Going Dutch: resentment

[zengirl]

What I do have an issue with is throwing away big money on a woman before I know her true intentions. It's not even about gender and it can apply to lifer in general. I don't invest in people too much until they prove themselves trustworthy.

 

FTR, early dates shouldn't cost a lot of money. At least as far as my opinion goes --- the point isn't what you do, it's getting to know each other.

 

As to the trust thing. . . . I can never get on board with that, whether it's stated by men or women around here. I cannot think a hypothetical stranger is anything other than trustworthy, till I see them in action (Then I make a decision based on who they appear to be). Kinda goes to the Ben Folds line, "It seems to me if you cannot trust/You can't be trusted," you know. And perhaps that's not "fair" for people who've been burned, but they're just different sorts of people. I've been burned, and I still set my default to "Trust."

 

I kind of see where your coming from. Going dutch makes you feel the guys interest level is lower.

 

I suppose it would be very confusing because sometimes that is the case, and sometimes not. There are lots of guys like me that have in the past been with women who where primarily money motivated. I'm very sensitive to these issues because I've literally been ripped off in the past, and dating costs a lot of money.

 

Yeah, and (as a general rule) I don't date people with obvious trust issues either. Sounds unfair, maybe, but I don't have that baggage, and I don't want it in my relationship. So, both types of men in this scenario wouldn't be my cuppa. And, also, dating shouldn't really cost a lot of money. First dates should be cheap, cheap, cheap. But I would, of course, take cultural differences and such into consideration. Still, until the bulk of men (in this cultural arena) stop expressing their generosity and interest via paying for early dates, it's going to impact how I view men who don't. It's like make-up or beauty processes. If all the women in the U.S. stopped wearing make-up, lots of women who are pretty enough would too, but if they're going to compete with the women who wear make-up, get their hair done regularly, etc, then they're going to have to play in the same game as everyone else. I don't make the rules; I just observe the trends.

 

In regards to salary... I don't pay attention to it on the first date or so. Once in a relationship that changes.

 

I don't terribly either, but it's hard not to notice mine. Everyone knows what teachers make, pretty much. In fact, the salary scale for my county is posted online. All my friends can guess pretty well what I make without looking, though.

Edited February 17, 2011 by zengirl

[Woggle]

Woggle, what exactly do you mean by women's traditional role? If you mean that she's the one who bears the children, spends more time looking after them than the man, earns less money because she's spending more time at home with the kids (or because there is still inequality in the workplace) and puts her partner's career before her own - this is still very much the role of most married/partnered women in modern society.

 

I'm sure if you pay attention to the happily attached mature women on LS (many of whom don't visit the dating section) you'll find that they don't have an 'attitude'. This attitude and resentment seems to exist mostly amongst unattached younger people and bitter divorcees. I don't know for sure but I'd also stick my neck out and say that there is considerably more resentment from men on LS than there is from women.

 

Although women in the western world are no longer prepared to accept the role of 'chattel' (and I'm sure you agree that's reasonable), most women are happy being women.

 

Yes that is part of what I am talking about and most women rightfully would get angry if you insisted that is her womanly duty yet men are wrong if we don't want to be looked at as walking wallets.

[Zapbasket]

This is always an interesting topic and I can actually understand the bitterness often expressed when this topic is discussed, from almost all sides.

 

The big problem with the question of who should pay what on first dates is that tradition and culture communicate messages far more potently than any two people looking to learn about each other through reading cues and gestures as well as having conversation.

 

Historically, the man has always been the initiator of moving a relationship forward, from its earliest stages to marriage. That in itself was neither right nor wrong, simply the tradition. Women going on dates 75 years ago could expect that the man would pay, and the man would ask the woman on a date expecting to pay for everything. They had this expectation because that was the tradition, and the carrying out of the tradition on any given first date between any given man and woman communicated that the man was capable of being a provider and protector and the woman was, at least for that one date, open to being provided to and protected by that particular man--a precursor to being open to being his wife, far down the road. If the courtship went optimally, it would result in the woman accepting the man's proposal to be his wife. And then the woman would assume what was at that time a very clearly defined role of "wife," which involved caring for husband, children and home while the husband worked to provide material wealth for his family and to do whatever it took always to protect their collective social honor and safety.

