Should a woman offer to split paying for a first date?

[Disgustipated]

I know we talked a little bit about this in a thread a little while back, but I'm looking for a definitive answer on this subject, and would like to see poll results as well. As we all know, civ fanatics is the best place to ask for dating advice, so here I go. Actually I'm not looking for any personal advice, this is more of a general question.

I just got back from a first date, and the main question I have is if a woman should at least offer to pay for the meal or whatever. I have no problem paying, I don't want people to think I am cheap (although I am a little cheap). I've payed for all of my first dates I've been on. But I've liked the women more who at least offered to pay for it.

So what is the consensus? Obviously in the old days the man always paid. Then you had the women's movement and in the 80's it seemed to shift away from that. But it seems like lately we are shifting back towards the old dating standards and women expect men to always pay and not even offer to pay. Or am I mistaken? It seems that the younger women expect the man to pay for everything. I ask because the woman I'm dating is 22 years old (15 years younger than me). It seems to me she expects me to be her sugar daddy and pay for everything. Or am I just jumping to conclusions? I would have liked it if she at least offered to pay.

Also does it matter if the man makes more money than the woman? If the woman is in college and doesn't make much money, is it okay if she doesn't offer? What if she still lives at home and should have plenty of money?

I'll try to come up with decent poll options to make this poll somewhat useful.

 

[Azale]

Men paying for the date is reparations for thousands of years of patriarchal oppression.

 

[JollyRoger]

37/22? She is below your age demographic, so of course you are the sugar daddy. If you want the woman to offer to pay, date a 52 year old.

 

[Traitorfish]

I would suggest that the one who initiates the date should assume that they will be paying (whatever their gender, and whatever the gender of the other individual, hence this also applies to queer couples), but that it may be good manners for the other to contribute if they enjoy themselves, taking into account, as you suggest, financial circumstances. This will probably mean that men pay for most heterosexual first dates for the simple reason that men initiate most such dates, but that's really an altogether different issue.
The trick is really to treat people as individuals (such as taking into account individual preferences, financial circumstances, whatever), rather than homogeneous gender-blocks. Most relationships will end up as something approaching this sooner or later, so it's just skipping some of the scripting at the start, which, while easy to default to, isn't necessarily the most healthy.

At least, that's what I say here, sitting at a laptop. God knows if I was actually dealing with it in real life I'd end up contradicting myself.

 

[nc-1701]

My current girlfriend paid on our first date, we had gone to lunch (just quick fast food more or less as friends) a few days before and I'de paid so she insisted I let her pay. That was fine with me, in general whoever wants to pay and is capable of paying should and if neither of you wants to volunteer to pay then maybe you should split it and not go on a second date.
Seriously I don't feel like their should be any hard rules on this, and it shouldn't make anybody feel awkward. Just always be ready to pay and get pleasantly surprised of course if you never get pleasantly surprised you might have a goldigger on your hands...

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

So what is the consensus? Obviously in the old days the man always paid. Then you had the women's movement and in the 80's it seemed to shift away from that. But it seems like lately we are shifting back towards the old dating standards and women expect men to always pay and not even offer to pay.

You're correct on that. The priviledge of being entertained and having to do nothing in return was too tempting to give up, and the generation of women that followed the fury of the Women's Movement were happy to retain their priviledges but also have the luxury of economic equality. In the US, also, at least, there was some backpedaling on women's rights, such as the lack of enacting ERA.

Anyway, I digress. If I had it my way, I would eliminate the date as an anachronism of a bygone era, akin to an hours-long job interview, or a police interrogation. But if you insist on these relics, the answer is: it doesn't matter. The date is a ritual with no rules, so anything you do or don't do is as correct as anything else. If you want practical advice, it is this: being that a man is still expected to pay, a woman who offers to pay any part is sending only one message -- you aren't getting any.

 

[naterator]

I say they should at least offer. That said i would never accept the offer; but it is a nice gesture, not to mention it's one of many opportunities in a first date to make a character judgment. It's not a deal breaker if she doesn't offer, just a check in the minus column.

The priviledge of being entertained and having to do nothing in return was too tempting to give up, and the generation of women that followed the fury of the Women's Movement were happy to retain their priviledges but also have the luxury of economic equality. .

