To think it's a bit weird to expect a guy to make the first move and pay for dinner

[Skustew]

If you post memes on bookface talking about treating both genders equally?

I understand some people are a bit old school and their idea of how men should treat a woman comes from the 50s. But why can't some people see the double standards they have?

Are you not as capable as a man of earning a living? Not as capable as a man of paying your way?
I happen to be, and I have earned a lot more than my hubby in the past, it doesn't mean I wouldn't have expected him to pay for diner when he invited me on our first date. If "I" had invited him, I would have paid for it.
If one gay person invites another gay person, I expect the first one to pay the bill, it's not all about gender here

I just wouldn't have made the first move, but not because of the bill.

Who said anything about thr law? Why would there be a law on who pays on dates. What a bizzare Post.

It’s only bizarre because you don’t understand it.

Equality is having equal rights under the law. It’s possible to want equal rights under the law and still want a man to open a car door for you, or pay for dinner.

The OP, and you apparently, can’t seem to recognise that those are two completely different ideas.

So in your limited view if there is not a law specifically to cover it, it's not equality?

You cannot be serious.

*and still want a man to open a car door for you, or pay for dinner(

And this is just sexist, out dated bullshit. Treat each other with respect. But women who play the little incapable women who can't open a car door and need to be paid for wouldn't be someone I chose to spend any time with. Nor would any woman I'm close to.

But you keep on perpetuating the incapable myth as your preference.

Dakotawest, as it ever occurred to you that there is a pressure on men to do the inviting and bear the cost?
Your measure of chivalry or gentlemanliness is that they ask you out, and they pay for dinner if they invite you. Is there no value in a man saying 'I really enjoy your company, would love to spend a little more time with you, but money is tight. Maybe we could find a restaurant that won't break the bank for either of us, and we go halves?'

I am not trying to argue that the woes of men are in any way comparable with the many struggles women have, but that doesn't mean men are immune from having them. The pressure on men to earn, pay for things, take the initiative etc can be quite significant, and it can ruin relationships almost before they start, simply because a man's pride gets in the way, along with a woman's expectations of him.

Bluntness, don't you think this emphasis on money only works if money is an issue for you? Honestly, if a guy bought me a coffee I wouldn't be thinking "I've just saved a fiver." I'd see it that he was doing something to take care of me. And while (technically) I don't need someone to take care of me, it's a bloody nice feeling if you think someone will.

I don't mean "take care of me financially" - just look out for me and have my back.

I think Bluntness is joking. Or she genuinely doesn’t understand what we are saying.

TheBrilliantMistake At the same time, I've heard men say "I've taken four women to dinner this week and I just can't afford it!

Of course the guy shouldn't go into debt to take someone out. Of course having a coffee is fine if either are too broke to go for a meal. But how often in your life are you taking people out for the first time?

I dated one guy for way too long because of a sense of an obligation as he always insisted on paying despite my real attempts to pay.

I now see men who refuse to let a woman pay as controlling rather than romantic or genlemanly.

Equality in rights and difference in people can co-exist, of course they can.

Holding a door open for someone is courtesy. Holding it open specifically for a woman isn't a celebration of the difference between men and women, it's a reinforcement of women's 'weakness' that they need it holding open for them.

We are ALL equal. I like Rock music, another person likes Jazz, we can enjoy differences and be equal. The moment I have to pay for all Jazz fans, or hold doors open for them suggest I don't see them equally at all... but they NEED me to help them. That's really saying 'the natural order of things is that I earn more, and I am stronger and take control of situations etc).

My DH managed to ask me out properly (i.e. face to face), take me on dates and invariably pay, always took me home, etc. What's wrong with that? This was circa 2000.

I'd far rather have a gentleman than someone who expects you to tramp off somewhere to meet him and pay for yourself. Those are not qualities I'm attracted to so I just couldn't be bothered.

If you're an unemployed male or female, going out with a partner can be fraught with worry about money. Especially the first time, as both sides don't want to be seen as tight with money. That 'expectation' to impress is there.

Let's say a fairly nice meal at a fairly average restaurant costs 25 quid each. That's 50 quid. That could be a lot of money to some people.

