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

Agreeing with Manospohere principles=protective/provider is not logically valid IME.

See also "generosity" - yes I like men to be generous too. With their emotions, with their kindness, with their empathy. But on MN threads that goes down like a lead balloon because everyone else just means money or sometimes presents.

My husband earns less than me and has a spinal condition which is likely to get worse with age. Should I divorce him now or wait until he is definitely incapable of being either a provider or a protector? He's 50 and we have a 5 yo for background.
Edited to add: sarcasm intended but you see my point.

violent men pass on tendencies towards violence. they certainly don’t care about what you teach them about ‘kindness’ and ‘empathy’. they won’t try to understand

why are women generally better human beings? it’s innate, we naturally have higher empathy and understanding of other’s needs and feelings. probably because it made us more successful mothers

it’s like you just want to believe men choose to behave badly and women choose to behave better than men, all thoughout history, in all human cultures.

they are just way more impulsive, and that’s hard to fix, maybe it can’t be fixed

Really? There's a lot of us who are for working as a team. There's give and take, complementary strengths both inside and outside the home.

You can take the provide and the protect because it's never been a given. You just need to look at a lot of the threads on mn to see that there's a lack of any of these things however,which means that there's a lot of women in the family unit getting shafted.

Wow. Kill violent men for generations?

Hormones can be controlled. Chemical castration is a thing.
My point was behaviour is a choice and can be learned with effort. It's the effort we need to reinforce as a sadly large proportion of men don't seem to want to be decent humans and make shitty choices with their behaviour, which reinforces it in their brains.

It’s not a Victorian idea (whatever that is supposed to mean) it’s just reality and as women we have to live it every day.

You can even read stories of transmen injecting themselves with testosterone and how it affects their behaviour. You think you can control that on a societal level?

The only way is to kill violent men, generation after generation. Ideally before they have children

I am fine with them "providing" and "protecting", as long as what they protect is the relationship and provide equal support in it.

It’s depressingly common on MN for women to say their partners ‘provide well’.

They only ever seem to mean money, not providing for their emotional, social, intellectual needs. Certainly not providing for their rights.

Mad to want a man to provide something you can yourself - money - at the expense of things most people seek from others.

How about being all three? A woman already has to be a partner (to her spouse), a protector (to her children) and a provider (to both). How about we just accept that both people in the family unit need to embody these three roles?

What it means to be partner, protector and provider may look different for each person, and in each individual relationship, but fundamentally that's what both partners are being called upon to do, in their own way.

So more emphasis on partnership, sure. I do agree with you there. But I would absolutely not be teaching men they don't need to be protectors and providers in a marriage.

If you actually ever want to expand that Victorian idea, neuroscience might be interesting to you.

There are hormonal and chemical shifts (that could be controlled potentially) but behaviour patterns change the shape of the brain. Porn for example changes the shapes of mens' brains.

I am always baffled when I read about couples on here in their early 20s where the male partner thinks he doesn't have to do any housework or baby-related duties. Some of these men have parents who were born in the 1980s like me - my parents and those of my friends both worked, although mum part time so housework was shared accordingly. Have we really been modelling "men work, women clean" to kids born in 2000? Are they getting it off their mates/incel social media?

Ive never had a man provide for me or protect me. I find they tend not to unless they're getting a return.

I think the most vulnerable woman are women that don’t meet the requirements for disability but are still unfit for work.
My sister had learning disabilities, autism and adhd and had multiple jobs that she couldn’t manage and ended up on the streets so she got married had several children and stayed at home.
She felt she didn’t have any other options as being married meant she had a home and bills were being paid. Her marriage was very abusive and she was completely controlled so she saw no way out and sadly she ended her own life.
There needs to be more support so woman aren’t stuck in a situation where they need a man to support them.

Raising your sons right? Why didn’t anyone think of that before?

(men are naturally aggressive, it’s innate, it doesn’t just go away when you read them a few books, it’s why prisons are full of men and why most murderers are male in every human culture, no fuck it, among animals too)

Why can't we simply teach them to be human and humane?
Teach them empathy through reading, patience, kindness...you know, all the things women have to do to balance out their rash violence?

I'm actually interested in the biology that shows you can see empathy strands in the frontal cortex - maybe regular brain scans and work out sessions, possibly even injecting some in if there are too few, would save us all a lot of money. Imagine no wars, no violent crime. All the tax we could spend on actually becoming a better human race!

Yep most of my female ancestors and current family members work and have always had to.

It’s why I always hoot with laughter than men are women’s “protectors”. Protectors from who…..?

I can completely get the ones happy chilling but that does not fit my temperament. Despite the average sex differences I am certainly more male in that I would not feel comfortable being financially dependent on a partner.

we have to deal with it somehow unless you want to abort all males. I prefer to use their natural aggression for productive purposes, banish them to labor-intensive and other traditionally male fields. They seem happier that way anyway

Why do you think careers are inherently male?

Taking into account that most female murders are comitted by a male partner or ex parter I find it quite laughable the idea of men being "protectors".

I need protection against these "protectors".

That's fair enough.

But there are plenty who seem happy to have the best of both worlds. Work part time in a relatively junior role and have a great quality of life through the hard work of their husband. I don't mean SAHM, more the women who never return to FT work.

What couples do is nobody else's business really but we only ever hear of the risk element (leaving you destitute for a younger woman etc) and we hear less from the ones sitting at home on a Tuesday chilling.

I think when looked at through a historical lens, the view of women working has somehow become really skewed by a brief period in the mid-20th century.

Most of history = most men and women worked to earn money to live
Mid 20th century = men could have careers; some women could stay at home without working to earn money; women's jobs devalued and not viewed as careers
Later 20th century - present = men and women can have careers

For some reason, that tiny, anomalous period of history is held up as the traditional standard (backed up by Victorian idealised ideas of family and mothers/motherhood, which again didn't apply to the vast majority of people in reality). Women working really isn't a new idea.

I just like having and making my own money.