Below is a different perspective I received from a reader, BM, from South Africa, regarding my recent post, But what if romantic relationships as we know them are set up for failure?, exploring the systemic flaws in traditional romantic relationships. Reader BM brings forward a heavy theologically based defense of the Genesis narrative. While it may appear that we have differing views on relationships, BM’s focus on autonomy and freedom centres on concepts that are the literal foundation of my essay and most of my work. My blog doesn’t focus on biblical beliefs and idealism; rather it examines these concepts through a real world lens to highlight how people actually apply them versus how they would like to believe it is applied. Here is my straight shooter reply to the nuances they put forward.
The Submission:
This is a really interesting topic, and I want to enter the conversation respectfully because I understand the sensitivity around this narrative.
With all due respect, the only part of the article I fully agree with is the idea that love shouldn’t be possessive or controlling. I believe love should involve freedom; neither person should own or control the other. I’m Christian, so when I think about relationships, I also look at the biblical picture. Genesis says that God created humanity in His image — male and female — so Eve’s identity and worth didn’t come from Adam. She wasn’t created because she was incapable of standing on her own, nor was she created simply to serve a man.
But Genesis also says that God saw that it was not good for the man to be alone, and created Eve as a helper corresponding to him. The Hebrew idea there isn’t simply “assistant” or “subordinate.” It’s a corresponding partner.
That’s why I think there’s a difference between dependence and interdependence.
Biblically, I don’t think the message is:
“A woman needs a man because she can’t stand on her own.”
But I also don’t think it’s:
“A woman doesn’t need a man because she can independently provide everything for herself.”
The biblical picture seems closer to:
“You are fully God’s image-bearer, yet you were created for relationship, partnership and shared purpose.”
And that applies to Adam too.
Adam wasn’t incomplete as a human being, and Eve wasn’t incomplete as a human being. Yet God intentionally created them for relationship and partnership.
So Adam needed Eve, and Eve needed Adam; not because either was defective or incapable of surviving alone, but because human beings weren’t designed for isolated independence.
To me, that’s different from saying women should be dependent on men, just as it’s different from saying that independence means we shouldn’t genuinely need or value one another.
I think there’s something beautiful about “I can stand on my own, but I choose to stand with you.”
Being needed in any relationship has a heavy burden that doesnt exist when you’re chosen.
That’s not control. That’s partnership.
My Response:
Hi BM,
Thank you for engaging with Ask Tes!
Whilst I understand your Christian perspective (I was raised Christian myself, though I no longer identify with the religion) and don’t disagree that autonomous beings can have reciprocal relationships, we cannot deny that the biblical narrative and scriptures often frame women in subordinate contexts.
You spoke about God creating a “helper” for Adam and noted that in Hebrew terms it can imply a corresponding partner. While there is always plenty speculation around the exact translations of the Bible—a topic parts of my first book delves into—the reality remains that the narrative explicitly frames the woman as an addition to the man’s existence. Assuming the woman was referred to as his ‘helper’ in the subordinate sense and not in the ‘corresponding partner’ sense isn’t far fetched when the text literally states that she was made out of his rib.
Beyond Genesis, there are plenty of verses throughout scripture that actively push the subjugation of women, verses that misogynists regularly quote to justify their oppression. We cannot pretend those elements do not exist within that framework. The statistics speak for themselves.
I actually agree with you that women were not created to serve men but it’s worth noting that it was you that brought up the term ‘helper’ as a reason for women’s creation.
My essay barely mentioned religion and wasn’t debating your theological views.
Where we do differ is on the concept of choice. I think it is highly idealistic to claim that being ‘chosen’ eliminates the heavy burden of being needed. In reality, that heavy burden exists especially when you are ‘chosen.’ In a conscious relationship you are ‘chosen’. The person who is designated or viewed as the “rock” in the partnership has an immense amount of emotional pressure and expectations placed upon them, a dynamic I have personally and closely witnessed.
Being ‘chosen’ does not automatically grant you immunity from the weight of another person’s emotional dependence.
Disputing whether or not Eve was made for Adam or whether or not women need to be in partnerships with men, are pretty moot points. Ultimately, the purpose of my essay wasn’t to claim that partnerships or romantic relationships were bad. Relating is literally what makes the world go round. The point was to show that romantic relationships as we know them are set up for failure and can be approached differently.
Got a Relationship Dilemma?
If you have a love, friendship, family or even work dilemma of your own that you need un-sugarcoated clarity on, use my agony aunt portal, Ask Tes.
Click the link below to submit your situation, completely securely, and I’ll get back to you right here on the blog with genuine, grounded, straight forward advice.