Ginger Beer Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 The point is that the 'man has to pay for woman' set up puts genders in particular relationships to each other which, IMO, are quite outdated. Whether it's sexist or not is a longish debate, but the point is that the 'gender rule' of 'man asks out woman and pays' is no less of a gender rule than any other gender rules. I'm assuming the poster in question paid for the woman because it was a date and it was an expectation that he (being the man) should pick up the bill. That's the thing; we don't know. He said he does it to avoid the awkward moment of the cheque being placed on the table and him looking at it and her feeling awkward, or whatever. If he asked her out, he should pay purely because he asked HER out, 'can I take you out' suggests he is paying. If he did it because she is a woman and he is a man then yes it's sexist but we don't know so we can't call it sexist until we do. And, what are your views on the other point I made?
Elysian Powder Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 This doesn't add up. Men pay for women because they are men and are expected to pay for women. I don't see how you can't see that as a 'whole gender rule' I wonder how quickly the song would change it's tune if women were suddenly expected to put out during the first date. By paying for a woman's food or whatever, the man is buying the time he spent with her. A man who respects himself and the woman is not going to have anything to do with that, and saying that whoever invites has to pay, why hello there; not only I'm seen as a walking atm- machine, I am not interested in a lass if I don't invite her on a date, but the current state of the economy is of no importance and the man must pay. It's not like a cup of coffee is that much, not when the price of everything increases everyday and the wages stay the same, are decreased, or the people are fired. No Sir, don't expect to see men looking at their bank accounts and deciding that wanking is cheaper .
denise_xo Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 You're way too extreme. Calling yourself a Feminist is outdated and antiquated. Feminists have already paved the way for modern women to have a voice. We have our voice, we are equal today because Feminists in the late 60's and early 70's set the precedence and gave women a voice. Not that women won't still face obstacles, but we have that voice to dispute those obstacles now thanks to those women that burned their bras in the 60's. It's paved the path for minorities in North America to find a voice- we are past feminism and into a movement that is more about humanism. If you'd find yourself THAT offended that a MAN would pay for your date in secret as a kind gesture- you're so far off the map in terms of what feminism was originally intended to provide women. You're attitude is really more bitter and over the top. Someone paying for your date without giving you the option of paying for your half is a kind gesture. The fact that you see it as an insult to your independence is, well, ridiculous. Personally, I don't think feminism is outdated at all - look for example at woogle's thread about the objectification of little girls at a very young age. I'm sure a lot of men offer to pay for women as a kind gesture. But ultimately their kind gestures reflect a cultural tradition which reflects outdated gender relationships which were exactly the ones that our mothers were rebelling against in the sixties. More generally, while I'm sure many men would be happy to do it out of kindness, they are generally expected to pay for women, and women frequently express that they would be offended/ dump them if they don't. Hence, framing this purely as a gesture of kindness doesn't reflect the cultural tradition that this gesture is situated within.
Elysian Powder Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 If he asked her out, he should pay purely because he asked HER out, You do know that most relationships or will-be relationships are initiated by men, do you not? Most of you just sit on a chair and wait for (attractive) male to approach, and as the party that does the approaching, the man will have to invite her, thus he'll pay for the date. Are you up to approach men, or is this another way to have men spend money on a woman, especially when there's not even a guarantee that she's going to put out?
denise_xo Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 I wonder how quickly the song would change it's tune if women were suddenly expected to put out during the first date. By paying for a woman's food or whatever, the man is buying the time he spent with her. A man who respects himself and the woman is not going to have anything to do with that, and saying that whoever invites has to pay, why hello there; not only I'm seen as a walking atm- machine, I am not interested in a lass if I don't invite her on a date, but the current state of the economy is of no importance and the man must pay. It's not like a cup of coffee is that much, not when the price of everything increases everyday and the wages stay the same, are decreased, or the people are fired. No Sir, don't expect to see men looking at their bank accounts and deciding that wanking is cheaper . I'm not sure whose song you're referring to - but personally I'm used to going dutch and where I live that generally works well for everyone involved. I just don't see any rationale why one gender should, as a rule, pay for the other in a time when both genders work and earn money.
