man the provider

[thir]

I could not figure out if this is political, religious or philosophical question, so bear with me if I am in the wrong department.

In may countries the man is expected ot provide for the whole family. Why is that?? And why do not men oppose this??


Food for thought:

Should The Man Be The Provider In A Relationship?

Should The Man Be The Provider In A Relationship? (http://www.badassyoungmen.com/man-provider.html)

[leo9]

The object is to keep women in a dependent childlike role all their lives. What's to oppose? For the working class, it certainly doesn't mean a harder role for men: the only difference between men's and women's work is that men's ends at quitting time, while women's continues till the kids have been put to bed and the dishes washed, seven days a week.

[Scot68]

I think everyone has a number of innate desires. One of those innate desires is to make a contribution to the world: do something that has value or makes a difference to a person's family, social group, tribe, country ... whatever.
The traditional role for a man is provider. Men are on average larger, stronger and faster than women. Back when we were hunter/gathers , men did the hunting because men have, on average, characteristics that make them better hunters than women (I say "on average" because some women are stronger and faster than I am.). And for women, who have to give birth to babies, it only makes sense that while the men are out hunting, the women are looking after the house and the children. So the roles of the man being the provider and the woman looking after the home go way back and for those reasons, still persist.

In today's world, most jobs (especially white collar jobs) don't require greater brute strength. Women and men are on a more level playing field with respect to the requirements of work. However we are told that women earn less money than men who are doing the same job. Personally I believe in equal pay for equal work. I also believe in doing the job and the role you want. I was actually a stay-at-home dad for many years. In those days I made my contribution by raising kids and looking after the house. I was interested in being a dad but not at that interested in being a "homemaker" when the kids got older. So, to continue to make a contribution I went back to work outside of the home.

Some men may feel like they are less than men if their wives earn more that they do. Some men may feel like they are less than men if their wives have to work at all. Some women want to be the homemaker. Some women want to make their contribution and find fulfillment by having a job outside the home.

[thir]

The object is to keep women in a dependent childlike role all their lives. What's to oppose? For the working class, it certainly doesn't mean a harder role for men: the only difference between men's and women's work is that men's ends at quitting time, while women's continues till the kids have been put to bed and the dishes washed, seven days a week.

Well, you could say that the idea of the man as (sole) provider is oppressive to men.

As for working class people, I am not entirely sure that you are right. I am sure many homes take two incomes, but I think this group as well as for instance farmers may be very conservative in as far as these matters are concerned.

[thir]

I think everyone has a number of innate desires. One of those innate desires is to make a contribution to the world: do something that has value or makes a difference to a person's family, social group, tribe, country ... whatever.

Not sure I agree here..I think most of us want a certain degree of prestige or recognition, but I believe this concept of making a contribution is an American cultural idea.



The traditional role for a man is provider. Men are on average larger, stronger and faster than women. Back when we were hunter/gathers , men did the hunting because men have, on average, characteristics that make them better hunters than women (I say "on average" because some women are stronger and faster than I am.). And for women, who have to give birth to babies, it only makes sense that while the men are out hunting, the women are looking after the house and the children. So the roles of the man being the provider and the woman looking after the home go way back and for those reasons, still persist.

Well that is one problem that I see with all this..We do not really know anything about that. There are many ways to hunt, and a lot of them do not imply being stronger. Nor is there any proof that people lived in family groups rather than tribes, indeed, I see the tribe as more likely as it is a better use of resources, and it frees non pregnant women for whatever hunting they might join in. However, although I also believe that conditions must have been very different for these tribes depending on where they lived, there seems to be a consensus that on the average gathering was 80% of the food, and I think everybody must have been engaged in that to keep things going. I think the old idea of man as early human provider is guessing and unlikely, you do not see this in animal kingdom either.


In today's world, most jobs (especially white collar jobs) don't require greater brute strength. Women and men are on a more level playing field with respect to the requirements of work. However we are told that women earn less money than men who are doing the same job. Personally I believe in equal pay for equal work. I also believe in doing the job and the role you want. I was actually a stay-at-home dad for many years. In those days I made my contribution by raising kids and looking after the house. I was interested in being a dad but not at that interested in being a "homemaker" when the kids got older. So, to continue to make a contribution I went back to work outside of the home.

