sally4sara Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 True but many women as evidenced by this thread still want men to do it and theory I have no issue with chivalry but if women want it they have to earn it. Women have to deserve gentlemenly behavior from women if they want it instead of just demanding it because they were born female. Woggle, how does one earn something that effects their life as a handicap and why would they want to? Now if you are referring to one person treating another person with basic human consideration - I give it till they show they don't see the worth of it. Does that mean I am a gentleman? And I do expect to receive basic human consideration without it having anything to do with my being a woman. Link to post Share on other sites
Woggle Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Woggle, how does one earn something that effects their life as a handicap and why would they want to? Now if you are referring to one person treating another person with basic human consideration - I give it till they show they don't see the worth of it. Does that mean I am a gentleman? And I do expect to receive basic human consideration without it having anything to do with my being a woman. I very much agree with you but look at the women in this thread complaining about the lack of chivalry. I know you have some of the comments here. If men treat women as equals we are wrong and if we treat women the way the OP wants us to we are still wrong. It seems that many men just can't win either way and I think that many of us are just throwing up our hands and saying the hell with it. Link to post Share on other sites
hoping2heal Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 But most of these types of "chivalry" didn't benefit women. It was keeping them stunted. I'd love to see the end of this. Imagine a society were each individual is expected to be a productive contributor to our species rather than half leeching off the other and being told it was a favor to them to be able to stay so useless. Oh what a load of crap. I don't understand since when a woman making money meant she was now "equal". The ironic thing THERE is that is the view of many sexist men and has been for a long time, and now we have feminists and women who share views like you spouting it. LOVELY. Secondly, chivalry did not stunt women. That's just out there and ridiculous. Thirdly, our mothers and grandmothers had responsiibilities and they all contributed productively to society. Link to post Share on other sites
GAchasen Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 But most of these types of "chivalry" didn't benefit women. It was keeping them stunted. I'd love to see the end of this. Imagine a society were each individual is expected to be a productive contributor to our species rather than half leeching off the other and being told it was a favor to them to be able to stay so useless. I grew up in the South and that is what men do. I don't mind paying for both of us, after a few dates. But, come on, the first date?? I don't care about equality and etc... A man should always pay on a first date...They should not ask out a girl on a first date and then not pay for her. It has nothing to do with leeching off of someone... This is my opinion. Link to post Share on other sites
hoping2heal Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 I grew up in the South and that is what men do. I don't mind paying for both of us, after a few dates. But, come on, the first date?? I don't care about equality and etc... A man should always pay on a first date...They should not ask out a girl on a first date and then not pay for her. It has nothing to do with leeching off of someone... This is my opinion. I am with you there girlfriend. I don't think I contribute importantly to my RS or that my needs and feelings are just as important as my partners simply because I have my own job and pay my own bills. I do those things, but that isn't what defines me as a woman. To me that has nothing to do with equality. Link to post Share on other sites
GAchasen Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Yes, if a man is a gentleman he pays for the date...as for digging in the purse...The only plastic I would be pulling out is my tube of chap stick! Hahaha!!~~ Link to post Share on other sites
Rainman760 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 If women want equality it has to be all the way. Chivalry is dead and women killed it so don't get mad at men. Chivalry a. The qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry toward women. Not in your lifetime brother. Link to post Share on other sites
D-Lish Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 And this is the attitude we need to move towards. Isn't being treated something men and women should do for each other, and not out of obligation or an outmoded social norm? Isn't that more real? The old social implication that a man should demonstrate his ability to provide for a housewife and prospective children is offensive on its face from any reasonable feminist perspective, so we are left with the fact that issue has become merely about money. Nothing else, just one person giving money and another accepting it. There's a word for that.[/QUOTE] Well, yes, the word could be capitalism, or prostitution:cool: I'm not up for battling semantics tonight. Personally, I don't want to give the impression I can be bought. I totally feel like a guy buying me a drink or paying for a date is an unspoken contract or something- and that isn't my style. I am never going to lead a guy on by letting him buy me dinner- or a random drink at a bar- I don't roll that way. Link to post Share on other sites
Rainman760 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 I grew up in the South and that is what men do. I don't mind paying for both of us, after a few dates. But, come on, the first date?? I don't care about equality and etc... A man should always pay on a first date...They should not ask out a girl on a first date and then not pay for her. It has nothing to do with leeching off of someone... This is my opinion. I think this point has been lost in this thread; we were talking about a first date here. Now somehow it's evolved into the death of chivalry!! Link to post Share on other sites
