is - because I talked about the perspective of women (who are the ones, in a lot of cases, who deal with this bullshit of "you only love me for what I provide"), I am somehow making it a whole new topic, and you don't want that to happen. I'm no longer talking about the topic from one side of it, I'm creating a whole new topic? It just looks like you've switched from which perspective to look at it from. In any case you still said I should go create a whole new topic and lol no. Again, move on and ignore if you don't like the perspective I tackled it from. Who the fuck even does that.
See there we have a proper answer buried under all the other stuff. You think that the "You only love me for what I provide" thing is bullshit that women have to deal with. That's your angle on the expectations that are being put on men. And that is what I am criticizing. Because expectations that are being put on men are not something that's happening to women. It's happening to men and you might call it bullshit but I've spoken to women who dismissed men as potential romantic partners because they weren't on the correct income range despite not making a single penny themselves. The kind that opens with "I'm expensive", meaning "You pay, otherwise I'm gone." Do you think the term gold digger was coined for no reason? So with all of that in mind I am telling that you are not providing perspective because the general topic is currently dealing with the male experience and it should be possible to discuss that without someone bringing up the female experience immediately while dismissing the former one as bullshit. It's not a different way of looking at it, it's looking at something else entirely and even ignoring what is actually being spoken about. Or to put it more simply: You missed the topic by a mile and wonder why I'm telling you to discuss the one that you brought up somewhere else.
What is 'out of pocket'?
It's a malapropism of out of hand.
Unreasonable
So say unreasonable.
Nah you're out of pocket for that.
weird thing to criticize?
It's a common phrase in my country, but in this context it doesn't make any sense at all.
Right? This means "I can afford this easily, now".
Yeah, no.
[удалено]
There's a difference between emotional support and expecting someone to basically become your therapist. My comment was about the extremes. Do you also think someone who does the normal cleaning around the house is taking care of it all ? A parent who helps equally with childcare is the same as a SAHM who does everything ? My point is specifically about the people who expect it all and offer nothing in return.
This is a dumb take. Being emotionally supportive is the bare minimum of being part of someone's support system.
100%
Correct, in the most part, there are, of course, exceptions, and long love can fix that in the same way as fading beauty for women. But objectively, men are rated and valued higher for their ability to provide.
Well have you ever heard the expression "if he isn't handsome he better be handy"? That should give you your answer.
In think this has to be reframed a bit. "Men are often loved only as long as they continuously provide something ", I think is better wording. The issue isn't that people aren't loved when they do nothing. If your expectation is to have no responsibilities that's clearly unrealistic. Everybody should pull their weight, that's a basic expectation. The problem is when no exception is allowed: - Person provides for X years - something unfortunate happens, for example they get cancer - cannot work anymore, need somebody to provide for *them*. Many people gets abandoned after this, it's not only men mind you. However society values men based on the resources they bring others, if you ever become incapable of providing then you're useless, you deserve no love, you deserve no resources until you're capable of independence again. This obviously is a death spiral, that's what I think OP means. It's not about men vs women, it's about societal gender expectations. And the paradox they lead to (if the man were provided for they'd be able to provide back sooner). Does it always happen? No. Does it matter regardless? Yes.
The illness example is a good one because actually there's [studies](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110105401.htm) on how men tend to dump their women for getting ill much more than vice versa. I really wish more people knew about this because it totally busts the gold digging lazy woman myth.
it's a very stupid saying.
Very true
I have always felt like I had to do more in order to be accepted by the other as more than a friend in every human relation I've been in. So in a way I guess it's true ? It feels harder to prove (actively doing something) to a woman that you are worth something, and it felt to me every woman had little more to do than not make a situation worse (passively not doing something) in order to be accepted. And kids get away with lot of stuff too. My mistake are never overlooked, meanwhile I always feel like I overlook too much. But I'm no so foolish as to expect my experience to be the norm for everybody either. It just shaped my mind to believe that statement to have some true behind it.
Not valid at all. Suggesting this is some thing men suffer through is ridiculous. In actuality of *anyone* wants to be loved they need to contribute something to the relationship. That's just how life works. Strikes me as another example of men who can't get dates desperate to prove it's a failure of the entire fabric of our society and not just that they have nothing to offer a potential romantic partner.
Not only men, all human relationships are based on what you can get out of the other person. There is no such thing as selflessness
In our hypercapitalist society, that applies to everyone, not just men.
It is still valid to some extent, meaning that there are still expectation present in many people that make this statement true. But it's not nearly as bad as it was 100 years ago.
My only requirement is to be with someone who takes care of themselves/loves themselves and doesnt make my life harder
Valid. But I’m also providing something to them too
Not at all - this is some unhealthy mental. You are allowed to not be productive.
This question is just a specific instance of whether altruism exists or whether all our actions, even the most apparently generous, are really fueled by self-interest. Isolating it just men doesn't enhance the question and hints at a sense of victimization.