That's classic mumsnet saying something is fine if it's not illegal

I'd far rather have a gentleman than someone who expects you to tramp off somewhere to meet him and pay for yourself.

There is nothing wrong with a man being generous and chivalrous etc. But the problem lies in the statement above. The implication is that if a man cannot do that, he isn't a gentleman. That why men feel the pressure to meet expectation.

Stoic, you know I'm not joking, I'm sure you're not an idiot. You just don't like my message and have ran out of ways to come back at me on it.

We differ in opinion. You like men to pay for your company. To hold doors open for you. To treat you like an incapable little woman who needs taking care of.

I prefer more equality in how men and women interact. I would always offer to pay my way, I would hold the door for a man, as much as he would for me. I prefer the genders to care for each other equally.

Simply now you wish to be treated and how I wish to be treated is different.

I agree too OP.

However I want an equal in a partner and don't need to be looked after or kept whereas the size of a mans wallet is the first thing many look for.

I consider myself a feminist because I believe in equal rights for both sexes. However, men and women and their roles in a relationship are intrinsically different.

When the relationship turns serious, who is it that normally has to wait for the other one to decide they are ready for commitment? When in a LTR, who typically takes on the mental load and lion's share of the housework? Who is it that has to go through pregnancy and childbirth? I know some of that is a generalisation but I'd bet that statistics are on my side.

Therefore, I don't consider it unfair that at the very beginning the man makes a bit more of an effort by making the first step and offering to pay on the first date. For me it actually makes the relationship more equal when you take into account what a woman does the rest of their time together!

(And for what it's worth, I never expect he pays but let him if he insists and I will always pay on the second date. And I have no problem making the first move either and have done it many times).

It sounds to me like many women who claim equality a bit too loudly are the ones who end up complaining against mental load and unequal share of work at home

I disagree Dakota. It's women who expect men to conform to gender stereotypes like paying for meals who then get surprised when those same men expect them to carry all the mental load and unequal share of work at home.

It works with woman too. I woman might expect the man to pay for a meal, but wouldn't expect him to pay for a babysitter. If a single parent is on low income and they're asked out, paying for a babysitter can be an issue.

People just need to be mindful of other's situations and have a little less rigidity about who pays, and a little more consideration for circumstances. As long as we keep having stereotypical expectations of each other, we will have continued disappointments when they aren't met.

who is it that normally has to wait for the other one to decide they are ready for commitment? When in a LTR, who typically takes on the mental load and lion's share of the housework? Who is it that has to go through pregnancy and childbirth?

Don't couples share the housework thesedays? Not all women are desperate for commitment and not all men are scared of commitment. Many couples choose to not have children.

I see you just reinforcing outdated views by wanting a relationship to start unequal.

It's women who expect men to conform to gender stereotypes like paying for meals who then get surprised when those same men expect them to carry all the mental load and unequal share of work at home

Agree. It sets the tone for the rest of the relationship. You start off equal you've more of a chance of staying that way. You start off playing the little woman, you've more chance that's the way it's going to continue.

There's nothing wrong with who pays for what and who does what work in the house etc.
It's the 'expectation' that one should do this vs that that is wrong (imo).

Stuskew, I see you conveniently left out my next sentence "I know some of that is a generalisation but I'd bet that statistics are on my side."

Surely you can see that I'm not saying that is the way things should be but that the way things typically are. I don't know a single relationship where the man takes on the mental load. If all of the ones that you know are like that, great!

Men as a group have greater wealth at the expense of women as a group and then individual men 'bestow' generosity, individual man to individual woman. But not all men can afford it. Not all women need it. And yet. And yet. And yet, it is still a good indication of whether or not a man values your company and is generous or not. So conflicted. Don't know.

I don't want this to be true and yet I know a man who doesn't keep a tally of what he's paid for is going to be less tight and later on is going to be less weird and more comfortable about accepting gifts and gestures from me.

I think the point is that when we say that most women want equal rights for women, we mean "equal rights where we are currently disadvantaged." Feminism is not about making women equal to men in areas where we are in a better position (eg education, suicide rates), it is about improving rights for women.

When it comes to dating, of course the man pays. The man should pay, the woman has control over whether the date takes place and whether it leads on to anything. This is exactly what feminism means - the woman has power and control, the man does not.