Are Men Really Wired to Protect and Provide?

[TheRealPepperPotts]

The stress is real...

This is actually a genuine question (hear me out). I was taught that men want to provide and that they feel stripped of purpose if they are not allowed to do that. Hence, women staying home and tending the house, even without children or after they are grown. But I wonder; is that cultural conditioning or is it actually true? Is it accurate to say that men find their meaning and purpose in providing for and protecting a woman? Is their value inextricably linked to that? The reason I ask is because of another conversation that made me think about some traditions and why we do things the way that we do them.

https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/pressure-men-provide-lbkr/

For example, if a woman and a man both work, does he view her as usurping and stripping him of his role in the relationship? Or does he see her as a companion in a common struggle, helping to reach shared goals? I'm not being sarcastic, just curious what people think.

[HawkPerception]

This is an excellent thought provoking question!

For a long time, I've held the view that men should be the protectors and providers, whereas women are nurterers/caregivers, and to be honest I still believe that this dynamic would create a more satisfying dynamic. That's why I still like the idea of traditional relationships and would happily oblige to provide for my partner if I made enough to do so.

Men are biologically physically stronger. In more primitive times without all of the technology we have nowadays, this meant much more. We had more physical capability to build structures (haul heavy things, put more power into work, etc.), hunt, and if the case of conflict between another guy occured, men would protect. However, times have changed a lot since then. We have tons of tools to get those jobs done, with less than a fraction of the effort. Groceries are readily available (in thriving societies anyways) so we don't need men to be hunters. Most of the food including the meat we have nowadays is all farmed.

Nowadays, women are doing better in school than men. Girls outperform boys at almost every educational level. They are more likely to have higher GPAs and attend college, creating a significant gender gap in higher education. And this is due to the brain development differences. The prefrontal cortex, which influences decision making and academic performance develops earlier in girls than in boys. It's to the point where some experts suggest that boys should start school at a later age than girls. The point here is that women nowadays tend to be better educated than men, which in turn affects their income level and ability to provide for themselves. A fun fact is that more single women own more houses than single men in the United States.

And this is a day and age where everyone can just pull out a phone and start recording for safety. It's a day and age where you can work from home and order all your groceries, necessities, gifts, etc. online. You literally never have to leave your house.

In this society that we've created, physical strength doesn't help much and men don't see their place in society as easily they used to. There's a growing movement of women that are saying they're better off without men and to an extent, sadly I agree with them. Because that is the society we live in now.

However, that has not taken away our inherent desires as men to want to feel masculine and protect and provide. I can say that although I believe in dutch dating (paying for what you consume), I would rather not let a girl pay for me, because I honestly do feel like it feels emasculating. That's not me trying to be toxicly masculine. If I have the money to afford a traditional relationship as well, I'd prefer that. I'd prefer that she relies on me like that.

I get that women don't want to feel repressed or bored at home just doing the cooking and cleaning, so I'd encourage my parter to join social events, pick up hobbies, volunteer whenever she's available, workout or pickup some yoga or pilates classes, maybe do some DIY projects, or even start a side hustle that she enjoys doing (like a candle making or baking goods business, etc). I would want her to be satisfied in every aspect of her life, but again... if I could afford to be the sole provider, that would be ideal to me.

There's also a reason why I don't prefer women that are stronger than myself or look like they are. I still have the desire to be the protector. I want to be the one doing the protecting (physically anyways). We could both have the desire to protect each other and act on that in different ways. Like she could protect me by speaking up on my behalf when someone's badmouthing me and trying to ruin my reputation. And I could get in front of any guys that might be harrassing her.

I apologize for the long winded opinion, but I had and still have a lot of thoughts on this. But my answer is that I still believe men should be the protectors and providers, and it is directly related to the happiness in the dymanic of a relationship, although some of society seems to be moving away from that dynamic slowly.

Here's an interesting video if you care about it how the transition of males and females is progressing in society:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/DBG1Wgg32Ok

[TheRealPepperPotts]

@HawkPerception I like the way you think. :) You have a more balanced perspective than a lot of more traditional guys (who want their wives to remain at home with no outside interests unless it's related to the kids). I understand your position on the Dutch thing much better now!

[HawkPerception]

I'm glad I was able to shed some light on my perspective 😁

And yeah... I'm definitely not for the traditional ways entirely, but there are some aspects from the past that we can take and improve on.

Each generation is different.

