The target article argues that men’s dependence on women for intimacy and support means “romantic relationships matter more to men than women.” We draw attention to key literature missed by the target article to emphasize that men’s dependence in intimate relationships also has broader harm by producing ideologies that sustain gender inequality and promote aggression toward women. Overlooking these wider gender-based processes will perpetuate rather than inspire change in gender roles that harm both men and women.

The target article ignores the most comprehensive theory of how gender shapes man-woman relationships, including why intimate relationships are central to men’s wellbeing. Ambivalent sexism theory (AST; Glick & Fiske, Reference Glick and Fiske1996, Reference Glick, Fiske, Zanna and Zanna2001) details why men’s dependence on women creates challenges for men. Men’s dependence on women for intimacy and support conflicts with structural gender inequalities in which men hold greater economic and political power than women. The conflict between men’s dependence in intimate relationships and structural power asymmetries produces two gender ideologies – benevolent and hostile sexism – that are present across the world (Zawisza et al., Reference Zawisza, Kosakowska-Berezecka, Glick, Olech, Besta, Jurek, Sobiecki, Best, Bosson, Vandello, Safdar, Włodarczyk and Żadkowska2025). Critically, these ideologies represent distinct ways of managing dependence within intimate relationships, and thus are directly related to the wellbeing consequences of men’s dependence on women, but have far broader consequences for men and women within and outside intimate relationships.

Gender ideologies that justify traditional gender roles are central to why intimate relationships are consequential for men’s wellbeing. Benevolent sexism resolves the tension between dependence in intimate relationships and men’s advantaged structural power by valuing differences between men and women and romanticizing traditional gender roles. Benevolent sexism emphasizes that women are warm, supportive caregivers whom men need for happy and complete lives, and so men, as competent, legitimate power holders, should protect and provide for women (Glick & Fiske, Reference Glick and Fiske1996, Reference Glick, Fiske, Zanna and Zanna2001). Benevolent sexism is central to Wharing et al.’s argument because these commonly-held beliefs explain why men often expect and receive more benefits from relationships (for reviews, see Bareket & Fiske, Reference Bareket and Fiske2023; Hammond & Overall, Reference Hammond and Overall2017; Overall & Hammond, Reference Overall and Hammond2026). For example, men higher in benevolent sexism experience greater wellbeing differences when partnered versus single (Waddell et al., Reference Waddell, Sibley and Osborne2019), and their goal to maintain satisfying relationships often reduces relationship conflict and enhances wellbeing for men and their women partners (Waddell et al., Reference Waddell, Overall and Chang2024, Reference Waddell, Overall, Cross and Sibley2025).

Gender ideologies that emphasize “men need women’s emotional support” have costs for women. An AST perspective is crucial because it elucidates that emphasizing men’s dependence on women in intimate relationships contributes to the maintenance of gender inequalities. By prescribing different roles for men and women, benevolent sexism reinforces women’s dependence on men as providers and protectors. For example, benevolent sexism promotes an imbalanced division of labor (Bareket et al., Reference Bareket, Shnabel, Kende, Knab and Bar-Anan2021; Zawisza et al., Reference Zawisza, Kosakowska-Berezecka, Glick, Olech, Besta, Jurek, Sobiecki, Best, Bosson, Vandello, Safdar, Włodarczyk and Żadkowska2025), patronizing and restrictive support of women’s personal and career goals (Hammond & Overall, Reference Hammond and Overall2015; Hideg & Shen, Reference Hideg and Shen2019), and opposition to women’s reproductive rights (Osborne et al., Reference Osborne, Huang, Overall, Sutton, Petterson, Douglas, Davies and Sibley2022). Wharing et al.’s sole focus on men’s dependence and well-being overlooks these broader costs – limits to women’s personal success and freedom that harm women’s wellbeing, maintain gender inequalities, and heighten women’s dependence on men’s structural power within relationships (Bareket & Fiske, Reference Bareket and Fiske2023; Zawisza et al., Reference Zawisza, Kosakowska-Berezecka, Glick, Olech, Besta, Jurek, Sobiecki, Best, Bosson, Vandello, Safdar, Włodarczyk and Żadkowska2025).