 

Now, the roles of husband and wife are much more fluid, and so when a man and a woman meet one another for the first time, they really have no idea how the other defines marriage or even whether they both view marriage as the necessary milestone to a lifelong partnership...or even if they believe in or want a lifelong partnership. So the first date from the get-go is fraught with uncertainty. All we have is the old tradition of the man paying and the woman graciously accepting the treat, which in my opinion now communicates a willingness and interest on both people's parts to engage in learning about each others' views on relationship, marriage, gender roles, etc. All things that cannot reasonably be covered in just the one date, or before the date. So until that can be explored, tradition is the safest bet for both to hold to.

 

I do think it's the woman's responsibility, if the date draws to a close and she is certain she is uninterested in any future dates with that man, to INSIST on paying half. If the man then insists on paying, then she should very gently but directly let him know that while she enjoyed the evening and getting to know him, she does not feel the necessary chemistry for future dates. If the man insists on paying after that has been made clear, then she can only graciously accept, and both can leave the date confident that they were both class acts all the way through.

[Untouchable_Fire]

As to the trust thing. . . . I can never get on board with that, whether it's stated by men or women around here. I cannot think a hypothetical stranger is anything other than trustworthy, till I see them in action (Then I make a decision based on who they appear to be). Kinda goes to the Ben Folds line, "It seems to me if you cannot trust/You can't be trusted," you know. And perhaps that's not "fair" for people who've been burned, but they're just different sorts of people. I've been burned, and I still set my default to "Trust."

 

I don't trust people I don't know. It seems silly to do so. I'm not going to hand my baby to a stranger and ask them to look after her for a while.

 

However, I also don't make snap judgments about people based on appearance.

 

Yeah, and (as a general rule) I don't date people with obvious trust issues either. Sounds unfair, maybe, but I don't have that baggage, and I don't want it in my relationship. So, both types of men in this scenario wouldn't be my cuppa. And, also, dating shouldn't really cost a lot of money. First dates should be cheap, cheap, cheap. But I would, of course, take cultural differences and such into consideration. Still, until the bulk of men (in this cultural arena) stop expressing their generosity and interest via paying for early dates, it's going to impact how I view men who don't. It's like make-up or beauty processes. If all the women in the U.S. stopped wearing make-up, lots of women who are pretty enough would too, but if they're going to compete with the women who wear make-up, get their hair done regularly, etc, then they're going to have to play in the same game as everyone else. I don't make the rules; I just observe the trends.

 

I totally agree with this. The rule pretty much is that the guy pays... and honestly on a very human level I don't mind.

 

I'm an odd combination of very cheap and very generous. I know it baffles my current GF sometimes. I won't buy 2 ply toilet paper... but I will help her pay for her college.

 

It just drives me nuts when I hear women complain about men who don't pay... like its some divine right, or as if it actually says something about the guys generosity.

 

I don't terribly either, but it's hard not to notice mine. Everyone knows what teachers make, pretty much. In fact, the salary scale for my county is posted online. All my friends can guess pretty well what I make without looking, though.

 

It's not always about what you make. Often its about how you spend money too.

 

Overall I agree though. It's inconsiderate to not be mindful of the other persons financial situation.

[LittleTiger]

This is always an interesting topic and I can actually understand the bitterness often expressed when this topic is discussed, from almost all sides.

 

The big problem with the question of who should pay what on first dates is that tradition and culture communicate messages far more potently than any two people looking to learn about each other through reading cues and gestures as well as having conversation.

