Men are relevant just as the way that war and evil are relevant – peace and love become valuable because of their existence. In a way, woman can be defined as being the opposite of man, her virtues and skills become all the more striking when compared to man’s, because the truth is man and woman are intrinsically different beings shaped by culture, tradition, history, and biological factors.
Men are also relevant in the economic sense – some professions appeal more to men than women (not that women cannot do them, but if women choose not to do them at least there are men who are willing), from stressful politicking to being undertakers.
It seems to me that, in the very basic sense of the question of whether women need men, the answer is yes – yes in that females need males to propagate the species. But if women need men to survive, then the answer is no. Women have able bodies and mental faculties that will enable them to survive on their own. What men can do, women can do too. This is not a question of who can do it better, but whether it is essential for women to have men, and if not having men would mean the end of women. Again, the question of women needing men can also be interpreted as whether women need men in their lives to be happy.
Happiness can only be achieved by the individual and not be given by another person, but if a certain woman believes that she needs to have a satisfying, fulfilling relationship with the opposite sex to make her life experience whole, perhaps she wants or prefers to have a man, but no woman will die without a man. Yes, there are women who commit suicide because of heartbreak, but that is because of the unbearable pain of heartbreak not because a man is there or not there, and if she so chooses, she can live without him, he is not a reason for living or dying.