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 In this day and age, though, that's an outdated model.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

I agree it's as if the Hillbilly American Dream has been swallowed since the internet.

“Outdated”?

I am not British and have made this point on here before- The UK is a tiny island and most of the world still live a much more conservative and traditional way of life than you, and while no country and society is without its negatives, it works for them. Yet, British people who hold such views as yourself, speak like you are the majority.

There are entire continents out there, that hold 60 times your population, still living this “outdated” way of life you speak of.

There is almost a smugness in your progressiveness as a country, when your woke era is still relatively new. Need I remind you of your mainstream media’s attitude to women, just 15 or so years ago. Yet you (your mainstream media and propaganda) like to act like you’re a role model for how the world should live their lives.

Also your aggressive feminist movement has not ultimately benefitted women. You were going in the right direction at one time, but you passed that line many years ago. We talk about toxic masculinity, but fail to notice toxic feminism within our own community. Now, as a result, you have a country full of competitiveness between genders. Forget respect, men and women don’t appear to even like each other no more.

Apparently getting more popular, too. No one my age I know would have bought into the tradwife idea, and the majority of my friends were more interested in getting a good career than looking a certain way. Not the case now, so the idea of a man being a provider is probably more prevalent in 2025 than in 2000. Not to everyone, obviously. And sure, social media skews things, it depends where you live etc, but the idea that we should always be able to pay for ourselves seems less universal than it was.
Suppose it's none of my business if a woman wants to be a tradwife and her husband is happy to pay all the bills, and while I don't really like the idea of gendered expectations (because I'm grateful to have amazing male and female friends in my life, and I don't expect them to behave in particular ways based on their gender), other people have the right to their opinion.

The emphasis on providing and protecting also makes men worse partners. If they're conditioned from an early age that the best things they can do as men are to be strong and earn money, that kind of "hyper-masculinity" (all scare quotes necessary) is not going to lend itself to sharing the domestic load (which, in the provider-and-protector world, is what women are evolutionarily programmed to do anyway).

Agreed.

The problem with MN isn't that people love traditional gender roles, it's more that useless men are regarded as the norm and anyone who says their partner isn't like that is disbelieved because it's easier for them to assume.other women are lying than consider that maybe being 6ft, good looking and earning a 6 figure salary isn't the most important thing in a partner after all. And doesn't necessarily make someone a good partner or even a good provider in some cases.

It'd be amazing if they even manage to do that (provide and protect) and that can be their role in the partnership, that is them being a partner.

It probably the fact in the UK families are often nuclear and isolated from the wider family and community so the woman, the mother, is isolated and looking at her husband (their dad) to help but in more traditional societies other women helped each other more I think or have more access to domestic/hired help from cleaning the house to minding and teaching the children so it felt less unfair on the mother.

Fundamentally women are vulnerable in a way men aren’t, if I am being completely honest if DH couldn’t assertively advocate for me I would lose attraction to him. Tbf it’s probably vice versa as well.

He is very much a decent father and husband (he makes dentist’s appointments, does bath and bedtime fine, didn’t cry when I was a way for a few weeks can use the washing machine, does bedtime story, Dd comes to get him on weekend mornings not me). There doesn’t have to be a trade off, you can be a protector and a partner. I serve the same functions as DH, possibly in different ways but he knows I will be in his corner.

The problem I think is not so much the protector provider discourse (I actually think being in decent shape and having a job will massively increase your chances of getting a girlfriend) but the fact that men want traditional relationships without fulfilling traditional functions, like do the bloody DIY, teach your kids skills, take your kids out and play with them, lug all the bags, no whinging about being tired, providing support for their children and wives. Men want it both ways, trad wife but no trad role for them. The manosphere has got too caught up in what women should be doing in their olde worlde fantasy but haven’t spent enough time thinking about what it took to actually be a man held in esteem in this world.

@Bringemout yes! So easy for men to be swooned over just by looking after their own goddam kids!

I have had a partner, not a ‘provider & protector’ for the last 30 years. In many ways, he’s more of a feminist than I am (he’s certainly a much better cook) and he would regard ‘provider & protector’ as Neanderthal sexist crap.

I think men openly demonstrating parental responsibility in the workplace is a huge step towards evening things up and really shifts the dial. I am very encouraged that, in my current and last job, both large businesses, I have seen so many more men take extended paternity leave and/or have time blocked off on their calendar regularly for school pick-up.

Younger men coming into the workforce and seeing this will pick up the right messages and also employers will get used to the fact that parental responsibilities are for both parents, and maybe we'll see less of an issue with women being seen as 'not dedicated enough to work'. The slightly sad fact of the matter is I'm not sure there's anything women can do collectively to change that - it's up to men to set the example.

It's funny isn't it though, you'd think men would have notice men who have been through divorce tend not to work as well, look after themselves and die sooner. Giving them a few weeks off to bond with the baby and start being an actual parent does pay off for workplaces in the end.

"For most couples, both need to work"

That's because the other 50% of the population were encouraged into high-flying careers to make a point that they can be equal to men. Men and women have different qualities, the union of marriage brings those qualities to the fore so they can be applied equally within the marriage, which then forms the foundation for a family, ie children. That's genuine equality between the sexes and that's what it means to be equal to the other sex. Women and men aren't equal in the physical sense and never can be, but each intrinsic quality, characteristic and attribute can be applied evenly, ie men can do things women can't, and women can do things men can't, bring them together, they help each other out = equality.

