Paying on a first date - Page 14

My cousins says that workplace discrimination is a big thing for her.. then again, she just got a new job (so they don't really know what she's like), was married within 3 years and wonders why the company is pressuring her for an answer whether or not she'll have a baby and have to go on maternal leave

I've been with my girlfriend for 3 years... I pretty much always end up paying. She's paid for a few $20 meals but I'm always stuck with the $100 dollar meals -_-

Oh well, if I didn't pay I'd feel terrible, for me it's a cultural thing. I would accept a girl's offering to pay, but sometimes I don't know if she's being serious or just testing the waters, which I think is difficult to determine on the first date =/ and involves a certain amount of luck for everyone.

Are you trying to prove my point for me? I love how the generosity is supposed to flow in one direction only. It's ALL about her and we're supposed to feel good about it. In her 5 pages she provides one statement with regards to how men should feel about this. The rest of it is some bs rationalization of how selfish she is. This just reasserts my point that these women are completely self-centered and hypocritical, by their own admission even. She actually quotes "How to Get a Rich Man" in her article. If I were a rich man, would I want a woman who's prime motivating factor was money, knowing what divorce rates are today? Hell no. And paying for a meal has no bearing on stability or the ability to support a family unless we're talking about the bottom rungs of society. It's got to do with cultural norms and expectations, not biology.

You really want to die alone don't you? Here you have women telling you what they want and you persist in your paranoid delusions of women being selfish bitches out to get you and your money.

The fact of the matter is that it mostly IS all about her and as a man you SHOULD feel good about this. That doesn't mean you're a wimp or a sucker but when you love someone enough to marry them, you derive great pleasure and satisfaction from doing things for them, giving them stuff and making them happy.

This all factors in long before love is at play. Look, I pay for my dates. I've said that over and over. I've never once made an issue of it with them. It doesn't mean I don't think the behavior is hypocritical and self-serving. I totally enjoy paying for and taking care of a woman when I have feelings for her. This typically doesn't happen on the first, second, or even third dates though. If we're just dating, and it's casual, why should I pay all the time?

All I've been saying all along is that as I start looking for a relationship that could lead to marriage, generosity and some reciprocation on the woman's behalf is going to be a big part of my selection process. Women forget that they're not the only ones that get to pick and choose. All i'm suggesting is that men go in to these sorts of things with a more objective evaluation of the kinds of qualities a woman possesses. It really can't hurt. I have female friends that do things for me just because (and I do the same for them), so why should I accept any less from a woman I'm dating? I may not make a fuss, but I'll make clear divisions in my mind. If I've been generous and she's shown no generosity in return (proportionate to her income of course), I'm perfectly happy to switch gears and start cutting my losses. Despite a couple threads here, i'm generally pretty detached.

Wow. She certainly is candid about it. She clearly admits that this is pure hypocrisy and completely inconsistent with the general fight for equal dignity for women.

As you should well know, Etienne, an army travels on its stomach. Nothing wrong with being treated to a nice meal before the battle is joined.

When I was coming up as a young pup the man paid. Period.

I was once told that you should give your soldiers bad food to keep them on edge and in a bad temper.

One thing the feminist article highlights is that men are confused (and women). I think the ones that are confused are the ones that have actually been listening to these feminist all these years.

The problem with her arguement is that she is using the concept of historical tradition to say it is not wrong for her to expect to pay for her where men were the providers or some such nonsense, thus traditional gender roles are accceptable in this instance

Lets use the same logic different arguement
Then men should be payed more and given better jobs, where as women should be given lower level jobs and payed less even if they do the same work. why? Because these are traditional gender roles.
But the latter statement is sexist and the former is not?

But she also uses and idealized model of hunter gatherer culture in her arguement. The women at least to the artifacts that were found hunted and played an active role in the gathering of food. So she even stretches her tradition to a culture in which it did not exist.
If this article proves anythinng it proves tha socrates was correct and 99% women should be excluded from serious matters, Because except for that 1% they cannnot think rationally or are unwilling to do so.

You'll be running the risk of missing out on all the ancillary benefits of a happy dining companion.