Why girls should offer to pay (and mean it...)..

[sophie274]

I just wanted to say: on my first date with my long-term boyfriend, we went out to dinner and when the check came he paid. Because the setting-up of the date had been informal, I didn't want him to think I wasn't interested by insisting on paying half, but I didn't want to make an insincere offer, and I was nervous and shy, so I said nothing. I felt terribly awkward and said a very awkward thank-you.

 

I paid for our second date and we have usually alternated since then, so it had nothing to do with my expecting to be wined and dined. I was just quite nervous. I might be totally off base here (and you might have an idea depending on her body language/demeanor during the date), but maybe she was nervous and felt a bit awkward? I would definitely give her a second date, provided you enjoyed the time you spent with her.

[Batya33]

I want equal pay for equal work in the work place for everyone - men/women/caucasian/african american/people with disabilities/people without disabilities. That belief system is not part of my personal relationships. In my personal relationships I don't have the equal pay/equal work model. There, I prefer that in the beginning stages of dating the man do most of the initiating, planning and contacting, do the asking out for the first date and treat on the first date -- and if he wants to treat on the first few dates, that's cool. I'll be very appreciative and I will offer to pay my way sometimes on the first date but definitely after that. When we are more of a couple, taking turns works fine for me.

 

I do not see the two as inconsistent - wanting equal rights in the workplace, in voting, -- in the public sphere where there are legal rights to the same pay for the same work -- and wanting a traditional male-female role in my private life. Most of the men I know as friends, know because we've dated, know because we've been boyfriend/girlfriend greatly prefer the traditional roles, are more comfortable being the initial "pursuer" for lack of a better term - they may be flattered by a woman who is the initial agressor but she is not typically the one he chooses to be with long term for a serious relationship.

 

My boyfriend and I are very proud of each other's successes in our careers - not because I am a woman and he is a man - but just because. I am in a typically male-dominated field and he is proud of what I have accomplished (although I have never experienced gender discrimination). However, in our private relationship he likes that I like to do the cooking/food preparation/cleaning and he likes treating me (which I let him do less than he would like to). I like that arrangement as well. Doesn't make me any less loyal to equal rights for women in the workplace.

[lifestream]

It may not be inconsistent with your beliefs, but they are with mine. After reading Wittig, Fausto-Sterling, Goffman and Mackinnon I personally don't like gender stereotypes and expectations in regards to gender. I don't believe the male needs to be the pursuer in every case. I was in a long-term (for a teenager) relationship where my ex made the initial push. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

 

And no, there's nothing wrong with a guy treating a girl. But there's nothing wrong with it the other way around, either. My argument was pointed more towards traditionalists who believe that males should pay for females just because that's the way it "ought" to be done.

 

I came off a little blunt at first, but what I meant was there should at the very least be common courtesy for the woman to offer to pay for half, simply because a date isn't a one way street.

 

I don't want to get into a debate on gender theory...

[Batya33]

Good for you that you're so well read! My guess is within the next 20 years or so you'll also have a list of life experience to add to that illustrious list of authors.

 

I don't have "beliefs" about dating -- rather, I go with the flow and the flow still seems to be at least in my age range - 30s-40s (and when I was in my teens and 20s, same thing) that most men prefer the traditional route. I'm not the person that wants to take that away from them or insist on "equality" if that means that in the beginning of a relationship I don't allow the man to do what feels comfortable to him - that is, do most of the calling, initiating and planning.

 

Why? Because typically when the woman takes on that role it is ineffective if she wants a long term relationship (but it is effective if all she wants is a fling). It is effective if she wants to make a point that she wants "equality" by being the one to do most of the calling, initiating or planning -- or even half. If she doesn't mind holding out for a man who is receptive to that kind of behavior in the name of "equality" that's cool - but when I give advice I am assuming that the woman prioritizes being in a happy serious relationship over some notion of equality that includes the woman doing half or more of the initiating, pursuing and planning in the early stages.

