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

[Batya33]

Agreed. Most people here have said there's no issue with the coffee itself or with the nature of giving/caring for/paying for the person you love or even like. The problem is EXPECTING special treatment because you're a woman. There's really no good argument for it other than "it's tradition" which is pretty poor and quite a slippery slope argument.

 

If a woman wants to label herself as the fairer, oppressed sex, or as the nurturer/caregiver/dainty lil woman who deserves to be treated like a princess because she was born with two X chromosomes then that is entirely her right. And it is also the right of others to think that's completely ridiculous. Makes the world go round.

 

I'm pretty sure Mother Theresa wouldn't have wanted to be lumped into the nurturer/caregiver/"dainty lil woman" category -yes I noted the slashes in there but your post suggests it's one and the same. I find that offensive to those women who choose to nurturing/caregiving as a career (whether motherhood, teaching, or being a doctor, etc). I give my husband total credit for being able to wear different hats as do I. He's not going to get confused by helping me on with my coat and then watching me lug heavy packages or have a spirited debate with him about current events or a work situation, or, just a few short years ago, hear about my day at the office. Yes there are extremes I do not support but no I'm not going to tell him that if he's helping me on with my coat because I'm a woman that he shouldn't because that's sabotaging my equality. Do I expect men to hold the door for me if they can where I wouldn't do the same in the ordinary course (meaning I would and I do if a man's arms are full and he can't get to the door then I always try to get the door) - um, yes, I do. But it's not something I have to talk about or ask for nor would I if someone didn't. But yes if I was dating again and the man had the opportunity to hold the door for me and didn't, or walked ahead of me after we left the restaurant without making sure I was right behind him at some reasonable point in time -yes I would wonder about his manners. And yes I expect equal pay for equal work. I really don't see the hypocrisy when it comes to these common courtesies. I don't think most men do, either.

 

What I have found is that the men who don't offer to pay also are lazy when it comes to planning dates- I don't have a huge sample but one of the last guys I dated 6 years ago (he was probably late 30s) didn't bother to suggest any restaurants for our after movie dinner because it wasn't his neighborhood- it was about 2-3 miles from his neighborhood -he lived in the same major city I did -and a quick internet search would have told him all he needed to know -at least make an attempt at suggesting. That evening, I suggested the movie, picked up the tickets (no I did not ask him to pay for his ticket and he did not offer). Then we sat down to wait for the movie and I said I'd be right back (to use the restroom but I didn't announce that to him). He said "oh are you getting popcorn?" I wasn't but I asked him if he wanted any. He did (and I think water too). So I waited in line and got our snacks and when I returned the movie hadn't started meaning he could have said thank you (then or at any time). Nope. And no offer of money either. Dinner? He asked me to suggest a place -I did - a moderate one- and he was happy to split the bill (despite knowing that I also paid for the tickets/snacks). I don't think he treated on the first date and if I remember right it was either just coffee or a walk in the park. He was not financially comfortable but I don't think that was the issue for me - it was his lack of manners about the finances, and his laziness. I had that type of experience a number of times with the men who didn't offer to treat or acted in a stingy way when it came to comments about money, the places we went, etc. It wasn't just cheapness, it reflected other personality/social skills "issues".

[PhilliesFan001]

I'd be careful just using one example you've had in your life as some sort of general rule.

 

And again, as I have said many times already, there is nothing wrong with caring for your partner - paying for things, helping them on with their coat (as you suggested), taking care of them when they're sick. Everyone should do those things. What I take issue with is the ATTITUDE that women are entitled to special treatment or else the man isn't a gentleman. I think that's been stated a few times by now. It's not the actions, it's the expectation.

 

And by nurturer/caregiver, I was not talking about occupations - I was talking about the women in this thread who have stated their only role is to be caregiver, who think it's okay to spend all a guy's money just because she can cook.

[Batya33]

I'd be careful just using one example you've had in your life as some sort of general rule.

