[N1H1L]

The purpose of a man's life is meaning and the search for it. For years, centuries even, this meaning in a man's life was provided by being a provider. This order was enforced through society. And you can use society and religion interchangeably here because the distinction between the two is only a century or two old. And this order enforced the role of a child-bearer and nurturer to women. Obviously, such an order was very restrictive (especially to women) and that people would rebel against is easy to comprehend.

This state of affairs continued till the 1980s. Since then, multiple forces have led to a perfect storm - where men have no meaning/purpose in their life, and the desire to have meaning often signals that you want to go back to that older society.

But that's wrong. The people who desire to go back are actually who are rebelling; the rest of the men are either locked up in prison, or overdosing on opioids, or being incels or numbing themselves with video games. The failure of modern liberalism to acknowledge this is basically being an ostrich while the forest is on fire.

[wolverine876]

Why do you get to say what someone's purpose is? Why is being a provider necessarily the purpose in life? People might have done it before (I'm dubious of sweeping, golden-age claims like that), but for almost all of human history we lived short, brutal, illiterate lives as hunter-gatherers. I don't feel that is necessarily my purpose in life.

Find a meaning that is important to you; be a provider if you like. IMHO, people are spending a lot of time getting wrapped up in these questions, debating what is possible, participating in trendy despair - it's all a parlor game, like worrying about whether your car will start because you don't understand the physics and some people online say it can't possibly. Just stop talking to them and they will fade quickly; get up, turn the ignition, and go.

> The people who desire to go back are actually who are rebelling; the rest of the men are either locked up in prison, or overdosing on opioids, or being incels or numbing themselves with video games.

There are a lot of males - most of them, really - doing other things.

[N1H1L]

Being a provider was the purpose, not is. And I acknowledge that it's restrictive.

[AdrianB1]

> Why do you get to say what someone's purpose is? Why is being a provider necessarily the purpose in life?

Because this was the case for the last 10,000 years and you cannot change it overnight, unless you are in Soviet Russia and send people to Gulag for re-education. It is built into men's biological nature to be provider (like most mammals in the nature), you cannot change it because society decided less than a generation ago that this is no longer needed.

And also because many, if not most women are still expecting men to be the provider. Biology dictates that women need a provider (resources and security) to bring a child to this world and that provider should not be the government (which destroys the idea of family and the society with it).

[amanaplanacanal]

> It is built into men's biological nature to be provider (like most mammals in the nature)

I'd say there is a giant citation needed on that one.

[prawn]

I asked someone up thread, but what's stopping males being a provider? The original suggestion was a change from traditional roles is the issue, but I don't think that's it.

[Mikeb85]

>what's stopping males being a provider?

Economics. There's not enough jobs for men in society. Women are preferred for most entry level office jobs, industrial jobs were always the go-to for uneducated men, but those have been mostly eliminated. High achievers will always do well, but by definition not everyone can be a high achiever.

[prawn]

I think this is a more significant factor than the suggestion of changes in traditional roles (upthread) or decline in religion (mentioned elsewhere).

Another one might be a sense that getting ahead from the lower class is harder given wages versus house prices. I imagine that works against any motivation some people have.

[N1H1L]

Yes. This is the key. Provider jobs have disappeared for a huge section. Also, implicit in this is that the man is the higher earner. Rage against it, but a man's attractiveness to a woman does notch up a lot of points if they are the higher earner. Basically, if you can provide. And the chances for that have gone drastically down due to a confluence of multiple economic and cultural factors.

[wolverine876]

Women who earn more also are more popular, IME. We all are familiar with the 'provider' stereotype for males, but that could be an artefact of the fact that more males were providers. That is, the fact that it happened in the past doesn't mean it is somehow necessary or inevitable (like being a hunter-gatherer, which is most of our evolutionary past).

It would be interesting to see evidence that compares the affect of wealth/income on the popularity of males and females, and also to control for social conditioning, especially of older people. Remember that part of the claim (which I am dubious of) is that it has something to do with biology.

> Rage against it

Please stop raging against whomever you are imagining and talk with me.

[wolverine876]

> Women are preferred for most entry level office jobs

What is that based on?

[Mikeb85]

Statistics. Around 96% of administrative assistants are women. That's THE entry level office job.

