to prefer a man to pay on the first date?

[partie]

I am a woman. I barely go in first dates. When I do I always offer to split and my offer is genuine, and I become prepared to split but I always prefer they pay for the first date and then I grab the second.

The main reasons for this is that is shows they are not stingy, have a genuine interest in me, and in the future if we became a couple it would signal that they would be willing to help me out should I ever become jobless instead of seeing finances as completely separate. This is security I need from a relationship and it would work both ways.

Do you prefer a man to pay on the first date? I am not asking if men should or are obligated, only what your preference is.

YABU- I prefer to split/ I pay
YANBU - I would prefer the man pays

Oh for gods sake.

No, of course not. Same for SAHD.

Attitudes like yours - the weaker sex, traditional roles etc, are regressive.

What kind of logic did you use to pull out that from my post?

@TheHoover

Love your post and you've expressed better than I could.

Have to say though, apart from this thread, I've not come across successful women who expect their partner to earn more. Only on MN!

Because all you talk about is earning potential and career women. Nowhere in your posts do you address the overall happiness and quality of life of women, which is my focus. Your brand of feminism will always just be playing men at their own game, by their own rules, while flatly denying there are any differences between the sexes. It will never, and can never, work for the masses despite whatever scenario goes on under your specific roof.

I’m a woman, date women. If I asked someone out I would offer to pay. Happy to split obvs. And would always offer to split the bill if my date had been the one doing the asking.
it’s absolutely BIZARRE to me that straight people have this ‘man pays’ rule. You want equality? Then it’s equality in everything… these weird power imbalances, and rules and expectations around behaviour that depend on whether you’re the man or woman are so outdated

@ofHardey ’@Realityloom if a woman works she usually gets to keep most of her money for herself which she usually does spend on herself, the kids or smaller stuff for the house (like decor)’

I don’t know which planet you’re on (or maybe you’ve time travelled in from the 1950s?) but I don’t have a single female friend who ‘keeps’ most of her money!
The ones with young kids spend most of it on childcare to enable them to stay at work FFS, or they spend it on their mortgage, bills, car, food, holidays maybe.
pretty much the LAST thing they do it spend it on themselves… or flipping decorating the house.

I don't know what your "job" is, or if you are a SAHM, but whatever, you have far too much time on your hands.

Every other post is from you, battling on and on and on, that you are definitely right, all from who pays for the first date.

If you are a stay-at-home mum, I will laugh if I ever see you on here saying being a SAHM is hard work, given the amount of time you have on your hands.

Honestly, your attitude is so outdated, those days are long gone.

Parents share responsibilities, childcare, money, housework now, they really do.

Ah, more judgement

And..............

I hear so much on here about how hard it is for SAHM, maybe both parents should work part time and both enjoy the obvious benefits of both?

I find it odd how some women on here seem only able to conceive of 'equality' as having a job and a husband who does housework or whatever. As if this is the end all and be all! To me, this is a very insecure and narrow concept of equality.

if you KNOW you are equal to any man you may choose to date and / or end up with and you are confident about that, then there is no need to feel 'threatened' or aggravated by him paying for you or whatever. In other worlds, you have the self-confidence to accept a man treating you differently to the way he might treat one of his mates or s non-romantic partner. It's a respectful gesture - no more. It doesn't mean he sees you as 'lesser' or some kind of dimwit fgs. It's just being a gentleman and there is nothing wrong with that. If you don't particularly feel or appreciate that kind of dynamic in the way you relate to your husband, then that's absolutely fine. But some couples just naturally gravitate to more distinct behaviours (if you can call it that). It's not 'wrong.' It's just people being who they are.

Hi

Qualified accountant here. Over £50k, under £100k as ball park of the level I was at. Worked full time prior to DC. Now SAHM to DS and DTwins. I can therefore directly compare the two.

Being a SAHM is harder. I don't have much useful spare time. Not like my lunch breaks at work, where I could walk peacefully into town, have a coffee, scroll on my phone. Yes, I'd have to perform difficult financial tasks throughout the day, which took mental concentration, but that was that. I wouldn't complain about it being difficult, that's what my "job" was. But I went to work, had to concern myself with nothing but my job and myself during those hours

As a SAHM, I mentally juggle everyone's load, all day. It's again, my "job" so I'm not complaining. All the stuff that would be shared in a 50/50 set up, I do most of. As I type this, I'm on hold to a clothes store because they've messed up DD's order, and waiting for the floor sealant I've just redone the dining room with to dry. I enjoy my days. They're harder in the sense, I don't just go in, do the specific thing I'm paid for, and go, but have to remember everything...because that's the whole point of me not doing paid employment, to do this. I have my own room which is like an office/work hub where I call the electrician, the plumber, the supermarket, the travel agent, the school, send emails, find the car we want to buy, the lightbulbs for the light that's just blown. That's before I do 5 people's laundry, clean the house, meal prep, and anything else that may have occurred. I have it all fine tuned to somewhat of a military operation. Paid employment is like a holiday in comparison, in the mental load sense...but for fulfillment, and personal happiness for our family, ours is the option I'd want every time. Our weekends are our own entirely because all the work (mine and DH's) is done by the weekend.

