Hm. There are very few such generalizations I'll agree with. Certainly what he describes is true for some men; no idea what the percentage would be.

If he was talking about it in the context of patriarchal religions, then I'd say, definitely true. One thing almost all the major religions seem to have in common is some kind of misogyny (including "elevating" women in a way that disregards what their own thoughts and wishes might be).

Sorry not sorry guys. I aint buying your excuses. We live in a world where women get beat up or murdered for rejecting mens advances. Where womens words and work are constantly devalued and demeaned, simply because they are women. Where womens health is treated as side issue not worth researching. Not a single one of you doesn't benefit,in some measure, from the patriarchal nature of our society. Just as not a single caucasian person. Doesn't benefit from the simple fact of being caucasian. The oppression is real and ongoing and when you say "But not me!" You're denying the true nature of male/female relations.
Furthermore, all of you are more than happy to fully back Hutchins on literally everything he's ever said or written except this?! How about having a little look see at your biases?

I agree with him for the most part.

The insecurities of some men, especially those in power, make them afraid of independent women who don't need them and it scares the hell out of them.

These men try to control and manipulate women in order to keep them beneath themselves by resorting to tactics such as enacting dress codes, (one was just instituted in Congress last year) body shaming, cyber-bullying, (sometimes to the point of suicide) and probably the most visible, female reproductive rights.

These are only a small sample of the ways women are treated, but it's good to see things are starting to turn around some.
Every day we see more and more women coming forward and speaking out about how they have been treated in the past, things that would have never come to light not long ago.

I have known men who display those qualities, so I know it’s in the gene pool, but I have no idea what the ratio is. Hitchens was brilliant, and wrong about some important things (IMHO) so he might have seen this trait as more prevalent than it actually is. Or maybe he thought it was subconsciously inherent in most men, which could be true, but we don’t get to see our subconscious, so no easy way to know. Nurture can override Nature in many cases. My estimate is that the men who consciously and openly manifest this disgust are in a relatively small minority.

In the comments, some have asked, ‘need women for what’, and I think Hitchens was referring to sexual need only. In reality men and women need each other for a much broader range of natural human needs, but it seems that for certain men, it is the sexual need that they resent. They often barely notice that they have other needs. Maybe in some cases they actually don’t. Humans are complex.

I wish I could see the whole interview, to understand the context of this statement. Unfortunately, my jungle bandwidth is having none of that.
Standing alone, I disagree with his statement. My life is richer for the many amazing women who have been and are now in it. I definitely desire to be in a relationship with that special woman. (Working on that!) But Need women? That's not the word I'd use. And to suggest that my desire for, affinity toward, and appreciation of women in any way engenders feelings of disgust is absurd.

OK. I watched it. I do think he is saying men need women for procreation and they hate to give up that power. And men used religion to subjecate women.

To which I do agree.

I believe men need women more than women need men. I have felt that for a long, long time. It has never really bothered me. For those people of both genders who struggle with the fact that men and women are very different from each other, GET OVER IT! It ain't gonna change.

disgust ?? hardly. i was brought up by women and have met very few men who can stand shoulder to shoulder with them

He makes a rational statement. Society has changed a lot over the the last century when it comes to equality, largely an improvement when you see the way things used to be. Having said that, society still has fallacies when it comes equality, and whilst religion may be the biggest factor, it is by no means the only one

He also said female comedians aren't funny. Sometimes even the smartest people get it wrong.

While I agree with Hitchens on many points, I definately am not disgusted by the fact that I "need women". I'm not even sure precisely what He means when he says we "need women". I'm certinally happier in a loving relationship -- and yes as a species we need to procreate. I would be very suprised if any of my male friends echoed Hitchens claim here. I suspect he simply has some wierd hangup about being self sufficient.

    Back in the 60s, whenwe were reading Betty Friedan, we talked about our rolein a new society.  Only some of us realized that we , as the mothers of little boys have the most work to do to bring on this new society. We have to be the teachers and the examples and society and its institutients ( TV, adversing, religion and politics ) are all set against what we have to achieve.
    Note: how did I get into the italic mode?  
    On the subject of continuing the species.  We do not need men for that anymore.  Partenogenisis is the term.  And we can invent pickle jars that are easier to open, too. Just kidding, guys.  

The fact that this site exists and we're talking amongst ourselves confirms the need for each other.

It's so amazing how a person can justify getting what they want by wrapping god around it. It's all crap to me. Mothers raise their children and man manipulates the outcome. I personally believe in teamwork and equality. Females should be able to do whatever a man is capable of doing other then lifting heavy loads. Other then that, pound for pound, they can take care of themselves. Given the opportunity, they would do a better job in controlling our country. The Queen has no problem in the UK. I'M really a ladies man. I may be biased on my thoughts. But i don't think so.

Not this guy. I love women but "need" implies that men are basically children who need the maternal figure in order to survive. That has never been the case with me because even when I was married I was more of a "homemaker" than my ex-wife was.