 

Historically, the man has always been the initiator of moving a relationship forward, from its earliest stages to marriage. That in itself was neither right nor wrong, simply the tradition. Women going on dates 75 years ago could expect that the man would pay, and the man would ask the woman on a date expecting to pay for everything. They had this expectation because that was the tradition, and the carrying out of the tradition on any given first date between any given man and woman communicated that the man was capable of being a provider and protector and the woman was, at least for that one date, open to being provided to and protected by that particular man--a precursor to being open to being his wife, far down the road. If the courtship went optimally, it would result in the woman accepting the man's proposal to be his wife. And then the woman would assume what was at that time a very clearly defined role of "wife," which involved caring for husband, children and home while the husband worked to provide material wealth for his family and to do whatever it took always to protect their collective social honor and safety.

 

Now, the roles of husband and wife are much more fluid, and so when a man and a woman meet one another for the first time, they really have no idea how the other defines marriage or even whether they both view marriage as the necessary milestone to a lifelong partnership...or even if they believe in or want a lifelong partnership. So the first date from the get-go is fraught with uncertainty. All we have is the old tradition of the man paying and the woman graciously accepting the treat, which in my opinion now communicates a willingness and interest on both people's parts to engage in learning about each others' views on relationship, marriage, gender roles, etc. All things that cannot reasonably be covered in just the one date, or before the date. So until that can be explored, tradition is the safest bet for both to hold to.

 

I do think it's the woman's responsibility, if the date draws to a close and she is certain she is uninterested in any future dates with that man, to INSIST on paying half. If the man then insists on paying, then she should very gently but directly let him know that while she enjoyed the evening and getting to know him, she does not feel the necessary chemistry for future dates. If the man insists on paying after that has been made clear, then she can only graciously accept, and both can leave the date confident that they were both class acts all the way through.

 

Great post. I don't think it will stop the 'bickering' though!

[Untouchable_Fire]

I do think it's the woman's responsibility, if the date draws to a close and she is certain she is uninterested in any future dates with that man, to INSIST on paying half. If the man then insists on paying, then she should very gently but directly let him know that while she enjoyed the evening and getting to know him, she does not feel the necessary chemistry for future dates. If the man insists on paying after that has been made clear, then she can only graciously accept, and both can leave the date confident that they were both class acts all the way through.

 

***********************************************************

This is all I ask for when paying for dates. ***********************************************************

[aerogurl87]

If he asks me out he better be paying for the date. And that's why when I was single I never asked guys out cause I didn't expect to pay unless we were in a committed relationship. The only exception to that was my boyfriend, whom I paid for my first flight to go see cause he was broke at the time. That's only because he put in so much effort to talk to me on a day to day basis, we got along really well, and I knew going to see him wouldn't be a waste of time.

[LuckyLady13]

I'm an American woman born and raised on the East Coast. First dates for me were always a way to test the waters. I wanted to pay half of the bill. I'm not compatible with a man who feels the need to be the bread winner because then we'd never be partners in life working together on things. I'd always watch a guys reaction carefully when I'd pay my half or offer to. If he didn't want me to pay my half but had a look on his face like it was hurting his ego, he was no future partner for me and there wouldn't be another date.

 

I'm a strong woman. I need (and now have) a strong man. If his ego is so fragile that me having my own money is a problem for him, there's just no future there.

 

If he offered to pay for everything but I could tell by his reaction and the look on his face he was just being polite, sweet and it didn't bother his self esteem, that's a different story! I like sweet guys who will offer.

 

I would never resent a guy who wants to go Dutch. What I have resented is when I pay and pay...and he starts suddenly having financial issues and wants me to start paying for everything and 'taking care' of him. No way!

 

 

Also, if a guy wants to go on a date and wants me to pay my half but he's talking going somewhere too expensive for me, we're just in different leagues and I'd decline and find someone with an income closer to mine so we'd be interested in going to the same places (places we can both afford).