 

And again, as I have said many times already, there is nothing wrong with caring for your partner - paying for things, helping them on with their coat (as you suggested), taking care of them when they're sick. Everyone should do those things. What I take issue with is the ATTITUDE that women are entitled to special treatment or else the man isn't a gentleman. I think that's been stated a few times by now. It's not the actions, it's the expectation.

 

And by nurturer/caregiver, I was not talking about occupations - I was talking about the women in this thread who have stated their only role is to be caregiver, who think it's okay to spend all a guy's money just because she can cook.

 

As I wrote it was just one example of several I had and many more my friends had. Yes, I think a man is not a gentleman if he has the opportunity to hold the door for me and he chooses not to. In my experience, many men would be offended or put off if I held the door for them (unless his arms were full,etc) and certainly wouldn't expect me to try to get to the door first to hold it. Is it really such a big deal?

 

And yes I think it's fine for a woman to rely on a man financially if she takes care of their home (and/or children if they have any) as long as he isn't paying her a salary for doing so and as long as she is actually doing that work and not paying other people to do all of it. Then the money isn't "the guy's" -it's their money and their choice on how to spend it. In dating? It depends. If they are taking turns so that she shops for his favorite foods and she cooks as often as he takes her out (his choice- he could cook for her, too) then I don't see the problem if they both find it fair. She's spending money and time on cooking - and if you want to get down to the nitty gritty of who is spending more that's fine but that kind of nitty gritty to me undermines relationships. I don't even want a close friendship where we're doing that kind of technical splitting the bill each and every time we see each other. Ick.

[FathomFear]

Good call on that score.

 

It actually wasn't a good call, as the poster was confusing the concepts of equality and sameness. When we talk about equality we're talking about rights and standing and "equality" in terms of personhood. We're not talking about whether two people are identical on some kind of physical, cellular level. Males and females are clearly not the same but they are still equal. Similarly, all males are not the same but they are still equal to each other. Same thing goes with race or any other difference which makes people not the same. It has no effect on their equality--at least in most modern societies.

[ProtestTheHero]

All of this gets so abstract that it regresses into pure crap (aka not applicable to any date or particular scenario in our lives).

 

Guys paying for first dates doesn't seem like a big deal until you realize most first dates are also the last date between those two people, lol. Someone who dates often experiences first dates more than anything else, and if you're constantly expected to shoulder the cost of that as a dude, it's dumb. In that scenario, I'm basically treating people I ended up not caring for to free meals and she sat there.

 

Why is it that acting like a "gentleman" more often than not means being perfectly okay with people taking advantage of me?

[DylanNotorious]

I know, how ridiculous right? Everything's gotta be split down the middle now..........or else you just aren't equals if you don't.

[tiredofvampires]

I was entering the elevator in my building on the ground floor the other day. A swarm of people were exiting, and I waited for them to all clear out. One of the guys leaving -- maybe or maybe not knowing that it's a characteristic of our elevator doors to give you no time to pass through without starting to close on you -- took it upon himself to stand outside the doors, and with his hand, hold them open so that everyone left in the elevator could leave without getting thumped.

 

I did not detect a hint of phoniness or affect in what he did. He was very unassuming in his whole body language and manner -- not making a big deal of it. A few people said, "thank you" in acknowledgment, a few didn't (which bugged me) and he just nodded. So I hardly saw what he did as an attempt to look like some self-appointed Sir Lancelot of Elevators. I sensed it was just automatic for him -- something he just spontaneously did as a courtesy because he saw an opportunity and thought (though not in so many words), "This would be helpful to others." Such a small thing, but it caught my notice. Why? Because he could have just rushed out like everyone else. He didn't need to do that. And no one would have been justified to think of him as a cad for not doing it. It certainly was not incumbent upon him.

 

But did he rise in my estimation for having done it? Yes. He wouldn't have lost points for not doing it, as a pure stranger, but he sure got a few for having gone above and beyond the call.

 

Of course, this had nothing to do with a dating situation, who had which genitals, and money was not changing hands. He was holding the door for old men as well as he was holding it for a toddler girl and a couple of teenagers. I thought of this thread, ha, and thought, "Now there's a 'gentleman'". Why was he a "gentleman"? What made him so? It was the fact that he saw an opportunity to put himself out in some way, and instead of thinking of it as a bunch of people taking advantage of him because he offered/acted/was in a position to act, he was just glad to do it.