My partner and I fill each others gaps everything i lack he has in spades and vice versa its a really comfortable fit and i never feel that I am doing more than my fair share of the work. I think I understand what he's getting at though because of the way men are portrayed as both strong and also weak - Women ae too but I think that men do get a tougher message - when I was at school it was never okay for a boy to cry even when caned and girls werent caned in those days .A lot of messages there and even popular songs carry them on as if it isnt enough just to be a human and be yourself. I do think men from a certain time had a bad deal.

Projection.

Sighs ... sadly I have to agree. It isn't something I'm proud of but there it is.

I think men (as do women but men deal with it differently) get jaded, and think that Love is a fanciful fantasy.
Men such as myself really hate having to count on people in general, but women in particularly. Not because they aren't able to be, or do something. We are not I am not talking about mysoginy here.
It's about losing control emotionally, loving something, or someone so much it hurts.
Their pain becomes ours only tenfold more so.
Their dissappointments affect us , and we are the cause of that dissappointment well ...
I hate the weakness I feel ... I worry that it isn't reciprocated in kind ... that I've left myself open to a kind of pain that is for the most part or so it seems unbearable.
I think that the definition of love is different.
I don't understand women, and it's clear (as I am single still ) that they don't understand me!
I'm old fashioned in the sense that I treat women, as ladies, with respect, decorum, properly.
I do not mean that in any other way than that when I'm with someone I want to be their protector when they're feeling vulnerable, their strength when they're not feeling so strong, the wind (present but not seen) when they need their space, Hope when things seem hopeless, a smile when they need to know they've made someone happy.
Sheesh I should have been a poet!
And I totally went off topic sorry ... Men don't like appearing weak ... I don't ... love comes from a place of strength so when a woman interprets that as weakness it tends to have a visceral response from most men I would guess!

I have no god and no impulse to own women. Either he is an idiot or has an ego that frees him from the need to try and be understood, but fuels him with the need to speak. I don't think he's an idiot, but I really do wish he did less interviews. His more thoughtful writings are interesting, but this is just a horrible pile of garbage and many of his interviews end up that way.

2,000 years ago, men needed women and women needed men. Almost everyone who passed on their genes at that time was the result of a breadwinner and a housekeeper working together. However, wars were fought by men and there are many important biological reasons why that made sense then. Given the complications of pregnancy and the fact that a man could contribute genetically to several billion babies at a time and a woman was generally only able to do 1 every 9 months, men were far more expendable and the men who had extra testosterone to fuel muscle growth and suppress risk aversion were valuable to society. So yeah, when testosterone was still of primary importance to the society, it'd make sense that the male leadership of those societies had issues with women and understanding their true value, therefore they failed to develop any understanding of women and that generally manifests as revulsion. Back then, it was disgust perpetuated by those in power for clearly understandable reasons.

However, we now live in a completely different paradigm. Testosterone production is not of primary importance. This is why the "alpha males" and men in general feel like they are losing privilege. We are. I'm fine with that, but that's what it is. Individual and species survival is now primarily a function of cooperation and leverage of others with different specialized skills and talents. Testosterone is important for us to cultivate in some part of the population, but it is no longer of primary importance. Cooperation and understanding are the primary skills we need to cultivate. This whole apish longing for the past with the Cro-Mags wanting to make things better “again” is unsustainable. Darwin will prove them wrong, either with a backlash or a genetic reset in the form of a war. I think the time of men being disgusted with women is ending.

It's a generalization, so of course it doesn't apply to every individual, and it was probably a more prevalent sentiment in pre-modern times, but I don't think he is wrong. Still today, it's a frequent source of comedic humour the power women have over men, whose sex drives cause them to need women in way that tends to be less the other way around, and for many men that can be a source of resentment. And of course, women are needed to birth children, and especially in pre-modern times, to nurse children. And in pre-modern times there were no sanitary products to aid with the unpleasantries of menstruation, and there's also plenty to freak one out about the birth process as well. Hence the revulsion he mentions.

Human are social animal with a herd mentality so yeah i guess we need others to bounce ideas off

No. I think he is "projecting" his own experiences onto others.

I studied sociology in college, and pretty much came to the conclusion that human diversity is so vast you can't make any kind of blanket statement that will cover any aspect of human behavior. You cna make some generalizations which at best will mostly be true, but the mosre specific you get the less true statements become when talkgin bout human behavior.

So much male butthurt in these comments! Your mouth says no but your history says yes. Surprised @Jnei hasn't weighed in on this one.

Where does that 'need' come from, nature or nurture? Men are just as capable of surviving on their own and if our culture (anthropology) didn't foster women as servants for men (cooks, maids, babysitters and such) we would be fine on our own as are many women. Men have the instinct to procreate and that is probably where the strongest 'need' comes from. I do not need a woman for anything (except maybe companionship and other varieties of sex I can't do myself). But I want one (sometimes) and I ask myself often why is that? I am past the procreatioon stage and never really had a strong instinct for that anyway. I also understand that often 2 can fare better than one so maybe that is a part of it.

[salon.com]

Hitchens was sexist and racist like Dawkins and Harris.