There sure is a certain percent of the female population who want to have their cake and eat it too with regards to equality. 9-5 they want to be treated as equals, nights and weekends they want to be put on a pedestal. Of course men are legally obligated to the former, and there's more than enough who will gladly do the latter for a chance to score, so they usually get their way.

 

[JohnRM]

The woman should cook so that the man can get an idea of whether there might be a future between the two of them, because obviously she will be spending a lot of time in the kitchen if she is a proper wife.

 

[Karalysia]

Men paying for the date is reparations for thousands of years of patriarchal oppression.

This. But of course further reparations are needed. The government should pay all women $300,000 every year for the rest of their lives for the next three generations. Only then will the stain of the gendered patriarchy be erased.

 

[Traitorfish]

This. But of course further reparations are needed. The government should pay all women $300,000 every year for the rest of their lives for the next three generations. Only then will the stain of the gendered patriarchy be erased.

As opposed to non-gendered patriarchy, which is when the world is ruled by people called "Patrick".

 

[SerriaFox]

He (which is the correct English generic) who asks should pay.

However, a return offer, for a second date paid for by her (possible even cook by her, dare we hope), would be good.

 

[bhsup]

Not if she wants me to ask her out again. Men pay.

 

[JohnRM]

The person who extends the invitation pays.

 

[Traitorfish]

Not if she wants me to ask her out again. Men pay.

For the sake of playing Devil's Advocate, why?

 

[JohnRM]

For the sake of playing Devil's Advocate, why?

Its a control and manhood issue, pay it no mind.

 

[Traitorfish]

Its a control and manhood issue, pay it no mind.

I'm not sure it is, though- I mean, that's the root of the tradition, yes, but that doesn't mean that it's the cause of any single invocation of that tradition. As I mentioned in the Chivalry thread, VRCWAgent seems pretty sincerely respectful of women, and, being a traditionalist, chivalry is the tool he uses to express this. As such, I wonder if there's any concious reasoning beyond tradition for tradition's sake.

 

[JohnRM]

Chivalry itself is rooted in the fact that many men see women as weak and in need of the protection and care of a man. The whole mindset is about control and domination. I have no doubt that VRWC is a good person and genuine, but the bottom line, whether he admits it or not, is that he has no interest in a woman who can take care of herself.

 

[Ramius75]

The woman should at least offer. While the man should refuse it...
if he wants to get into her pants.

 

[Traitorfish]

Chivalry itself is rooted in the fact that many men see women as weak and in need of the protection and care of a man. The whole mindset is about control and domination. I have no doubt that VRWC is a good person and genuine, but the bottom line, whether he admits it or not, is that he has no interest in a woman who can take care of herself.

While it's a basically accurate description of the root of chivalry, I think it robs individuals of a certain agency to suggest that they act only in accordance with such binding standards. I think that a lot of men, particularly after the prominence of the original Women's Movement, are more aware of that whole "women are people" thing, but have neither inherited a substantial body of tools for expressing this, nor found an equivalent movement to allow them to reinterpret their gender identity without a great deal of individual guess work. As such, they often find themselves attempting to retain those elements of chivalry that say "I value you", such as paying for dates and holding doors, while stripping away those parts that say "but stay in the kitchen". Perhaps this does mean that traditionalist men would be put off by a more assertive or self-supporting women, but I'm not sure if that's necessarily just down to wounded masculinity or a fear of change, and if some part of it isn't the concern that this women, in rejecting chivalry, leaves them unable to express affection in a manner with which they are comfortable; a fear of failure, you might say.
It's a tricky path, certainly, and one which even self-declared Feminists such as myself have a hard time negotiating (sure, I say "chivalry is bad" here, but when I'm walking down the street with my girlfriend I tend to end up on the side nearer the road). I'm certainly not going to condemn VRCWAgent for perhaps-imperfect methods when he, unlike so many men, is at least trying.

(Plus, there's the simple fact that generalised revisions of society-wide gender roles aren't necessarily demanded in any given relationship. It's quite probable that VRCWAgent, who I believe has been married for some time?, has simply found a dynamic that works for him and his wife, and that isn't innately wrong just because happens to fit a traditional pattern. Liberation is as much the right to stay the same as it is to change.)

 

[JohnRM]

I'd accept that analysis, Traitor, if VRWC hadn't added that he wouldn't date anyone who did offer to pay for their portion of the date. He clearly feels the need to dominate.