# Chivalry, diamonds, and economics.



## SoWhat (Jan 7, 2012)

Do "traditional" expressions of courtship, chivalry, and displays of affection make less sense, post-feminism? 

That is, the idea of spending 2-3 (or more) months' salary for a diamond ring was promulgated by advertisers in the 1930s and 40s. The "economic pie" was more dominated by men at that point. A higher percentage of men made more money than women at that point.

As the pie evens out more and more - a good thing, to be sure - it seems to make less sense to spend so much money on a diamond ring. The chances that your wife makes as much money as you are much greater now.
Now you are sacrificing $X,000 for conformity to this social expectation. Which is a beautiful thing and all, but it lacks a female-to-male analogue at present to "even things out" economically.

I'm not saying "Men and women SHOULD be tit-for-tat!" 
I'm wondering if this is sustainable. I'm not talking about what's ethically right or wrong
Will men be willing to keep this relatively-new custom alive? 


I wondered about this sort of thing when I'd go out to bars. Men would buy women who were their financial equals all their drinks. Buying a woman's time for courtship purposes via the purchase of a drink may have made more sense when the woman was almost certainly a much lower earner than you. One side of that 'transaction' had a much larger slice of the economic pie; the gift becomes sort of a 'leveling'. 

Is this still sustainable ? 

I think the balancing of economic power is a great thing. I think it's morally correct and I hope we continue to work to defeat sexism. 

I just think some of these pre-feminist social artifacts don't seem as tenable when we DO even out the playing field. At one time, one gender started off ahead - gifts from that gender to the opposite essentially operated to lessen the relative economic disparity. 

If the two genders make the same amount, these sorts of unilateral social expectations don't lessen any economic disparity - they create it. 

Thoughts?


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

The gift of a wedding ring comes from the concept of a bride gift. While the idea of a diamond, or other expensive gem stone, ring might be relatively new. The idea of a give and expensive jewelry as a gift are not new at all.

In some societies the groom gave his bride a substantial gift that was basically enough to support her should things go wrong; like he dies or he leaves her. In Europe a single women could own land, real estate, hold cash and other investments. However when the woman married, everything except her jewelry passed through to her husband. Hence a bride gift of expensive jewelry for the engagement, the wedding and at other times during the marriage was a way for the husband to give his wife a substantial gift that was truly hers. 

Many parents also purchased expensive jewelry for their daughters for the same reason.. her husband could not touch it.

Even today, many men here in the USA who are wealthy marry trophy wives. In these cases I think that men will still need to provide a nice big rock and other expensive jewelry to keep his trophy. 

But in marriages where incomes are more equal I see a lot more equity in this area. While a lot of men still buy expensive engagement rings, a lot of women are buying expensive rings for their fiancé as well. I think that this will become more and more normal.


----------



## that_girl (Jul 6, 2011)

Our wedding rings were 20 bucks from a kiosk in the mall.

We're not traditional in that aspect. The material aspect of love doesn't mean much.


----------



## SockPuppet (May 16, 2011)

My brother just got engaged, and his fiance bought him an engagement/marriage band that cost twice as much as her engagement ring (which wasnt cheap), and something he (and she) enjoy bragging about.

The amount of money I put down on my wifes engagement ring was something I never thought twice about. I had an idea of the cut and ring style she was interested in, and I found that the meaning behind the ring greatly outwayed cost. That being said it was relatively cheap.

Interesting points you make, SoWhat.


----------



## that_girl (Jul 6, 2011)

Chivalry is awesome though.

I love when Hubs moves quickly to open a door before I get there. I love when he pulls out chairs at dinner for me. I love when he leads me into a room with his hand on my lower back. I love that he walks on the outside of the sidewalk when we're walking down the street. I love that he holds my hand for no reason. I love that I know that if I needed him to...he would save the day. Although, I can save my own days.  It's just nice to know that he WOULD save the day if I asked.


----------



## SoWhat (Jan 7, 2012)

To be honest, I don't know why I included chivalry. Doesn't seem very on-point when I look back to the original post!


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

Why would a man be guided by such things? Where would his individuality be? Surely he’d just be Mr Vanilla? Anyway I’d argue that some feminism is sexism at its core yet you truly believe it’s defeating sexism.


----------



## Syrum (Feb 22, 2011)

The idea that women earn the same as and often more then most men is false.

Statistics show that women, even in the same jobs still usually earn less then men. 

It honestly does bother me when men don't offer to pay for drinks and dates, and just makes me feel that they are either tight with money or just not really that into me. 
As for the ring, I haven't ever bee with a man who wanted an engagement ring, but yes the engagement ring is symbolic to me, ad as you are supposed to wear it forever it should be something a lot of thought is put into, no matter how much is spent.


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

Spending any sizeable amount of money on a diamond is just stupid no matter the purpose. That whole industry is just scam. I would say take that money and put it into the account for a purchase of a home or something like that. 

I don't think the expectation that a woman spend the same amount on a man will ever be there for romantic gifts. Men are expected to be the chasers and one of the ways to get his bride is to provide her with romantic gifts. The better the gift the more he seperates himself from other men that may also be chasing.


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

Syrum said:


> The idea that women earn the same as and often more then most men is false.
> 
> Statistics show that women, even in the same jobs still usually earn less then men.
> 
> ...


With women getting more college degrees they won't be working the same jobs for long


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

Not too sure that I like the idea of making my potential wife pay it forward when it comes to the social expectations of others. I could care less what she can/cannot afford, but the desire to buy her a ring comes from me, and my own feelings for her, and not a vague need for social equality. I think its important that each person consider what the customs in marriage mean to them. Going into the wedding, I knew that my wife had always dreamed of a beautiful, elaborate wedding, which she paid for, at a cost of about five times that of the ring I gave her. People can call it a waste, but now, 24 years later, we can throw away more money than that on a weekend getaway and forget it quickly, but we never forget the ring and wedding.

I really like the viewpoint of others who don't see importance in nice rings and weddings. The way they view marriage is just as beautiful, and relevant, but probably has a lot to do with what types of people we choose as partners. 

I also suspect that those who press their desire to see the traditional roles extinguished will get exactly that in a marriage.


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

I think it goes even further than extinguishing the traditional roles in a marriage. In that the roles become competitive rather than complimentary. And then when the woman, wife, outshines, out competes her husband she starts to look down on him and lose her respect for him. And the husband starts to lose his self-respect and self-esteem and it’s downhill for him from then on. Not saying he didn’t get himself there in the first place but the only way out is probably to leave his wife.

It’s this competition of the sexes inherent in and embraced by the modern day feminists that I think is so very wrong. I think of it as being sexist. Far better to talk on equal rights as they do here in Portugal.

But in my experience there are always those who are first to the bar and those who are last, irrespective of what their gender is! Just another excuse to be last as far as I’m concerned.


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

Syrum said:


> The idea that women earn the same as and often more then most men is false.
> 
> Statistics show that women, even in the same jobs still usually earn less then men.
> 
> ...


Surely that’s having the feminist cake and eating it at the same time. It’s at least very conflicting and at worse very hypocritical. You obviously just want equality in certain things yet not in others. If I was to date a self declared feminist she’d most certainly be expected to pick up half the tab if not all of it. Else she’d have absolutely no respect from me and most certainly never a second date no matter what her other attributes because she’d have no credibility whatsoever.