 

Again, maybe at your age things have changed - I honestly do not know - I know it hasn't for my niece who is 19 but she's just one person. I am all for things changing but I don't advise women to be "crusaders" in dating -- I advise them to do what I have found to be the most effective which is to let the man do most of that in the beginning because even if they might complain a little that it's too much "work" typically they are either comfortable with it or they realize it keeps the interest level - fragile in the beginning at times - at a good level -- most men like a bit of a challenge - no games, no "playing hard to get" - but that bit of intrigue and that small dose of challenge where they put in more of the effort than the lady they are interested in when it comes to calling, initiating and planning. If the lady takes on that role they may be flattered and respond for a few dates, they may believe she will have sex with them earlier on and thereforeeee stick around but in most cases she is not the lady they will be introducing to their families as their serious girlfriend.

 

Just my experience with the many men I have dated over the years and the hundreds of men I know and know of. It's not about me not wanting to do half of the work - or even more - I've asked out men, no big deal, I'd step up to the plate every single time if I thought it was going to be effective for a long term relationship. From what I have seen, it's not and my guess is none of the authors you mentioned speak about the nuts and bolts of dating and what is effective (and yes I am familiar with them - even met one of them in person - which was pretty cool). I'm not here to tell a woman who wants a serious relationship about feminism or gender theory - but I can tell her from my broad experience (far broader than yours I am sure based on your age) what works and what doesn't work so well.

[rocio]

I agree with this line of thinking.

It is a weird thing in our culture, for girls to be asked out and men to foot the bill. I personally think that if women want equality, then give them equality! No free passes! I know I'm coming off as a bit blunt, but there's no reason why I should pay for everything simply because I have a penis. I'm all for the notion of equality, and this is one of the aspects.

 

The reality is that there is no equality. Not even close. Maybe when it's a realistic prospect I'll start to rethink what I feel about who pays on the date. In the meantime, I think it is very rude and ungentlemanlike and shows poor manners and no class if a guy doesn't pay on a date. Or if a girl offers and he accepts. Unless he's broke, of course. Sometimes I'll even go out with 3 of us - myself, my guy and my best friend. Even then, the guy pays. We offer, but he would never accept.

[thlst3]

I think a guy should pay for the first date even if the girl asked him. It's just being polite.

 

I went on a date with a girl about a month ago and she sincerely tried to pay for it while I was in the restroom. I thought it was really nice and cute gesture. She definitely got extra points for it... I paided and on the 2nd date I let her pay. I wanted to pay for the drinks after our dinner but she wouldn't let me. 3rd date... I paid.

 

If she offers but don't really mean it, just pay for it. Next time take her to a coffee shop. All girls are different.

[lifestream]

I never said perfect equality exists nor did I say it ever WOULD exist. All I'm saying is gender roles really are too rigid to be applied in every single context and every relationship.

 

And what I said was at the high extreme. In the low end I would say at the very least there should be a gesture on the part of the woman to offer to pay. Personally I find that discourteous as well if there's no gesture, with or without intent.

 

But if the girl insists on paying half then she wants to pay! Why not let her? How is that being ungentlemanly if she would genuinely like to pay, not because of the man/woman game but just because she wants to pay?

 

There's one thing in playing hard to get and another to let the guy foot the bill. I don't find that playing hard to get can be related to the woman not giving a gesture for paying for half. If there's not even a gesture there, that would turn me off completely. If there is a gesture and even if she insists on paying half my first reaction is "Ok, this girl is independent and courteous." Which are two big pluses in my book.

[lifestream]

I think a guy should pay for the first date even if the girl asked him. It's just being polite.

 

I went on a date with a girl about a month ago and she sincerely tried to pay for it while I was in the restroom. I thought it was really nice and cute gesture. She definitely got extra points for it... I paided and on the 2nd date I let her pay. I wanted to pay for the drinks after our dinner but she wouldn't let me. 3rd date... I paid.

 

If she offers but don't really mean it, just pay for it. Next time take her to a coffee shop. All girls are different.