[musemaj11]

If he asks me out he better be paying for the date. And that's why when I was single I never asked guys out cause I didn't expect to pay unless we were in a committed relationship. The only exception to that was my boyfriend, whom I paid for my first flight to go see cause he was broke at the time. That's only because he put in so much effort to talk to me on a day to day basis, we got along really well, and I knew going to see him wouldn't be a waste of time.

U don't wanna ask men out just because u don't wanna be the one who pays? What a cheapskate!

 

Its funny that women call men cheap all the time when they are the ones who have money but won't spend it.

[musemaj11]

For me, paying my way is not 'trying to act like a man'. It's considering myself on equal footing to a man, and focusing that beautiful dance on something other than financial exchange.

It must be shocking for non-americans to learn that american women view giving as a masculine trait. Unbelievable. The cancer is so chronic. Lol

[musemaj11]

Well, at the risk of making you LS guys feel really bad I think I'm obliged to tell you that there are actually men in the world as described by daphne - warm, loving, genuine, respectful, caring, open and honest - I call them gentleman and they treat women like ladies.

 

Admittedly these kinds of men are very 'old fashioned' and, sadly, they're a dying breed.......but they do exist and women still want them. We would/do fight each other for men like this.

Are these 'old fashioned' men the same men who think that womens place is in the kitchen?

 

Women, please understand that u can't have the cake and eat it, too. U can't only have the good things. That's not how life works.

[zengirl]

I have one question. Since some women in this thread are so much about men playing their role why do so many women get such an attitude when they expected to play their traditional role?

 

Wanting a guy who offers to cover the first dinner check or two isn't the same as wanting him to support you while you raise the kids and get dinner on the table a la 1950s. There are matters of degree. I think that's important to observe, Woggle. A person can be financially independent and still value certain social gestures. That's like saying a man who wants a gal who dresses up for him when they're dating = wanting a housewife. It's just more fluid than that, is all.

 

You're trying to make it about principles when it's not; it's about how actual people behave in actual life.

 

I don't trust people I don't know. It seems silly to do so. I'm not going to hand my baby to a stranger and ask them to look after her for a while.

 

Yeah, neither would I. But I wouldn't assume they were going to come try to steal my baby either, is all. Watching out for women who will take advantage of you is more like assuming people are out to hurt you than simply being smart enough not to hand somebody your baby, bank account info, etc. I'm not against common sense. I'm against suspicion. That's just for the record.

 

However, I also don't make snap judgments about people based on appearance.

 

I didn't mean simply their physical appearance. I meant how they appear to me, as I interact with them --- the vibe and impression I get overall, as well as logical evidence.

 

I totally agree with this. The rule pretty much is that the guy pays... and honestly on a very human level I don't mind.

 

And that's all I'm really saying. Most women who want a guy to pay early on just want the social tradition that they're accustomed to. Some want some free meals, I guess, but not many I know, honestly.

 

It just drives me nuts when I hear women complain about men who don't pay... like its some divine right, or as if it actually says something about the guys generosity.

 

Personally, I've never a been on a 1st date with a guy who didn't offer/want to pay. All of my boyfriends have paid on the first date. If a guy wanted to go dutch, I'd be more confused than angry. I'd only get angry if he seemed embittered or defensive about it. I think there's a chance that women are complaining about the 'vibe' they get from a man when he suggests dutch (at least American men). I really don't know any guys who'd do that with a girl they dig. And the men on LS aren't really where I get my perspective on these things.

 

I think the bigger issue is: In principle, I get exactly what you guys might be saying about dutch being "fair" but I live in the real world of practice, which just doesn't operate like principle. And this is not the only topic that applies to.

[aerogurl87]

Are these 'old fashioned' men the same men who think that womens place is in the kitchen?

 

Women, please understand that u can't have the cake and eat it, too. U can't only have the good things. That's not how life works.