[sadchick83]

I would like to bring up a non-dating example: The formal way to address a male is to call them "sir." For a woman it's "ma'am." Maybe I am over sensitive to this having spent a number of years in the military, but I find this very interesting and I am attune to the situation.

 

Whether it's at some sort of line up, one person bumping into another, whatever. The word "sir" is used much more frequently. Many times I have been in a lineup and been behind a few men. Each of the men get addressed as "sir." When my number comes up, I usually get "and you?" It doesn't matter if I am in a nice suit and the guys are in track pants, the men are addressed more respectfully. Not always, but 8/10 times.

 

Check it out sometime. Some people if they have been well trained call men "sirs" and woman "ma'ams." More often than not, there is some sort of discomfort/hesitation when it comes to addressing a woman with a title of respect.

 

This does not offend me, it is actually quite curious. It's like when a woman is out buying a car. Even if the woman is totally rich, if a man and woman walk into a showroom, the sales people will gravitate towards the man. Or if the woman shows interest in a car the male sales person might suggest "she discuss it with her husband."

 

When a guy walks into a gun shop, does the sales person ask if the guy "should consult his wife before purchasing the 50 cal?" No, he does not.

 

Times are a changing, its true. However, rather than get all hot and bothered about not being called "ma'am." I might think, oh, that person may have originated from a country where generally the men make the decisions, and now they live here.

 

I am not at all offended. I find that some of the people who have responded have a real chip on their shoulder when the woman thinks it is nice/kind that a man pays.

 

If a man asked me if I should check with my husband before buying something, I would not care, nor would I be offended. I would probably just giggle and tell the person I'm not married. I would not go off on a tangent saying "I have a vagina! Take me seriously."

 

I'm surprised at how defensive / annoyed some people have been regarding the man paying. I mean the original person (OP's) date did walk her up to the counter, then righteously stood there....that is weird for a man or a woman IMO. I'm a little more worried about the guys who are so against paying. I would also be offended by a female friend of mine who was so into being perfectly equal.

 

Anywhoo....glad I grew up in a little more chivalrous time. I will always remember fondly the dates I went on with professional athletes who in their 20's made millions a year simply asked " Hon, should i pay in Canadian or US dollars? One in particular used to take me to Tom Jones steak house where the ladies menus had no prices!!

 

Ha, you would not catch one of these guys making a woman pull out her wallet.

[DylanNotorious]

LoL and little kids try their best at being polite. When they call women "Miss" or "Hey Mr", I see that a lot. And then when you get older you call them "Sir, and "Ma'am"

[annie24]

I hate when i get called Maam. I'd rather be Miss.

 

This thread reminds me of an eharmony date i went on years ago. I met this guy for dinner. during our date, he said that he wanted to take me out on a second date to this hibachi restaurant we both liked. he drove me home, he wanted to kiss me, but i wasn't ready so i said kiss on the cheek. a few days later, i sent a text message like, 'i had fun, when are you going to take me to xxxx? he never wrote back. In hindsight, that probably wasn't the right thing to say! i'm not the kind of person who dates guys so they can take me out - i can afford my own food, thank you very much! i was trying to be light and flirty, but maybe i came off as being interested in him as a meal ticket. ooops.

[tiredofvampires]

I hate when i get called Maam. I'd rather be Miss.

 

I'm the same way! I run into the "ma'am" thing a LOT with service people. Outside of the military, I haven't met one woman who likes being called ma'am. I know they're only meaning well, and being diligent, but somehow the memo needs to go out that no one (especially single, in this age range) likes it, lol. You can keep that matronly bit of politeness. I'd rather just be called, "hey" than that, haha.

[tiredofvampires]

(And weirdly, I'm just reflecting on the experience that the more rude a protracted interaction on a service person's end, the more they keep called me "Ma'am". LOL)

[Lonewing]

Well, you ARE either SIR or MA'AM....So if you're not Sir, you get called Ma'am!

