Posted on 02/14/2002 8:36:55 AM PST by Stand Watch Listen
It's not the most romantic subject for Valentine's Day, but the unfair expectation that men must pay for dates, which came under commendable feminist attack during the 1970s, is, surprisingly, almost as strong today as it was before women's liberation. There are several standard justifications given for not splitting the check:
Justification #1: "Women have to spend more on clothes, shoes, perfume, etc., so it's only fair that men pay."
It's true that women's clothes, shoes, etc., can cost considerably more than men's, but men who date must reciprocate by having a presentable car and a presentable place to live, both of which are far more expensive. After all, a marriage-age man who lives at home is considered undesirable, but did you ever see a man turn down a promising date because she lived with mom and dad or drove an old junker? I didn't think so.
Justification #2: "Men make more money than women do for the same job."
Fortunately, this isn't true. Studies by liberal (AFL-CIO), dissident feminist (The Independent Women's Forum), and conservative (Hoover Institution) organizations have found that single men do not earn more than single women. The gender wage gap is caused by the career sacrifices that mothers make for their children, and the personal sacrifices fathers make (longer work weeks, more hazardous jobs, etc.) in order to earn the money to support those same children. Neither of these is generally an issue in dating.
Justification #3: "I'm old-fashioned. I expect the man to pay because it's chivalrous."
The problem is that many men have come to hear this as "I'm old fashioned when it suits me. When it doesn't, well, that's a different story." After all, what would a modern woman say if her date said "I'm old-fashioned. I expect the woman to do all the cooking and dishes"?
Justification #4: "Whoever asks for the date should pay."
And who is always expected to ask? Need I ask?
Justification #5: "Well, if men expect to get something, they should expect to pay for it."
It is Neanderthal for a man to expect to "get something" simply because he has paid for a date. Also, since women enjoy sex as much as men do, even if a woman does have sex with a man "because he paid" it's still unfair to the man because he's paying for the privilege of doing something which is mutually pleasurable.
Justification #6: "It's just easier this way."
This claim certainly has merit. The rise of feminism demolished many of society's rules and traditions, usually for the better. But when it comes to dating, nobody really knows what the rules are anymore, and in this confusion often both men and women find it easier to fall back on tradition.
Enough! The obligation of a man to pay can wound a budding relationship by placing money and one-sided expectations where love and honesty should be. In addition, its innate unfairness hinders the uneasy rapprochement men and women are currently negotiating after three decades of gender conflict. In the long run, abolishing this outmoded social convention will benefit both men and women. And what's fair is fair.
Oh, and guys, be sure not to order the most expensive item on the menu, OK?
Glenn J. Sacks
So thats how they get pregnant, dinner!
For a really controversial take on that subject, check out Fred: Why White Men Prefer Asian Women: The View From A Sushi Bar
I'm happily married to a traditionally minded American woman. If I had grown up in the Northeast instead of the South, I might have been looking elsewhere, too.
Nah. They're out there, if you choose carefully. The same could be said for American men, or men of any other nationality.
Oh, come on Babble. It's obvious that Cajungirl wears her husband's cajones for earrings!
I got it. And I thought it was quite funny.
Been there, done that. At least, I didn't marry one--I was just looking for a nice one and it was difficult going. When I finally met him--online, no less--I married him as soon as I could!
Actually, I would classify none of them as "crazy women" in that regard (I have some ground rules that kind of screen them out).
And talk about making people guess. Have you ever met a professional who is comfortable on a ranch or in a corporate office, can speak with a farmer as easily as an investment banker, and has been both a New Yorker in western Canada AND a western Canadian in New York?
LOL! Figure that one out.
_I_ will continue to demonstrate my love and care for a woman by providing for her at every opportunity.
Ya know, this is kinda like arguments about engagement rings:
Before I wanted to marry, I could concoct all kinds of arguments for keeping the ring simple and inexpensive. I dissed the "three months' salary" rule, and thought a couple hundred bucks for a simple gold ring would be more than enough - very much like your posting #1. Then I fell in love, really deeply truly passionately in love. Wanting to marry, I sought out not a simple "it's the thought that counts" plain ring, I instead deeply desired to get her the most beautiful and precious and fascinating ring possible, maxing out at a completely stunning ring exceeding $10,000 - sad that finances and time would not permit me something better. Likewise, I will pay for a date - not out of some artificial social obligation, but because I truly care for the woman accompanying me.
(That the intended recipient of the ring left the country upon my proposal and never saw the treasure is a different story...)
Fine, as soon as the women shut up and start doing like our mothers did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.