We need to talk about men needing to be partners, not 'providers and protectors'

What is the difference?

@Goldenbear Nope - didn't say that at all. And equal rights is not the same being treated equally.

There's a difference between being someone who would step up and protect/provide for your partner as required - which I would also do, as a woman - and being a man whose identity and masculinity are tied up with his self-image as a "provider and protector". The latter kind of man absolutely will see women as weaker, in need of protecting; and if his "natural" role is to provide (by earning money), then the logical corollary is that her "natural" role is to look after the domestic sphere. Absolutely not for me.

Don’t be silly. Of course you’d have equal human and societal rights but within the parameters of that relationship you weren’t equal.

No they aren't, equal rights is the right to be treated equally. What is shocking is that you think it is justifiable for a woman not to be treated equally if she is a Mum without employment!

@Goldenbear They are two different things - like comparing apples and pears.

That's just an argument in semantics!

@Goldenbear I said nothing about equal rights - I said about being seen/treated as an equal. Two different things.

That's a pretty amoral take on equality you have there - so a woman shouldn't expect equal rights to apply to her if she is a SAHM?

I was at home with my DC (due to gaps in age being quite large) for 7-8 years (did some freelance in that time at the end) but I certainly deserved equal rights in that time, bizarre to think I wouldn't. DH and are spontaneous people so we struggled a bit at first to get the balance right, I certainly wouldn't say in the early days he pulled his weight because he didn't but I'm not exactly someone that will take that quietlyand unlike you I believed despite my SAH status I deserved respect! I am sure many complete spreadsheets on their compatibility for having children but it just wasn't like that for us, I mean having our first was an impulsive decision based upon love!

@Goldenbear It creates a power imbalance for a start and is a very risky strategy should the relationship fail.
If I want to be treated as an equal, I act like an equal. That includes working for a living.

I'm getting huge smugly ignorant vibes from this thread.

Does anyone purposfully look for a 'provider and a protector', I think that is just odd frankly but even if a man is a PP, why does that automatically mean they will not view their wife/partner as equal?

Maybe. @YorkshireGoldDrinker will probably be along to tell me I am a man in drag. 😂

@Thepeopleversuswork Absolutely the same as you in every single regard, including the partner with non bio child/children part and being fully financially responsible.
But can I ask the inevitable question now?
"Are you a man?" 😄

*@SixtyPlusI *do lead a well-organised life as a working parent, made possible by the fact that I have a husband who shares the load of everything equally. This is not through luck but by judgement (on both of our parts). I recommend it.

@YorkshireGoldDrinker

Men are protectors and providers, and we do need them, anyone who says otherwise has either had terrible luck with finding the right man to settle down with (my sympathies if so) or is coping hard. Sorry to say.

This is such a load of bullshit, as so many people have pointed out already.

Just to take these point by point: what "protection and provision" am I supposed to need? provision: I out-earn my partner by a factor of three to one. I have deliberately gone out of my way never to be financially dependent on a man: my mum was financially dependent on my dad and couldn't leave and I knew instinctively as a child I didn't want that.

I've always provided for myself and my child, I always will. I love my partner, he pays his share of the mortgage and bills, he plays his part at home and with my child (who is not his biological child). I have a house in my name only and that way it will stay. I have a pension and savings for my child, which he will never touch. I love my partner to bits and I completely trust him but damned if I would ever depend on his goodwill to raise my family.

Protection? From what? I live in a safe house with people I trust, with friends near me I live in a safe city, I don't live in a war zone and I'm not surrounded by wild animals. What would he protect me from? In the unlikely event that someone tried to jump me in a dark alley, what is he supposed to do if he's not there? If some guy verbally assaulted me in a pub, would you want him to go and threaten him to defend my honour?

Many of us do want and need men in our lives. We want them as friends, lovers, companions champions, partners in life. But "protect and provide"? Anyone who thinks that's why they need men for is honestly asking to be taken advantage of.

Well, I may be wrong on every point , although I still suspect there’s an X factor not being mentioned which enables you to lead such a well- organised life.
However, the real point is what happens when difficulties arise, and I’m unsure that your felicitous situation has anything to say about this.

Thank you for your sensible and realistic perspective!

@BarbarasRhabarberba* *I couldn't agree with you more. Women unfortunately make lots of excuses as to why they can't work when in fact they won't just admit they don't want to. Wouldn't it be easier if they just did, @SixtyPlus?

I don’t think I’m insinuating anything!
I do of course realise that I’m voicing an unpopular ( on such MN threads) view and fully expect to be shouted down and insulted.

@Goldenbear Of course each family and individual is entitled to make their own choices, but personally no - I don't see a ft SAHP and ft working parent as equals as one is purely solely financially responsible and one (I imagine) is doing the majority of the childcare. Contributing differently perhaps, but not equally.
I do totally appreciate that you have now returned to work (how long were you a SAHM, not sure?) but a lot of SAHPs do so for years after the children are in school, if not permanently. Again, to me, that is not a marriage of true equality.

So parents can't be(shouldn't be?) treated as "equals" so have equal rights unless they make the same financial contribution? So a parent caring for their child full time, a SAHP has no value- this is an incredibly conventional view of what roles are worthwhile. Having a salaried role whilst being a Mum is not a State Of Grace! I was a SAHM as I didn't want to be an hour and a half commute away from my sixth month old first born (at the time) I left a very good career, DH who wasn't DH at the time was still training to be an Architect (as we had our first relatively youngish in our peer group) so we decided to live off his very low salary. I certainly enabled his career and now my first is a late teen, that decision paid off as DH is very well paid. I was lucky and managed to get back in to my career following being a SAHM but I can categorically state that both are contributing at an 'equal' level! Besides, equal rights aren't based upon whether you don't mind your husband/partner doing more of the boring shit around the house e.g. car stuff, repairing things! (Joke)

@SixtyPlus Again, incorrect. Our combined income is around £55k/60 pa. Only benefit CB.

Well, you’re in a great situation then. However, this is not the norm and I’m sure there are advantages supporting your situation which you are presumably well aware of eg high income and other social advantages?

@SixtySomething Wrong on every single assumption!
If you think 45 and 49 are "young" I'll take that!! 😆
I also have two older sons (15 and 18) so my husband is also an involved stepfather. His parents are both in their 80s and he is a brilliant son to them.
I extended breastfed all three children for between 18 months and 4 years. Husband shared leave for our daughter and took a day off for a year when I returned to work when she turned one.
He is an equal in every sense.
I would accept no less.

There is no requirement for the modern woman to always be the one who scales back their career. Personally I - and others on this thread - wouldn’t consider a relationship with a man who wouldn’t do the same. Either we’re both part time or we’re both full time, end of story. As for going part time for in-laws, absolutely not - his family, his responsibility. Going part time for teenagers is something I’ve only heard of on mumsnet and seems to be an excuse used by women who want to justify their desire not to work. Stupid decision, but you do you. Also can we please stop insinuating this is some innate thing because women are caring? I might have a vagina but I don’t have a caring bone in my body. So if my partner thought I’m going to be running around after his elderly parents (he doesn’t) he’d be swiftly disabused of that notion. I wouldn’t even do it for my own parents.