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 In this day and age, though, that's an outdated model.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

Well yes quite, that would no doubt be mainly men. And then the protecting part would be relevant. Which is why my point was now, in the UK, in 2025. We have generations of me who have not been required to fight in war. I don't think men get to get out of e.g. doing the dishes, because they may be hypothetically conscripted to a potential war.

Hasn't it been proved that men's intelligence is more of a bell curve with more highly intelligent men than women but also more stupid men than women? While women have less variance.

Certainly we can do many jobs which were previously reserved for men. This was evidenced in WW2, which historians attribute to being a big factor in women getting the vote (as opposed to solely being the suffragettes trying to set fire to theatres full of innocent civilians).

But I think earnings are not as tied to education as much as some people think, unless you're planning to be say an engineer. I think drive is a big factor too. I've met a lot of men from modest beginnings who've set up businesses and are doing really well, especially in the construction sector where salaries tend to be higher than graduate jobs. But possibly education benefits us in a different way as being highly qualified can somewhat mitigate people's inherent prejudice against women or their assumptions about our competence compared to men.

Yeah I’d agree with you, I think theres an ongoing conversation between men about what being a man means to them and what it should look like, duty responsibility etc I think it’s a return in some ways to traditional values of manhood. I don’t think thats a bad thing tbh I think we have a lot of men who are basically lost and need some sort of guidance instead of focusing on whats wrong with women which is what we’ve had for the last 20 years of men being able to talk to each other on the internet. it’s why I don’t mind a bit of evolutionary psychology if it’s telling men they are more appealing if they sort themselves out, try to look competent, be stable, hardworking (do the bloody dishes without being told) and reliable.

Hopefully the incel movement dies and men start thinking about what makes them a man regardless of whether theres a woman there or not. Much like how women reoriented themselves to shaping their lives regardless of whether there would be a man there or not.

I also think it has to come from other men. I consider my DH to very much be a partner I don’t think of him as a provider or protector really, but i know he can do those things if I need him too. Much in the way he knows he can lean on me as well. I’ve never had to sit him down for a man chat, he is ones of those people who sees theres washing up and just does it, he changed the first nappy in our house etc etc, he’s one of the dads that is consistently present for kids parties, parents evenings, reads the school emails, does homework etc etc. he’s industrious.

They are out there, it’s the ones who don’t seem to have good role models or who are basically lazy and don’t face consequences that they would have in traditional societies, shunning, shame etc that we have to worry about and they are definitely not going to be listening to women. Men who are good partners generally never had to be told to be one (maybe a nudge if they have never had that expectation before but good men course correct swiftly).

Over the last 6 years I've been dealing with lots of health issues which resulted in me having to give up my career and steady income. For a few times I didn't contribute to the household income at all, and although I'm now back to working the amount I bring in now is only about 35% of what I used to bring in. We have two children and our lifestyle has had to change massively as a result.

I could work more hours than what I do but it would potentially be to some detriment to my health that my husband doesn't want me to risk.

I have some days where I feel really, really low, and incredibly shit about how my life has had to change..... I feel like I've lost such a large part of who I am and I find it really hard to accept that I am so much more financially dependent on my husband on my husband now, whereas before our incomes were pretty much on par so it felt like we were on an equal footing.

A few weeks ago I did have a bit of a melt down about how useless I feel sometimes because of how my health affects me and how little I am able to contribute to our lives (both financially and practically) and how hard I find it to see him having to bear the impact of that.... i.e he's had to increase his hours at work and take on a bigger share of the 'life chores' that we always used to share equally.

He was obviously very reassuring ad then he actually said that he sees one of his main roles in life, when it comes to being a man, a husband and a father, as being the provider and protector of his family (those exact words ironically), and although I know how 'traditional' that sounds, I also feel great relief that I am married to a man who feels that way based on how much our life has has had to change since my health declined.

However I see that attitude as still being one of partnership. It's him stepping up to the plate and supporting me as his partner. He's an extremely hands on dad and he always has been, and just because he has traditional (old fashioned?) values about what a man 'should be', that doesn't detract from his ability to be an equal partner in parenting too.

