Dear Gianna

Q: I will forever be single because I am an independent woman. I have my own place, a good job, I pay my bills, and I don't need any man to pay for me when we are on a date. I can handle my problems and be self-sufficient in every way. I want a relationship, but I can't pretend to be needy and unable to look after myself to have one. Men keep telling me that I make them feel useless. My last boyfriend said that whenever I had a problem I never spoke to him; when I was sad, I never cried to him, asked for his advice and let him do anything nice for me. Once, he booked a nice restaurant for my birthday, and I insisted on paying my share. He was offended as it was meant to be a treat, but I didn't want anyone to feel obligated to do things for me. I can do everything for myself. Why can't men put up with an independent woman?

A: You do sound like an intelligent, emancipated, and independent woman; honestly, I admire you.

Somehow, I agree with you; to some men, strong women with big personalities can be intimidating. But as I said: to some! I am sure that plenty of men out there would be absolutely delighted to have a partner who's equal to or even smarter and more successful than them. I know, from experience, that men who aren't threatened by a successful woman exist. And I know that someone secure enough in themselves won't feel emasculated by you. So your first step is to start being selective: those who need to think that they are "more" than you to be comfortable, simply aren't a good match. I want you to always remember that you should never make yourself smaller to make someone else feel bigger.

Something about your letter caught my eye though: you insisted on paying your half of the bill when your ex was trying to treat you for your birthday.

This didn't make me think of someone whos' trying to pay their fare share in life, which is without a doubt admirable. To me, it came across as if you struggle with receiving.

Also, you mention that your ex found it challenging to connect with you because you never showed him your vulnerable side. Again, of course, I agree that we are all responsible for our emotions and how we handle them, and that others aren't responsible of our wellbeing. However, someone who loves us wants to be our support system. They want to know that we trust them enough to let them catch us if we fall.

I think what's happening here is that you are confusing being weak and needy with being open and vulnerable, which means you're not letting your partners care for you. Caring for someone, doesn't mean that we think they are unable to look after themselves.

For Heidegger, "care" was the basic structure of the human self. His main philosophical question, throughout his works, was concerned with understanding the nature of being. To describe the human being (as opposed to the being of things), he used the word "Dasein" (which can be translated as "being there). According to the philosopher, "Dasein's" main characteristic is care.

The discourse in Heidegger's philosophy about being is rather long and complex, and I cannot cover it here. So, I will jump to his description of care for others.

Caring for others (in a way that allows them to achieve their project) is the authentic way of being. My interpretation is that by not allowing someone to help you (in an authentic way, by letting you free to express your being, not by replacing you and lifting you of all responsibilities), you aren't letting them be who they're meant to be as humans and depriving yourself of essential resources. In this sense allowing someone to help you would in no way make you less independent; if anything, it would help you flourish.

I don't think you must change how you live your life or pretend to be who you're not. If your bills are always paid, if you have a great career, if you don't need anyone to travel with you because you're perfectly capable of going on your own, that's great! I love that mentality.

But does "not needing anyone" mean that you can't let anyone offer to do something nice for you?

You don't need a man to treat you to dinner on your birthday; you can pay, of course, you can. But can we not let someone do something nice for us when they want to?

I will tell you something that I think will shock you: not being able to be vulnerable, to receive, to let others be there for us is a sign of deep insecurity.

If you look deep inside yourself, do you feel unworthy of someone else's attention? Do you think you need to have everything under control to be lovable? Do you find it impossible that someone might want to spend their energy and resources to make you happy?

We think that if we don't need anyone, we're strong, and that can be true. But between not needing and not letting, there's a difference.

Vulnerability is not neediness.

Being needy means looking to your partner to meet your needs. Being vulnerable means being your true self: your well-being doesn't depend on your partner, but you are able to show your soft side and express your thoughts. Actually, being vulnerable takes a lot of courage.

I'll give you an exercise: this week, ask someone to do you a favour. Something doable that they can afford and respects their values. Ask a friend or a family member to do something for you. Something that means they have to make a bit of an effort to achieve. Let them do it, and when it's done, say thank you and appreciate how lucky you are to have people who love you.