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 In this day and age, though, that's an outdated model.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.

@Riverswims What did your ex-husband want do you think?

The trouble with my ex wasn't that I was looking for a 'provider and a protector' - more that I wasn't, and he was wanting 'a maid/nanny/prostituted woman' but he didn't make that clear until the kids were already here and he thought he had me locked down (thank fuck I kept my career up so I could get rid of him when he went too far over the line)

I get the impression that on this thread, descriptions of domestic set ups belie reality or that people enjoy running their household like a Panzer division, in which case I will settle for the low bar of a DH that treats me as his equal despite not earning equal amounts of money (probably because I was a SAHM). I mean, what even are the margins here when it comes to equal financial contributions to be treated equally? Are we discussing £5000 or £50000+ where your value moves from equal to unequal!

@Goldenbear How much were you earning as a SAHM? 😀
It's not about comparing earning amounts to me, but the fact that I have always, without fail, worked hard to provide something financially for my family in the same way my husbands have (I've been married twice).
First husband - very well off and far wealthier than me - felt emasculated by his working wife - wanted me to give up and become dependent on him (not a chance). Controller. "Sigma" male. I was miserable and left him (to his horror - why would I leave a provider?!!) Eventually divorced (once he'd stopped legally contesting!) I had the ability to set up and start again as I could rely on my career to help me here.
Now husband - nowhere near as wealthy, works in adult social services. Earns less than me ph. Fully works with me in every single way - home, childcare, life. Fellow feminist. Awesome dad and stepdad and all-round good guy. Equals. We are both very happy.

I think it's fair enough for people to have their own wishes/standards and to seek that out in relationships. However, I also look at my workplace and wonder what it'd be like if everybody focused on exactly the same skillset and split all jobs between them. Accountants, security, plant maintenance, technical, etc. It'd be chaos!

Obv that's not really a like for like comparison but I do think in many cases it's more realistic for responsibilities to be divided. One partner maximising their earnings and the other focusing on the rest is likely going to be the way to attain the most family income in many situations, as opposed to both not giving it 100%.

But of course we then have the eternal issue of one partner shouldering a much higher level of risk as they lose their independence. Controversial opinion but I think drive and competitiveness come easier to a lot of men. They don't have to learn it or rationalise it until it's second nature as many of us do. From childhood boys are much more boisterous and competitive on the whole.

Not saying this should influence how we make our decisions or anything like that. But no doubt it affects wider society and is likely a big factor in the current modus operandi where men work more, earn more, and are more likely to be the principle earner.

I couldn't imagine living off somebody else, though, although I'd happily not go to work if I didn't need to. It's not a source of self fulfillment to me tbh like so many women seem to claim. It's something that eats into my limited time on this planet and stops me getting to the gym, seeing friends, doing my hobbies, etc.

@GaIadriel As a feminist I am going to - and I do - challenge "the current modus operandi where men work more, earn more, and are more likely to be the principle earner" - I ain't taking that shit as it were! 😀 I am very much hoping my daughter does the same. I love my career and I love the sense of fulfilment that comes with providing for my family in exactly the same way my husband does - just because I am a woman makes no odds.

When I was a SAHM I didn't and still don't see it as anything but a mutual benefit, I was no more living off him, than he was me. It was the 00s first time around so my job wasn't a WFH one like mine, in part is now. I have a really fulfilling job in a fairly male dominated sector so I'm not some docile female but it's not on a par or nowhere near the fulfillment I found in bringing up my DC in the early years.

My dp ( together 27 years) and I are a team. We have 2 sons. He used to work away a fair bit and long hours other times. He would always drive home when he could and be there for boys. One of us worked,one of us at home. It was team work. Still is. To me he is great..What makes a man? Someone who is as ok with ironing,cooking etc as well as fixing stuff and taking time with children etc. Someone comfortable in their own skin and not trying to prove anything. My dp is quietly confident and rather fab. When I see some oft my female friends shitshow of partners/ husbands I wonder what the heck! I think some women also have a skewed view of what a 'man' ( partner) should be too..the protector etc etc....In my opinion should be a team. I don't know if social media has a huge influence on both men and women re expectations. I think probably!

@Boudy So you do see a husband as a provider?

Well, if that works for you then that's what matters.

I do note though that a lot of women are happy to assume the role of principle earner but less happy for their husband to work 2-3 days a week and spend the rest of his time going to the gym and playing xbox. So it doesn't 100% work both ways in many cases.

Of course many women work non stop looking after the kids, doing all the housework, and fitting it around a PT job. But on the other hand, if one partner is living the life of riley whilst the other grafts we all know which way round it usually is. Not being inflammatory but it's true.

@GaIadriel Exactly why to us, equal teamwork is so important - no issues with imbalance as you describe.

@Mrsnothingthanks No I don't. We have interchanged over the years we have always 'pulled our weight' in the home regardless of who is earning what as well.

I’m late 40’s, married for 20+ years. Protector and provider??? Nope, not needed. I’ve always shared everything with him, but with a safety net of a career that would give me financial independence if I ever needed it. When I was on maternity leave I was being paid because I had a career to go back to, didn’t need a provider. We’ve both had times where we’ve earned less than the other but we’ve both worked and shared childcare and everything else. My husband has supported me yes, cared for me yes, protected? WTF? I’m a grown ass woman, I can protect myself. And I’ve supported and cared for him. We are partners, equals. So sad to hear this kind of trad wife bullshit. Really hope my daughters don’t fall for this crap and that they have the kind of partnership that I’ve been lucky enough to have.

I think I'd probs feel the same in terms of outlook. IME a lot of men work their nuts off to provide for their family, not to get one over on their wife. It's an odd perspective to me to see this as some selfish act and feel he needs to 'share the bounty'.

