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I just find it so outdated!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

AhNow
I'm glad it works for them. Each to their own. I have no issue with people making whatever choices suit them.

I just don't think anyone should be surprised if what someone espouses whilst dating links to other related values.

E.g.
Woman openly talks about how important her career is and her ambitions, man shouldn't be surprised if 4 years later when you're starting a family if she's unwilling to sacrifice her career at the altar of motherhood.

Woman expects to be wined and dined and had a fuss made over her, thinks it's the role of men to be the breadwinner, don't be surprised if later she also wants to stay home and have her man be the breadwinner.

Someone's talking about their love of Corbyn, don't be surprised if it turns out they also like some of his policies.

Someone has hobbies that they take seriously and compete to a reasonable level, don't be surprised later if they, shock horror, still want to do their hobbies instead of sitting in the house watching Netflix.

Man has persona all about how he should pay, traditional ideas of gentlemanly dating, probably shouldnt be surprised if he has traditional or stereotypical views of other gender roles.

None of those outcomes are inevitable, but they're certainly not unsurprising.

So a woman who wants the whole traditional dating scene, look after me, spoil me etc thing shouldn't be that surprised if a man who holds those traditional/stereotpical views also holds them in other areas.

Totally agree Lola

But Lola, I didn’t say I was particularly surprised by the way my life had panned out.
I always wanted a family. So did DH. We wouldn’t have had 4 DC over a period of 9 years if my priority was going back to work. We wouldn’t have had 4 DC if we’d needed to rely on childcare. I wouldn’t have brought four lives into the world with a man who wouldn’t believed in separate finances. Why the helm would I do that? He wouldn’t have wanted 4 DC with a woman who would struggle being at home with them. So no, it’s nothing particularly shocking here. But I could tell the type of man DH was pretty much from the outset, yes that’s true.

“Believed” not “wouldn’t believed”.

Sorry for all the typos btw. I’m on the phone.

Yes, but there are many women who are attracted to the traditional dating persona you mentioned earlier and then seem surprised down the line if that translates to traditional and stereotpical gender expectations.

It's not an issue in your case as you BOTH hold traditional views on things.

But it's still ridiculous for women to want all the wining/dining/traditional look after me and treat me, and then turn round and be surprised if it's the sign of someone wanting a traditional/old fashioned set up (just like it would be ridiculous for a man to say he loves driven and ambitious women to date a woman who loves her career and then later seem surprised that she isn't going to take a long maternity leave, go part time or stay home).

The issues occur where there's so blatantly a mismatch or one party is holding a ridiculous double standard (e.g I like an ambitious woman... Oh but I also expect you to prioritise our home life and step back when we have children / I want a man who'll look after me and spoil me and treat me like a lady... Oh but I don't want him to expect anything remotely traditional in terms of anything else, no I'm a selective lady, traditional when I want treats but not beyond that)

@matcatwomanheresheis

I think you're conflating two things.

Nobody is knocking your set up. You're a SAHM and he earns outside the home. That's fine.

But the thread isn't about your 'now' setup. It's about what you expect if you were newly dating.

Now in that scenario if you still hold the view that the man should pay, then you need to brace yourself that you'll likely be expected to take a traditional role further down the line.

The landscape has changed. It certainly has for millennials. It's outdated and unfair.

I'm glad it works for them. Each to their own. I have no issue with people making whatever choices suit them.

I just don't think anyone should be surprised if what someone espouses whilst dating links to other related values.

Well, yes!

It's no good to try to say to people 'you should do this' or 'you should do that' where dating/romance/marriage is concerned. They're going to do as they see fit. So long as everyone goes in with their eyes wide open, then this is everything happening as it should.

It would be a great tragedy if a 'traditional' man were to wind up with a 'modern' woman, and they were to spend their lives trying to change one another (or vice versa).

It would be equally horrible if we were to converge into a monoculture where everyone wants the same thing.

Exactly that AhNow.
It's not about criticising how someone else has a happy and healthy relationship.
It's about how communicating particular values when dating is likely to link to values of a relationship.

It would be a great tragedy if a 'traditional' man were to wind up with a 'modern' woman, and they were to spend their lives trying to change one another (or vice versa).
It would.
And it would also be an unfortunate waste of everyone's time if people present as one set of values and then start shifting the goalposts so expecting the traditional set up regarding dates/treats and later wanting the man to be the breadwinner whilst you stay home, but then ending up unhappy in a relationship where the bulk of the home stuff is expected of them.

Well ok Lola, but if you are the kind of woman who responds to a more traditional type of man, you know what you’re dealing with and and potentially getting into and you’re likely to feel ok with that kind of set-up going forward. Otherwise, you just wouldn’t go there would you?

What I think it’s much more dangerous these days is women who “put up” with shoddy behaviour from men, but rather than see it for what it is, they delude themselves it’s what they actually want. So they twist the fact he never pays or makes any effort into “Well I’m independent” / “I’m no princess” / “this is equality” etc etc. Really they are just making excuses and preparing themselves for a life of letting men have their cake and eat it - eg. when they’re stuck at home with several kids and discover he has no concept of shared finances. Suddenly they realise they are not actually independent at all as it turns out, just alone and taken advantage of. Yet they still make excuses for why they would stay in this kind of marriage (if he even does bother to marry them) because “independence.” I hope my daughters never end up with this kind of excuse for a man, that’s all I can say. That’s the true face of misogyny, right there, and so many women get blindsided into it.

Not necessarily. I've known a number of women who seem to think they should be treated like princesses, wined, dined, looked after, man should pay for dates, look after bills and other manly things but think that beyond that everything else should be equal.

There's some bizarre double standards out there

See also, men who apparently want a partnership of equals and a woman who has her own career identity, but seem to stop short of thinking that equality extends to the domestic stuff. So they want financial equality, but think the woman should still do the wife work on top of her career.

I agree with women not putting up with shoddy behaviour, and I'm inclined to agree with you when I see threads like "DP and I decided to keep finances separate and for me to rely largely on his money, sacrifice my earninf and move into his house but I'm not on the deeds, but we don't need marriage because I trust DP". I think there's a LOT of education to be done on financial security.

But that's not what this thread is about. It's about dating behaviour and not paying on dates is totally different to financially screwing over a long term partner. Accepting a man not paying for dates isn't someone convincing themselves they're not a princess, nor is it setting themselves up for a life of letting men have cake and eat it.

@matcatwomanheresheis

There is a huge middle ground of men between the traditional and the penny pincher. Like there's a huge middle ground between the traditional and the abuser.

There's the man who delights in his partner doing well and being independent, as she does for him. They're equals in life, work, childcare, housework and so on.

Yes there is a huge middle ground.

Look I’m just trying to be honest and give my perspective because there’s a lot of sweeping statements and misunderstanding on here imo.