----------



## SoWhat (Jan 7, 2012)

Syrum said:


> The idea that women earn the same as and often more then most men is false.
> 
> Statistics show that women, even in the same jobs still usually earn less then men.
> 
> ...




It's evening out and pretty close in most areas. 

Syrum, let me reverse your quote:
"It honestly does bother me when *women* don't offer to pay for drinks and dates, and just makes me feel that they are either tight with money or just not really that into me." 

Seems less sensible, right? 
That's because the traditional social mores don't have women - who were in a comparatively weaker economic position 10, 50, 100, and 200 years ago than now - paying for meals or drinks. 

But we should eliminate gender-biased social roles, right? Like men getting paid more than women, men having greater legal rights (old "head and master" laws, etc), women making less on the dollar for the same job, and men buying women drinks, meals, and absurdly-priced rocks whose value is artificially increased by cartel-like behavior from the suppliers. 

I don't think it's a sustainable position to say "Women make the same as men" AND "Men should expend more in an effort to 'win' a girl than a girl does to 'win' a man." As the relative economic positions of the two get closer, it seems natural that these sorts of customs will die out.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Syrum said:


> It honestly does bother me when men don't offer to pay for drinks and dates, and just makes me feel that they are either tight with money or just not really that into me.


Not a bad perspective, and frankly, one that I share.

I always pick up the tab on dates 1 and 2. If she doesn't offer to pick up the tab or throw herself at me by date 3 ... then I apply your logic. She's tight, or just not that into me. Won't be a date #4.

I will state that most of the women I've dated, have offered or insisted on paying for dates.

I most definitely don't do 'courting' any more. At least not where money is concerned.


----------



## Enchantment (May 11, 2011)

SoWhat said:


> Do "traditional" expressions of courtship, chivalry, and displays of affection make less sense, post-feminism?


Admittedly some of the customs, such as giving a betrothal/engagement gift (in many cases a ring), were a result of the social order of the time. I thought this article was kind of fascinating because I hadn't looked specifically in to the custom of an engagement ring before: Engagement ring - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At this point in time, many of the reasons for the origination of an engagement ring may no longer exist, so it more depends upon what custom the couple would like to follow.

I know that when I got engaged, I didn't want an engagement ring. I asked my H if he wanted both of us to wear promise rings and he didn't, so we didn't do an engagement ring and we just have matching wedding bands. At the decade anniversaries, he has given me rings, though. 

I think one of the problems that I see in today's world, is that there's kind of confused 'rules' of courting or dating anymore. I honestly do not know what they are. But, I do know that if anything ever happened to my H, I would be most content to remain on my own. I'm sure that I would have a hard time navigating the craziness I perceive dating to be now. Maybe that's why some people still cling to the traditional trappings even though the reasons for having those in the first place may no longer be applicable.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

I'm ok with leaving chivalry in the equation.

I have a personal code of conduct. I follow it, or certainly strive to, and it functions off of the simple premise of treating everyone with respect ... until they have dictated through their behavior to be treated otherwise.

A woman either appreciates it, or she doesn't. But if it's something that I do regardless, than I'm not tying whether or not she's 'impressed' by the behavior itself.


----------



## 2nd_t!me iz_best (Feb 28, 2011)

AFEH said:


> Surely that’s having the feminist cake and eating it at the same time. It’s at least very conflicting and at worse very hypocritical. You obviously just want equality in certain things yet not in others. If I was to date a self declared feminist she’d most certainly be expected to pick up half the tab if not all of it. Else she’d have absolutely no respect from me and most certainly never a second date no matter what her other attributes because she’d have no credibility whatsoever.


so a woman cant be a feminist and still be treated as a woman?
i dont agree with that at all.
why cant a woman expect to be treated equally in the work place, politics or any other aspect of life and still be a woman at the same time.
not all are extremists. 
syrum does believe in equality, which i do too, but is still very much a feminine woman. 
i too believe a man should pay for things when he is able to.
i payed for things when i was able to with her, ALWAYS opened the car doors, entrance and exit doors and other things such as that.


----------



## SecondTimesTheCharm (Dec 30, 2011)

I spent about 2.5 months salary on my DW's ring and would have spent even more if I could have. She loves her ring and gets complimented on it all the time and, best of all, I included her in the process as I thought her loving her ring was more valuable than me surprising her with a ring.

She spoiled me with my ring, as well, as we had a custom ring made from an out of state jeweler and had to fly 500+ miles away for the final design and fitting and it was shipped just in time for the wedding. LOVE my wedding band and it one of a kind, for sure.

We had a pretty nice wedding, as well. Nothing to compare to a celebrity wedding, by any means, but, for us it was very nice with 250 guests in a very nice hall that had a rooftop terrace where we had our actual ceremony. Started out with a very nice traditional wedding gown on my DW and then halfway through the reception, she changed into a second wedding gown, one that was much sexier and easier to dance the night away in.

Each a live band and a deejay, open bar, all kinds of different food (from Middle Eastern food, to sushi to Mexican food) and a Chocolate multi-tiered wedding cake.

We did have to skimp a little on the honeymoon (one week at a luxury resort in the Mexican Riviera) but that was ok and we had a great time.

Given that neither of us ever hopes to go through another wedding (my second, her first), I don't regret the amount that we spent, although nearly 3 years later, we are still carrying a little bit of credit card debt for it all. 

Although we are hurting right now, like so many others are, I still am glad that we gave our engagement, wedding, wedding reception and honeymoon our all.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

2nd_t!me iz_best said:


> so a woman cant be a feminist and still be treated as a woman?
> i dont agree with that at all.
> why cant a woman expect to be treated equally in the work place, politics or any other aspect of life and still be a woman at the same time.
> not all are extremists.
> ...


Why should a woman not pay for a date? Why should a woman not be an equal in the dating scene? Are they some how not capable of paying for a date? Frankly, a woman who refuses to pay for any date has an attitude that would turn me off, but to each their own.

While I paid more often when my wife and I dated, she certainly picked up the tab on a number of occasions. She initially made more than I did. At the time, we could have conformed to the social expectations, or had fun together. We chose the second option.


----------



## SecondTimesTheCharm (Dec 30, 2011)

Deejo said:


> I always pick up the tab on dates 1 and 2. If she doesn't offer to pick up the tab or throw herself at me by date 3 ... then I apply your logic. She's tight, or just not that into me. Won't be a date #4.


In this day and age, a woman should put out by the third date, or there shouldn't have been a third date to begin with. 

First date - Getting to know the other person...seeing if there is a chemistry...kiss on the cheek if still not sure, or kiss on the mouth either during the date and to close the date if there is chemistry. 

Personally, I have not asked out on a second date a very attractive woman I went on a date with because she had a strict "no kissing on the first date rule." I mean the chemistry seemed great...we were laughing, holding hands, had a romantic dinner, saw a Shakespeare Under The Stars type play at an outdoor theater on a nice summer night while downing a bottle of wine, bust, still, no kiss! Too many other fish in the sea for those kinds of antics.

Second date - If not sure about chemistry yet, well, now is the chance for women (and men) to figure it out. Could be a very physical date if there is chemistry or, at a minimum, kiss on the mouth to end the date. If no kiss on the mouth to end the date, there shouldn't even be a third date.