Yeah, we could have an extra £70k if I went full time again. It's not worth it, for the benefits we have for me staying at home, and that's both mine, and DH's opinion.

@StarmanBobby ... no need to be so rude. I haven't time travelled from 1950. Im actually very much a part of the present and if this doesn't align with your perceptions of the world then it's possible its still a way of life or reality for others.

Of course you would say it is harder.......I disagree.

Also having done both.

I concur re being a SAHM is much harder than working - I’ve never been a SAHM but am currently on my second mat leave and it’s bloody Groundhog Day.

Nobody is knocking SAHP. If that’s a choice you can afford, it works for you both, and you have equal access to money, free time etc, that’s fantastic. And I agree, working outside the home is far easier.

Where things got let’s say contentious, is this idea about women being inherently weaker, and needed to blag a traditional man to support us, as we’d never beat them at their own game, and we just had to accept that. It’s utter nonsense.

I think the man (if we're talking heterosexual couples here) ought to pay, in recognition of the fact that women are running a larger risk by meeting a relative stranger than a man is. Obviously most first dates aren't going to end in violence, rape, stalking, unwanted pregnancy, etc., but those risks do exist. A little show of appreciation along the lines of "Hey, I'm really glad you trust me enough to do this" would be a nice token.

However I realise I am probably in a minority of one in this eccentric view and I would never actually expect or request it! I have usually paid my own way on dates, except in cases in which a man said he would like to treat me.

if a woman works she usually gets to keep most of her money for herself which she usually does spend on herself, the kids or smaller stuff for the house (like decor)

That is one highly inaccurate sweeping generalisation. Our incomes were pooled and all bills paid out of our joint income.

AhNowTed - I don't think anyone is saying women are inherently unable to "beat men at their game." They are just saying that some women realise that fundamentally, even winning at that game does not necessarily equate to a happier life.

Why "of course" would I say it was harder?

That's kind of the whole point of the narrow thought processing on this thread. As PP perfectly wrote, if one choice "doesn't align with your perceptions of the world then it's possible its still a way of life or reality for others"

You think being a SAHM mum is easier. It it/was for you. Glad to hear it. That was your experience.

I think being a SAHM is harder. Good for me. That's my experience.

See how I can just accept that's your valid, and truthful, lived experience without, "well of course that's what you'd say"

As opposed to your "If you are a stay-at-home mum, I will laugh if I ever see you on here saying being a SAHM is hard work"

Superb post.

Sorry what did I just read. A child-free woman getting to the top of a profession she's passionare about is... not a real woman? Basically a man? That is so wildly insulting.

As a child-free woman who's thrown herself into her career, I can assure you I don't feel like I'm living my life as a man.

This fixation on cocklodgers is so unhelpful too; it simply fails to recognise that women can have the potential to earn significantly more than men.

Precisely.

The fixation also doesn't seem to take into account that there should be ample time between the first date and the aforementioned cock doing any sort of lodging in which you can detect and weed out potentially toxic behaviour.

Ultimately you can't divine anything about a man's character from a couple of hours on a first date, though the "he should pay" squad seem to think it's a certain sign.

Maybe you should have read it one more time then?
She is obviously a woman, but she does not represent the pinnacle of sex-based equality as a PP tried to imply earlier.

For instance, I've been a SAHM since my first DC and they're all teens now. I live in an area with a lot of SAHMs (in our 'circles' the vast majority of women are SAHMs, definitely in the primary school years).

These are not women who has no other options. They just get to a certain age - maybe around 30. Yes they have their degrees and are in whatever career path they are in. All well and good. But they look at their lives and think - is this it? It's not that they CAN'T keep going on the corporate track or whatever career they had in mind. It's not a weakness or lack of confidence. More that they reach a point where they want a shift - or something else from life. They want a family and want to be free and unimpeded to put their energies into the children they bring into tue world, without additionally having to contend with the demands of a career at the same time. They just see more to life, basically.

Obviously it's a very privileged position to be in at all and most women these days don't have any choice but to juggle between work and kids. But I do think that even where families claim to be totally 50/50, women are still nearly always are taking on the majority of the mental load when it comes to children. Women nearly always feel more guilt than their husbands about being away from the kids (and it's too simplistic to just write this off as social conditioning, there's more to it than that). Too many times, having it all is a euphemism for doing it all (or most if it). It takes a toll on women's mental and physical health because they feel dragged in too many directions. Of course that's not to suggest for one minute that women should just give up career aspirations. Not at all! But it does women no favours to deny 'difference'.

Wish MN had a "like" button.