Sounds reasonable to me that whoever wants to stay at home does, if at all possible.


Some men may feel like they are less than men if their wives earn more that they do. Some men may feel like they are less than men if their wives have to work at all. Some women want to be the homemaker. Some women want to make their contribution and find fulfillment by having a job outside the home.

But you apparently are not so insecure ;-) Good for you!

[leo9]

The traditional role for a man is provider. Men are on average larger, stronger and faster than women. Back when we were hunter/gathers , men did the hunting because men have, on average, characteristics that make them better hunters than women (I say "on average" because some women are stronger and faster than I am.). And for women, who have to give birth to babies, it only makes sense that while the men are out hunting, the women are looking after the house and the children. So the roles of the man being the provider and the woman looking after the home go way back and for those reasons, still persist.


This idea was popular with Victorian anthropologists, who went to existing hunter-gatherer cultures and asked the men, who said, oh, yes, we feed the tribe, they'd starve without us. So they wrote up their textbooks saying that men had always been the providers, which was what they had wanted to prove.

Then modern anthropologists went back to the same tribes and actually studied what happened, instead of asking the men. And they found that women's gathering produced most of the everyday food, while the hunters contributed an occasional high-protein feast. Facts can be such a problem.

In my old forums we used to call it "the Flintstone theory" - the assumption that gender roles in primitive cultures were exactly like present-day suburban Western ones.

[Bellasub]

Because women are more important to civilization. Men are meant to provide and care for the family, because they are meant to protect, die, and sacrifice for the family. In Christian marriage, men are icons of Christ and women the icon of the church... which means men, like Christ, should be willing to put themselves in danger for the sake of the women. (also why they open doors, stand, carry things, etc)

This is also anthropologically practical, as women are indeed more important to the continuation of society. Men can go forth and die with a much smaller impact to larger society, but women can only have one baby at a time (whereas men can procreate with multiple if necessary, even though not optimal)

[leo9]

Because women are more important to civilization. Men are meant to provide and care for the family, because they are meant to protect, die, and sacrifice for the family. In Christian marriage, men are icons of Christ and women the icon of the church... which means men, like Christ, should be willing to put themselves in danger for the sake of the women. (also why they open doors, stand, carry things, etc)

This is also anthropologically practical, as women are indeed more important to the continuation of society. Men can go forth and die with a much smaller impact to larger society, but women can only have one baby at a time (whereas men can procreate with multiple if necessary, even though not optimal)

You're confusing work and conflict. Because, as you say, males are expendable, from insects all the way up to higher mammals nature has given males extra handicaps so they can be tested to destruction to improve the breed. Some of these handicaps are exotic, like the peacock's tail or the fiddler crab's claw, but usually it's simply extra aggression so they pick fights with other males or predators. (This is why human male aggression peaks before 30; if they survive that long, they're proved fit to mate and settle down.)

But until the Agricultural Revolution, work wasn't a danger to life. A hunter might get gored or trampled by his prey, but so could a gatherer get taken by a leopard; hunter-gatherers generally lived long relatively easy lives. Agriculture introduced a life of work that wore people down till they died early, but the women who tended livestock, ground corn, cut and preserved meat and all the other tasks around the home worked as long and hard as the men in the fields. There is a whole body of peasant folk songs and tales about the husband and wife who try swapping jobs, and they all end with the man admitting that his wife's work is harder.

The glorification of men's work has less to do with practical realities and more to do with cultural politics. Men who had nothing else to feel proud of, serfs and industrial and administrative wage-slaves, needed to build up their self-worth as the master of the house, the provider for the little woman at home; and it gained traction in the suburban culture where women's work was simplified down to the basic menial tasks. But the myth that this is the natural order of things is just that, a myth.

[Tatiana_Pt]

UghSpend 3 or 4 days a week in church and then talk about it the rest of the week. That is some real brainwashing going on down there. Wonder how much they spend every week on the church?