He didn't pay for my coffee........

[sadchick83]

I respect any woman, or man for that matter, who chooses to stay home-- its a choice. Hey, I spent 7 years in the ARMY- doing a man's job. I was still very feminine and funny, the ARMY guys loved that I could do their job AND they always tried to pay at the bars....Imagine- having it both ways!

 

Hey Fathom, do you expect your dates to open your car door, hold the umbrella, and pay?

[capuccino83]

You're allowed to have any set of standards you want. You could demand/ask that any guy you date pays 100% of your dates, opens doors for you, etc. That's all within your power to dictate. That doesn't mean, however, that you can expect other people to take this for granted or hold it up as a default or standard, as if guys who are not in line with this somehow need to justify themselves. That's really the problem here, and you see this attitude all throughout the 30+ pages of this thread.

 

And I think that you will continue having problem with this attitude for a long time because

 

1. many women still like this traditional idea (although not all)

2. many men still support this traditional idea as well

 

If a guy really feels strongly on this subject, I think he should just be on the lookout for a more likeminded girl, rather than waste his time 'justifying' himself to women that really will not understand.

 

I know many girls that prefer to not to feel like they owe anything to a guy and hold their own, so it's not like there isn't enough likeminded individuals to go around that anyone who thinks otherwise needs to be convinced otherwise.

[Fudgie]

The problem with saying "Well everyone find someone who agrees with them!" is that the idea that men HAVE to pay for first dates still exists. It's not like these people are in a position (like a relationship) to be able to sit down and talk about "what they think should be done." What ends up happening is that guys overall are forced to pay for first dates just to "pay it safe" because of the women out there who expect to be paid for, and therefore, this tradition continues.

 

I'm definitely of the younger generation and I'm MORE than happy to see that this tradition is becoming less common among women of my generation. It's an annoyance but at this rate, I say let nature take its course. I hope to see this tradition fall by the wayside someday.

 

In the meantime, my boyfriend and I will continue to go Dutch, as we've done since our very first date.

[im sandra dee]

I just love how my threads are always so popular (thanks to all for the 5 star rating, lol)

 

I'm going to take what he told me about his finances at face value. If he says that he financially secure then I believe him. So given that I'm also financially secure, going forward I'm not expecting anything from him and he shouldn't expect anything from me, that is, with regards to money. We do like each other. We have clicked. So personally I just think it's a good idea to stop talking about money that way we can focus on getting to know each other better.

[PhilliesFan001]

I really don't see how what I do at home and in my bedroom during my personal time effect what goes on in the boardroom when I am at work. From what I understand, the feminine revolution was about giving women choices to be traditional or not, not forcing them to "evolve" if they don't want. Some women still think that a woman's domain is at home.. heck, some women still want that domain and there are many men that feel that way too. I'm guessing that you don't work in a very aggressive and competitive corporate environment, because if you do you will meet many men that are looking for someone who can be a "delicate lady" after work, not another aggressive ball busting coworker they have to deal with during their downtime.

 

You don't understand what I'm saying. You can be a ballbuster at work and the 1950s perfect housewife at home, that's entirely your choice and of course it's entirely possible to embody two different kinds of women in certain situations. And, nobody at work has to know that you're that kind of woman at home.

 

What I am saying is, you can't pick and choose when you want equality and when you don't. If you want to rely on outdated "traditions" that the men pay for dates and everything outside of the home, then don't be surprised when people hold you to those same standards in other environments. Those traditions you fall back on and expect are the same traditions that came about during a time when women had relatively little power outside of the domestic world, didn't have high ranking jobs, and didn't earn their own incomes - they were not taken seriously as professionals.

 

A lot of women say on the one hand they want to be equals to men, but only when it benefits them. They want to be equals at work, in law, in politics, but they don't want to be equals when it comes to paying their tab even though they have their own money? I don't get it. This isn't just directed at you specifically, but every woman in this thread who expects men to pay their way, even only on the first few dates. Why should he?