Ginger Beer Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 You do know that most relationships or will-be relationships are initiated by men, do you not? Most of you just sit on a chair and wait for (attractive) male to approach, and as the party that does the approaching, the man will have to invite her, thus he'll pay for the date. Are you up to approach men, or is this another way to have men spend money on a woman, especially when there's not even a guarantee that she's going to put out? I'm a man btw.
Elysian Powder Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 I'm a man btw. Ah, so you're one of those guys who takes women out on a date so that they don't mind(that much) putting out for free, to me. I guess you're doing me a service by paying. Keep it up, old chap!
Elysian Powder Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 I'm not sure whose song you're referring to - but personally I'm used to going dutch and where I live that generally works well for everyone involved. I just don't see any rationale why one gender should, as a rule, pay for the other in a time when both genders work and earn money. That's what I like to see. You're respecting the freedom your ancestors achieved for you. Going dutch is the norm in europe.
denise_xo Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 That's the thing; we don't know. He said he does it to avoid the awkward moment of the cheque being placed on the table and him looking at it and her feeling awkward, or whatever. If he asked her out, he should pay purely because he asked HER out, 'can I take you out' suggests he is paying. If he did it because she is a woman and he is a man then yes it's sexist but we don't know so we can't call it sexist until we do. And, what are your views on the other point I made? Since the man paying for the women on dates is the cultural norm in many American settings, I will assume that this is what happened unless the poster states otherwise. My point is exactly that the 'he should pay' rule is not something we should take for granted. I therefore failed to see the other point that you were making, because it was based on that assumption which I don't share.
Elysian Powder Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 Ok, I agree that feminism is about choice. I CHOOSE to pay for myself; I choose not to have a man provide for me. I have that choice. Why can't the man accept it is a kind gesture if I want to pay? Why does the man assume that I don't like him if I pay? (that's what men on this forum seem to think). Those guys aren't secure in their masculinity. They're guiding their lives by old-fashioned ideals that are long dead. Maybe they think that by providing they're having a masculine approach to the situation at hand, and that the woman is going to find that attractive. Dunno. I enjoy it when women spend money on me or buy me things.
Ginger Beer Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 Ah, so you're one of those guys who takes women out on a date so that they don't mind(that much) putting out for free, to me. I guess you're doing me a service by paying. Keep it up, old chap! Erm no. The reason I said he should pay because he asked is because whoever asked should pay, regardless of gender. Is that so hard to understand?
Elysian Powder Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 Erm no. The reason I said he should pay because he asked is because whoever asked should pay, regardless of gender. Is that so hard to understand? Yes, it is. Because most of the guys have to make the invitation. Is that too hard to understand or do I have to draw it for you?
Ginger Beer Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 Yes, it is. Because most of the guys have to make the invitation. Is that too hard to understand or do I have to draw it for you? smh If you ask someone for a date, you pay, regardless of gender.
Pierre Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 Ok, I agree that feminism is about choice. I CHOOSE to pay for myself; I choose not to have a man provide for me. I have that choice. Why can't the man accept it is a kind gesture if I want to pay? Why does the man assume that I don't like him if I pay? (that's what men on this forum seem to think). I have dated women that insisted on paying and made a point on not allowing me to pick up the bill. She insisted on going dutch and then spent a lot of time looking at the check to divide the expenses. I thought that was tacky, but went along with it. A lot of these women think that men will expect something in return for picking up the bill and it seems they are highly unfamiliar with men that simply like to pick up the bill while expecting nothing in return. One time I prepaid the waiter and she insisted on giving me her share of the check in the parking lot. I was repulsed because I don't like to talk about money while dating. I make good money so for me to pay for dinner is inconsequential. At the onset she was anal about analyzing the check with great care to divide the expenses. Honestly, I felt it was very tacky of her to spend so much time looking at the check and doing calculations. In any event I allowed her to do that but always offered to pay in subsequent dates. Once, she got to know me she allowed me to pick up the bill several times. However, at the onset she had a chip on her shoulder and was rather defensive. So I allowed her to pay whentever she wanted to pay.