Thank you. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this. As a matter of fact I think this is awesome!

[rocio]

If there is a gesture and even if she insists on paying half my first reaction is "Ok, this girl is independent and courteous." Which are two big pluses in my book.

 

I just think it's a joke to assume that because a girl offers to foot the bill, she's independent. Independent means that you can take care of yourself. That you can pay your own bills, make intellegent decisions, and get up when life pushes you down. It has nothing to do with paying for supper.

[Batya33]

I just think it's a joke to assume that because a girl offers to foot the bill, she's independent. Independent means that you can take care of yourself. That you can pay your own bills, make intellegent decisions, and get up when life pushes you down. It has nothing to do with paying for supper.

 

Particularly if the funds are coming from her parents, etc. or she is not paying rent, etc.

[lifestream]

I don't think it's wrong to get that IMPRESSION. Whether she is or not is a completely different story. I guess I have to be specific next time.

 

And at the very least the gesture is courteous, kind and polite.

[Batya33]

I don't think it's wrong to get that IMPRESSION. Whether she is or not is a completely different story. I guess I have to be specific next time.

 

And at the very least the gesture is courteous, kind and polite.

 

I do think it's inaccurate to get that impression. There are many reasons a woman might pay her own way including not being that interested in the man, wanting to appear to be into "equality" even if she isn't, thinking that you cannot afford to pay and are just being polite, etc.

[DN]

In my opinion, women will never be fully accepted as being equal in every respect if they do not accept the responsibilities as well as the privileges of being in a relationship. The idea that equality in the workplace can be achieved at the same time as accepting inequality in other aspects of life is a pipedream that may be temporarily convenient or expedient but will not work. I think that both men and women who think otherwise are deceiving themselves.

 

In western society in particular, money, and the use of money, is how people view who has control. By accepting an unequal expenditure of money in relationships an imbalance is created in the relationship. Too often that will mean that the man feels more assertive and powerful, the woman more submissive and obligated. And also too often an attempt is made to correct that imbalance by using sex in a similar way.

 

But if two people have the respect for each other that a more or less fair expenditure of money will bring, then that can also be a template for how balance is achieved in other aspects of a relationship from domestic chores to the mutual enjoyment of sex without it being a 'quid pro quo' or for purposes of manipulation.

 

If dating, even in the early stages, is really the beginning of a potential relationship then it is better to start in a balanced way rather than have to struggle to achieve a balance later.

[Batya33]

Your argument presumes that a dating relationship is "unequal" if the man pays for dates more often than the woman. That is a flawed presumption and renders your argument flawed in my humble opinion. Sure, if a woman and man see their dating arrangement as akin to a business arrangement then yes the woman should treat it as any business arrangement and be an equal partner financially just as she would if it were a business arrangement. Some marriages of convenience I am sure are like business arrangements too. But, when you have two people dating and there are matters of the heart involved, how the couple decides to deal with the financial issues - who pays, etc. is not a matter of a business arrangement - it has to do with emotional and psychological attitudes towards money, masculinity, female and male roles, etc. To the couple it might seem perfectly fair or "equal" if the man pays more often and the woman does more of the cleaning or shopping or whatever.

 

The equality I expect in the work place has to do with equal pay for equal work and opportunities for growth and advancement that are equal to others' without regard to race, ethnicity, religion or gender. If I met a man who stated that if I wanted to be treated like an equal partner in a dating relationship (whatever that means) I had to split all the bills with him when we went on dates I would find that coldhearted and emotionless and also suspect that it came from an attitude of stinginess both financially and of the heart. My guess is that would be a very unequal relationship emotionally.

[DN]

Your argument presumes that a dating relationship is "unequal" if the man pays for dates more often than the woman.

Yes, that is exactly right. Anything else is simply taking advantage.

 

Of course a relationship is not a business arrangement. Had I meant that I would have said that. But neither is it an arrangement where one person takes financial advantage of another, even if they are of different genders. To illustrate that: who should pay for dating when the couple are of the same gender?