We have sons and in their eyes I know that our home life is presented to them as being dad is the main provider and mum is the one who stays at home and takes on most of the roles that come with being a SAHM, which on one hand does worry me about the stereotypes that they might take from that, but on the other hand I am very glad that their main male role model is a man who takes care of his family and that he prioritises me and the children over everything else, even to his own detriment. That's a great example for them to learn from if it means they will treat, or view their future partners and children in the same way.

The problem with evolutionary psychology is that it encourages us to see outliers as deviants, not just individuals - because their outlier status apparently goes against their biological nature. Which in turn leads to various degrees of marginalisation and exclusion, which in turn leads to social conditioning...

It wasn't that long ago that women weren't allowed to be athletes or soldiers or business-owners or even voters, and the root cause of that was because those things weren't considered in our biological nature to do. The history of LGBT oppression is down to non-heterosexual people being considered biological deviants.

Evolutionary psychology is an inherently conformist, conservative ideology and I'm always confused by women who adhere to it without realising how regressive for us it is.

I have never seen an evolutionary psychologist say any of that. I follow one guy who’s pretty short himself and is happily engaged. From what I can see it tries to describe what is, it doesn’t prescribe what people should do. I have literally never seen anyone encourage bigotry towards outliers. I have also never seen incel shit for, them, incels generally dislike evolutionary psychologists who say stuff they don’t like, often because they have a shallow understanding of it. A lot of it is about what motivates people not to”women should be tied to a kitchen sink” stuff.

If you train men not to believe that ‘protecting’ matters, they are unlikely to be willing to go to war or physically capable of it.

What I find really interesting about the good men, thankfully having one myself too, is that they are really open about what they should do in life and not too focused on what other people should do to live their life. I think personal accountability is what makes character and good character is what makes good people.

The discourse about what "being a man" means is frustrating because it seems so limited compared to the feminist discourse I grew up with about "being a woman", which exploded every traditional stereotype and essentially gave be the belief that being a woman could be anything I decided it was.

Being a woman is like being mixed-race or having black hair, to me. It's important in terms of how I appear and how I am perceived, but it doesn't determine my character, life decisions or identity. For example: I am child-free and have no maternal instinct at all.

Men haven't got to the point where "being a man" has been exploded in the same way. I always want to ask the men who argue about that whether they consider gay men to be real men or not.

Being a human is ideally about being true to yourself, with every single gender stereotype stripped away from that.

Evolutionary psychology is a core tenet of every incel/MRA/manosphere forum I've read (which is way too many).

Do you not see how describing "what is" (scare quotes necessary because it's really "what is, except all the outliers") can be (and has been throughout history) weaponised as "what people should do" if it's framed in terms of nature and biology?!

It’s a scientific discipline, not an ideology. It may sometimes be hijacked by conservatives but that doesn’t mean it is inherently conservative or bigoted.

You seem to be saying that any perspective that considers population-level patterns encourages us to see outliers as ‘deviants’. I don’t really see how this follows. Surely it’s possible to say that on average women are shorter than men, without saying that there is anything wrong with a tall woman.

But being a woman inherently means something, unlike having dark hair. It affects how your body behaves and some elements of your psychology.

Absolutely, this is reflective of my husband. I’ve never heard my husband complain something is unfair or claim he’s been treated badly etc etc. he has an internal locus of control. I’d say the same, DH has character, a sense of duty, agency and integrity. He knows he’s accountable for his own actions regardless of what anyone does or does not do.

I think he does struggle with men who look like they are just floating along helplessly or hide from their children, he doesn’t understand the helplessness he sees or the copping out of being a decent father. One of his team had a baby so he bought some baby stuff and wrapped it himself, I’ve never bought a gift for his family because he does it himself (I wouldn’t have done it anyway). I don’t have to baby him in anyway but I also recognise that a lot of the positive behaviours are just modern expressions of traditional masculinity. Be present, pay mind to your responsibilities, work hard, don’t treat your wife like she’s your mum.

I’m 47 and this is my experience too. Both my parents worked and did a fairly equal share of housework, at least by the time we were past the infant stage. When I moved out I house shared with a few men (and women) and we were all expected to muck in. I didn’t think my experience was that unusual?