rafallus Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 One time I prepaid the waiter and she insisted on giving me her share of the check in the parking lot. I was repulsed because I don't like to talk about money while dating. I make good money so for me to pay for dinner is inconsequential. At the onset she was anal about analyzing the check with great care to divide the expenses. Honestly, I felt it was very tacky of her to spend so much time looking at the check and doing calculations. In any event I allowed her to do that but always offered to pay in subsequent dates. Once, she got to know me she allowed me to pick up the bill several times. However, at the onset she had a chip on her shoulder and was rather defensive. So I allowed her to pay whentever she wanted to pay. So, just like I said, it's not about paying or not paying per se, it's about insistence on having it one way and not the other, which spoils the fun. Case in point, I do applaud J200 for being independent, but if someone was on a date with me and went on a tirade, how "she is independent, and doesn't need my stinking money, dammit", I'd be put off as well. I'd be just as put off, if some female would be actively pressuring me into paying.
Disenchantedly Yours Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 How on God's green Earth does casual sex automatically entail "using?" Because that's what causual sex is. And while some women are able to process casual sex, most aren't. Despite the popular hook-up culture we live in. Women get more easily attached for one thing. And for another, if a woman is having sex with you, it's already because she likes you on some level.
Disenchantedly Yours Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 I would find it patronizing for someone to pay ahead of time. I can appreciate the gesture but it's not even giving me a CHOICE but making the choice for me. You cannot decide for me; I decide for myself. It's just as patronizing as a man ordering for me; I have a voice, I can order for myself. I can understand why women who like to be taken care of may like this but I am more independent than most men I know. I've been fending for myself since I was born; I don't like being taken care of. I find it presumptuous for a man to pay ahead of time and for him to assume that's what I want. Nothing makes me angrier than people assuming this about you. You should not ASSUME that I want someone to pay for me just because I'm a woman. It's frankly insulting and pretty damn sexist. J200, that's fine. That's why there are men for you and men for me. I don't find it patronizing at all or a matter of taking away my "choices". I have no issue with a man ordering for me, if he takes what I like into consideration, that doesn't take away my "voice" and I'm not the least bit insulted. We can sit down at the same table and he can order what he thinks I might like and we can have a beautiful meal talking with each other and sharing our lives and thoughts. I've had many a good discussion with men ranging from relationships to politics and their ability to pay never made them curb my thoughts and ideas. They sometimes would choose the restaurant and tell me what was good and I was happy to try something new and try something they liked themselves to get to know them better. Sometimes I liked the food and sometimes I didn't and I would be honest about it and no man was ever insulted about it. It usually resulted in joking around. BUT that doesn't mean what you like is wrong. It's what's right for you. I do think getting angry about it is unfair. Instead of realizing that men come in many different combinations, you've choosen to take it as a personal slight if a man does something old school like pay or order for you. Men who do these things 9 times out of 10 aren't doing it to be mean to you. Next time, instead of taking it as personal slight it might be best to just realize he isn't the man for you without having to kill the spirit of the men that are. I have no issue with someone wanting to go 50/50. I dislike the shaming that is going on for people that might like things more old school or traditional. And it comes from both sides apparently in this thread based on some of the male responses.
musemaj11 Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 The most ironic thing is that the same women who believe its the job of men to pay on dates will disagree if you tell them that its the job of women to cook and clean the house. What shameless, hypocritical creatures.
musemaj11 Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 Personally, I don't think feminism is outdated at all - look for example at woogle's thread about the objectification of little girls at a very young age. I'm sure a lot of men offer to pay for women as a kind gesture. But ultimately their kind gestures reflect a cultural tradition which reflects outdated gender relationships which were exactly the ones that our mothers were rebelling against in the sixties. More generally, while I'm sure many men would be happy to do it out of kindness, they are generally expected to pay for women, and women frequently express that they would be offended/ dump them if they don't. Hence, framing this purely as a gesture of kindness doesn't reflect the cultural tradition that this gesture is situated within. Very articulately said.
