If you don’t make them do it, they sure won’t on their own. They will mostly play. I’m not talking about all men, obviously, but men really need the provision thing hammered into them in a way that isn’t the case with women.
Usually when the topic of male provision comes up, someone always wants to bring up edge cases like a crippled or injured man. But functioning patriarchal societies handle those edge cases as the individual cases they are. They recognize that there’s a distinction between drinking away your pay and being unable to work because a horse kicked you and rendered you paraplegic. Other people, often women, want to bring up the case of women making more money or having inherited money. Again, the man still has to have something obviously productive to do because men need that push more.
Just as women need the comforts of home and hearth more and will end up trying to turn the office into a home if their natural homemaking impulses are deranged, men will easily be content with a lean-to and a few handfuls of nuts and berries if they have no chance for a family or membership in a properly ordered male collective. Pro-family is usually going to be pro-male provision. Even in societies where getting food is easier, the men still provide things like the primary family buildings or fortifications. So it’s not really an exclusively modern or capitalist notion, again, as some try to claim. Men build the grass huts even if women are growing much of the food.
Given this requirement, promoting marriage without pursuing goals for male employment at all income levels is a hollow gesture.