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

[Echobelly]

I see a lot of messaging, especially in the 'manosphere' but some outside it too that men's role in relationships is to 'provide and protect'. In this day and age, though, that's an outdated model. Marriage has for a very long time not been the only way for women to get money to pat for anything, so we're not going to swoon over a guy just for earning money. For most couples, both need to work, plenty of women now outearn men and men can't expect to be forgiven having to give any help at home because they are out 'providing' (this was never a particularly fair deal anyway given women's unpaid labour). And we're not going off to war every 5 minutes these days, so the 'protect' part seems a bit redundant, especially when we know that intimate partners are the biggest risk to women.

But too many people still talk about things as that's all women want or need and - a man with a job who might be able to shout threateningly if you happened to have a break in at your house. And it sets men up to fail because the parameters are so different from the world this idea was based on.

I think a key source of disappointment and disillusionment for women is men just not being real partners in a relationship and as parents. And it seems they need to be told this - to know that their wives/partners are working (whether earning or not) and you don't just get to come home and say you're too tired from 'working hard' to help. Or that if you don't have kids, female partners aren't there to run your life with you or do all the management of your family and social life. Men need to be full participants in relationships, not virtual bystanders whose only job is to bring in money - and the way we talk to men and boys and bring up our kids should reflect this.

Indeed.

The one that gets me is all the moaning about having sacrificed one's job to become a mother (which I do understand). But so often the other side isn't really discussed.

Going to work is always portrayed as some huge privilege/embodiment of freedom, yet everyone ignores the women saying how they lucky they feel in having a high earning husband and how this allows them to focus on this hobbies/have spa days etc while their 'privileged' husband sits in meetings. Nobody will ever acknowledge that giving up their job/going PT is often a choice and that many women benefit massively despite losing some independence.

Yes, these decisions don't happen in a vacuum and some families can't afford to sacrifice the higher wage, but in most cases it's just women choosing quality of life/comfort over feminist principles. Which makes sense because 'making a stand' that loses you significant disposable income whilst only being a drop in the ocean to society is one hell of a sacrifice. But nonetheless it is a choice and many of the things we hear people moaning about are situations brought on by individual choices made of free will.

LOL at discussing that men start wars, murder and rape and commit all kinds of violence in an absolutely disproportionate rate compared to women being contested with "yes, but women quabble a lot". I don't know you, but I'd much rather have a "quabble" than being raped and killed.

And no, a world without men would not be a peace utopia, but in my opinion would be immensely more peaceful and with less violence and criminality. My sources? Every single country, culture and era's stats which show the overwhelmingly male rates of all kinds of violence.

Honestly, just compare a all-girls party with any party which includes men in it, and the aftermath of it. And come back to tell me there's no difference.

You're right, but it’s about changing the way we raise our boys now—which many of us are. It’s too late for the adult men in our lives because so many were socialised that way. My DP is very ‘evolved’ but he’s still uneasy with me out-earning him and he feels redundant because I take care of a lot of my own “blue tasks” like car maintenance, DIY etc. He was raised with a SAHM who went to work after his parents divorced, by which time he was in secondary school. I’m afraid we’re in a bit of a gap generation. I find it really difficult but all I can (and did) do is raise DC to expect to and know how to do everything.

@aurynne Would you genuinely want a world with no men at all?!

How many times have you been killed if you don't mind me asking?

Most people worry about things that affect them day to day. Or are you going to say we shouldn't worry about the budget etc because somewhere in the world a stranger is getting murdered?

Although maybe we should focus on the more serious stuff. Presumably we'd start with the group experiencing the highest victimisation rates of violence, right?

No doubt somebody will pop out the old "b..b..but it's men perpetrating the violence". They'd be correct but my understanding is that victim blaming is out of fashion nowadays, so sadly we must separate the perps and victims.

Bit annoying tho tbh, because it's much easier to shrug off a gay man being thrown off a building or a black man having his head stomped on by racist thugs/being shot by the police if we can just say "oh well, own goal....he was killed by his fellow man innit".

What about honour killings? Studies have shown them to take place within the Muslim community in 90-96% of cases. Is it OK as long as she was murdered by a fellow Muslim? 🤔

Probably

Oh @GaIadriel are you still going off on one? Haven’t you got any forest fires to put out or orphans to save from floods instead? I’m not sure you’re going to persuade anyone to think differently, you know….

If men are such brilliant protectors and providers in all cases without exception, how come so many mothers need to use the Child Support Agency to get the (frankly meagre) financial support their children are entitled to?

Shouldn’t those lovely men be honoured to support their progeny?

Isn’t this just another example of the rhetoric not matching up to the reality? Eg “I say I’m a provider but I’ll go self employed to avoid paying anything for the kids with my ex”. Charming.

All too often, they leave their children in poverty and expect DWP to pick up the tab instead - what deadbeats.

@aurynne I'd hate it, personally.

I may be misunderstanding you but you seem to be implying that relationships where the man is the 'provider and protector' are not partnerships?
The numerous posts here belittling the SAHM are doing a disservice to Feminism.
I don't think there is anything particularly clever about paid employment, although it has obvious advantages.
As many of us realise, parenting is the hardest job in the world and that's why lots of women prefer to be a SAHM.

A man can 'protect and provide' and still see his partner as his equal. There seem to be a lot of things getting mixed up on this thread.

Then you made a poor choice of 'protector provider', didn't you. You're telling women we're wrong in wanting men to be more multi-faceted because you don't. You're asserting the PP male is better for all women (assuming you believe all women dream of being housewives) while complaining that you aren't being provided for. That ain't our fault, sorry!

Who "pushed you to get into the office"? Were you frogmarched there by the army? It sounds like you're saying that women are forced to get jobs, and women having jobs stops men earning enough to be PPs. I'd love to see how that logic works.

@SixtySomething That only works if the partner "protects and provides", however.
Also, working mums are also parents - they do both.

Er yes, of course the relationship breaks down if the provider fails to provide. Of course working Mums are parents. But the trouble is that they are also only human. If working mothers are working and looking after their children, then they need someone to look after them. This superwoman fantasy is nonsensical. It only works if the Mum has considerable financial and/or other resources eg Granny is around to take care of everyone. There is a great lack of candour and openness about this.

I know right? Is there another mumsnet where people aren’t constantly told to leave their husbands if they don’t pull their weight?!

@SixtySomething What I meant was partners can only be truly treated as "equals" if both protect and provide. Also, why the assumption that it is the mother who both works and cares for their children? My husband and I both work and we also share care of our little girl (as we are equals in our marriage). As we share everything neither of us need to be any sort of superhero.

Well that's great for you, but you only have one little girl, as you say. So, I imagine you're quite young....
Problems develop as more children come into the equation, costs rise, and perhaps one parent earns more than the other, or health issues develop. Later still, elderly parents may well be an issue. Does the modern man also go part-time to look after his ailing in-laws? I imagine precious few do, or to suport their teenage child who is struggling with psychological/ study issues. It's commonplace for women to adjust their career expectations to accommodate things like that. Women then need someone to care for them to balance the caring the women are doing themselves. It doesn't upset me to think of an arrangement like this and, frankly, I think it's an aberration to be upset by it.
As for why it should be the mother who has the primary role, well, we have biological reality to think about.

I agree, you can be equal partners if you both work part-time, earn similar amounts, stick to one child, don't do extended breast feeding, have no long term emotional or physical after effects of giving birth. But then you are in a niche , carefully-controlled situation.

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.

@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.

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?

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

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)

@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.

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.

@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?