First dates... splitting the bill.

[NovemberMorn]

Is it unreasonable to expect the male to pay the full bill on a first date dining out?
I watch the programme 'First Dates' on TV, and it amazes me how, in this day and age, so many women either don't offer to split the food bill, or mutter something half-heartedly as the man gets his cc out, obviously not expecting to pay a penny.

I’d rather pay my way

@JenniferBooth Interested to hear your take on "feminism"...

Aside from my family, I share the cost with everyone I go out with.

@DalzielOrNoDalzielAndDontPascoe Absolutely this. Looking at this thread though, many women are still happy to perpetuate this misogynistic stance.
It's the "proper" thing for a man pays for me, right? After all, I'm a woman and he's a man so by that very virtue I can't possibly pay for the food I eat with a stranger.

"Obviously I'd offer to split but would be unhappy if he took me up on it"

No wonder autistic people struggle with social interactions when there's people playing games like this. Why bother offering? So you get to look all independent without the actual effort of it?

The classism from that one PP was so ridiculous!

Such a disgusting part of British culture.

Thanks for simply being honest. The twisting and turning some women do to try and paint a picture of why men should pay is laughable.

Why can’t people just be honest and say “it’s one of the gender role traditions I like.”

@JHound Because they will then have to admit to being in the "feminism when it suits me" brigade.

I have turned up on many a date with unshaven legs.

I actually remove my leg hair very infrequently and I have yet to meet a man who even noticed.

Although I am sure most men would not rock up to a date with unkempt facial hair and greasy uncombed hair.

Of course! 😂

That’s why it makes me laugh.

Well I’ve learned from this thread that the fact I’m well presented and shave my legs means I’m not a feminist

This thread is like going back to the 70’s with its outdated attitudes

It is an old-fashioned view that men should pay, on a first date, second date, every date.
That just isn't practical anymore, but it was when women earned a pittance compared to the average male.
I suppose womens inequality had to have some perks, and expecting a man to pay for them when out, was very acceptable back in the day.

It surprises me that modern women still expect this, on the TV show, it makes them look like scroungers.

You seem quite dictatorial. You seem to think there is a right way and a wrong way to behave, when in fact dating is all about working out compatibility and trying to figure people out. No two people are looking for the same thing in a partner, I'm not sure why you think everyone should behave in the same way on this.

Unashamedly showing your disdain for other women's choices. Lap dogs!

A woman can believe in equal rights and still enjoy traditional gender roles. You're conflating different things.

I suppose a sensible way is whoever requests the date is the person to pay.

I would always have the means to pay on a first date just in case, though I have never needed to as there has never been any hint to suggest I should.
When I was dating my DH, he paid for our first date and I paid for few subsequent dates.

He pays for everything now I don't work.

It just infantilises women when they assume that a big strong man will pay for them, because 'that's what men do' - as if they were a young kid who doesn't think for a second about paying for a family meal out, because that's obviously mum or dad's job and far beyond what they could possibly do yet.

On the current WASPI thread, there are people saying that women should still retire at 60, because that's just what women deserve; that keeping abreast of current affairs and the extensive cross-media news is too difficult for a lot of women, considering all of the 'lady things' that they already have to think about in life; that men's pension age going up from an already 5 year higher point is fine and nothing to be concerned about or compensate for, as big strong men can work a lot longer and understand the news and don't need their adult hands holding or to make a fuss about it changing.

Do we want equality or don't we? Because partial equality is no equality at all.

Are we to assume that all of the women asserting that they expect a man to pay for a meal on a first date, as it's proof that he is a decent sort, is solvent and isn't tight are thus acknowledging that they themselves are not decent, not solvent and are tight?

@DalzielOrNoDalzielAndDontPascoe

'Do we want equality or don't we? Because partial equality is no equality at all.'

I've seen a few people make this point. Supporting equal rights for women in law is irrelevant to having a dinner bought for you. Why conflate the two?

I think the equality issue is a red herring. A man paying on a first date has nothing to do with equality for me. I am often the breadwinner in relationships and pay my fair share when things get serious. I have also been told I 'wear the trousers' in a relationship, so if there's any inequality it goes the other way.

People overthink this discussion. In some circles, it really isn't even a talking point. The man always pays on the first date because it's good manners and a lovely thing to do. That's it. The man doesn't then draw any conclusions from it, like 'she wants to be treated like a princess', 'she's a gold digger' or 'she owes me sex'.

But a lot of women will disdain traditional gender roles and the belief they should be proscribed….

While shaming men for not being “providers” or paying for dates. It’s a weird double standard which they should just acknowledge hiding instead of twisting and turning to find weird justification!

Also there is some clear water between personally liking traditional gender roles and shaming others for not adhering to them.

Or for picking and choosing which traditional gender roles are ok and which are not.

So do you only want an equal society when it's strictly a matter of the law?

You wouldn't object to being asked/expected to go and make the tea and sandwiches every time for a work meeting of people of equal seniority if you were the only woman there?

You wouldn't object when people blame a child's mother for not doing something for them, even though the child's father would have been equally fully capable of doing it?

You don't object to people sighing negatively at "women drivers" or men telling them to "Cheer up, love!" in the street?

The hard-fought-for and hard-won equal legal rights for women haven't been achieved in a vacuum. They've come about as a reflection of a society as a whole that refuses to accept grossly sexist assumptions and treatment, even in cases where women previously benefited (albeit often by being patronised, undervalued and infantilised).

Do we want equality or don't we? Because partial equality is no equality at all.

Agree. So a woman paying for dinner doesn't magically make women equal to men . It just means we're still fucked over by patriarchy and we pay for dinner.

People overthink this discussion. In some circles, it really isn't even a talking point. The man always pays on the first date because it's good manners and a lovely thing to do.

How is that in any way a reason? Are women not interested in doing lovely things for other people? Do we just automatically assume that men are the kind, considerate, caring sex?!

You're mixing up societal expectations with equal rights.

'Also there is some clear water between personally liking traditional gender roles and shaming others for not adhering to them.' There are far more women who are shamed for being housewives than there are for working. Just look at the comments in this thread alone.

'Or for picking and choosing which traditional gender roles are ok and which are not.' Again, what has that got to do with equal rights in law?