 

Service teaches people straight pretty fast.

[capuccino83]

 

And by nurturer/caregiver, I was not talking about occupations - I was talking about the women in this thread who have stated their only role is to be caregiver, who think it's okay to spend all a guy's money just because she can cook.

 

When you begin dating a man who prefers home cooking over eating out or getting take out and begin to do twice the grocery shopping that you've been doing before, then come and comment on how a woman is a caregiver who thinks it's okay to spend all of a guy's money just because she can cook. If I racking up a $50+ bill every week for dating this, I really doubt that I have an attitude problem if I expect that he'll pay for that movie or occasional date.

 

If you and your significant other are happy with the arrangement that you've made, that is great for you. However, I find your posts to be quiet insulting to to any woman who has chosen a care-giving position, whether it be a stay-at-home mom, someone who takes time off from work to care for a sick family member, or simply someone who values sitting down at a dinner table with her boyfriend/husband/family over a quality home made meal rather than take out or a restaurant. Of course, no woman would ever want to do that because it implies that it is okay for her to get paid less at work, not to be promoted at the same rate as her male colleagues, and obviously, and she's just using her vagay-gay to manipulate men into giving her a free ride while she's sitting in her princess gown sipping margaritas all day while laughing at how naive all the men in her life are. However, if she actually has chosen a caretaker role in some form and has suffered financially for it, then she it is her fault because she chose to do so and listen to her feminine instincts (which are outdated and wrong in 2011) and deserves to suffer financially. Because that is really the tone of your posts.

 

The women's rights movement was to give women choices - to give her the choice to have casual sex or not, the choice to work or stay at home, the choice to pay for a man or find a man who wants to pay for her, the choice to be modern or traditional. The equality part comes from respecting her choice, not turning men and women into androgynous being. Just as in pre rights movement, women were oppressed into the stepford wife role, so I find so many of these modern women are trying to oppress their female counter parts into the "fierce, take no BS, equal ,this is what our idea of a modern woman should be" role rather than embracing the diversity that women, and all people, in general, respresent. Both are equally wrong and negative towards women, and this kind of ATTITUDE is just as annoying as the actual gold-digger woman who hikes up her skirt to get an extra $5 out of a guy.

[annie24]

Well, you ARE either SIR or MA'AM....So if you're not Sir, you get called Ma'am!

 

Service teaches people straight pretty fast.

 

Actually, I'm Dr.

[PhilliesFan001]

For the 500th time in this thread I will say I have no problem with women being stay at home moms, wives, etc - I have defended stay at home moms numerous times on ENA. I firmly agree, women have the right to choose what they do with their lives. What I take issue with, for the last time, is the attitude that because they accept the caregiver role, that every man should accept the provider role.

 

It's the expectation that I think is rude, plain and simple. Nothing more, nothing less. Not the actual act. The expectation of the act. I would never, ever, expect somebody else to pay for something of mine unless they explicitly told me they were treating me. I was raised not to be loose with other peoples' money, or to believe I deserved something for no reason. It seems to be a lesson many "ladies" in this thread never learned.

 

Honestly, it's pointless arguing anymore. 42 pages later and we're all still saying the same things - you think that way, and I think another way. Too tired to keep going around in circles over something that is irrelevant to me anyway.

[Lonewing]

Actually, I'm Dr.

 

You could be the president of the United States. You're still Sir Or Ma'am, even though you could be called by a longer title as well...

[Lonewing]

Honestly, it's pointless arguing anymore. 42 pages later and we're all still saying the same things - you think that way, and I think another way. Too tired to keep going around in circles over something that is irrelevant to me anyway.

 

What hurts most is the inability to focus at the quesiton at hand. FIRST date. How your relationship evolves is up to you, but this is not that point...

 

Ugh...I agree...

[PhilliesFan001]

What hurts most is the inability to focus at the quesiton at hand. FIRST date. How your relationship evolves is up to you, but this is not that point...

 

Ugh...I agree...

 

Yeah, that's really it!