Third date - I dated a lot of women between marriages and only on a couple occasions did a woman not wish to engage in at least oral sex by the third date and when that happened, I didn't bother continue asking her out...but, I do think each time that did happen, she at least picked up the tab, which was probably her "out" for not putting out!


----------



## 2nd_t!me iz_best (Feb 28, 2011)

Tall Average Guy said:


> Why should a woman not pay for a date? Why should a woman not be an equal in the dating scene? Are they some how not capable of paying for a date? Frankly, a woman who refuses to pay for any date has an attitude that would turn me off, but to each their own.
> 
> While I paid more often when my wife and I dated, she certainly picked up the tab on a number of occasions. She initially made more than I did. At the time, we could have conformed to the social expectations, or had fun together. We chose the second option.


believe me, she paid a lot more than i did towards us seeing each other. i felt pretty awkward about that.
just my personal opinion, when able to, i believe the man should pay. just my own opinion.
i dont see anything wrong with a woman having eqaul rights in the world and a man still treating her as a lady. i valued her time she chose to spend with me and would have paid any amount of money i had to spend my time with her.

i think men who feel threatened by women think they should not be treated as ladies.


----------



## 2nd_t!me iz_best (Feb 28, 2011)

*Dean* said:


> Time to put on my father hat.
> 
> Both my daughters (mid 20's, college grads, good jobs) split the bill on dates.
> 
> Say there is no pressure later....


i think that is fine if they are not in a real relationship and they feel better about it themselves.


----------



## SecondTimesTheCharm (Dec 30, 2011)

Personally, I think a man should pay for the first couple dates...the way I looked at it, I had to eat anyway, and enjoyed fine wining and dining, so if a restaurant bill cost $120, I didn't look at it like $120 but rather looked at it like I spent $60...and $60, in my book, is a small price to pay for an intimate evening that could very well lead to sex with a woman that I found worthy enough to ask out in the first place.

I was never a believer in "meeting for coffee" or "meeting for drinks" as I thought that was for men who were either not that into the woman or for men that couldn't be bothered to spend a little on a nice evening.


----------



## 2nd_t!me iz_best (Feb 28, 2011)

SecondTimesTheCharm said:


> I was never a believer in "meeting for coffee" or "meeting for drinks" as I thought that was for men who were either not that into the woman or for men that couldn't be bothered to spend a little on a nice evening.


:iagree:


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

2nd_t!me iz_best said:


> believe me, she paid a lot more than i did towards us seeing each other. i felt pretty awkward about that.
> just my personal opinion, when able to, i believe the man should pay. just my own opinion.
> i dont see anything wrong with a woman having eqaul rights in the world and a man still treating her as a lady. i valued her time she chose to spend with me and would have paid any amount of money i had to spend my time with her.


Big difference between wanting to treat a woman like a lady, and that woman demanding that a man pay for every date. If a woman wants to be treated as equal to a man (a very reasonable and fair request, IMHO), they should not get to do so only to their benefit.



> i think men who feel threatened by women think they should not be treated as ladies.


I was never threatened when my wife picked up the check when we were dating. Was I not treating her as a lady? I think I was, by not assuming she was incapable of taking care of herself and of us. YMMV.


----------



## I'mAllIn (Oct 20, 2011)

So for those of you currently dating, does it matter who asks whom on the date?

I hear a lot of my single female friends say that their man friends asked them on the first couple of dates, and paid, but after that they were just as likely to invite him out, in which case they would pay. Does that sound reasonable?

I'm just damn glad I don't have to date now. It's all too complicated!


----------



## 2nd_t!me iz_best (Feb 28, 2011)

Tall Average Guy said:


> I was never threatened when my wife picked up the check when we were dating. Was I not treating her as a lady? I think I was, by not assuming she was incapable of taking care of herself and of us. YMMV.


im not saying there is anything wrong with this, i accepted lots more than my fair share in my last relationship.what im talking about is men who expect this.

I'mAllIn	
Re: Chivalry, diamonds, and economics.
So for those of you currently dating, does it matter who asks whom on the date?



> So for those of you currently dating, does it matter who asks whom on the date?
> 
> I hear a lot of my single female friends say that their man friends asked them on the first couple of dates, and paid, but after that they were just as likely to invite him out, in which case they would pay. Does that sound reasonable?


this sounds reasonable however, if i was able, i would still offer.
if i valued spending time with someone, i would be willing to spend the money if i had it.


----------



## FirstYearDown (Sep 15, 2011)

If I dated a man close to my age, I did not mind paying my share or taking turns.

If a man was more than five years my senior, I would not pay for anything. He would likely be making more than double what I do, so why should I have paid? 

This mindset came from dating guys who only wanted to use me for sex, with no courting or romance. I was such a nice and sweet young woman until these men crossed me; I didn't care that they didn't think I was worth the cash. After that, I became much more mercenary. 

My husband swept me off my feet and gallantly paid for most of our dates, until I started to offer. Even then, he would ask me to put away my wallet. A real man knows how to treat a lady.


----------



## 2nd_t!me iz_best (Feb 28, 2011)

FirstYearDown said:


> If I dated a man close to my age, I did not mind paying my share or taking turns.
> 
> If a man was more than five years my senior, I would not pay for anything. He would likely be making more than double what I do, so why should I have paid?
> 
> ...


hey firstyeardown...in an igloo 

i think this is a good mind set.
i dont know why a lot of guys think that a dinner or drinks automatically means they have earned sex.
thats idiotic.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

FirstYearDown said:


> If I dated a man close to my age, I did not mind paying my share or taking turns.
> 
> If a man was more than five years my senior, I would not pay for anything. He would likely be making more than double what I do, so why should I have paid?


Why shouldn't you pay, at least some times, regardless of income? This is an honest question, as many have made the point that a woman does not need a man and should be his equal. Why should he be required to take care of her? Why can't she contribute as well. It seems contrary, so any explanation would be helpful.



> This mindset came from dating guys who only wanted to use me for sex, with no courting or romance. I was such a nice and sweet young woman until these men crossed me; I didn't care that they didn't think I was worth the cash. After that, I became much more mercenary.


A guy paying for things has little to do with courting or romance. As far as the mercenary comment, I will leave that alone.



> My husband swept me off my feet and gallantly paid for most of our dates, until I started to offer. Even then, he would ask me to put away my wallet. A real man knows how to treat a lady.


I am trying hard not to find this insulting. When I was barely scraping by, going to school at night, my wife paid, as she made more. Yet I had insisted on "treating her as a lady," we rarely would have gone anywhere. Had I been threatened by her being successful and making more than I did, we would have broken up pretty quickly. Had she insisted that I treat her like a lady and pay all the time, we would have broken up pretty quickly, as I did not have the means to take her out very often. I treated her like a lady in my actions. Her paying for some of our dates had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Interlocutor (Dec 29, 2011)

Do people still pay for a woman's company on a date by default?

We still have idiots like this out there?

Courtship goes both ways... Both sexes on a date should be trying to do as much as they can for each other... The man and the woman should be arguing each trying to pay. THAT's courtship...


----------



## JustaJerk (Dec 2, 2011)

When _*I*_ ask a woman out on a date, I expect to pick up the tab... I'm happy to do it. 

