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?
Before we talk about gender roles, we need to talk about biology. You should ask
why gender roles exist instead of just noticing that they exist. They make biological sense. Gender roles came to be how they are through the roles men and women played before civilization. "Gender roles" aren't a solid set of rules implemented into society, they are simply an idea that we have implemented into us by nature. They make use of the strengths of masculinity and the strengths of femininity to produce a most effective survival of our species.
The reason things like masculinity and femininity exist is because we are a loveually dimorphic species. If you look, not only at humans, but at just about every other land-borne mammal, you will see that the males and the females are significantly different, in appearance and in behavior. For example, in many mammal species, males tend to have about 5-15% more body mass than the females of the species. Now, as for behavior, I'm speaking about the differences between masculinity and femininity. Now, I have not done much research as to why the two are so different, but my theory is that since females are the life-givers, the way for our species to survive. It only makes evolutionary sense that they should not be the ones to engage in combat. That's where males come in. Since males only provide the seed, they are the more disposable gender. It makes evolutionary sense that they are the ones to protect the female and the child. Thus, each is equipped with either masculinity or femininity to fit their biological purpose. Masculinity aids in aggressiveness and provider skills, and femininity aids in nurturing and caretaking skills.
Therefore, when you talk about gender roles, you are talking about the modern embodiment of our natural human instincts. Hopefully I don't need to further explain why I said what I said, as I have just given you the reasons for why it is so. The reason men have the innate desire to provide is because of evolution and biology. It does not make any sense to say that it is all a societal construct. Even then, the only way it would be allowed to become a societal contstruct is by acknowledging the biological differences between men and women in nature.
