To be pissed off with 'the man should pay' types?

[wimbmumma]

I just find it so outdated! The only time I've ever let the man pay was, coincidentally, on my first date with my ex husband. Doesn't even cross most of me and my friends' minds that you should split it (if it is a dinner date that is) but A LOT of the schoolmums feel very differently, as they made abundantly clear at a coffee morning... so AIBU to find them a bit annoying and utterly stuck in the 19th century

The reason people spectacularly miss the point about this (imo) is that men who want to split the bill are not doing it out of some great concern over equality. They're doing it because they're tight 🤷‍♀️

Not all of them are. My cunt ex, paid for everything when we were dating. He was chivalrous, caring etc. None of that stayed hence he's the cunt ex.

Some of the best people I met were bill splitters. I've valued them more than some I met who paid for everything. The splitters made me feel special in other ways.

But I know I am strange as I tend to look at myself and others as people first. Unless there's a physical attraction, their sex isn't an issue.

And I interact just like I would friends. So splitting bills. Buying rounds etc.

Even if it's one date you both walk away feeling good.
Him cos he's not been fleeced yet again for another meal.
Me cos I don't feel that odd obligation some feel.

I think this thread is going round in circles with people just asking the same question for pages in end, “Why should the man pay, but not the woman...?????”

Firstly, can I say, it’s been a long time since I dated, but I have NEVER let a man pay if I had no intention of seeing him again. To be honest, I wouldn’t have been out with him in the first place, if I was “meh” because I never did prolific Or casual dating. Most men I dated became relationships.

So that’s where I’m coming from on this, I totally accept that in the current reality of OLD, dates are much more casual and speculative, so I would fully expect to pay for myself if the whole thing for some random guy from the internet. I couldn’t give a hoot, frankly. Chances are I’d have the urge to throw down the money and run in nine out of ten cases.

But to the people who just keep asking “why, why, why?” - the answers is simple really. It’s because people like it that way. Dating / romance / sex don’t need to be logical. People want to be able to express themselves basically. You see it in the mating rituals of animals - birds fluffing themselves up or whatever. All sorts of things like that. It happens in all species. Women and men have more in common than otherwise, but sometimes the attraction is in the differences. And people like to express that. Trying to quash that is a bit like sucking the joy out of life.

If you want to be all Even Stevens about every detail, then that’s absolutely fine. Knock yourselves out. The good news is there’s plenty of men who will be on the same page with that. But also, just relax and stop worrying about couples who may relate differently to you. If they’re happy, it’s all good, surely. You don’t need to understand.

But also, just relax and stop worrying about couples who may relate differently to you. If they’re happy, it’s all good, surely. You don’t need to understand.

It's not couples that I worry about really. It's people like my son, if I'm honest. Struggling to pay his rent and other bills yet now being told that unless he's prepared to pay for every date that he goes on he's going to be viewed as tight or stingy.

Well there’s no need to worry about your son Hear. I have two sons, I’m not worried about them. They’ll find their own way and they’ll attract like-minded women eventually. If they’re students, they’ll no doubt be dating other students and none if them are exactly going to be expecting to be wined and dined fun expensive places, are they? It’s all relative. Who cares about money - there are other ways of making an effort, if you have no money. OLD sounds like a special world of its own anyway, so if they’re young and doing that, they’ll know their own OLD rules, whatever those may be. If they want to go all out for particular women, they’ll do that regardless, when the time is right.

So, men should pay on dates, apart from your sons?

Or is it only you that men should pay for?

I can't really get my head round your argument tbh.

Even before old, I still offered to pay. Have done so over the past 2 decades.
For me, it's not about paying for the meal. It's about the before and after. The randoms treats messages whatever. It seems more genuine to go out and get a bunch of flowers just because why not, rather than get them on Valentine's day. It's being spontaneous. But I also understand that some people don't want to step out of the box and do something different.

Omg why are you people so hung up and obsessed by the money aspect of dating? I dint mean to sound off, but really where have you been doing all your lives that this is so hard to understand? It’s not about the money - the paying is just one aspect of the overall persona that some women find more attractive in a man. I don’t know how to spell this out any clearer.

But seeing as you ask, yes my sons would expect to pay in general. They certainly wouldn’t be agonising over it like some people on here because they don’t have money hang-ups and haven’t been brought up that way. If they couldn’t afford anything, they hopefully still know how to make an effort in other ways and be a gent, rather than a clueless twit.

Well, when you pay for something you usually use money and the thread title is AIBU to be pissed off with the men should pay types so that's why I'm concentrating on money, because it's kind of the focus of the thread.

ll your lives that this is so hard to understand? It’s not about the money - the paying is just one aspect of the overall persona that some women find more attractive in a man. I don’t know how to spell this out any clearer
I think you've misunderstood.
None of us find it hard to understand.

If a woman finds it attractive to have a man buy her meals, treat her, foot the bill etc because that's a certain persona they find attractive, good for her.
However, she can't be surprised when that also goes hand in hand with other outdated gender norms and she's 2 years in, doing the domestic load because that's her womanly job whilst he does big important things to be the breadwinner and provide etc.

However, she can't be surprised when that also goes hand in hand with other outdated gender norms and she's 2 years in, doing the domestic load because that's her womanly job whilst he does big important things to be the breadwinner and provide etc.

Exactly.