If she asks to go out for drink, I do somewhat expect her to at least pay for a round- only fair. If she doesn't, I'll pay for it because I don't want to look like a complete douche, but I'll be hesitant to go out for a drink with her again.

As for jewelry... I make it a point not to buy women I'm not interested in any jewelry. Woman tend to associate exclusivity when a man buys her jewelry. At least, that's my take on it.


----------



## FirstYearDown (Sep 15, 2011)

I believe that the partner who makes more money, should have more financial responsibility. It is only fair and this applies to dating. 

TAG, since you were *poor student*, it was *perfectly acceptable *for your wife to pay if she was in a better position. I would say the same thing if the situation was reversed. 

When I was single, if I dated a man that treated me well I was prepared to cook lovely meals for him and help with chores. I was also very sexually available and passionate. This was my version of courtship and it worked very well.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

FirstYearDown said:


> I believe that the partner who makes more money, should have more financial responsibility. It is only fair and this applies to dating.
> 
> TAG, since you were *poor student*, it was *perfectly acceptable *for your wife to pay if she was in a better position. I would say the same thing if the situation was reversed.
> 
> When I was single, if I dated a man that treated me well I was prepared to cook lovely meals for him and help with chores. I was also very sexually available and passionate. This was my version of courtship and it worked very well.


I agree on the financial ability. While in school, I got a better job and was able to pay. I then paid more, but she still did on occasion, just as I paid when I made less. As I think back about it, for my wife and I, the person who suggested the date activity (movie, dinner, etc.) generally paid. I suspect we don't have a lot of disagreement.

My issue is where a woman judges a man who never pays, regardless of income. Again, if woman are economically self-sufficient and equal (a very good thing), why is paying on a date expected (by some) to be only by the man.


----------



## SoWhat (Jan 7, 2012)

I see all this "treat like a lady" and "act like a man" stuff, which is pretty much begging the question.

With feminism, we overturned a lot of old fashioned stuff - that women were unable to do the same jobs as men, that women shouldn't make the same sorts of decisions as men, etc.

What if I just said "I wil continue to assume that women can't do the same sort of mental or physical labor as a man. I will do that because I want to treat her like a lady." ? 

It's so bizarre - "I want to be treated as an equal, but I also want to be treated like a lady (ie, have people buy me stuff)."

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."


----------



## FirstYearDown (Sep 15, 2011)

I never called myself a feminist.

If I did, I would not expect a man to pay for ANYTHING.


----------



## Interlocutor (Dec 29, 2011)

A woman can state she is not a feminist, but she must still live in a post-feminist world.

Now, if a woman told her employer, "Please start paying me 50% less money because I am not a feminist and do not wish to reap any successes from the women's rights movement," then such a woman's dates should all be paid for by any man she dates, by all means.


Look, we can discuss dumb examples that don't really justify the argument, clouding it instead, which I'm not naive enough to not catch on as being the objective after all. Let's leave out the rich partner with the poor partner examples for a moment.

Simply speaking, take a couple where the boy really likes the girl and the girl really likes the boy. They both make $30k a year, both have bills, and both share the same struggles. There are women out there today WHO STILL in this case feel the girl should be treated "like a lady," the ultimate phrase today usually meaning that women are not objects when it comes to opportunity, freedom, and rights but ARE objects when it comes to being maintained like one. Women like this claim to dislike being objectified but then wish to be paid for and supported like an object, like an exensive car or motorcycle needing maintenance and expensive parts. 

Women that believe this will appeal to their ladiness and then I'm forced to conclude:

If this is what the word "lady" means, then I can only treat my wife/date like a lady -OR- like an equal, but not both. They are obviously mutually exclusive.

I treat my wife only like an equal, and she wouldn't be with me if I didn't... Enjoying the perks of equality, but then wanting to hold on to the perks, the few that there are, of the lesser group, is the supreme duping today's men fall for out there.

How do I know there are women out there like this? The majority of all my dates ended with a "lady" not even offering to pay her own half... I learned quickly that ladies were not for me. I wanted a woman instead.


EDIT: Oooooh... And the women were always WAY better in bed than the ladies...


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

I essentially think that whomever schedules the date should pay, make arrangements, etc. If either the man or the woman makes substantially less than the other and cannot afford much, then it's perfectly appropriate to schedule a less-expensive outing (lunch instead of dinner, picnic in the park, cook dinner at home).

I don't have a problem paying more often as long as I have the resources (and I do). That being said, I would not stay with a woman who refused to pay, or paid reluctantly, etc. IMO, that behavior comes from an attitude that her time and attention is worth more than that of her date. I've BTDT and know that attitude will permeate the relationship.

My attitude is that I'm just as much the prize as any lady I may date in the future (I don't date now - too busy). Anyone who thinks they are more deserving than me or "out of my league" can step off. If I spend an evening with a charming lady then I am indeed lucky to have her cut an evening out of her schedule for me, but then again she is equally lucky that I did the same for her. That's really all there is to it, and I feel it's important to carry myself in accordance with that value system.


----------



## FirstYearDown (Sep 15, 2011)

Interlocutor said:


> A woman can state she is not a feminist, but she must still live in a post-feminist world.
> 
> Now, if a woman told her employer, "Please start paying me 50% less money because I am not a feminist and do not wish to reap any successes from the women's rights movement," then such a woman's dates should all be paid for by any man she dates, by all means.
> 
> ...


I used to offer to pay my share, to suss out how generous the men were. If they allowed it, they never got a second date. If they refused, that was a point in their favor. Devious? Perhaps. However, it is no different than the countless men who tell lies to get women into bed or misrepresent themselves.

I had the unfortunate experience of dating men that were cheap. Complaining about the gas money it took to pick me up, as well as taking me to Mcdonald's and griping about the cost was uncouth and miserly behavior. I should add that these men all brought home more than double what I did. Let's not forget the men that were such penny pinchers that they couldn't be bothered to buy clothing or cut their hair. Yuck! 

How successful was the feminist movement if women still take home twenty percent less than a man in the same career?


----------



## SoWhat (Jan 7, 2012)

How successful was it? 

I think we can figure that out, to some degree, by looking at the % you cited in the 1890s, the 1920s, the 1950s, the 1970s, etc. How much has it changed? 

Even comparing the "entrapment" of offering to pay and then cutting off the man to "countless men who tell lies to get women into bed..." sort of tells the whole story; both are out for me-first self gratification.


----------



## FirstYearDown (Sep 15, 2011)

My point was that women still do not make the same, even though the feminist movement was all about equality.

If men can be all about their own pleasures, why can't women do the same?

More than one man took advantage of my previously sweet and caring nature. That was when I became more devious and self serving. It was the best choice I ever made. I stopped wasting time with losers.

When we were dating, I showed my husband more love than he showed me. After I levelled the playing field by being less available and rethinking exclusivity, our feelings became much more even. He saw that I was a woman who could easily move on; I wasn't going to sit at home an pine for him like he expected.


----------



## Interlocutor (Dec 29, 2011)

FirstYearDown said:


> I used to offer to pay my share, to suss out how generous the men were. If they allowed it, they never got a second date. If they refused, that was a point in their favor. Devious? Perhaps. However, it is no different than the countless men who tell lies to get women into bed or misrepresent themselves.