Yes precisely, reading the female eunach really opened my eyes to this. The bear bones of what the physical differences mean for women. I subscribed to the “theres no difference” view when I was very young. Thats changed as I got older, there are differences (on average). The very fact of childbearing is what shaped womens lives forever, it’s a hard to thing to wash over, even now. Men don’t and will never have the same experience.

Love that!!

If there's anything heavy-ish or cumbersome that needs carrying up the stairs, like a really full waist-high laundry basket that I'm still perfectly capable of carrying, my DH will still grab it off me if he sees me trying to manhandle it and will do it for me.

If he ever sees me doing something that makes me huff and puff a little (just because its a slightly awkward, annoying or cumbersome job), his response will always be, "Why didn't you just ask me to do it?"

He hates seeing me carry things up and down the stairs, that's definitely a 'him' job in his eyes, even though its something I'm perfectly capable of doing. His reasoning is why would he watch me do something when it's easier for him to do it than it is for me.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a bit of chivalry!

Having darker skin also affects how my body behaves (I don't burn easily, I'm more at risk of certain medical conditions) and some elements of my psychology. I believe the latter is entirely due to being raised in a society that sees race, rather than because being mixed-race genetically determines my character.

Plenty of things also affect my psychology aside from my race and sex - the fact that I'm artistic rather than scientific; introverted rather than extroverted; high academic intelligence, low practical ability. I feel those things are more relevant to my innate character (and life path) than being a woman or being mixed-race.

My perspective is very much one of a child-free woman. So while childbearing is obviously something only women can do, I don't consider it an innate and necessary part of being a woman.

You see it on the height threads, that preference for tall men is an evolutionary thing because “we want to feel protected”.

It seems to me that parents who work together as partners turn their sons into young men who also work together with their partners. Just as parents that don’t demonstrate misogyny in their relationship turn their sons into young men who are also not misogynists.

I have also noticed that, IME, people who live together a few years before having children, so that they can work on their partnership, fair division of domestic chores, gardening, redecorating, building repairs and money choices, also fare better and do all of the above.

Our DS has grown up with the expectation that everyone pitches in and helps (as has our DD) in a home, and is now putting that into practice.

What I am surprised about is that so many people don’t sort this out before they start a family!

You're talking about being an individual, with a range of influences on your life and character. One of those influences is your sex. Being a woman, with the physical capacity to bear children, matters whether you actually do bear children or not. For any individual, the extent to which it matters will vary.

Across a whole population, average sex differences between men and women have shaped societies and the conversation about what that should mean goes on. I don't want to live in a society that completely denies that average differences exist. For me it's just a complete unwillingness to look facts in the face. I'd ideally like our culture to acknowledge that broadly, men are more likely to be like X and women are more likely to be like Y, but that doesn't preclude any individual man or woman doing anything across the whole spectrum. It might mean that actually we could value the things women are, on average, more interested in, like child-rearing.

Society does also organise around other traits to some degree. We tend to see introverts and extroverts in different walks of life. You could argue that public life to some extent caters better for extroverts.

I just want a taller man (am 5ft 9) because I went out with asshats who were shorter - one wouldn't "let" me wear heels. It's not about the way they look, for me it is the chip it leaves on their shoulder.

I dont think bearing a child is innate or necessary to womanhood, but having the body type that could bear a child seems to be an innate part of a women to me. Until I bore a child I was also child free and I still think my body type shaped how I was treated but also how I dealt with the world. A lot is cultural no doubt. But stuff like handgrip seems to have very little overlap compared to height.

(I appreciate the trans body feel differently and womanhood is a feeling outwith your body )

I think there’s a lot of merit in protect and provide, and I think that men who have those instincts are the ones whose marriages are most likely to survive.

I disagree. I think that men who view themselves as the protector and provider often (maybe even subconsciously) therefore view women as lesser, weaker humans who need to be protected and provided for. That may work at least for a while if they are married to women who are happy to be considered weak and vulnerable, but not for the rest of us. Men like this are often bad partners in other ways because they think they are superior.

Yes, and have an inability to admit mistakes or talk through problems like an adult. We all know men like this.