Thursday, March 21, 2013

On a man being a "stable, good provider"


This is often an opening in any discussion about marriage with the supposedly tradition-minded today. The Art of Manliness site calls it one of the "five switches" of manhood.

We’ve all heard this phrase before; it remains common even in our modern society. When someone says that a man should be a good provider, what they invariably mean is that he should have a good job that earns a steady income, one which enables him to provide food, shelter, and the nice things in life to his family.

But interestingly:

This definition of being a provider is well-ingrained in our society and in the male psyche. In fact, when men lose a job, and thus their identity as a provider, they tend to get very anxious and depressed...Last time, we mentioned the fact that in very primitive societies, men and women provided about equal resources to their tribes; women gathered nuts and seeds, and men hunted big game. In fact, for much of human history, men and women contributed fairly equally to the family economy. The idea of the stay-at-home wife who lounged around the house while her husband toiled all day outside the home is a relatively modern conception of family life. It wasn’t until the 19th century that we saw this idea take hold in the West and even then, the working husband and stay-at-home wife dynamic was typically only available to the wealthy and middle-class. In most families, both men and women had to work in some capacity in order to keep the family afloat financially.

Of course, it all really changed mid-20th century, following the War. America had fermented itself as a superpower, and prosperity was not out of reach for anyone able-bodied and un-feeble-minded.

This month, I've redebuted with a lead feature in New Oxford Review, a Catholic monthly (or at least for 10 months, including two combined issues.) In it, I give much further elaboration on the above-mentioned point, pairing it against the modern realities of female competitiveness.

I couldn't say it in the article, but my true sentiment is this: when a younger, millennial generation gal wants a "good provider," she may as well say, "I'm a little girl, pamper me." She wants a SOLE provider to take care of her like daddy did, including listening to her pouting and tantrums. And guess what? Men -- those who stay planted in front of the latest version of X-box, with bong in hand -- aren't striking out. No, they're on strike. Only some of the wimpiest, most Moma-devoted (and I don't mean the Blessed Virgin) males seek out and put up with such nonsense.

Today's Americana mating scene works this way: she screws around with a bunch of guys (a mixture of 'dates' and boyfriends), then will fault men collectively for the "fallout" that comes with promiscuity (especially for women, many would say). Then when it's nearing time to settle down (give or take, age 30), she'll sort through the more steady, serious men like she has a million and one options to her name. He'd better have a 'steady' job and income, one in excess of hers, yet a guy who at least vaguely excites her much the way her former flames did.

The strike continues.