[FathomFear]

The women's rights movement was to give women choices - to give her the choice to have casual sex or not, the choice to work or stay at home, the choice to pay for a man or find a man who wants to pay for her, the choice to be modern or traditional. The equality part comes from respecting her choice, not turning men and women into androgynous being.

 

Here is the key though. If you're a woman and want to "choose" being this way, it does not put you in a position to expect other people to be the same. The problem is the expectation that men who fit your mold are "gentlemanly" and those who don't are not. That is what is offense. If two people want to play out a quaint existence as if it were 1950, that's perfectly fine. But it needs to be consensual, and chastizing others who do not take this route is not acceptable.

[Alezia]

The core issue where I disagree is that it doesn't ultimately matter whether it's an expectation or not if the person has chosen the nurturer only role. You'll have one date, have the woman pay that bill, and then you will never date again.... The end!

 

You can expect, but you can ultimately not force someone else to pay. If you meet someone that doesn't have the same mindset, you should always have some money prepared.

 

I don't really personally care about who pays what. I'm just saying if women want to approach dating this way, it doesn't ultimately matter.

[Lonewing]

The core issue where I disagree is that it doesn't ultimately matter whether it's an expectation or not if the person has chosen the nurturer only role. You'll have one date, have the woman pay that bill, and then you will never date again.... The end!

 

You can expect, but you can ultimately not force someone else to pay.

 

If that's what she uses to base the premise of her relationship, clearly she's not mature enough yet for an adult relationship. At least, an adult relaitonship with me.

[Alezia]

If that's what she uses to base the premise of her relationship, clearly she's not mature enough yet for an adult relationship. At least, an adult relaitonship with me.

 

Well no, exactly, I never said it would be the right for everyone on the first date. Some men don't like this expectation of payment. You'd probably fit in the no second date category.

I wouldn't say it speaks anything of maturity, just not the same beliefs. It's sort of like religion. You simply got to respect that people have different visions for themselves.

[capuccino83]

Here is the key though. If you're a woman and want to "choose" being this way, it does not put you in a position to expect other people to be the same. The problem is the expectation that men who fit your mold are "gentlemanly" and those who don't are not. That is what is offense. If two people want to play out a quaint existence as if it were 1950, that's perfectly fine. But it needs to be consensual, and chastizing others who do not take this route is not acceptable.

 

FF and PH - I never said that I expect people to be the same. I realize that I will be incompatible with many people for many reasons, anything ranging on financial views to a million other issues. I would not actively date someone who didn't have similar values than me nor expect them to try to change. And I"ve always made my statements in the context of two willing parties that came to a mutual agreement. You are also chastizing as well, if not more. Referring to the situation when I and a guy that I liked went out on a date, he offered to pay the $10 and I gladly accepted and thanked him after as a "quaint existence as it were the 1950" is a little extreme.

[browneyedgirl36]

Oh, goodness...this is STILL going on?

 

My two cents (and maybe I said this before -- sorry if it's a repeat): If it's a first meet -- i.e. for coffee -- I would NOT expect the guy to pay. Now, I have been on first meets where the guy DID pay, and that was fine, but if he didn't offer, I wouldn't label him a cheapskate, or unchivalrous, or whatever because we just met. Now, if we continue to date and he NEVER offers to pay, I'd have to wonder, and that probably wouldn't fly with me. I'm happy paying sometimes, but not EVERY time -- I'm good with things being equal, or even doing a half-and-half thing, where we just split the check sometimes.

 

Just for some perspective: I'm 41, was raised pretty "traditionally." I'm single, have a good job, and make plenty of money to pay my own way. I DO consider myself to be in favor of men and women being treated equally; however, I'm not at all averse to doors being opened for me, a man pulling out my chair for me at a restaurant or helping me put my coat on, or paying for my dinner sometimes. So, I'm a feminist in a sense, but I also can appreciate a man doing something that some might consider "chivalrous" (which to me is just common courtesy, actually).

 

I guess what puzzles me about this post is that they had just met -- it was a "first meet coffee" with someone she'd met from an online dating site. In my opinion, it would be fine for each person to pay for his/her own coffee. No red flags there for me.