[wolverine876]

> what's stopping males being a provider?

Imagining how impossible it is.

[tootahe45]

Probably this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_J8dHLe1Vc

[prawn]

That's what's hindering males on dating apps. I'm asking what's stopping people being a provider, because I'm guessing the decline in education level, job motivation and whatever else isn't just single men. Upthread was the implication that "providing" was a near-biological urge (I disagree) so it should be an option providing for family or for community or whatever else.

I think the issue is motivation and there are other causes, personally.

[wolverine876]

> decline in education level, job motivation and whatever else isn't just single men

Also, those are things under an individual's control.

[prawn]

What's stopping these men being a provider for themselves, their partner, family or children?

I'd agree that meaning/purpose is part of this puzzle, but there are still children needing a provider and partners who either expect a fulltime breadwinner or find some other balance.

My guess is the perceived opportunity of improving your lot in life has declined and males, on the whole, have struggled with motivation as a result. I suspect housing affordability is part of that.

[ravel-bar-foo]

So my family is very liberal. When I mentioned to my trans-brother that my goal in life is to be a well-earning father who is able to provide for my family, I got called 'priviledged', told I have an outdated mindset, and demeaned as a wannabe patriarch. I didn't say anything about limiting the opportunities of my wife, but bigoted sentiments were read into my desire to support a family. This despite the fact that my father was very much the supportive and calm leader, and we turned out very well as a result.

It seems to me that in one generation we have gone from fatherhood and motherhood being high-status to being low-status. But maybe that is part of this very liberal bubble.

[prawn]

They're not giving you a very charitable reading. Easy enough to ignore. And their response doesn't stop you from putting yourself into that position - to provide for yourself, for a partner, for parents, children, etc. Just remember that money isn't the only way you provide, so maybe "well-earning" is what gave them the wrong impression.

[ravel-bar-foo]

> They're not giving you a very charitable reading.

Good point. I hadn't noticed before, but that has been a repeated problem with my brother. When he transitioned, my parent's difficulty changing pronouns was interpreted as a sign of their lack of support. Well no, they're just trying to break 25 years of conditioning ...

[prawn]

For sure. It's likely habit, not intent. Public reactions lag cultural changes, and this generates so much of the drama we see.

[majormajor]

Let's split out your "purpose" vs "role" statements more precisely.

You say the purpose of a man's life is meaning and the search for it. Do you use "man" to mean both men and women there, or are you simply ignoring women?

You say historically the role of being a provider provided (ahem) that meaning to men. You say the role of being a child-bearer and nurturer was forced on women and don't comment on what this meant re: purpose or meaning there.

So I have a lot of questions I don't see answered in your claims:

1) What is stopping men today from providing? I'm surrounded by male coworkers who (in)famously make more than many women, including most of their own spouses. Some of those partners are not employed, even. So clearly this is not a universal, but specific to a subset of men.

2) Are those men who are not doing "traditional providing" being provided for or are they simply solo? Being a bachelor is of course not new; living off your parents is also not new, but maybe more common today (?), being provided for by a woman would be relatively newer.

3) What is preventing men who are not providers from finding other meaning while being provided for?

4) If we want to go back in time, wouldn't the answer just be "man the fuck up and get over it"?

I'm pretty sure "modern liberalism" acknowledges that there is a problem (at the extreme level, incels who go on mass shootings are obviously seen as a problem), I think your diagnosis is just in a minority.

What data point supports your claims that society has broken men versus something like "the problem is that today many men have adjusted poorly to lessened dependence on them, and increased competition with them, and this is made worse by self-reinforcing downward-spiral bubbles like the "incel" wing of the internet." That the societal failing is actually "toxic masculinity," etc, which gives boys ridiculous expectations and standards to meet in order to feel successful. Not everyone can excel! Only 5% of people will be in the top 5% by definition! Pushing boys towards achievement and material success if doomed to failure.

That's not even getting into e.g. how suicide/opiod addiction/etc are hardly restricted to un-or-underemployed men who aren't in traditional gender roles!

Or how a major complaint of young women today in the dating world is "young men are fuckboys who have no interest in a long term thing" which is quite the opposite observed behavior from "trying to be a provider"...