 

"Traditional" and "old fashioned" are two more polite ways of excusing that kind of expectant, princess-like behavior. But, times change, and tradition is not always what's right.

[capuccino83]

I totally to fail to see the connection between the first and second paragraph. If I want to rely on "outdated traditions" with my significant other (who of course, agrees with my outdated traditions), how is that going to effect my other environments? I am not exactly going to lunch with my male coworkers or bosses and expecting them to cover the bill because I'm a "girl".

 

The traditions may fall back to a time when women didn't have much power, and so what? Stay at home moms also did so because they had no choice, would you argue the same now? When you bring up this argument, you have to be very very careful because it's a very slippery slope. I went to a very liberal undergrad and took a women's studies course for a writing credit. We read an article in class written by a very famous feminist on how any male-female intercourse is un-feminist because it falls back on traditions where women weren't allowed to make their own choices or pick their own partners, and hence even in its present day it's still an act of hostility towards women, therefore any women who choses to have sex with a man is upholding the very ideals that kept women oppressed for so long. Although it's pretty far fetched, it bring up a fair point that just because something may at some point have had something to do with some kind of oppression a long time ago, doesn't really have much affect modern day too much.

 

Work and life are different. At work, I'm performing a job, and if I perform the same job at the same level for the same amount of time, it's not fair to not have the same pay as a man. Just like in school, if I get the same test score as a guy, that means that I should get the same grade. I don't see how me wanting to get same pay or same grades for the same level of ability is related to anything outside of work or school.

[PhilliesFan001]

OK then, whatever floats your boat. And you're still not understanding what I'm saying but I'm not going to try and point it out again. If it works for you, it works for you.

 

I find it to be a totally rude expectation or "tradition" but to each their own.

[FathomFear]

OK then, whatever floats your boat. And you're still not understanding what I'm saying but I'm not going to try and point it out again. If it works for you, it works for you.

 

Oh admit it PhilliesFan--you secretly desire that "cute feminine" job, right? To spend all your day teaching or doing hair, so you can make dinner for the big strong man who will treat you like a princess and pay for all your meals and hold your doors? lol.

[Alezia]

Well, I think there are some days where every woman likes to be treated like a princess. I don't think the wedding industry would be so lucrative otherwise.

[The Archer]

I cant help but echo some of the post’s here and say it’s great to see this thread still going!

 

I have a problem when ever a particular behaviour is linked to a certain sex or ethnicity (with very few exceptions).

The problem I see with this is it tends to limit peoples freedom. Perhaps not directly but those social rules that float around just under the surface can be quite influential. Before I created an account with enotalone I had no idea that a man might be expected to pay on a first date. If I go on any more dates I’m now likely to wonder if I’m creating a problem by not paying the whole bill! Thus my behaviour could be influenced (if I wasn’t so stubborn).

 

Although here in NZ things aren’t quite as “traditional” which is rather nice.

 

When I read a newspaper article, for example details on an accident I generally see the person ethnicity mentioned. Why? And why is the persons gender mentioned?

Newspapers mention these kinds of things because they know the population link certain behaviours to certain people. If it was simply “more information” then we would see things like the persons job and eye colour listed. But we don’t generally.

The problem is the more we as a society expect a certain behaviour from a certain person the more likely they are to conform. And so the status quo resists change.

 

I don’t advocate change for the sake of change but equality is worth fighting for in my opinion.

 

The idea that a man should pay for the first date based on gender should be ridiculed. The more people that ridicule such expectations the more they will break down.

 

Just to be clear I see nothing wrong with one person paying the whole bill. I just don’t think it’s in society’s best interests to link behaviour with gender. Yes we all do it but the less we do it the more freedom we have.

[Realitynut]

That's posh talk for "I'm cheap"

 

I've never let a woman pay. I take it as an offence if they pay. They offer to pay out of courtesy, but I say "no don't be silly! I asked YOU out!"