[TheRealPepperPotts]

@HawkPerception So true. We all have to have something to muddle through! :D

[SotiCoto]

It is complicated. Between the two genders, the males are overwhelmingly the redundant ones. To put it lightly... for gender dimorphic species, females are the default state. Males are effectively a modified version that exists primarily for the purposes of providing genetic variety.
The majority of core responsibility and investment in the reproductive process falls to the female by default. She is the important one. The one upon which most of the process hinges. The man, at the very core of his essence, is only required to ejaculate in the female once and he is done. One man could even do that for a hundred or so women in a very short span of time. Besides that he could just go die in a ditch somewhere.
A lot of male insects serve a second purpose as a post-coital snack for the female... or they just copulate and then immediately die.
The snag here with more complex lifeforms like... say... humans... is that making a human is a huge investment, and it would be grossly inefficient if the males just did their business and then immediately die... and evolution is largely about efficiency. So as a direct consequence of this, the male gender has been repurposed for... well... basically EVERYTHING besides the reproductive heavy-lifting. Need someone to fetch the food? The men can fetch the food. Need someone to reinforce the cave with insulation (leaves, etc) so nobody gets cold? The men can reinforce the cave. Need someone to die of starvation because there isn't enough food to go around? The men can die of starvation. Need someone to risk their life fighting wild animals to protect the tribe? The men can throw their disposable lives away fighting wild animals.
Need someone to invent civilisation so women and children have somewhere comparatively safe to live? Well yeah, the men can do that too... or at least try to do that when they're not killing each other over women.

What I'm getting at here is that men are conditioned to feel like their entire life's worth is what they can contribute to the tribe... except when they're ejaculating in a woman, which is the only purpose biology saw fit to provide them... and the rest of the time they will feel like they're useless and expendable if they're not doing something productive. Meanwhile the women can sit around being smug about having a uterus (and having inherent value contingent on the functionality of said uterus), because to a placental mammal species that is probably the most important thing there is.

Is this all there is to a man's sense of self-worth? No. But it is all he starts with. And anything else on top of that, one way or another, is cultural conditioning and whatever he has built up for himself.

[TheRealPepperPotts]

@SotiCoto I think I understand what you are saying about the difference between what men are wired to do biologically (i. e. impregnate women for the continuation of species), versus what they are conditioned to do in order to have a sense of worth, since humans have consciousness. Thanks for sharing that; you said it very well and I appreciate the distinction.

[DishLady]

Yeah, they are. It's why they stress so much, why they tend to clam up and hold too much in rather than sharing all their feelings... why society trains them to look and act tougher than they really are. Going back to "the dawn of early man" the guy is the hunter/poacher/provider/protector. He's built a bit sturdier and broader, his features are naturally a little more stern, he focuses on action more than communication... He's a man.

Now look at all the games they learn to play, even as kids... going back to the time of ancient Greece, Mexico, etc. etc. Everything focuses on speed, precision, offense/defense.

I know, I know, I've just described every stereotype... but that's where they come from. They're wired, even today to leap into a "go get it"/"go fix it"/"go protect it" mode that is hard for them to switch off to embrace the "sharing circle"/"communication" mode that is so popular today. It's one of the reasons some guys look like they'd rather chew through a box of nails than to share their feelings, hardships, etc. with others.

It all actually puts an undue amount of stress on a guy -- in today's world, one might say he puts it upon himself. Traditionally, men have had shorter lifespans than their partners because of this "serve and protect"/"protect and provide" instinct. In the 2020s, though, this is finally starting to shift as they share the yolk of their daily burdens with their SOs. (It only took a few centuries to get them this far... Next perhaps is the glass ceiling for women's salaries. 😂)

[TheRealPepperPotts]

@DishLady I agree. I've witnessed the burnout and I don't really know what the answer is. It's not like people are trying to live above their means. Most people are just trying to make ends meet, and it's not just entry-level or poverty grade incomes now. The stress of providing, paired with the impossibility of doing it on (what should be a reasonable) single income creates a no-win situation.

[sage2021]

I've been married twice and neither of them ever said anything about protecting me or providing for me.
However, I think it depends on how they were raised.
My last boyfriend that was living with me when he passed away used to tell me a lot that he will protect me and that he was my protector. I loved that about him because no other guy ever said that to me before. I was in my 60's when I finally had a guy tell me he's my protector.
Can't comment on providing for me. But he paid for a lot of things for me.

[RavVid]

I think protect provide is more than cultural and has an evolutionary basis. Culture typically does reinforce beneficial inclinations and suppress those that are now harmful to society. I am saying inclinations as a softer form of instinctual.

There is either a meme or a joke that the love hierarchy is man loves woman who love children who love pets. In truth men can feel lack of a woman to love more than the lack of love from a woman.

Women have always worked; typically gathering in hunter and gatherers tribes. So it is not a new concept.