Sounds like a game or a test... Oh wait! It is!

Personally, I found dialogue shared activity while being myself the best way to get to know a woman, and many women get to know men they're interested in the same way.



FirstYearDown said:


> I had the unfortunate experience of dating men that were cheap. Complaining about the gas money it took to pick me up, as well as taking me to Mcdonald's and griping about the cost was uncouth and miserly behavior. I should add that these men all brought home more than double what I did. Let's not forget the men that were such penny pinchers that they couldn't be bothered to buy clothing or cut their hair. Yuck!


So you went to McDonald's and they complained about the cost... The cost of what? Their meal? Yours? Theirs and yours?



FirstYearDown said:


> How successful was the feminist movement if women still take home twenty percent less than a man in the same career?


Funny about all those averages that get thrown around in books and the internet... EVERY single guy I know, firefighters, business owners, teachers (like me), cops, etc. all don't make a SINGLE PENNY over their female colleagues. 

So, yeah, I'd say it was successful.


----------



## Interlocutor (Dec 29, 2011)

FirstYearDown said:


> More than one man took advantage of my previously sweet and caring nature. That was when I became more devious and self serving. It was the best choice I ever made. I stopped wasting time with losers.
> 
> When we were dating, I showed my husband more love than he showed me. After I levelled the playing field by being less available and rethinking exclusivity, our feelings became much more even. He saw that I was a woman who could easily move on; I wasn't going to sit at home an pine for him like he expected.


Your approach to level the field is the same used by men to level their field with women they spend energy on incommensurately. Of course that's what you should have done...

However, the conclusion is that for the MOST part, there has occurred a great shift in gender roles in that they are BY AVERAGE close to equal, but in many mens' realities the woman they are interested in might be making what they make or more. Then, even in these cases, sadly, when it comes to courting each other, courting is still HEAVILY financially based (courting = $$$ or there is no 2nd date, similar to your test) and is still often always the sole effort of the male, as if he made twice the woman's salary like in the fifties...

The ultimate have your cake and eat it too... This is the case for many guys...

The whole point YOU'RE trying to make about men misrepresenting themselves to bed women or take advantage of them, well, that still happens with men AND women... However, there is quite the discrepancy between materialistic women being courted by financially equal men (common, EXPECTED sometimes) and materialistic men being courted by financially equal women (very rare).

In short, **** "ladies" I say.


----------



## FirstYearDown (Sep 15, 2011)

My husband is an engineer. One of his female colleagues has the same experience level and education, yet she makes less than my hubby.

Same goes for the female lawyers my brother works with.

What is so wrong with testing someone? Since people often tell others lies about themselves, it is better to read actions.

Please do not try to tell me that men *mind *being used for sex! :rofl::rofl: 

I cannot be that materialistic if I stayed with my husband when he lost his job RIGHT AFTER HE PROPOSED. We had a very small elopement because that was what we could afford; I just wanted to be his wife. 

Hell, I could have had a baby for a rich old man when I was single and I turned down his offer. Even though I expected men to pay my way when I was single, I still realized that some things are priceless.

I'm sorry that you are so angry with women who expect to be treated a certain way. The obvious solution is to find someone who doesn't mind paying her share.


----------



## heartsbeating (May 2, 2011)

Chivalry: Highly valued by me. I see this as manners. It's not something I feel "entitled" to but I _will_ notice if a door isn't held open for me and other such things. Hubs has no doubt spoiled me in this way too. It's likely I couldn't be with someone who wasn't chivalrous. I do have friends who don't like the door held open for them. I personally see it as a courtesy. I like when H offers his seat up for women on the train. I like when a man offers his seat for me. I don't expect it but I do value it. 

At an office where I worked, one of the guys (in his 40's, married) would buy his wife flowers each Friday. I used to like seeing which flowers he'd chosen and thought it was lovely he did this. On my last day at that office, the Friday, he came in with three bouquets of flowers. One for his wife - her Friday bouquet, one for me - for my last day and to wish me the best, and one for my colleague. I always remember this. Firstly, it was lovely and unexpected for me to receive the flowers. Secondly my colleague, who I worked closely with in the role, commented that he didn't need to buy her flowers as she wasn't leaving but she loved being included too. I thought highly of this. I remember her and I sat beeming together in the office with our flowers.

I met my H young, so some of the "dating" aspects don't apply to me. I do know that I never let a guy buy me a drink in a bar/club though. I always got my own. I didn't want to feel obligated to have to talk to him. I didn't want to use someone for a free drink either. I had a job and could afford to pay for my own drinks, thank you very much. Just ensure the door is held open for me though  First date with hubs, he paid. I offered to pay half but he wouldn't let me.

Diamond engagement/wedding ring. We chose together. Our finances were combined, so we were both paying for my engagement ring. It was the first "proper" piece of jewellery I'd had. Not much of a jewellery girl otherwise and resisted even going down that path. I didn't need a ring to know how much he loved me. Admittedly, something did happen when I put that ring on my finger in the store though. It sparkled and seduced me when I least expected. I also considered what it was meant to represent when I looked at it and wanted to be happy with it's appearance, thinking it was meant to last. I remember we looked at the size of diamonds. Hubs was picking the slightly larger diamond and I was suggesting the smaller size. The store owner told him "She's telling you to go with a SMALLER diamond? You better get that ring on her quickly and don't let her go!" haha .....anyway, hubs then said he wanted to choose from there. He chose the size and cut of diamond and it was perfect.


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

2nd_t!me iz_best said:


> so a woman cant be a feminist and still be treated as a woman?
> i dont agree with that at all.
> why cant a woman expect to be treated equally in the work place, politics or any other aspect of life and still be a woman at the same time.
> not all are extremists.
> ...


Just depends what sort of feminist she is. If she was the type of feminist that constantly competes with and knocks “man” instead of working with them, collaborating with them, then sure I’d expect her to pay her way just as I would a mate (unless he were short of money). But then I don’t date my mates so I wouldn’t date such a woman anyway and the “problem” simply doesn’t exist! For me it’s purely academic.


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

heartsbeating said:


> Chivalry: Highly valued by me. I see this as manners. It's not something I feel "entitled" to but I _will_ notice if a door isn't held open for me and other such things. Hubs has no doubt spoiled me in this way too. It's likely I couldn't be with someone who wasn't chivalrous. I do have friends who don't like the door held open for them. I personally see it as a courtesy. I like when H offers his seat up for women on the train. I like when a man offers his seat for me. I don't expect it but I do value it.
> 
> At an office where I worked, one of the guys (in his 40's, married) would buy his wife flowers each Friday. I used to like seeing which flowers he'd chosen and thought it was lovely he did this. On my last day at that office, the Friday, he came in with three bouquets of flowers. One for his wife - her Friday bouquet, one for me - for my last day and to wish me the best, and one for my colleague. I always remember this. Firstly, it was lovely and unexpected for me to receive the flowers. Secondly my colleague, who I worked closely with in the role, commented that he didn't need to buy her flowers as she wasn't leaving but she loved being included too. I thought highly of this. I remember her and I sat beeming together in the office with our flowers.
> 
> ...