hoping2heal Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 The way people try to define "equality" is ridiculous. There are a lot of ways men treat EACHOTHER that would offend I am sure any of the women here spouting about women's rights and equality if a man were doing it to a woman. Then there will be the "Well they shouldn't be doing it to eachother." No, they shouldn't. However wether you like it or not it will always bother us to see a man haul off and punch a woman in the face in a bar because she said something to make him angry. It will always upset us if a man walks by and smacks a woman on the butt to flirt. If a man sees a woman struggling to carry something heavy and doesn't stop to help, it will bug us. Why? Because she's a woman. The day you are okay with a man persuing a woman sexually and aggressively the way a woman persues a man i.e touching, etc. The day you are all cool with a man hauling off and clocking a woman because she's annoying him at the bar, the day you are fine with seeing a woman struggle to carry something heavy while the physically able bodied man just sits there and doesn't bother to help? THEN you can talk about equality. Link to post Share on other sites
sally4sara Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Oh what a load of crap. I don't understand since when a woman making money meant she was now "equal". The ironic thing THERE is that is the view of many sexist men and has been for a long time, and now we have feminists and women who share views like you spouting it. LOVELY. Secondly, chivalry did not stunt women. That's just out there and ridiculous. Thirdly, our mothers and grandmothers had responsiibilities and they all contributed productively to society. I didn't say CHIVALRY was bad for women. I don't think of the concept that women should be dependent on men to be chivalrous. And CHIVALRY is just effing being nice. You don't have to be a guy to do that. Or it is protecting someone smaller than you from harm. I do that as a mother all the damn time. Chivalry is just what we call most things like this when it is done by a man for a woman. But I don't think of women being expected to depend on a man for money to be chivalrous. Our grandmothers did contribute, but not as much as they could have in every way they might have been able - don't play dumb. Your grandmother might have made a fabulous scientist but I'm sure she wasn't groomed to be one or expected to be anything similarly educated. Link to post Share on other sites
Woggle Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 I never do heavy lifting for women. Link to post Share on other sites
sally4sara Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 I grew up in the South and that is what men do. I don't mind paying for both of us, after a few dates. But, come on, the first date?? I don't care about equality and etc... A man should always pay on a first date...They should not ask out a girl on a first date and then not pay for her. It has nothing to do with leeching off of someone... This is my opinion. If you want to say it is because they asked her out, you are then assuming women are not suppose to ask men out. Anything else you care to tell women they are not suppose to do? If courting is a means to pairing. Then financial holdings will, if success is found in a pair, be the financial holdings of both the woman and the man. That means that during courting, both should be providing for courting costs to demonstrate their money management styles are also compatible. Link to post Share on other sites
hoping2heal Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 I never do heavy lifting for women. Okay but you also aren't a woman trying to call the equality card either . Link to post Share on other sites
counterman Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Okay, this thread is building up nicely with heaps of opinions. Just going back to the paying for dates, is there anything that can be agreed upon? Just write it down in one post your own rules, which clearly covers what scenarios you may perceive. I thought I had it clear but I obviously don't. Link to post Share on other sites
Art_Critic Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 I never do heavy lifting for women. You mean to tell me that you would let your wife lift something heavy while you just sat there ? I don't think you would just stand there and not help her.. Link to post Share on other sites
hoping2heal Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 I didn't say CHIVALRY was bad for women. I don't think of the concept that women should be dependent on men to be chivalrous. I agree, and I don't see how a man paying for a woman's first date automatically makes her dependent on him financially. It doesn't. If a woman wants to work and do her own thing on the side to make money there's no problem with that. I do it but it isn't because I need to prove I am equal to a man. That's a ridiculous notion. I have the skillset and the circumstances to work a job, big whoop? I shouldn't all the sudden be regarded as an equal simply over that. However, the women who don't work and their husbands pay for them financially I think calling them leeches is ridiculous. The man chose to marry that woman, chose to have children. He isn't being used. He isn't an "oh poor little baby." He's also not somehow better or superior to her either. Link to post Share on other sites
Art_Critic Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 I open doors for women.. and do the same for men I even open my Mothers car doors.. I paid for dates when I was single.. all of them.. I paid for vacations when involved in a relationship. Etc.. Etc... Etc.... Maybe I'm old fashioned.. but one thing is for sure is that I'm not and never have been bitter towards women and it showed in my dating and marriages as such. I was able to date thru my 46 years and I my have followed the norms and just like being a nice guy but I'm married today partly because I was nice to my now wife on our first date Something to mull over when some of you guys shoot yourselves in the foot and make a girl pay for half of a first date and split the drink tab. Link to post Share on other sites