 

That's what I was looking for when I was looking for a guy who was more old fashioned. Some of us women are old fashioned too still because I know I personally want to be a housewife/stay at home for at least the first few years of my children's lives. Possibly longer if my boyfriend and I can manage it after we're married and have kids.

[Sanman]

To be equal partners in a relationship. For me it's not about the money, it's about that she's on equal footing with me.

 

It's purely an equality thing, but meant in a good way. I don't want to her to have to feel below me in any way. If something is out of her budget range, then of course I'm not going to ask that from her.

 

Personally I don't give a sh*t about money.

 

If I was the one asking a girl/woman out I'd have no problem paying for it in full, it was my idea after all. Except many dates, often later in the relationship are planned together. Also bills can be shared 50/50. I also like the idea of picking up the tab interchangeably, one time me, one time her.

 

What I would look at though is how she would respond to the suggestion to going Dutch or splitting bills. That says a lot about what I like to know about a person. Are you willing to share the load with me as your equal, even though I'm more than willing to share the full financial load.

 

I think this earlier quote about the whole thing sums up what I and possibly many men feel about the issue. While I will always offer to pay, a woman who has no issue going dutch impresses me. However, it is more than about going dutch. I want to find someone who is fiscally responsible and sees money in a similar way to me. I learned with my last relationship that going dutch does not always mean that. Despite going dutch on the first date, she had no concept of money and liked expensive restaurants, clothes, and generally lived above her means. She simply did not consider money when planning an activity or going out. I always consider these things and often find such things overpriced even if I have the money. She was also unhappy that I didn't woo her initially and couldn't understand why I would buy her flowers, small pieces of jewelry, or go out of my way to see her months into our relationship when I had not done so earlier. It is simply that I consider us to be equals, but I enjoyed surprising her and wanted to invest in the relationship the longer we were together rather than simply wowing a woman to get her into bed/a relationship. To me, it is important to have someone who continually works on a relationship and treasures the investment rather than trying to impress a new mate only initially. Something to keep in mind as I explore new relationships.

 

The other issue, I find, is one of motivation. I would say that there have been a number of women who have allowed be to pay for between 1-3 dates because I have been the "backup" guy. Being well educated, not so hard the eyes (I am told by some women), even fun, I tend to not get written off initially. I usually end as the guy they may keep around even if they are not feeling the chemistry. As a guy, I prefer not to do this because it is costing me money. However, there are women who are happy to watch me spend my money while they make up their minds. Though, I think this is more delegated to the under 25 set. As I get older, women seem to get more considerate.

[musemaj11]

That's what I was looking for when I was looking for a guy who was more old fashioned. Some of us women are old fashioned too still because I know I personally want to be a housewife/stay at home for at least the first few years of my children's lives. Possibly longer if my boyfriend and I can manage it after we're married and have kids.

No, you should stay in the kitchen forever. Thats what truly old fashioned is.

 

Dont work. Dont steal men's jobs.

 

You cant go to work and compete with me for money and then go out and expect me to pay for your food and entertainment. Thats like you kicking me off a ladder and then dropping the ladder on my face.

Edited February 18, 2011 by musemaj11

[LittleTiger]

Are these 'old fashioned' men the same men who think that womens place is in the kitchen?

 

Women, please understand that u can't have the cake and eat it, too. U can't only have the good things. That's not how life works.

 

Good heavens NO!

 

They're the sort of men who want to see a lady dressed up in her finary, bedecked in the expensive family jewels, while she gazes out of the window at the spacious grounds of her husband's country retreat and reads gothic romance novels to amuse herself.

 

Isn't that how life works?

 

Have you not read 'Pride and Prejudice'? I bet Mr Darcy never asked Jane to 'go Dutch'!

[musemaj11]

Have you not read 'Pride and Prejudice'? I bet Mr Darcy never asked Jane to 'go Dutch'!

How could they go Dutch if Jane didnt even have a job?!?