They are the signs to watch out for if you want a really good woman 


But being chivalrous can be difficult and to be quite honest I’ve given up in my home country. Not that I set out to be uncouth, but you’ve only to be called sexist, frowned at even scorned a few times by young women, and some not so young, before you stop behaving in a chivalrous way. The “look" says “You think I can do this on my own!!!”.

With men I’m always polite, it just comes natural to me. With women I am very selective. See a mother with kiddies and a pram struggling, I’ll help even though I may get rejected, scorned. It’s worth it just to help someone out and get that smile and thanks from the ones that do appreciate it. See a mother with kiddies walking in a park, totally ignore them and whatever you do don’t smile at them. But see an elder or old lady, no problems help them out and get that smile.


Very different where I am now in Portugal. It’s very old fashioned, traditional and chivalry is expected and goes a long way. In fact a man is bad mannered and disrespected if he is not chivalrous.


----------



## Hicks (Jan 14, 2011)

Buying gifts and diamond rings has nothing to do with economic disparity.


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

Interlocutor said:


> Do people still pay for a woman's company on a date by default?
> 
> We still have idiots like this out there?
> 
> Courtship goes both ways... Both sexes on a date should be trying to do as much as they can for each other... The man and the woman should be arguing each trying to pay. THAT's courtship...


Yep, there are idiots like that out there still. They even let us play with sharp instruments, sometimes, and they don't slap our hands when we color outside the lines. I'm married, but if I were single, I'd take the approach that I wouldn't start a relationship with a list of things that I won't do, because it won't be much of a relationship to me. I know that old fashioned chivalry is offensive to some women, but that saves us both the trouble, because we wouldn't exactly be compatable anyway. I'm completely fine with the thought of a woman paying, but by default, I won't ask. Some choose to push consistency in woman's equality by insisting upon it with one particular woman, which is fine, I guess. My take on it is that in dating, I'm trying to show her how I am as a man, one who is focused on me and my responsibilities in a relationship.

I understand and respect those who feel differently due to financial pressures. Even very much respect those who are looking for a woman who is less traditional. But I'll be the idiot of the crowd, I guess. The windmill fighting, door opening, bill paying, card carrying idiot.


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

2nd_t!me iz_best said:


> so a woman cant be a feminist and still be treated as a woman?
> i dont agree with that at all.
> why cant a woman expect to be treated equally in the work place, politics or any other aspect of life and still be a woman at the same time.
> not all are extremists.
> ...


For me that's "Victim Feminist" talk, it's their lexicon and absolutley nothing to do with me or the world I live in.


You have been well coached.


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

Well I never go on a date unless the woman asking up front insists on paying for it all.


The last one even insisted on giving me a BJ while she was paying but she wasn’t up to scratch and the restaurant she took me to wasn’t top class so I turned her down when she asked me for a second date.


----------



## Interlocutor (Dec 29, 2011)

Halien said:


> Yep, there are idiots like that out there still. They even let us play with sharp instruments, sometimes, and they don't slap our hands when we color outside the lines. I'm married, but if I were single, I'd take the approach that I wouldn't start a relationship with a list of things that I won't do, because it won't be much of a relationship to me. I know that old fashioned chivalry is offensive to some women, but that saves us both the trouble, because we wouldn't exactly be compatable anyway. I'm completely fine with the thought of a woman paying, but by default, I won't ask. Some choose to push consistency in woman's equality by insisting upon it with one particular woman, which is fine, I guess. My take on it is that in dating, I'm trying to show her how I am as a man, one who is focused on me and my responsibilities in a relationship.
> 
> I understand and respect those who feel differently due to financial pressures. Even very much respect those who are looking for a woman who is less traditional. But I'll be the idiot of the crowd, I guess. The windmill fighting, door opening, bill paying, card carrying idiot.


Did you get the part in my post where I stated these are things men and women BOTH should be doing for each other?

The idiot is the man who is courting but not courted himself.

Men can open doors, pay for meals, etc... OF COURSE they should do these things. If I hadn't done these things for my wife, there's not way she would have married me!

As long as women can pay for meals too, show sweet signs of affection, open a beer for you, serve you a plate of food, etc. My wife did all these things, and on our first date, and our second, and our third, we always debated who should let the other pay. "I insist." "No, I insist." We finally agreed to take turns treating each other. It was nice.

When a couple is financially equal and ONLY the man is courting the woman, then the woman is like an object. She needs parts, money, and maintenance to work, like a car or motorcycle.

There are cute little things the man and the woman should be doing to court each other.

If the woman makes the same money as the man, and ONLY the man is financially courting the woman, then I say that guy is an idiot. Somebody needs to update that guy about 50 years.


----------



## SoWhat (Jan 7, 2012)

I keep saying this "gentleman/lady" stuff as a justification for men spending more money in the courtship. 

If you really want to keep that distinction, keep it, and all the baggage that comes with it; you don't make decisions, you're not an equal partner, etc. Otherwise, it just comes off as generic self-interest "What's yours is ours and what's mine is mine." 

Testing guys on dates by offering to pay and then 'revoking' a second date if your offer is accepted? Okay - I'll test it by seeing who will sexually satisfy me on a first date. 

See how this silly, self-interest-oriented, confrontational stuff works?


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

SoWhat said:


> I keep saying this "gentleman/lady" stuff as a justification for men spending more money in the courtship.
> 
> If you really want to keep that distinction, keep it, and all the baggage that comes with it; you don't make decisions, you're not an equal partner, etc. Otherwise, it just comes off as generic self-interest "What's yours is ours and what's mine is mine."
> 
> ...


Sounded crazy to me, hardly honest, I think it's actually deceitful. Much prefer an honest up front woman who doesn't sh!te test me in such crazy ways. You either mean what you say, or you don't. Could never take her at her word again as I'd be thinking "mind games".


----------



## SoWhat (Jan 7, 2012)

Her defense is merely that men use women too. 

Doesn't that seem so...childish? 
"I hit Bobby on the playground because Jimmy hit Marcie last week!"


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

Interlocutor said:


> Did you get the part in my post where I stated these are things men and women BOTH should be doing for each other?
> 
> The idiot is the man who is courting but not courted himself.
> 
> Somebody needs to update that guy about 50 years.



Even though my post was an attempt at humor, what I was getting at is that I haven't personally found the wisdom where I can indiscriminately label others as idiots. Just can't get past the part about how there is often multiple ways of looking at things. Some people naturally approach relationships with a clear focus on receiving just as much as they give. Date # 3 better lead to a BJ or sex, or Elvis has left the building. But a deeper issue, to me, is that some people look at how society has changed and then let that change them. They approach dating with this new mindset. To me, that's not what being a man is all about. Regardless of which way you choose to live, I think that being a man is about deciding what is important to you, and sticking to it. Doesn't include labelling others as idiots. I'd rather reserve that label for the ones who don't have a multimillion dollar nest egg for retirement, and still lose no sleep at night. Or the ones who turn down health insurance in a job because the copay would cut into their ability to buy a boat.

As a young man, I specifically decided not to sweat the small stuff, but wanted to balance a generous heart with basic common sense. What I looked for, and expected, was a good person who could easily forget social rules and expectations, and just show me a glimpse of who she really is. That, to me, is more profound than a focus on maintained a zero balance sheet of finances and sexual acts. Oddly, nine times out of ten, since women are often very sexual when they finally meet a guy they can trust, sex came right along for the ride. In addition, when I see how instinctive it is for most women to sacrifice for their children, something tells me that a level of chivalry, which costs next to nothing, should always be the standard.


