Hacker News Reader

Comment by AdrianB1 | Hacker News Reader

> 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).

View on HN

> 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.

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.

>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.

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.

> Women are preferred for most entry level office jobs

What is that based on?

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

> That's THE entry level office job.

It's more of a dead-end job, in offices that still use administrative assistants (many fewer), and it was women back when they couldn't get better jobs. The entry level job for being a CEO, attorney, software developer, etc. isn't administrative assistant!

My mother became an accountant by being a secretary (administrative assistant) first. Her path went from secretary -> doing data entry -> employer paying for her to take accounting classes at night -> becoming a certified accountant. I know many other similar stories.

> The entry level job for being a CEO

Very few people are CEOs, it's not relevant when talking about jobs that uneducated people can do with potential upwards mobility

> attorney

A female assistant going from secretary -> paralegal -> attorney is definitely a thing.

> software developer

Is a rather specialised job in the grand scheme of things.

The point is, there IS NO entry level white collar work available to uneducated males. And all white collar work offers potential socioeconomic mobility.

It's not really. I've seen multiple admin assistants go to something in the HR Associate level. Once you're at the HR associate level, you have the whole HR/Talent org career ladder available to you.

It's not always the case, but if someone is organized, professional, and helpful, there are a lot of roles that will fit them and smart organizations move them around internally and hire a new assistant.

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.

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.

https://news.ubc.ca/2016/10/28/marrying-up-despite-more-educ...

There's a massive body of research/evidence that shows women still prefer partners who earn more than they do.

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

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.

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

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

> what's stopping males being a provider?

Imagining how impossible it is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com