I can't tell whether or not you're kidding.
the words are obv joking but the motivating sentiment isn't
men are not innately more inclined nor more capable to be providers; that idea is purely cultural.
men have traditionally, in many cultures, been the 'breadwinners,' esp. in industrialised society, but this is not by any means a natural order.
in recent years and as the trend continues, we've seen, however, a departure from this idea in favour of a more-equal viewpoint where gender roles are much less-important in that sense. women are more likely than ever to be single and hold higher-skill jobs, and families are more likely due to economic conditions to be dual-income. at the same time, families reduce spending in general as per their need
men are, of course, for various reasons, whether you want to mark it up to de facto discrimination or the glass ceiling or coincidence or what have you, the primary holders of higher-paying jobs in the united states. this is not by nature nor by mandate, it is purely the product of man. and, of course, this has also been in decline over the past years as traditional gender roles deteriorate.
as for your comment about women's spending, it is not, in any capacity, ever sound to make sweeping generalisations about massive groups of people. the way people deal with their money is something that cannot be related to gender in any way as far as i'm concerned or aware. i don't really understand your underlying reasoning for that statement. surely, as women are human beings and people just as everyone else, they have their own individual inclinations and impulses to buy and participate in consumerism, just as any man?
