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’m not mixing up anything.

I just know how to read a thread and a comment.

Try it.

Not necessarily, though equal rights in law is the most important thing. It means women are not legally prevented from doing anything that a man can do.

'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?' This would come under discrimination laws.

'You don't object to people sighing negatively at "women drivers" or men telling them to "Cheer up, love!" in the street?' You mean like 'white van drivers' or 'male, pale and stale'? Negative stereotypes exist for both sexes. Not sure how you can police that or why you would want to, it is a natural part of any society.
I suppose it depends on the individual when it comes to their opinion on being catcalled. I can't say it has every bothered me. Again, irrelevant to equal rights.... Anyhow, I just looked this up and there are plans to make this illegal.

Let me put this plainly. Does being a SAHM who doesn't pay for dates mean that woman can not support equal rights for women?

Interesting that all the responses seem to consider that the options at are:
i) man pays; or
ii) split the bill

No one even seems to consider iii) woman picks up the bill, which would surely also be an option if all things were equal?

I’m always confused when it’s said a man should pay because it’s good manners to do so.
Are manners really judged my someone’s wallet now?
Id say sitting on your hands just letting him pay without a word is pretty poor manners imo.

I couldn’t just sit there and let a man pick up the bill without offering to contribute. I’d be ashamed of myself. In my experience men usually always refuse and say it’s on them but to not even offer - no that’s just so rude and entitled imo.

If I was invited on a date I would be expecting the other person to pay, the same as if I invited someone on a date I would expect to cover the bill. In my opinion, if you invite someone on a date and you pick the place then it's a bit unreasonable to expect them to pay for it.

However like other posters have mentioned in the ages of tinder and almost treadmill like dating it becomes more complicated. I think maybe a sit down meal is quite formal for a first date if you're dating online - coffee or something could be better and more affordable.

I agree re a more casual first date.

I find the whole dinner dates thing quite cringey and outdated tbh. Food breaks up the flow of conversation plus the horror of having to do 3 courses of you’re not feeling it is awful.

Drinks is far easier however I expect there’s some who would still sit on their hands and let him go back up the bar again rather than get their own debit card out for round two.

At nice cocktail bars and the like, there is no 'getting up to buy a drink from the bar', you get a bill at the end as you would with dinner. And the man will pick it up.

Where it's buying rounds, I do actually offer to pay, and the man almost always says no.

Why should the man pay

if he has a few first dates it will cost him a fortune

50/50

Not dictatorial at all, giving my own view based on facts, then and now.
Have I touched a nerve?

Would be a first.

Not really. I just don't see why your preference for splitting the bill, should impact on my preference to alternate?

Bill should be split unless you are an escort or sugar baby

I wasn't talking about alternating, I was talking about women who expect a man to pay for them.
I also said women who did expect that were scroungers...that seemed to rile you for some reason.

What would I respond to your strawman.

I made no mention of being a SAHM or belief in equality laws so aim your strawman at somebody who did.

Respond to what was actually written. Not what you chose to read.

You missed out the ones who pay alternatively and pick up the whole bill when they pay, as does the man in his turn.

If its equality you are after it is shared and equal not aiming to take over and copying the patriarchal stance.

Are you being serious? I responded to you at 14:35. Your 'response' to that wasn't a response at all, it was a sarky deflection and I quote: 'I’m not mixing up anything. I just know how to read a thread and a comment. Try it.'

It was no attempt at a strawman, it is on topic. We were discussing gender roles and there relationship to equality. It is you who opened this dialogue when you quoted my comment 'A woman can believe in equal rights and still enjoy traditional gender roles.'

Follow the thread.

First date - split bill. If relationship continue - one pays, then the other next time.
I'm married and this is how myself and husband still do things. I personally wouldn't want / accept him paying for me on every date. Equality is just that.

@LaceApplique Totally disagree. Define what you mean by "traditional gender roles" and I'll highlight the inherent misogyny.

You totally disagree with what? My assertation that a woman can enjoy traditional gender roles whilst believing equal rights?

Typically, traditional gender roles are that of a male provider and female homemaker. A couple can have this relationship dynamic without being 'inherently misogynistic.'

@LaceApplique It's certainly not a relationship dynamic I would choose nor recommend. Incredibly risky for the woman too.

Just because you wouldn't choose it, it does not mean that women who do have no belief in women's rights. You are not all women.

@LaceApplique And my own PERSONAL view is that the two are incompatible.
There are many different choices I have made to most married women because of my beliefs e.g. title and name change etc.

So why do you think the two are incompatible? Isn't it deeply misogynistic to tell other women they don't believe in equal rights because they are a SAHM.

The misogyny of that dynamic is a structural one, because it's not actually a niche choice that couples opt into. It comes with a mountain of expectations and judgments, and an unending tide of rhetoric about how those traditional gender roles are "natural" (implying that those who don't wish to fulfil them are deviant). That dynamic, and the institutions that have promoted and enforced it, has historically been a tool to oppress women and hold them back. And it still is. Women still have to fight to break out of it, both in their personal lives and on a political level.

The traditions of a society built on patriarchal values are inherently patriarchal themselves. How could they not be?