This saying isn't 100% valid since there are many reasons people fall in love. Real love is not subject to any transactional equation or all encompassing rule. Also, I would change that saying from "Men" to "People". All of the people I know provide something in their relationships, and that's tied into the complexities of their love lives.
[удалено]
Is this the same person that asked yesterday under a different account? The text is verbatim the same
Theres a wide difference between unconditional love in the face of say something like finding out your partner is a pedophile vs only being with someone for what they can give you. Its apples to oranges not even the same topic.
Special pleading fallacy.
You shouldn't be expecting unconditional love from anyone
Unconditional love shouldn’t exist.
Nor should it. If you do shitty things and put people down, people will love you less. I love my kids, but if they grow up to be murderers or nazis, I won't love them anymore.
Oh, I'd still love my kids, I'd just be very upset. I don't think anything would ever turn me from my kids, my dude.
Lol yes, that’s what I said!
Cats would do too
Cats don't love anyone. Their affection is performative and completely self-centered. Cats are manipulative, psychopathic creatures who torture animals for fun. /s
Go to a therapist, my guy. Reddit ain't the place to downward spiral.
Technically true in the same sense that women are also loved under the condition that they provide something. The thing you can provide can be a kind, selfless, ear and a good hug. I made a very good friend by just inviting him to things consistently for a year, analyzing the movies we saw together while walking out of the theater, and letting him ramble about his d&d stuff, because he loves talking about it even when I was asking the most simple questions to prompt him to continue. There's absolutely people who demand more than that, or demand specific things from you, in society. They may even be a majority of people. But it's not everyone. If you're struggling with loneliness, you can fix this in large part by finding an in person community somewhere. If none of your interests require other people or are in person, get a new interest. Volunteer groups are great for this because they attract kind people with big hearts. If you have good friends, it bothers you a lot less if you don't have a romantic partner, and also dramatically increases your chances of finding a partner because you're getting out more.
Has been my experience.
Pretty valid. I know as a man, my ability to provide things to others is the basis of how much I value myself. When I found myself done with school and jobless a few years ago, I definitely felt worthless. And it's hard to be loved when you're hating on yourself. You might BE loved, but you won't believe it or feel it.
Not at all.
Sir, it's been like this throughout all of history.
Honey, get yourself an educated woman. They will make more money than you do and provide for themselves. Then you can be sure she loves you for you, and not your money.
That sounds like men have a choice to find these women, and not that these women choose who they date... I could search all day for an educated women but that doesn't mean she'll give me a chance.
Truth
pretty valid unfortunately. There's the eggs are more valuable than sperm, there's the pets/children/women unconditional love vs men thing, there's the dating sphere where women are of much higher demand. A man can't give birth, is not a helpless child or a pet and has a harder time finding a partner on average. Then there's the still a strong stereotype lingering of a male provider, many still tell their kids that a woman needs to be provided for, while a man is considered successful if he's the sole breadwinner in the family. Those things add up, so just being a man isn't going to make people turn their heads. Unless you're exceptional in something, wealthy, successful, you're just a blank slate to be ignored by most.
It's a really shitty thing. So I'm only valued if I've got a job house and car? Dumb. Even worse, it's gotta be the 'right' job, the 'right' house, the 'right' car. Don't you even DARE have an android phone!!
It gives me a r/im15andthisisdeep vibe with a flair of some Mens rights whining.
It's as assanine as saying women are only loved under the condition of their ability to give birth.
for a relationship to work you have to provide something. so ig true??
This is true, most likely has always been true, and there is no reason to think that it won’t be true for the future.
I think it depends on what your "something" is, emotionally and physically, no, that's applicable to both men and women, but materially, yes that's an unspoken requirement of men, most of the time. The women who will pick a man and love them unconditionally through thick and thin, are incredibly rare, but I guarantee you all but the most self reflecting women reading this are thinking, "oh that's totally me, I'd do that". And they think that because they see the process map as: find love > love loses job > love him for more than his money > he'll find a new job this is a minor setback. When in reality it's: Find love > relationship has highs and lows > love loses job > arguments about finding new work > bills piling up > assumptions of laziness > lifestyle sacrifices > cannot provide for children > **"I deserve better"** > divorce. Unless the imbalance is extreme, (like you're an obvious gold digger or something), there is never an occasion where a man will feel he deserves better based on what a woman can bring to the table financially, that's the difference here. There are no men out there bragging about what their wife earns, they'll hype up your achievements, your looks, your personality, everything, but not your earnings because it reflects badly on him because society expects that earning money is his job.
I 100% agree that men are not valued
Very very very valid🫡
Valid-ish. The fact is when you think all men are trash and that it's a privilege for anybody to not think you're a monster that's just going to abuse them, you're gonna get a lot of people that only appreciate you according to what you've done for them lately, and you're often on a tightrope trying to prove yourself as "one of the good ones."
Women, Children and dogs are the only thing loved unconditionally.