 

If they insist on paying, I take it personally, like the date was so horrible and I'm so unlikable that they just wanna pay their bill and run off.

 

My girlfriend used to tell me off all the time, if she saw something she liked I'd buy it and then she'd tell me off for wasting money on her. But ffs it's only money, she's more important than a bit of bloody paper. She's gotten used to it now though and doesn't tell me off for treating her any more, she's accepted it's in my nature. Being younger than me I've had to educate her about chivalry!

 

Awww...I wish all men were like you!!!

Just because I like my man to pay for my meal, you mean that makes us more 'unequal'? Ahhh....no. And yes, once my relationship was established, I paid MUCH more on groceries all week, and preparing the food...MUCH more!

My Dad still pays for all of us when we go out to eat...I guess instead of thanking him, I should get all huffy, cuz I'm not being treated like an equal!! Geesh.

[Realitynut]

Does it give your more or less of a chuckle than imaging yourself being one of those new age girls who doesn't stay barefoot in the kitchen?

 

Actually, I love to be barefoot in the kitchen...chocolate chip cookies, anyone??

[Realitynut]

I respect any woman, or man for that matter, who chooses to stay home-- its a choice. Hey, I spent 7 years in the ARMY- doing a man's job. I was still very feminine and funny, the ARMY guys loved that I could do their job AND they always tried to pay at the bars....Imagine- having it both ways!

 

Hey Fathom, do you expect your dates to open your car door, hold the umbrella, and pay?

 

I read some of Fathoms threads, trying to understand his perspective more. He is (from what I can tell) gay, and has never been in a relationship. I'm only saying this, because of what he has said openly on his threads. But I wonder too, how he can have a 'real' perspective on this, since he has never been in "any" relationship, much less a male/female relationship. So I wonder?????

[Alezia]

When I read a newspaper article, for example details on an accident I generally see the person ethnicity mentioned. Why? And why is the persons gender mentioned?

Newspapers mention these kinds of things because they know the population link certain behaviours to certain people. If it was simply “more information” then we would see things like the persons job and eye colour listed. But we don’t generally.

 

When something happens, the man usually has his job title in the headline while the woman has her "mother" status. Ex: Mother of two found dead in the river as opposed to Local firefighter found dead in car crash. I still think this whole provider vs. nurturer is everywhere, even if the ENotAlone men insist on not paying on the first date.

[The Archer]

When something happens, the man usually has his job title in the headline while the woman has her "mother" status. Ex: Mother of two found dead in the river as opposed to Local firefighter found dead in car crash. I still think this whole provider vs. nurturer is everywhere, even if the ENotAlone men insist on not paying on the first date.

 

Oh. Yes I wondered if I’d used an accurate example Do you see my point though?

 

What do you mean by “I still think this whole provider vs. nurturer is everywhere”? The debate is everywhere?

[FathomFear]

I read some of Fathoms threads, trying to understand his perspective more. He is (from what I can tell) gay, and has never been in a relationship. I'm only saying this, because of what he has said openly on his threads. But I wonder too, how he can have a 'real' perspective on this, since he has never been in "any" relationship, much less a male/female relationship. So I wonder?????

 

Actually, I base my experience on my group of friends and social circle. Sure, I know a few women who a bit more "conservative" than most, but the vast majority of women I know are well educated, liberated, and pretty much openly shun old sexist conventions. It's pretty much what PhilliesFan said. You can't pick and choose where you want to be equal. You either believe in equality or you don't. You can't demand for the right to vote, the right to have jurisdiction over your own body, etc, and then say "Oh btw--you know all the lingering positives that came out of the sexist regime that repressed me? Yeah, I kinda like those so I want to keep them around". It just doesn't work that way.

 

And yeah, as far as being gay goes, I wish I had stumbed on threads like this one when I was a young teen. It probably would have hastened my coming out process and got me over the mental hurdle of insisting that I needed to find women attractive. How straight guys put up with the princess complex is beyond me.