We do know that
* women like men to be taller and men like women to be shorter
* women like men to be older and men like women to be younger
* women like men to earn more and men like to earn more

So there are a lot complementary mate selection criteria from both directions. So it is probably going work out OK for a couple in these areas.

It doesn't escape our attention that a single male income is badly outgunned by a couple income. Men started to be happy with their wife's contributions at least 50 years ago and are more than happy with a you and me baby financial approach. Money is not instinctual or even an inclination.

Would a couple with the woman earning 100,000 and the guy 50,000 work? I think it would be unlikely to form unless the guy has high status in a non-financial way.

For myself, I can afford a broke waitress if she had the qualities I'm looking for. Her income doesn't figure in. One quality would be that she doesn't contest my leadership role in the relationship. If she did earn more and she argued for something with "I earn more so what I say goes" then I'd think we aren't going to last long as a couple.

[ChiTown33]

Historically yes. But that's been/being socially engineered our of us. There not much chance in the modern world you're going to get attacked and eaten by a lion. And women are capable of earning a living or changing a water pump on thier car. So what need is there for a man in thier life anymore? It purely by choice at this point.

I heard a person suggest the other day that this social change has taken place because the powers that be simply wanted women paying taxes as well. It's an interesting theory.🤣

I think the ending answer to your question is as varied as the guy and thier upbringing.

[Anonguyfella]

Society is natures descendent. No group said in the long ago “let make men be defenders women do all the cooking and cleaning!!!” It’s the natural evolution of the strengths weakness and characteristics given to you and your sex. The main goal of life, at least biological speaking to have offspring. Women carry, feed, and have a deep connection with a child. It makes sense for her to a primary caregiver. Men are quicker stronger and have less responsibility in caring for the child (ie they don’t have as close of a connection like the mother does) it makes sense for him to be in a position to go out and provide and defend.
Of course there’s exceptions to all of this but in general I believe most women and men indirectly identify this way.

[NathanDavis]

that's just generalized nonsense...

to reduce something so complex to a very simplistic view without any other perspective considered, nor other factors as equally or more important

it's just dumb

[TheRealPepperPotts]

@NathanDavis OK. How would you present it? What is your perspective? Would you share a few other factors? What are some issues and critiques that you see here with that view? I'd like to hear more details on what you think.

[NathanDavis]

well, first of all... the reality

back in the 50's, maybe... that was a possible reality, in which a man could be the sole provider of a household + family, and back then it was not the "nature wired in our brains" no

back then it was the after-the-war, propaganda... because some institutions wanted to go back to the previous decades in which women were not really allowed to be independent, no work, no studies... just stay home and watch the kids

that's where all these ideas were thrown as propaganda and pushed by governments and institutions, so... let's start there

the real fact that it's been a long time since a single person, and we're talking the "average middle class" ONE person is able to provide for an entire household + family

no... that does not exist anymore, and it has been NOT the case for a long long time

people today, both men and women... are provides for themselves first, and with others in union later, in most cases that's how it HAS to work

[TheRealPepperPotts]

@NathanDavis I agree that the "man works, woman stays home" is nearly obsolete (I say nearly, because in US conservative communities, it is alive and well). I was just taught not to do certain things because it will "make men feel like I am trying to be the man". Like paying for my own meal on a date or having a job. Now, I have done both of those things, but not because I am trying to be macho. It seemed like the reasonable thing to do.

I guess I'm wondering if men do truly feel better and at peace when they are working and providing in the traditional sense, or if that is just another wedge being driven between men and women. My view is that it's becoming a matter of survival to have both working (at least at some point), not a matter of superiority or roles.

What institutions are you thinking of pushing it as propaganda? Churches come to mind for me...

[jahaims]

It's nature and nurture. If it were hard wired in all of us then guys wouldn't leave their families. I think it is in us but has to be taught or we at least have to see examples of it that we want to emulate.

[Juxtapose]

I do find myself wanting to be way more giving then what is wise. Never give more to the other person than they are willing to give to you because you were just going to be the sucker.

[Juxtapose]

*because you are just going to be the sucker

[OddBeMe]

Probably a biological urge. Explains mens more spontaneous and rough behavior. I’d say the intent of that behavior could also be personal pride, rather than protecting women.

[LiamJHayden]

I'll protect or try to protect anyone who is unfairly targeted.

I'll provide for a woman if we are mutually committed. Otherwise, no.

[noohair]

The provide and protect thing is part of the caveman brain that most men still have.

[msc545]

We are no "wired" that way. We are forced to do it because women can't and won't.

[CrabCakes11]

No. It’s a cultural thing

[exitseven]

yes, it is hardwired intoourDNA.