It's very convenient to say it's not about the money when you're not the one paying!

FWIW it's not about the money for me. I can well afford it. It's about going into a potential relationship on an equal footing, and frankly setting my stall out immediately. Throwing down my share without comment tells a man I'm not to be messed with.

Well I’m 15 years into being a SAHM, as I said. My DH doesn’t think I’m at home to do any kind of “womanly load.” in particular. I look after the kids, yes. Is that a crime? I do cook for him, but equally we would eat out., The last thing he wants is me being some kind of martyr of drudge. It’s odd that you would even make that link tbh. We have a cleaner. All SAHMs I know have cleaners. None of us are downtrodden or all “woe is me.” I’m thinking of about 100 friends / acquaintances off the top of my head, None of their DHs are chauvinists; just normal decent men.

I think you all have the most weird notions tbh.

@matcatwomanheresheis I get that, but the thread is about dating, not who pays in a marriage. Family money pays in a marriage, regardless of who's purse or wallet it comes out of.

People can and should do what works for them. If you're happy at home with a cleaner then you're not going to feel woe is me, but then you openly wanted a man who held traditional views where you stay home and he is the breadwinner.

Whereas there's plenty of women out there who seem to want the "look after me, pay for dates, be a gentleman" side of things and then seem surprised later that translates to a man wanting/hoping for an arrangement like yours.

Yes Ted I agree. I was just responding to the pp who said that if you let the man pay, don’t be surprised if you end up doing the womanly drudge if you marry him, because this doesn’t need to happen (obviously).

But if you want a man with the mindset that it's men that pay on dates, which is actually quite a traditional way of doing things, then you can't be surprised if they have traditional views in regards to other issues too.

Equally, the men who want women with traditional views, who want to be a housewife, and take care of the home and not have work outside of the home could be forgiven for thinking that women who are happy to be paid for on dates are likely to subscribe to other more traditional views on relationships and marriage.

I was just responding to the pp who said that if you let the man pay, don’t be surprised if you end up doing the womanly drudge if you marry him
Being a bit selective there.

I replied to you saying that some women find this persona attractive as in you find a man attractive who embodies a particular idea of being a man which is rooted in very dated ideas.

I paid for meals, so has DH. I didn't find him attractive because his "persona" is grounded in dated gender norms and I wanted to be treated like a lady.

If I found him attractive for embodying a dated idea of how men should be a gentleman etc then I'd be a bloody idiot to be surprised if he also held other dates views.

You clearly find a man attractive who embodies the "I must treat a lady, pay for the dates" persona. But then it's hardly surprising then that you've found yourself 15 years into a very traditional set up, because you both subscribe to those stereotypes. Good for you, it works for you.

The issue is that there are enough women out there who want the "treat me / spoil me / pay the bill when we date" approach, but then seem surprised that that persona also has other dated values and stereotypes attached.

Cross posted with Hearhoovesthinkzebras

Spot on.

It's hardly rocket science that "person who subscribes to traditional gender roles when dating might actually subscribe to traditional gender roles in long term relationships".

Lola - there are women in MN every other day who ate in marriages where they have totally separate finances. There was a woman the other day whose husband wouldn’t give her access to any money whatsoever while she was on a few weeks maternity. He wouldn’t even pay for the dishwasher to be fixed. There are married women on here living on CB while the DH earns whatever high salary, unhindered. Was there really no sign of this mentality when these women were dating?

Ok so I've asked my 25 year old son (as opposed to my world weary view). Plenty of dates on tinder or through friends.

He says he'll normally pay on a first date but if it was expected that would be a red flag.

After that they would share or take turns.

For drinks they do rounds.

Some of those situations are absuive and financially controlling.

You're not seriously going to cite threads of abusive and controlling relationships in a ridiculous attempt to ignore the fact that people who openly seek and promote traditional/stereotypical gender roles may have other traditional/stereotypical beliefs about gender roles?
I mean. That's quite a low blow to go from:
A) It's not surprising that people who seek stereotypical gender roles when dating hold other stereotypical gender roles in relationships
To
B) Yeah well there's some threads showing financial abuse following pregnancy, were there no signs of this when they were dating?

@LolaSmiles

In fairness @matcatwomanheresheis and @Moomin8 have put forward fairly reasoned arguments. I don't agree with them but they are a far cry from earlier posters flatly refusing to open their purses (ever!) quoting "I wouldn't see him again" and "he needs to value me" and the perennial "its gentlemanly"!!

That’s not what I’m saying.

You are saying that traditional dating roles will most likely end up in traditional marriage roles. I’m saying maybe, maybe not. But also, “traditional” is not inevitably something horrific, as you seem to think. As I said, it’s all about mutual respect - just like anything else. The same stuff gets done - the money gets earned; the DC are the priority, but it’s just a slightly different balance and some people find life less stressful like this. You can be as 50/50 as you like but it still won’t work without mutual respect.

If you think traditional dating is indicative of particular expectations later; then you could equally surmise that a man who always wants to meticulously split everything during dating is a clear sign that another type of marriage is potentially looming. Not necessarily an abusive one. But one I wouldn’t have wanted nevertheless

@matcatwomanheresheis

A man who wanted a meticulous split is equally unappealing. I expect most folks see the bill and throw in roughly their share. A £1 quibbler wouldn't be for me either.