[Realitynut]

Well, when we 'princesses' treat our men like 'a prince', then THOSE men can tell you how we make THEM feel, and we will tell you how they make US feel. Why wouldn't we want to be treated like a princess, and have our knight in shining armor. Is the fairytale really just a fairytale??? dang....I was still hoping and waiting!!!

 

Maybe when the guys begin to act like "prince's" again, we will start to act more 'womanly', (meaning gracious, kind, caring, nurturing, loving, etc.) and not like the 'b*tches" the media is portraying the young women of today as. JMO

[Lonewing]

The fairytale was based upon a fuedalistic approach to relationships. In otherwords, the woman sits on a pedastal, but is otherwise not allowed to do anything or go anywhere, and in return for her status must obey her master.

 

This whole "we'll do this if you do that!" game is seriously adolescent. You want to be treated well? Treat others well - none of this "you first!" B*** C***. You earn your prince now, just as you would want him to earn you. Only now none of us are automatically royalty - you must earn your position in each other's eyes.

 

Otherwise, these "b*tches that the media portrays really is the inner character of today's Western woman. Absolutely undesireable. Disgraceful. And not at all deservant of even an opening act of kindness. This behavior disgraces everything our grandmothers and great grandmother fought and died working so hard to achieve.

[Generation]

1. Where are these 20 condoms for $10 sold? That's a pretty good deal (unless it's the poor quality kind).

2. Fin? Never heard of that term.

 

 

Great point.

 

 

 

 

Not allowed to pick their own partners? Upholding the ideals of oppression?

Sorry, I'm genuinely confused.

 

 

lol?

[Lonewing]

At this point, the last five pages have reiterated to me this desire for women to not be Equal, but to be More - as if shifting from a patriachy to a matriarchy will solve all the worlds problems.

 

It's a first date.

 

I don't know what's more revolting though, the women who have sex on the first date, or the women who claim they don't have sex on the first date but then go and do it anyways. We have a number of words to describe this individual, and they are as equaly applicable to a man as they are a woman.

 

Who should get my door, hold my umbrella, and pay for my dinner? I should. That's my duty as an individual. Now obviously, if there comes a time when it's convieient for my partner to get the door, becasue my arms are full of bags, or the car door where she's holding the sleeping child, or the umbrella where I have one and she does not, quite obviously these situaitons call for Doing What's Right. It's not about being a man or a woman, but rather, being more than just a hormonal animalistic human.

 

And when it comes down to who pays, well, First Date should be assumed to be "everybody pays for themselves." If it turns into "I want to take you out" later on down the road, guess what, the peson doing the taking Is probably going to be the one paying - that's part of "I want to take you out!" It is rare, though, I do believe, for this taking out to be unreciprocated well in advance of the actual date.

[Batya33]

Well, when we 'princesses' treat our men like 'a prince', then THOSE men can tell you how we make THEM feel, and we will tell you how they make US feel. Why wouldn't we want to be treated like a princess, and have our knight in shining armor. Is the fairytale really just a fairytale??? dang....I was still hoping and waiting!!!

 

Maybe when the guys begin to act like "prince's" again, we will start to act more 'womanly', (meaning gracious, kind, caring, nurturing, loving, etc.) and not like the 'b*tches" the media is portraying the young women of today as. JMO

 

I enjoy being treated like a princess on a special occasion like my birthday (and yes I reciprocate). I do need a knight in shining armor in certain situations - when I had a serious life threatening health scare he was my hero and in similar situations. We like to "play" the princess/knight stuff in a joking way, for fun.

