A man who does his own thing and doesn't conform isn't really appreciated. Society (and women specifically) has a vested interest in men accepting the "provider" role. Of course, this role (for the men who can afford to play it these days) also strokes men's egos. Being "the provider" comes with its own status and its own sense of purpose and importance. But that payoff exists alongside the fact that the arrangement benefits women and society as a whole, arguably more than it benefits men themselves. It benefits society as a whole, and men have been conditioned to find meaning in playing this role.

Marriage, a stable job and a family to support aren't just personal choices society is indifferent to, they're outcomes society actively pushes men toward, because the whole social structure benefits from it and depends on enough men buying in.

Esther Vilar made basically this argument back in 1971, in 'The Manipulated Man' when she wrote:

"If a young man gets married, starts a family, and spends the rest of his life working at a soul-destroying job, he is held up as an example of virtue and responsibility. The other type of man, living only for himself, working only for himself, doing first one thing and then another simply because he enjoys it and because he has to keep only himself, sleeping where and when he wants, and facing woman when he meets her, on equal terms and not as one of a million slaves, is rejected by society. The free, unshackled man has no place in its midst."