Author TheBigQuestion Posted September 22, 2011 Author Posted September 22, 2011 (edited) Because that's what causual sex is. And while some women are able to process casual sex, most aren't. Despite the popular hook-up culture we live in. Women get more easily attached for one thing. And for another, if a woman is having sex with you, it's already because she likes you on some level. Women don't get more easily attached. Men are just conditioned to show it less. You're way off base here. And even if what you said was true, you have a long way to go to deduce from that premise the conclusion that casual sex is "using" someone. How exactly is someone used in a consensual activity that provides mutual pleasure? Yes, there are ways in which casual sex can be obtained by being deceptive or manipulative. That doesn't say anything about casual sex as an activity in itself. Plenty of committed relationships are wrought with deceit or manipulation as well. Does that somehow implicate the validity and significance of committed relationships as an institution? I'd love to see you make that argument. Also, you're obviously being very selective with how you've read this thread if you think that people with the traditional view are being "shamed." In the course of this thread, I've: 1. Been told I'm a cheapskate repeatedly (despite me stating repeatedly that I spend pretty lavishly ONCE IN A COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP) 2. Been called poor 3. Been called insecure (just for having a different opinion on spending habits in dating) 4. Been told that I would be no fun to date because of my views (despite the fact that the woman I'm dating right now obviously seems to think otherwise, and I can without hesitation say she has more going for her than 95% of the women on this board, and probably the population of the whole world too. Also, despite the fact that I clearly had a moderate amount of success with the way I did things before I met my girlfriend) 5. Been told that my views would lead to me being perpetually single, which implicates that poster's lack of intelligence more than anything else, since I've mentioned repeatedly that I have a girlfriend. Who is really doing the shaming here? Mostly women who stand to lose an unfair advantage they have in dating should the viewpoints I hold become more widespread. Big surprise there. Edited September 22, 2011 by TheBigQuestion
Hot Chick Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 Nah, to me you just come off as trying to come off as intellectual on the topic when you're really just immature. The comment that you felt some vengeance when you realized at the end of a relationship that she had spent a lot more money on the relationship than she did is immature. Also the fact that you keep blasting the posters with "my girlfriend has more going for her than all of you and all of your girlfriends" etc.....lol.......you have no way of knowing that and it's all subjective. The comments you make have really negated any valid points you might make. You also tend to dismiss when someone actually agrees with you on some points, but not on all points, again negating your "valid" points. Personally I think that who asks is who should pay. If a man wants to pay, he wants to pay, whether it is the first date and who initiated it doesn't really matter. Most relationships end up to be equal financially in the end. I always offer to pay, and once we've had another date, I will definitely treat for both of us. I don't think I'd enjoy dating a guy who was concerned about first dates and who paid for what and building anger about that. I think it's silly.
Author TheBigQuestion Posted September 22, 2011 Author Posted September 22, 2011 (edited) Nah, to me you just come off as trying to come off as intellectual on the topic when you're really just immature. The comment that you felt some vengeance when you realized at the end of a relationship that she had spent a lot more money on the relationship than she did is immature. Also the fact that you keep blasting the posters with "my girlfriend has more going for her than all of you and all of your girlfriends" etc.....lol.......you have no way of knowing that and it's all subjective. The comments you make have really negated any valid points you might make. You also tend to dismiss when someone actually agrees with you on some points, but not on all points, again negating your "valid" points. Personally I think that who asks is who should pay. If a man wants to pay, he wants to pay, whether it is the first date and who initiated it doesn't really matter. Most relationships end up to be equal financially in the end. I always offer to pay, and once we've had another date, I will definitely treat for both of us. I don't think I'd enjoy dating a guy who was concerned about first dates and who paid for what and building anger about that. I think it's silly. I've shared positive qualities that my girlfriend has because, whenever this topic has come up in the past, people have frequently insinuated that women who don't hold old-fashioned views about who pays are somehow selling themselves short or are low quality women. So you've never once in your life delighted in a minor misfortune that one of your exes may have come across? Considering that our breakup had nothing to do with that at all, I delighted in knowing that, unlike a lot of the dudes who bought her affections with material possessions in the past, I did not need to do so and she in fact had spent more money on me. If you're going to take the moral high ground on THAT particular example, you better have a spotless moral record yourself. I don't "dismiss" posters who only partially disagree with me. I agree with you, for instance, that if someone asks someone else out, they pay. The main problem you have, along with a lot of people, is failing to realize what this thread is actually about. It's about the fact that there is an alternative to the traditional style that works, has worked for me well, and could just as easily work for others. It does NOT excuse the unfounded accusations and insults that have been leveled at me here, most of which come down to issues with reading comprehension. Edited September 22, 2011 by TheBigQuestion
oaks Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 Personally I think that who asks is who should pay. That sounds great, but the problem with this is that "who asks" for the first few dates (and, let's face it, lots of dating doesn't get beyond the first few dates) is predominately the man, so this basically ends up with the man paying. Now, I'm not accusing you of saying "the man should pay", but there's not a lot of difference in the early stages of dating (ie, prior to a 'relationship' being established).
Author TheBigQuestion Posted September 23, 2011 Author Posted September 23, 2011 That sounds great, but the problem with this is that "who asks" for the first few dates (and, let's face it, lots of dating doesn't get beyond the first few dates) is predominately the man, so this basically ends up with the man paying. Now, I'm not accusing you of saying "the man should pay", but there's not a lot of difference in the early stages of dating (ie, prior to a 'relationship' being established). Yep. And all I'm saying is, things don't really need to be done this way. And I've offered a plausible alternative. Nothing more, nothing less. Not sure why anyone has gotten up in arms about it.
Disenchantedly Yours Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 TheBigQuestion: Women don't get more easily attached. Men are just conditioned to show it less. You're way off base here. And even if what you said was true, you have a long way to go to deduce from that premise the conclusion that casual sex is "using" someone. My view is that in casual sex, people are being used. Since in most cases, men do more easily have casual sex, it's usually the woman getting used. Not always, but certainly more then men. Women do get attached more easily. We release a bonding hormones when we have sex that seems to be stronger then what goes on with men. How exactly is someone used in a consensual activity that provides mutual pleasure? Hey, sometimes it happens where both people are on it just for the sex and everyone goes home happy. But there are a lot more stories about women being hurt by this then men. Honestly , men do have more of an honest reputation for using women for their bodies. Plenty of committed relationships are wrought with deceit or manipulation as well. Does that somehow implicate the validity and significance of committed relationships as an institution? I'd love to see you make that argument. Oh I agree that committed relationships are wrought with deceit sometimes. But those relationships aren't really committed are they? They might be at surface value but anyone that achieves a "relationship" through manipulation isn't have a real relationship to begin with. Committed relatoinsihps are associated with positives. Love, loyatly, honesty..the list goes on. So I do think when a relationship is a healthy one, it DOES validate it as a significant institution. Also, you're obviously being very selective with how you've read this thread if you think that people with the traditional view are being "shamed." In the course of this thread, I've: 1. Been told I'm a cheapskate repeatedly (despite me stating repeatedly that I spend pretty lavishly ONCE IN A COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP) 2. Been called poor 3. Been called insecure (just for having a different opinion on spending habits in dating) 4. Been told that I would be no fun to date because of my views (despite the fact that the woman I'm dating right now obviously seems to think otherwise, and I can without hesitation say she has more going for her than 95% of the women on this board, and probably the population of the whole world too. Also, despite the fact that I clearly had a moderate amount of success with the way I did things before I met my girlfriend) 5. Been told that my views would lead to me being perpetually single, which implicates that poster's lack of intelligence more than anything else, since I've mentioned repeatedly that I have a girlfriend. Who is really doing the shaming here? Mostly women who stand to lose an unfair advantage they have in dating should the viewpoints I hold become more widespread. Big surprise there. Big, you talk about how you were shamed then right along after that go and shame women again. The way I like to date isn't creating an unfair "advantage". But by saying that it does, you are infact shaming me for my more traditional dating yes? Clearly you found a good woman that cares about you and likes to date like you do. I personally disagree with your style but all that means is that you and me aren't compatible. not that I am trying to crap on men because I have more traditional dating views.
Recommended Posts