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 In this day and age, though, that's an outdated model.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

Going through a menstrual cycle and menopause is related to that, even if you dont have a baby. You might be lucky that you dont get period pains, you sail through menopause, you found a contraceptive that didnt cause side effects or just dont need one as sex doesnt interest you. But there's plenty of childfree women who are impacted by the fact thier body could make a baby. Theres so much research out there now about things like medicines being less effective at certain points of a cycle, or sports injuries being greater at different points so needing different training schedules, even needing more sleep.

Im not sure this is especially relevant men as providor and protectors though or whether I need one.

I think it's very individual and everyone to their own, if it suits both sides.
(Thanks to my husband, I retired at 26, am provided for, never wanted kids and have been happily married for 20 years).
Yes, speaking for myself.
I never needed a "partner" in struggle, I wanted this.

That first paragraph will be news to infertile women!

Medical technology also enables many women to choose motherhood. It enables most of us to live what we consider normal lives, right down to something as basic as glasses enabling me, a short-sighted person, to function at all. So I don't buy the implication that contraceptive technology has suppressed my true identity as a woman.

Infertility is a dysfunction of the female body: if you cannot bear children, it means that something abnormal has taken place in your body and you will suffer some byproduct from that—PCOS and endometriosis are both common examples, both can be very painful and debilitating conditions.

Are unwilling male conscripts with no relevant army skills actually any use in a war?

I'm an abolish-all-militaries pacifist to my core (and would only ever be attracted to a fundamentally non-violent man) so we are definitely coming at this from opposite sides.

Wow, so you would be utterly dependent on the US military to defend your country? (Assuming you are British). So easy to say when you are on the other end of Europe and are under the American umbrella. You are like a rich man who says that money isn’t everything!

The flipside to the emphasis on men being "protectors" is that it means men who buy into it feel they can't be vulnerable or in need of protection themselves - they have to be emotionally stoic (which is tedious for any woman who dates them).

No offence but this is just pseudo psychology assumptions/projections. Plenty of men are able to be normal beings but step up when required. It's what makes good leaders.

God what poppycock. Newsflash: while men and women might be physically different they are individuals. Some women are low empathy, cut-throat and career-minded, some men are soft and caring. Not all women want marriage and children. Society being run like this is an entirely human invention. Women entering the workforce is not the cause of the cost of living crisis. Have you heard of globalisation, the financial crash, right to buy driving up house prices?

👆 This.

Although I do think there is also some truth that some women have swallowed the belief that fulfillment = doing what men do. It seems much more common for women to see their career as some kind of self validation.

I speculate that we may have arrived at this belief by making the 'logical' assumption that because men run the patriarchy/world they get the privileged lifestyle, so we should want what they have.

But then when you're working 80 hours a week to pay for a shareholder's next yacht you find yourself wondering if this is really what life is all about.

None of that has anything to do with protecting or providing. A guy paying for a £30 bar tab doesn’t mean he will be able to “provide”.

And why is “attracted” in inverted commas - you think people are lying about / can choose why they find attractive?

As previous posters have mentioned, this will not go down well on MN unfortunately. 90% of posts on here suggest that the women on here not only subscribe to but actively encourage outdated gender ideology.

They make the decision not work after having children but then expect 50% of their husband’s wealth and pension in a divorce.

Women complain on here daily about their husbands being domestic layabouts but their posts suggest that they’ve lived this way for 10+ years and so nothing is likely to change.

There was a thread on here recently about a woman whose husband had an affair but she stayed with him to continue to enjoy the ‘lifestyle’ benefits of being with him.

In the modern age both parties in a relationship should be working and taking responsibility for the household equally.

Exactly - as I said earlier in the thread I have several friends who cannot have kids and it certainly doesn't make them less of a woman! Ridiculous take.

I also find it interesting that the only reason we need men to protect us is actually from other men and the wars they create. Jobs for the boys as ever!

For their personal family? Yes I am sure many men fight to protect themselves, their families (male and female) and defend their country.

But that’s not always the case. And they certainly don’t go to war “for women”.

But poorer women (i.e. most women) have worked, inside and outside the home, throughout history, and have been vital in supporting their families. Women working isn't something new at all. The second paragraph sounds more about class/money than sex - that poor people have always had to work to enable rich people to maintain their wealth.

So men who are not willing to fight a war should be stripped of citizenship but not women
And what of childless women - those without children they need to flee with. What happens to them?

I just like having and making my own money.

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.

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.

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".

Why do you think careers are inherently male?

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

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.

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