The trouble is, when you get 100% of the population in work, prices go up because they can, more money passing through more hands (we're all economic units whether working or not) equates to high GDP, but with a dual income, it's all affordable. House prices go up, taxation goes up etc so then being a SAHM becomes unaffordable, couples who desperately want kids have to make the heartbreaking decision to abandon plans to start a family because they don't want to bring a child up in poverty.

It wasn't really that long ago a big house, decent car, 3 or more kids and a handful of foreign holidays were all affordable on a single income. Even mortgages were tiny without crippling interest, so they were paid off in a couple of years, now we have 30+ year mortgages.

We're heading down a very dark path if women keep being lied to about shunning marriage and children.

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.

Good luck with that.

Bullshit. That’s nothing like ‘equality’

I totally agree with you! I saw a podcast on this where it said about society has evolved and women no longer need marriage for financial security etc so women have evolved and can provide for themselves and now the happiest group of people are single women.

Yet in comparison men haven’t evolved in ways that will compliment their relationship such as emotional maturity etc - and therefore use the provider and protector excuse but women are no longer interested and not willing to settle

We're heading down a very dark path if women keep being lied to about shunning marriage and children.
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.
I don't think it's quite as bleak as all that - if you think post WW2 many women ended up single and childless through necessity. Women choosing not to have kids is possibly slightly more trendy than in 80's but usually that's down to some personal traumas or fear for climate change and men are doing the same - it's not all women. I know a couple of women who physically can't have kids, thanks to fibroids and uterine removal, I think women and men need to be slightly more thoughtful when they outright say these women are being naive without considering all aspects first. There's a lot more that can go wrong in the whole baby making process for women than men, let's not forget.

I think a lot of men underestimate the provider / protector role when they think about it. Its meant to cover not just finance, but emotional support, love care, and a decent environment . Its not just meant to be here's money and switch off and play x box and wife does everything else. They should be emptying bins, mowing lawns fixing stuff, washing up. I mean they are so big and strong there is a lot they can do yo make sure thier wives dont burn out in thier role of providing a safe calm environment.

Yes, thats the problem, these manospnere chats never think about what a trad man actually did. They have this 1950’s middle class notions about manhood. i’m from a non western culture and my dad was dragged out of bed at 5am to plant seeds or harvest from when he was about 5. Men didn’t bitch and moan, men worked from when the sun was up, ate and then worked after their wives were done for the day. They guided their children and taught them how to do what they did. Women had their own jobs, everyone was working, no-one was sitting around drinking maritnis, it was actually tough, much tougher than moaning on x about hot women not wanting to have sex with them. None of these men want to be THAT man. It’s too hard. In the modern world responsible men use the time they aren’t in the fields/down the mine etc parenting and taking care of their households. DH’s father taught his kids carpentry(girls too) we still go to a place where FIL can point out which bits his own children made.

I think anyone too deep in manosphere chat should be sent to the amish for a month to think about it.

The only people I've read talking about men being providers and protectors are men and often American men. (I mean no harm, just what I've read). It all seems ludicrously old fashioned to me. I've always out-earned my ExDP and the only people I might need protecting from are men.
It's not hard wired, it's social pressure from the 1950s or similar. Just not relevant today at all.

@YorkshireGoldDrinkerI have a ‘high flying career’ because my ‘qualities’ are I’m pretty damn intelligent and more than equal to most men in that regard thanks. But keep living your trad wife dream.

I think you've been seriously misled here. Talk to granny or older relatives. I grew up in the 50s-70s. A single income did not buy a big house/car/foreign holidays/look after three kids unless you were seriously well off and I mean seriously.

1. Women worked. Part time, term time but they worked. Often cash in hand so no record. Poor women have always worked btw.
2. Houses were often shared or split. Grandparents upstairs, mum and dad downstairs. Sometimes divided into flats to create an income.
3. Far fewer people had cars and only my friends' wealthy grandparents had a new one. Mostly they were second hand and then some. They broke down often.
4. No central heating or sophisticated appliances like dishwashers until the late 70s. Even then the heating was used very moderately.
5. You obviously missed the delightful 15% mortgages of the 80s/early 90s.
6. Men's wages actually increased when women joined the workforce.
7. Holidays were in a caravan or boarding house. First foreign holidays for most, mid 1970s. On the back of mum and dad both working.

We weren't poor, my father had a very good job but the lifestyle you speak of simply wasn't attainable for most people.

I don't know a single one like this? perhaps because I always worked with wise professional women, often enough the higher earner.

Would also say the majority of women have worked in some capacity or other throughout history. Again it’s that 1950’s american, husband in job, house in the burbs, wife topped up on lithium nonsense which is actually an aberration in human history not the norm.

the thing about the modern workplace is that you don’t have to physically outshine anyone to be good and highly paid. You just have to be smarter, which women can do. So it’s not a problem.

@Fiftyandme - I think the term for that bullshit is something like 'complementatrianism' - the idea that men and women are different but have 'complementary capabilities'. AKA men go out into the world and do Important and Lead but women are good at doing Baby and Home. 🙄

Who or what exactly are they supposed to be protecting us from? The only conceivable threats would come from other men, so maybe they all just need to calm the fuck down.