 

Splitting the bill evokes images of a couple intently studying the bill with calculator in hand to determine who ordered what and at what cost and lengthy discussions about how much the tip should be. That would be equally silly and I did not mean that either.

 

What I mean is that if over time, even a comparatively short time, one person is being financially subsidised by another, then the relationship will be unequal and out of balance. That was fine a generation ago - but now that women are supposed to be equal then they will not be so considered unless they are prepared to be equal in all aspects of life.

 

Equality is not just determined by how we view ourselves but how others view us and their view is at least in part determined by how we behave in accepting responsibilities as well as advantages.

 

You may say that you view workplace equality as distinct from relationship equality but if you are unable to convince the majority it simply won't be true in any meaningful way.

[Batya33]

I see - so by your theory a woman who stays home raising children where the husband is the sole breadwinner is not entitled to equal rights in the workplace because in her marriage she is not contributing equally on a financial basis? Would that depend on the "value" of her services as compared to her husband's salary, or whether she brought assets into the marriage, etc? Seems to me that based on your theory, women who stay home with children are not entitled to equality because they are taking financial advantage of the husband. Once you start requiring that in private romantic relationships women act "equal" as they would in the workplace and business arrangements it is quite a slippery slope indeed.

 

Or, another example, if an African American person chooses only to hire an African American nanny to raise his or her child are you saying that she or he cannot demand racial equality in the workplace because she or he has a preference to hire an African American to work in his or her home?

 

What about an African American who only wants to date someone who is African American? Is that person then precluded from insisting on equal treatment in the work place because she or he treats White people "unequally" in dating preferences? I would not call it unequal in the least- I would call it the difference between behavior in your private life and public life where certain behavior is discriminatory if done in the work place or in the government but is not if done privately.

 

Under your theory, any person who demanded equal treatment in the workplace would have to behave the same way in his or her private life - no more religious preferences in dating, either, correct?

 

As far as dating I think it makes little sense to say that a man who chooses to treat a woman on dates more of the time is being taken advantage of by the woman. As I've posted before I think it would be insulting and condescending for a woman to tell a man how he is to spend his money on her, or not -- of course she can and should offer to pay her way but if he insists he is entitled to spend his money in any way that he sees fit to do so. It's like a friend of mine refusing to take a gift from me because she or he has decided that I spent too much and if she took it she would be taking advantage of me. I would be offended if she or he said that to me (or if my boyfriend did). You're presuming in your analysis that people don't get pleasure out of treating - I know I do and I assume my boyfriend does as well.

[DN]

It is an old courtroom tactic to attempt to deflect an opposing argument with unrepresentative examples but as you probably know hard cases make bad law. However, this is not a law - it is a template that is obviously adaptable to circumstance outside the norm.

 

In general it is simply wrong for anyone to take advantage of someone else, financially or otherwise simply because of their gender. It is as wrong for a woman to expect a man to pay her way, whether dating or in a relationship, as it is for a man to expect a woman to stay at home, raise the children and wash his socks. Both expectations are outdated and unreasonable.

 

If a couple wish to behave that way that is their choice. I think it unwise, especially for married couples given the divorce rates, but it remains a matter for them. It is the expectation that makes it wrong.

[rocio]

In general it is simply wrong for anyone to take advantage of someone else, financially or otherwise simply because of their gender. It is as wrong for a woman to expect a man to pay her way, whether dating or in a relationship, as it is for a man to expect a woman to stay at home, raise the children and wash his socks. Both expectations are outdated and unreasonable.

 

I don't see either of those scenarios as being wrong. I don't expect my man to pay my way in life. But there's nothing "wrong" with him forking out an extra $20 for my meal when we go on a date every couple of weeks. It's hardly going to make him broke and I'm hardly relying on him to pay my way. It's a gesture that I appreciate.

 

Likewise, I would love to stay at home, raise the kids, and wash his socks. In today's world, that's not sustainable over a long period of time. But I would love to take a few years off to do that when we have small children.