----------



## Interlocutor (Dec 29, 2011)

Halien said:


> Even though my post was an attempt at humor, what I was getting at is that I haven't personally found the wisdom where I can indiscriminately label others as idiots. Just can't get past the part about how there is often multiple ways of looking at things. Some people naturally approach relationships with a clear focus on receiving just as much as they give. Date # 3 better lead to a BJ or sex, or Elvis has left the building. But a deeper issue, to me, is that some people look at how society has changed and then let that change them. They approach dating with this new mindset. To me, that's not what being a man is all about. Regardless of which way you choose to live, I think that being a man is about deciding what is important to you, and sticking to it. Doesn't include labelling others as idiots. I'd rather reserve that label for the ones who don't have a multimillion dollar nest egg for retirement, and still lose no sleep at night. Or the ones who turn down health insurance in a job because the copay would cut into their ability to buy a boat.
> 
> As a young man, I specifically decided not to sweat the small stuff, but wanted to balance a generous heart with basic common sense. What I looked for, and expected, was a good person who could easily forget social rules and expectations, and just show me a glimpse of who she really is. That, to me, is more profound than a focus on maintained a zero balance sheet of finances and sexual acts. Oddly, nine times out of ten, since women are often very sexual when they finally meet a guy they can trust, sex came right along for the ride. In addition, when I see how instinctive it is for most women to sacrifice for their children, something tells me that a level of chivalry, which costs next to nothing, should always be the standard.


Your attempt at humor was missed. Sorry. But it seems so was mine...

I would never think these people are truly "idiots." That was my license to overstate an idea, and clearly you at least didn't find it humorous.

Speaking sensibly, I'm just a big proponent of courtship, mostly equal and even financial... It bothers me somewhat to see in modern relationships and marriages when it's a pasrasite-host dynamic... Of course to take out a ledger on a date for balances is ridiculous... Trust me, please, when I say that's NOT what I mean.


----------



## Interlocutor (Dec 29, 2011)

SoWhat said:


> Her defense is merely that men use women too.
> 
> Doesn't that seem so...childish?
> "I hit Bobby on the playground because Jimmy hit Marcie last week!"



Exactly... She brought up an argument, that of how men deceive women, that apply to women anyway...

Doing this to others preemptively or as a test does seem childish, though I'm sure many other women (and of course men) initiate similar games.


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

My view on these things has changed, quite dramatically and it’s to do with times of life. In my younger days absolutely no doubt it’d be me that was paying. Now it’s not the same, not at all. I would just play it by ear, simple as that. If she wanted to pay or pay half I’d go right along with it “because that’s what she said she wanted to do”. If I was expected to pay it all, again that’s what I’d do. If there was any “fight” over who pays it would simply qualify me out of a next date.

But again if I paid on the first date I’d fully expect her to pick up the tab on the second date. If she didn’t I’d start asking myself questions. When I do date it will be because I’m looking for a new partner in my life. And “who pays for what” will very very much come into the equation if things get really serious. It took a long time getting what I have and I have two sons who will get everything, so the woman I’m with will need to be financially independent and more than capable of taking care of herself that way.


----------



## 2nd_t!me iz_best (Feb 28, 2011)

when i had said that a man should pay for dinner and such and treat the woman as a lady, i in no way meant they should continue an ltr with him doing all and expecting nothing at all from her.

i think women have there own way of 'paying' for the company of the man, and im not just talking about sex.

as was stated by someone earlier, they can do their own things to show appreciation for the mans company as well such as help him around his house at times, cooking nice dinners and treating him well in her ways.

i in no way think the man should carry the whole burden of the relationship on his own.

i still say a woman can be feminist in ways and still be a lady.
and no, its not because i was 'conditioned' to think this.

i know this is the 21st century, not the 50s, but some things i think can still remain pretty much the same.

when i was able to see my exgf i loved doing things for her such as opening car doors and stuff like that.
not because i didnt think she could do it but as a gesture of love to her.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

AFEH said:


> My view on these things has changed, quite dramatically and it’s to do with times of life. In my younger days absolutely no doubt it’d be me that was paying. Now it’s not the same, not at all. I would just play it by ear, simple as that. If she wanted to pay or pay half I’d go right along with it “because that’s what she said she wanted to do”. If I was expected to pay it all, again that’s what I’d do. If there was any “fight” over who pays it would simply qualify me out of a next date.
> 
> But again if I paid on the first date I’d fully expect her to pick up the tab on the second date. If she didn’t I’d start asking myself questions. When I do date it will be because I’m looking for a new partner in my life. And “who pays for what” will very very much come into the equation if things get really serious. It took a long time getting what I have and I have two sons who will get everything, so the woman I’m with will need to be financially independent and more than capable of taking care of herself that way.



To me, it was an indicator of entitlement. I dated a girl briefly in college. Very smart, was going to have a good career, probably make real money. But every date I paid for, and every time it was about what she could get. Never even offered to pay, ever, even though we were in the same financial boat. The last date, she suggested a relatively expensive place, picked one of the more expensive meals, then looked the other way when the bill came. Did wonder why I told her I would not be calling again.

Contrast this with my wife, who regularly offered to pay and did pick up the tab often. It was about us being together and doing things together. Now a SAHM, she never acts entitled to anything. Rather, she earns it through taking care of the home, shopping for deals, and handling our kids. 

I still held her coat, opened doors for her and helped her get seated. But when finances prevented me from taking her to a place, she did not stop that from us getting together. She took me out and paid because it was about us being together and doing things, not about what I could do for her.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

FirstYearDown said:


> My point was that women still do not make the same, even though the feminist movement was all about equality.


The most recent article I've read applicable to where I live (The U.S.) was the _Women At Work _report released by the BLS and summarized in an article in _Forbes_ earlier this year.

It put women's wages at 81.2% of men's wages as an average across the entire spectrum, which is not terribly surprising. The biggest disparity of all was among financial advisors where women only earned 58.4% as much as men.

_Forbes_ cited an article from _Times Business _which put men's wages at 92% of women's wages, among the unmarried, under 30 demographic which is a change and might be indicative of the fact that more women then men are graduating from college today. 

It listed 15 job categories where women typically earn slightly more than men, which suggests that men experience a phenomenon in female dominated vocations similar to that which women experience in male dominated vocations, albeit on a smaller scale.

It also confirmed that the dirty, dangerous jobs in society are still mostly performed by men. Workplace fatalities are measured in the thousands for men while they're measured in the hundreds for women.

Of course these are all generalities which are horribly unfair to the individual, but I think it does give us a feel for some of the individual facets of the question.


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

Tall Average Guy said:


> To me, it was an indicator of entitlement. I dated a girl briefly in college. Very smart, was going to have a good career, probably make real money. But every date I paid for, and every time it was about what she could get. Never even offered to pay, ever, even though we were in the same financial boat. The last date, she suggested a relatively expensive place, picked one of the more expensive meals, then looked the other way when the bill came. Did wonder why I told her I would not be calling again.
> 
> Contrast this with my wife, who regularly offered to pay and did pick up the tab often. It was about us being together and doing things together. Now a SAHM, she never acts entitled to anything. Rather, she earns it through taking care of the home, shopping for deals, and handling our kids.
> 
> I still held her coat, opened doors for her and helped her get seated. But when finances prevented me from taking her to a place, she did not stop that from us getting together. She took me out and paid because it was about us being together and doing things, not about what I could do for her.