Men’s dependence on women also promotes hostile gender ideologies and aggression toward women. AST also highlights that men’s dependence on women for love and support generates hostility when structural power asymmetries produce beliefs that women are competing for men’s power. Hostile sexism involves fears that women will exploit men’s dependence to control and manipulate men (Glick & Fiske, Reference Glick and Fiske1996, Reference Glick, Fiske, Zanna and Zanna2001). Men high in hostile sexism believe women cannot be trusted to provide genuine love and support (Fisher & Hammond, Reference Fisher and Hammond2019), producing feelings of powerlessness that promote aggression toward women (Cross et al., Reference Cross, Overall, Low and McNulty2019; Overall & Hammond, Reference Overall and Hammond2026). Men’s hostile attitudes and gender-based aggression increase when men cannot form intimate relationships with women (Bosson et al., Reference Bosson, Rousis and Felig2022; Brooks et al., Reference Brooks, Russo-Batterham and Blake2022). Men’s hostile sexism also reliably predicts domestic violence (Agadullina et al., Reference Agadullina, Lovakov, Balezina and Gulevich2022; Gutierrez & Leaper, Reference Gutierrez and Leaper2024) and aggression toward women in dating and marital relationships (Cross et al., Reference Cross, Overall, Hammond and Fletcher2017, Reference Cross, Overall, Low and McNulty2019; Overall et al., Reference Overall, Sibley and Tan2011, Reference Overall, Chang, Cross, Low and Henderson2021), especially when men feel they lack power to get their needs met in their relationship (Cross et al., Reference Cross, Overall, Low and McNulty2019; Loveland & Raghavan, Reference Loveland and Raghavan2017; Overall et al., Reference Overall, Chang, Cross, Low and Henderson2021; Whitaker, Reference Whitaker2013).

Hostile gender ideologies and aggression harm men and especially women. Wharing et al. acknowledge that intimate partner violence contributes to why women may benefit less from relationships. However, they miss that gender-based violence stems from men’s hostile reactions to dependence on women, which also contributes to their focus on men’s wellbeing. By generating conflict and aggression in intimate relationships, hostile sexism erodes men’s relationship and personal wellbeing (Cross & Overall, Reference Cross and Overall2019; Waddell et al., Reference Waddell, Overall and Chang2024, Reference Waddell, Overall, Cross and Sibley2025). More alarmingly, Wharing et al.’s presentation implies that the wellbeing consequences of men’s dependence “matters more” than the consequences of violence for women, which causes obvious substantial physical and psychological harm to women. By downplaying the costs of intimate partner violence, the target article prioritizes men’s outcomes while failing to appreciate that hostile reactions to men’s dependence justify gender-based aggression and defend men’s societal dominance (Bareket & Fiske, Reference Bareket and Fiske2023; Zawisza et al., Reference Zawisza, Kosakowska-Berezecka, Glick, Olech, Besta, Jurek, Sobiecki, Best, Bosson, Vandello, Safdar, Włodarczyk and Żadkowska2025)

Solutions that focus only on men’s dependence and wellbeing risk perpetuating gender roles. Wharing et al. recognize that challenging gender roles is necessary to reduce men’s dependence on women by enabling men to seek support from more diverse support networks. But, beyond this claim, challenging gender roles is critical to reduce men’s hostile reactions to dependence on women (e.g., hostile sexism, aggression) and address relationship processes that perpetuate gender inequality (e.g., restrictive roles for women and men). Overlooking these wider gender-based processes led Wharing et al. to propose fostering cross-gender friendships to enhance men’s access to support. This proposed solution rehashes benevolent views of gender roles by continuing to place the burden of support on women. We emphasize the need for interventions to assist all people – regardless of gender – to mutually provide and benefit from support within intimate and non-intimate relationships.