 

Neither of those necessarily constitute an unbalanced relationship where one person is taking advantage of the other. The balance of a relationship is based on deeper dynamics, such as appreciation, emotional support, respect, etc.

[Batya33]

I don't see either of those scenarios as being wrong. I don't expect my man to pay my way in life. But there's nothing "wrong" with him forking out an extra $20 for my meal when we go on a date every couple of weeks. It's hardly going to make him broke and I'm hardly relying on him to pay my way. It's a gesture that I appreciate.

 

Likewise, I would love to stay at home, raise the kids, and wash his socks. In today's world, that's not sustainable over a long period of time. But I would love to take a few years off to do that when we have small children.

 

Neither of those necessarily constitute an unbalanced relationship where one person is taking advantage of the other. The balance of a relationship is based on deeper dynamics, such as appreciation, emotional support, respect, etc.

 

I agree with this. I don't think the divorce rate is high or increased by people making reasoned decisions as to what is fair for them in a relationship even if to outsiders it might seem unfair, outdated, imbalanced, unequal. I know of a married couple where she wants him to order all her food for her at a restaurant - I find that sickening on several levels but more power to them if it works for them.

 

As far as my slippery slope argument I stand by it and, DN, of course I see your point as well, I just don't agree that there is any taking advantage going on if the couple decide on what works for them and feel satisfied with their choices.

[rocio]

I know of a married couple where she wants him to order all her food for her at a restaurant - I find that sickening on several levels but more power to them if it works for them.

 

Sickening? He he. When I was a teenager I used to be responsible for cooking supper each night. So when we would dine out as a family, my little brother would always choose something from the menu for me. It was fun because, as the family cook, I never got to be surprised at home. It brings back good memories when I eat out with my bf and he chooses 2 things from the menu for us to share. Somehow, I like that.

[EvaGina]

Sickening? He he. When I was a teenager I used to be responsible for cooking supper each night. So when we would dine out as a family, my little brother would always choose something from the menu for me. It was fun because, as the family cook, I never got to be surprised at home. It brings back good memories when I eat out with my bf and he chooses 2 things from the menu for us to share. Somehow, I like that.

 

Thats really sweet

and its not pathetic like just being a woman who needs a man to do everything for her

[Batya33]

Thats really sweet

and its not pathetic like just being a woman who needs a man to do everything for her

 

In the example I gave, the woman will never order on her own but whispers to her boyfriend what he should ask for from the waiter - you are right, to me that is sickening, to someone else, very sweet and bonding. I should not judge and am sorry I did.

[rocio]

In the example I gave, the woman will never order on her own but whispers to her boyfriend what he should ask for from the waiter - you are right, to me that is sickening, to someone else, very sweet and bonding. I should not judge and am sorry I did.

 

That must actually be funny. They sound like an entertaining couple to take out in public!

[EvaGina]

In the example I gave, the woman will never order on her own but whispers to her boyfriend what he should ask for from the waiter .

 

ew...

Sometimes I tell the guy what I want and he orders both, sometimes I order, sometimes we order our own...

I have social anxiety disorder, so I find things like that really difficult, but yeah, I try to suck it up, especially if I am requesting a change to the meal

[DN]

My point is that it is the expectation of gender roles that is wrong. If you expect a man to pay extra for you where is the justification for that?

 

What is so special about a woman that she feels she has a right to expect a man pay extra simply because she is a woman? What is so special about a man that he should expect a woman to be a stay at home Mom and give up her career?

 

No one should expect special treatment or special advantages. No one should expect that they have a right to pressure someone into giving them anything against their real wishes simply because it is tradition. Societal norms are constantly changing - dating as a concept is relatively new, for instance. The idea of stay at home Moms is only marginally older.

 

I predict that in a comparatively short time in the history of human relationships the idea of unequal financial contributions to a relationship, even in the early stages, will be viewed as quaint - in the same way as we view the idea of a woman having to have the permission of her father to marry as quaint. In fact many women view that as hopelessly quaint even now.