I can tell by your words that you treasure her, in some she sounds like my wife, she was never “entitled” and a real treasure. It also sounds like you know what you have in your wife, that you count your blessings in these things.

But don’t forget it takes a good man to keep a good woman. I had a fabulous week with my son over Christmas. When we were saying our goodbyes at the airport I said to him his partner is one lucky woman (he knows I never patronise and always speak my truth). He said everyone tells him how lucky he is. I said sure you are lucky, she is a very fine woman but never forget just what a very fine man you are. That is why she is with you and not somebody else.

Don’t forget that. It takes a good man to keep a good woman and the better the woman, the better the man.


----------



## Interlocutor (Dec 29, 2011)

Nothing is more beautiful to me than watching husbands and wives competing to see who can shower each other with affection and courtship more, with somewhere in between a little toddler being the center of the world.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

AFEH said:


> I can tell by your words that you treasure her, in some she sounds like my wife, she was never “entitled” and a real treasure. It also sounds like you know what you have in your wife, that you count your blessings in these things.
> 
> But don’t forget it takes a good man to keep a good woman. I had a fabulous week with my son over Christmas. When we were saying our goodbyes at the airport I said to him his partner is one lucky woman (he knows I never patronise and always speak my truth). He said everyone tells him how lucky he is. I said sure you are lucky, she is a very fine woman but never forget just what a very fine man you are. That is why she is with you and not somebody else.
> 
> Don’t forget that. It takes a good man to keep a good woman and the better the woman, the better the man.


I do treasure her. Because of that, I work hard to the type of man that she deserves. I stumbled earlier in our marriage, especially when the kids came. While I am doing it for myself, she makes it easier for me to want to do it for her. I am not sure I will ever get there, but am making progress. She sees the effort and improvement, and is reciprocating. 

About a week ago, after working late, I was eating dinner alone at the table. Kids were doing homework or unwinding. She was in the kitchen, getting my dinner, cleaning up and talking with me. As I was eating, she came up behind, hugged me from behind, and whispered in my ear how lucky she was to have me. How can I not want to be the best man I can for her?


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

*Dean* said:


> ~ 15 years ago, my company really tried hard to greatly increase
> the number of women. Hard targets and goals to increase the numbers in management, upper management, etc.
> 
> On new grads, if everything was equal, we hired the female.
> ...


That's sexist and positive discrimination against men. You should be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## FirstYearDown (Sep 15, 2011)

SoWhat, it seems like you are *very *concerned with what other people do. Go and live a happy life the way *you *choose! None of your actions affect strangers online and if using women makes you smile, I wish you all the very best. 

Most men think it is just fine to play games with women. However, if a woman does the same, all the men want to cry foul. The fact that you did not denounce the men who lied to me speaks volumes. 

Any of you men can call me childish, deceitful or whatever name in the book. It will not take away from my blissful marriage.

I have found that the only men who whine about having to pay are the ones with no money.


----------



## FirstYearDown (Sep 15, 2011)

Interlocutor said:


> Nothing is more beautiful to me than watching husbands and wives competing to see who can shower each other with affection and courtship more, with somewhere in between a little toddler being the center of the world.


You would find my marriage wonderful then. :smthumbup:

I dress up in lingerie when my husband comes home. I make dirty phone calls, lovely meals and send cards just because. He is often told how much I appreciate and admire him. Our sex life is hotter than the centre of the sun. I will never stop doing these things, because I want to make my husband happy. 

In return, my husband is the main breadwinner and he always will be since my profession doesn't pay nearly what his does. Hubby does this without complaint and when I ask him if he minds, his response is "Why would I mind doing _anything _for the woman I promised to share my life with? You have always been so loving and giving in this relationship and you deserve to be treated like a princess." 

I am not one of those women who only wants traditional roles when it benefits me. Like I mentioned before, any man that paid my way all the time received laundry done, meals cooked and more lovin' than he could handle. After all, if I am traditional enough to expect a man to pay for me, I should also be prepared to be old fashioned in other ways, right? 

Sadly, you and SoWhat chose not to see what I contributed when a men paid for me. That is very unfair.  A man may not need a woman to do housework for him, but don't tell me he wouldn't love it if someone did! It is the same difference with women who can take care of themselves. I could afford to pay my way when I met my husband, but it made me happy that someone wanted to ease that burden. All these women who love to shout "I DON'T NEED A MAN!! I CAN TAKE CARE OF MYSELF!!" are fooling themselves. Who in their right mind would object to being spoiled?? 

I knew an unhappy single mom who loved to make nasty comments about my husband and the way he looks after me. I know she was just jealous and trying to make herself feel better. She used to cry to me about wishing a man would come and make things easier for her and she always wanted to try on my diamonds. :rofl:


----------



## SoWhat (Jan 7, 2012)

FirstYearDown said:


> SoWhat, it seems like you are *very *concerned with what other people do. Go and live a happy life the way *you *choose! None of your actions affect strangers online and if using women makes you smile, I wish you all the very best.
> 
> Most men think it is just fine to play games with women. However, if a woman does the same, all the men want to cry foul. The fact that you did not denounce the men who lied to me speaks volumes.


Where did I imply that using women makes me smile? I don't think women or men should be used - sexually, financially, or otherwise. 

The fact that I did not denounce the men that lied to you speaks volumes???
"You have not denied committing murder!" sort of argument. 

I'm not "whining" about money. I'm speculating on the future of traditional behavior in the face of new economic and social realities.


----------



## FirstYearDown (Sep 15, 2011)

"Testing guys on dates by offering to pay and then 'revoking' a second date if your offer is accepted? Okay - I'll test it by seeing who will sexually satisfy me on a first date."

I assume you would somehow feel vindicated by this? :scratchhead: You'll have to correct me if I am wrong...

Your original post was speculative. However, the vitriol directed at me was uncalled for. We all do what works for each of us, right?

I will repeat that I have no respect for women who call themselves "feminists" yet expect men to pay for them. :rofl: If women want men to be traditional in that sense, they better not mind going into the kitchen. It is only fair! Rights come with responsibilities.


----------



## SoWhat (Jan 7, 2012)

I was trying to come off as ridiculous. I guess that came off as serious. 

I apologize if I seemed vitriolic. I have no reason to fight.
You seem to be part of a great relationship - whatever's working for you is definitely working for your partner too. Congratulations and keep up the good work!


----------



## FirstYearDown (Sep 15, 2011)

That's okay, SW. Tone is difficult to convey when we don't have the benefit of hearing each other's voices or seeing body language. 

It is much better to speak about behaviors and atttudes, rather than attack members directly. "_That _was really stupid of you." vs "_You _are stupid." Most people don't understand the difference.

My husband and I have walked down a long road of defining our roles, sharing responsibilities and most of all, respecting each other. Thankfully, most of this occured when we lived together for two years while we were engaged. 

Of course, marriage is a constant ebb and flow of victories and challenges. The foundation of commitment and fidelity is always there; it is just the monumental task of keeping the romance alive.


----------