Yes, he'll likely be in a more stable position if the relationship breaks down But if he's working a stressful senior level job whilst his wife never returned to FT work even after the kids were at school, yet they share a bank account....well, she's not exactly being mugged off IMO. She's just taking a risk whereby she sacrifices some stability/safety net in return for a quality of life that wouldn't otherwise be attainable with her current job/hours worked.

Seems to be an unpopular opinion but I'm not convinced taking time out to raise kids automatically earns you the right to give up FT work at 30yo while your husband works another 30-40 years.

Catching up on this thread and there’s so much good for thought.

It’s interesting how much pivots around the concept of who should or shouldn’t work in paid employment outside the home.

Before the Industrial Revolution, both men and women worked in and close to home, maintained their houses, tilled their land and were present and active in family life.

The idea that women didn’t/shouldn’t work is such a modern, and privileged one. Throughout history most of the female population worked, and worked hard, hauling water, dragging at heavy wet clothes, pregnant as often as not, carrying infants, working the land too. I’ve seen mention in a number of historical sources of men objecting to doing women’s work, but women working alongside men in fields - ie that the gender divide wasn’t because some jobs were too hard for women, but that they were beneath the contempt of men.

Of course war was the exception, and it’s interesting to me that in this version of “protection” as a male function, the purpose is to draw men away from their natural instinct of homesteading, to fight for another person’s interests. It got me thinking about how “protect and provide” post Industrial Revolution, and particularly post ww2 have been essentially exploitative of men for economic purposes.

Taking people outside the home, to work for money, to pay for family life, creates a distance from the whole point of life and work. People feel like they’re working to pay the mortgage, and the utility bills, which psychologically is very different to working to raise a family.

The IR fundamentally changed something humanity was doing for millennia. “Protect and provide”, speaks to basic instinct, but I think is a corrupted message to gaslight men into the importance of leaving their homes every day, barely seeing their dc, and working long hours. It’s fundamentally unnatural.

Several women have talked about the fulfilment they felt raising their dc. I’m curious whether the post Covid trend of more and more working from home, will wake more men up to what they’re missing out on in that respect.

One of the unacknowledged benefits of feminism was allowing men to express a softer version of fatherhood, particularly towards their sons, than earlier generations were allowed. I suspect that we will only achieve equality when men understand how much they need it too.

Access to fair financial remuneration for labour is of course the key achievement of the women’s movement. But it’s only half the battle. The traditional female labour of caring, tending infants and the elderly, and cleaning are still disrespected and undervalued and either underpaid or unpaid. That was a driving impetus in second wave feminism. We point to men as the problem, but the contempt for that type of work runs deep for both sexes.

Just for context, here are some quotes I've shamelessly pinched from another discussion - all from the linked thread but I didn't put the list together.

This is the side we don't usually see discussed on here. Not trying to get a rise but I think there's another side to the typical view that it's a male privilege to keep working. It's also a female privilege to not have to work.

My sil is 44, rich and has NEVER had a job, lucky her! She has no trouble filling her day and has a great life.

Dp earns the money then gives it to me. Why would I feel oppressed?

I haven't worked in 8 years and bloody love it! I got to go shopping without ds today and have a long lunch with a friend. Going to the gym now.

My friend is married to the son of a billionaire and sometimes I have to block her on social media because her life is one long holiday.

I dont work, I was able to be a sahm with my sons, both in 30s now. I lunch, dressmake, walk my dogs for miles, spend time with friends and family etc....
I also volunteer for a small homeless charity, something I am so passionate about, being literally close to home.
I feel totally fulfilled!

My DSis married a very high earner and has never worked a day in her life.

My DH works 80 hours a week for a signficant amount of money, which allows me to be a SAHM and indulge myself, allow me to do all of my volunteering and my hobbies.

I work just a few hours a week in a job I love doing, I don’t have to work for financial reasons. I’ve accidentally ended up with a really high earning DH. I enjoy having lots of time to myself, I have hobbies, an amazing spa membership and an extremely fortunate to have some really good friends whom I’m able to see nearly every week.

My SIL is lucky enough to not have to work due to DB’s income. She has nice things, goes out for lots of lunches.

I'm a SAHM who has teenage children and is fortunate to be married to a high earner so I haven't needed to work since having kids. We do have a lifestyle that most people would find impressive.

I choose not to work. DH works really long shifts and odd hours so can be out of the house either days or nights, with each week being different. When the kids are grown I'll go and get some post-sahm work. Maybe in a shop, factory, cafe or something similar.

The funniest post was Monday morning when she started by posting “it’s going to be a long week, hoping the nanny isn’t late” followed by “anyone know a place I can get nails done, not happy with the place I’ve been going as I think they overcharge and wanting a day to pamper myself a bit.”

I feel lucky that I don't need to work. I am not getting any benefits because dh earns enough.

I'm lucky in that I didn't have to carry on working.

I am lucky enough not to work and stay at home with my son, as DH is a high earner. I feel extremely grateful for this every day, and try very hard not to take it for granted.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3764425-To-think-you-are-very-lucky-if-you-dont-have-to-work

@GaIadriel It is in a way, but women are still making that choice not to work - nobody forces them to simply enjoy their hobbies and get their nails done! Personally, I would find a life like this completely dull and unfulfilling, and I do like to use my brain and my qualifications!
As I said earlier, my first husband was very well off. I didn't need to continue with my career from a financial perspective when I had two sons and in fact, he didn't like me doing so (misogynist, in a nutshell). He didn't like the fact that it gave me the option to leave, ultimately.
I am very pleased I did keep my career up and maintained my financial freedoms as by God we needed it when I left him.