 

Yes he tries to hold the door for me, help me on with my coat and if we ever get to have another date night he probably would help me with my chair if the waiter didn't. Just how he is. Yes, he marvels at how many grocery store bags I can carry at once up to our house ("are you sure you're ok??") but it would be a pain in the behind if he insisted on carrying all those packages since we also have our child to carry upstairs, for now. He won't finish a shared dessert without checking with me more than once to see if I am done, and he always offers me food from his plate because he likes to feed me - and yes, in a different way than I do and yes it's based on (gasp) gender. Big deal. But princess/prince/knight? I like to feel loved and cared for in much more nitty gritty ways. Find the scrunchie I am looking for so I can leave the house sooner, put a new bottle of soda in the fridge if you finish the cold one at night so it will be there for me the next day, set up pillows on the living room floor so we can watch the Odd Couple comfortably - works for me. No pedestal needed.

[PhilliesFan001]

Oh admit it PhilliesFan--you secretly desire that "cute feminine" job, right? To spend all your day teaching or doing hair, so you can make dinner for the big strong man who will treat you like a princess and pay for all your meals and hold your doors? lol.

 

LOL have you been reading my old threads?! That was exactly my ex-fiance! Erg! Ex for a reason

 

I have to say to some of the women in here - I have no issue with being feminine. I will be first to admit, I love makeup and dresses. I cook and clean. I read Cosmo more often than the New York Times and I love when men treat me to dinner and hold open doors for me.

 

BUT. I also hold open doors for them, and I also treat them to dinner sometimes, and I also split meals way more often than I am treated. The issue for me in all of this is merely the *expectation* that a man will pay or a man will take care of you financially. In this day and age, when you have your own money, I do find it rude. And I find it crazy that so many women will write off a perfectly decent guy because he doesn't offer to pay for their dinner upon first meeting them. It's like he has to grace you with his wallet while you grace him with your presence and it seems really unfair to them.

 

There's nothing wrong with doing things for your SO, including buying gifts and paying for stuff - but the attitude that you deserve it simply for being a woman is very off putting. That's all I'm sayin.

[FathomFear]

There's nothing wrong with doing things for your SO, including buying gifts and paying for stuff - but the attitude that you deserve it simply for being a woman is very off putting. That's all I'm sayin.

 

Yeah I was basing that comment on your old thread.

 

And yes, I agree with your sentiment. This isn't about being cheap or not wanting to do things for people. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I love treating people to meals and doing nice things for people. I also hold doors and do that kind of thing all the time. The key is that I don't make the genitals someone has (or doesn't have) in their pants the deciding factor as to whether I'll be nice to someone. It's the whole idea that you can expect a certain kind of treatment--in this case a preferential treatment--just because you have female genitals is what I find kind of archaic and ridiculous.

[penelope13]

I'm all the way with PhilliesFan: while within the relationship you may want/expect certain things - if it works for both of you - having the EXPECTATION for a FIRST date that the man has to pay simply to show his gratitude/appreciation that I turn up is quite ridiculous and unfair.

 

If anyone can afford to turn down to get to know someone better simply due to paying behavior on the very first date, I hope for their sake that they have plenty of other options. While having a stringent screening process is vital in finding someone suitable for a longterm relationship, who pays on the very first date/meet has very little prediction value on the rest of the potential for a relationship, but should always be taken into account with many other things that you can't really figure out on a first date yet.

[capuccino83]

I've spoken to several men on this issue. I find it interesting that the people who have the most interest in creating complete "equality" are mostly women. None of the guys I've spoken to in real life - who actually go out on dates - don't find it annoying or oppressive or archaic that they have to pay for the first date. The only complaints I've heard is that women don't say thank you or don't know how to appreciate a man who wants to do something for a woman. So I think is a great debate in theory, I've yet to see any hint of these types of complaints from men coming through in daily life. Generally, the men that I've met who weren't willing to spend an extra $10 on a date ended up either being not that interested in a developing a long term relationship (they were just casually dating so not really investing in anyone), looking for a physical relationship or just meh about the date overall. Of course, I would not not go on a second date with a guy I liked just becuase he didn't pay for the first, but I would seriously question his interest level and seriousness in potentially developing this relationship further.