Confusedalways Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 I think a lot the people in this thread are hung up on the fact of the money issue- but it isn't a money issue it's just an issue of the expectations of the OP. OP expects a man to court her on the first date, including paying the tab. That expectation, whether you agree with her or not, was HER expectation. He did not MEET the expectation, and therefore it kills the second date for her. The date fails when people are expecting two different things. Therefore in this scenario the OP should move on. Is it right? Is it wrong? Would be it what you would do? Who knows, but cheapness is obviously a dealbreaker for her. She perceived this as being cheap, and thus the deal was broken. Whether it was cheap or not is not really relevant. If the OP sees it as cheap, which she did, she should move on. Link to post Share on other sites
New_Life08 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 I grew up in the South and that is what men do. I don't mind paying for both of us, after a few dates. But, come on, the first date?? I don't care about equality and etc... A man should always pay on a first date...They should not ask out a girl on a first date and then not pay for her. It has nothing to do with leeching off of someone... This is my opinion. Amen! It is the nice thing to do...like you say the guy doesn't have to pay every time, but he makes a gentlemanly impression to do so on the first date. As for the male and female feminism debate....if it is their belief to pay their own way, and to do otherwise needs to be "earned" then this belief should be up front so they date compatible people. The vast majority still believe in a man being a gentleman on the first date...and that probably wont change anytime soon. Link to post Share on other sites
Woggle Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 You mean to tell me that you would let your wife lift something heavy while you just sat there ? I don't think you would just stand there and not help her.. My wife is different than other women. She shows that she appreciates but your average woman I couldn't care less about. Most women think of men as dumb muscle and I will not be used in that manner. Link to post Share on other sites
sally4sara Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 I agree, and I don't see how a man paying for a woman's first date automatically makes her dependent on him financially. It doesn't. If a woman wants to work and do her own thing on the side to make money there's no problem with that. I do it but it isn't because I need to prove I am equal to a man. That's a ridiculous notion. I have the skillset and the circumstances to work a job, big whoop? I shouldn't all the sudden be regarded as an equal simply over that. However, the women who don't work and their husbands pay for them financially I think calling them leeches is ridiculous. The man chose to marry that woman, chose to have children. He isn't being used. He isn't an "oh poor little baby." He's also not somehow better or superior to her either. You don't seem to get it. I work because there are bills to pay. Where does it become my "own thing on the side"? It doesn't - BECAUSE it isn't about gender or equality. No woman's meal on any date is ever a necessity. It is a power positioning. If two men have lunch, they either assume they will pay for their own or they each try to get the other to let them pay, refusing to be paid for as though to have their meal bought for them is shaming or diminishing to their character. Someone being able to stay home with them is often the best environment for kids to be brought up in. The idea that a woman (or a man) has to be the one to stay with the kids at home, would be a sexist idea. It isn't about being used or superior. Link to post Share on other sites
meerkat stew Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 (edited) The vast majority still believe in a man being a gentleman on the first date...and that probably wont change anytime soon. As far as "gentleman" goes, that word is just code for "paying money and deferring to women" right? I'd go to any lengths to protect that also if I benefitted from it. And as far as "that won't change anytime soon" check out some stats on what percentage of sexual and courtship activity is actually conducted outside the traditional dating framework these days and get back to us. "Dating" is dead in the water, the advent of internet dating is the only thing keeping it afloat, and clinging to outmoded and unfair double standards is one reason for its demise. Edited January 20, 2010 by meerkat stew 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Star Gazer Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 No doubt the guy is a cheapskate.. He should have paid for the WHOLE date.. When I was dating I always paid for all my dates.. A girl spends tons of money on her looks, hair, makeup, nails and clothes to look hot for the guys, the very least a guy can do is pay for the date. I would also pay for the girls babysitter if she had kids.. I am in the camp that a guy cannot recover from being a cheapskate on a date and should always be trying to impress the lady he is trying to win the affection and attention of.. Courting is still needed in today's dating world and if the guy isn't trying to court the girl then he isn't right for her.. :love: Link to post Share on other sites
mem11363 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Married to my current wife for much the same reasons. I open doors for women.. and do the same for men I even open my Mothers car doors.. I paid for dates when I was single.. all of them.. I paid for vacations when involved in a relationship. Etc.. Etc... Etc.... Maybe I'm old fashioned.. but one thing is for sure is that I'm not and never have been bitter towards women and it showed in my dating and marriages as such. I was able to date thru my 46 years and I my have followed the norms and just like being a nice guy but I'm married today partly because I was nice to my now wife on our first date Something to mull over when some of you guys shoot yourselves in the foot and make a girl pay for half of a first date and split the drink tab. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts