FifthLine

Yes, I understand - i see this attitude from quite a few women. It's called 'convenient equality' whereby the woman reserves to herself the right to pick and choose those aspects of equality that most appeal to her but objects vociferously if a man wishes to pick and choose to suit himself. If the choices clash - then she will demand the right to veto his by using manipulative terms like 'manners' and 'gentlemen' and 'courtesy'. Or they will use sex as a weapon to get their own way. There are some men who will allow themselves to be used in this way and others who don't even know it is happening. But there are increasing numbers of men who want women who understand the true meaning of equality - that it does not mean equal opportunity to exploit one another for whatever reason but equal opportunity to love and nurture one another (and their children) in a mutually respectful and balanced relationship.

What is it that gives women a sense of entitlement to this special treatment? Why, in these days of equality, should a woman expect that it is the man's job to ask and the man's job to pay? If the sexes are equal, as we have come to accept, then what entitles you to the expectation that the man will pay? Is it a sense of superiority to men? Or that they are somehow supplicants for your favour? If it is necessary for a man to demonstrate his generosity of spirit and emotion by demonstrating his generosity in spending his money why should that same rationale not apply to women? I have often seen women make this or similar statements and I have yet to see any modern justification for it that makes sense (other than the 'honeypot' reason which seems to me to be even more demeaning to women than it is to men.)

True - like P.T. Barnum said "there's a sucker born every minute". I saw an article in a newspaper this week advising women how to pick up guys in clubs. A line it it represented this attitude that too many women have: '... and even if you don't hook up with a guy at least you can expect free drinks.'

There is a vast difference between 'allowing' a man to treat on a date and 'allowing' him to constantly pay more than his fair share over a period of time. The original poster wanted to know what happened to equality - I think she has her answer and it comes from the pen of George Orwell in his book 'Animal Farm': a philosophy that appears to be shared by some women who want to pick and choose those parts of equality that suit them and their bank accounts the most.

And again - all I see is a lot of justification ranging from gambling to anthropology as to why a woman should keep her cash in her purse. So much for equality. I take it the 'honey-pot' means sex. You might try looking at sex as a mutually pleasurable experience that benefits both partners equally, especially in a loving relationship, rather than as a commodity to be used to bargain for money or special treatment.

So a man should pay for the dates because at some indeterminate time in the future he may get into a relationship with the woman and they may move in together and they may even get married and have babies and, if and when that happens, she may invest time and effort into the relationship rather than money. Suppose they have a few dates which he has paid for and they don't get into a relationship in which he gets this expected return on his financial investment - does he get his money back or is that just part of a gamble he is expected to take?

It has nothing to do with spin - it is simple arithmetic. Leeching is when, over the course of time, one person ends up paying a significant amount of money more than the other and that is justified only because one is a man and the other is a woman. Here's a simple test - if you would not allow a friend or acquaintance of the same sex to take advantage of you or you would not take advantage of them - then don't do it to someone just because you are dating.

Statistically, in the US, women earn less than men (as a gender) because men choose careers that pay more, that are more demanding and are more dangerous while women are more likely to leave the workforce temporarily or permanently to raise children. Again, as a gender, women spend about fours hours a week more than men doing domestic work but men (as a gender) spend about four hours a week more than women at paid employment. So what? All that has nothing to do with individual people. If a woman earning $100,000 a year goes out with a man earning $50,000 a year does she get to leech off him simply because she happens to be a woman and statistically women earn less? All I am seeing above is a lot of rationalisations and excuses by some women to justify keeping their money in their bank accounts while being subsidised by a man.

If you read the thread more carefully you will see that the word 'perk' was not used by me but by rose2summer. I don't think equal pay for equal work is a perquisite at all - it is a basic human right. Having won the right then women should accept equal responsibility. Many have - some have not.

So the man who splits everything down the middle is cold emotionally but the woman who pays nothing on a date is not. So yet again the guy is pressured into paying because if he does not he will be seen as emotionally cold and that the way a man proves he is worth considering as a partner is for him to pony up the cash and buy her material things. And for 'half-sandwhich guy' - you would be perfectly happy if he paid for your meal but when you pay for his he is treated with contempt and given a derogatory nickname. The double standard here is amazing.

There is a huge difference between being treated and treating someone badly. Expecting a man to pay for dates inequitably is treating someone badly - even if he offers it is still taking advantage of him financially. I honestly cannot understand how any self-respecting woman living in these days can be easy in her conscience at being subsidised in that way.

Men who are comfortable with traditional roles generally want women who want the same thing. Fair enough if that is what they really want and are prepared to take disadvantages aong with the advantages. But too many women pick and choose from the traditional and modern roles to their own advantage and manipulate gullible men by playing the 'gentleman' and 'good manners' cards. Meanwhile their bank accounts grow fatter because they are prepared to be subsidised by the men whose money they consider 'fair game'. The ultimate in good manners is not to take advantage of people and their generosity.

from the US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice National Violence Against Women Survey Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women 1,510,455 women and 834,732 men victims of domestic violence 1.5% vs. 0.8% in one year, 22.1% vs. 7.4% lifetime—why the discrepancy? Annual physical assault rate—44.2/1000 women, 31.5/1000 men Average 3.5 victimizations per male victim, 3.4 per female victim 1.1% of married/co-habiting women and 0.6% of men assaulted annually About twice as many male victims has a knife used on them (10.8% to 4.1%), were threatened with a knife (21.6% to 12.7%), or were hit with an object likely to cause harm (43.2% to 22.6%. Exhibit 11 shows percentage of subjects surveyed, not percentage of subjects assaulted. See below. For example, "threw something" is 8% of the 8,000 women surveyed, not 8% of the 1,768 surveyed women who were assaulted. 36.7% of the assaulted women surveyed had something thrown at them, and 59.5% of the assaulted men. 96.8% of women and 90.5% of men assaulted experienced one of the more serious forms of assault. Well over half the men, but only 40% of the women, were physically assaulted by an adult caretaker as a child. As children: mother (alone or with other) the physical abuser in 43% of cases, responsible for 48% of fatalities. Father (alone or with other) physical abuser in 28% of cases, responsible for 12%. U.S. DHHS Children's Bureau, Child Maltreatment 1999 pdf file link removed

I have noticed that when a woman wants something from a man that she is not prepared to do in return she will often express what she wants by using 'I like him to be a gentleman". Many men will then feel that they are less than a gentlemen for not doing what she wants and fail to realise that she is not exactly being a lady by manipulating him in that way.

I know of many relationships that began like this and that ended up in divorce with the man continuing to give the woman large portions of his income for nothing in return. But really, these men only had themselves to blame because they allowed the woman to take advantage of their generosity from the beginning and failed to realise that their partners never truly loved them or wanted them as equal partners but saw them simply as a primary or additional source of income for themselves. Had they been more alert to the early signals when dating they could have saved themselves a lot of misery and money. A woman who expects a man to pay most of the time will only convince a gullible man that she is not cheap.

I should have said those women who say they would pay if they asked men out but actually don't do any asking. I think women who are not afraid to ask men out and do their share of the paying are respecting both themselves and the men they date. Good for them.

Of course it should. The idea of men paying came about when few women had much if any disposable income. Now that they do it is simply taking advantage of an out-dated concept so that one person can keep more of their money in the bank while the other subsidises them. Nice for the person who can work the system to their advantage but more and more men are coming to realise that they are more than just walking wallets. Generosity is a two way street but there is no reason why a man has to be the first to be generous before the woman reciprocates. I would be more impressed by women who claim they would pay for the date if they asked the man out if they actually asked men out. Which you do not. The simple fact is that refusing to ante up is taking advantage - plain and simple.

Nice, but convenient, distinction. The incomes should be the same but the expenditures on the fruit are gender based.

However - you could also profusely insist that you pay your way because you don't think it fair to take advantage of his traditional ways and that you would be embarrassed to not share the cost of dating. After all, it doesn't have to be his way all the time and you could also be hurt and offended if he insists.

I don't see people throwing custard pies on the street either. Except when someone is making a point against a politician - I wonder where they got the idea to do that. The point the article was making is that in those cases it is acceptable on TV for a woman to slap a man because that is seen as funny by their viewers. But they don't show men slapping women because society at large frowns upon that and it would affect their advertising revenue. TV will do what they can get away with that boosts audiences and their profits.

quick google search found this - its only a little dated; link removed Extract:

Oh, I found mine. She is so worth it.

Any woman who takes advantage of her gender to get special treatment, special privileges and especially who expects money to be spent on her in order to win her favour is no lady in my opinion. A lady is someone who gives as well as receives, who recognises equality means doing your share to make a relationship work and who treats a man with the same amount of unselfish respect as she demands. Or she just is not worth it.

On the other hand there are guys who like to weed out girls who think all the work should be done by the guys and who take advantage of him by making him pay for her night-out. Girls who take advantage of guys seldom change even when the relationship progresses - they seem to think in terms of entitlement and are rarely worth it. Weeding out can cut both ways. The woman who acts like a princess hardly ever is one. Edited post

A lot of women crash and burn who seem attractive but then display signs of an obvious contempt for men. Even if they manage to get into a relationship with someone it's usually short and bitter.