Actually, that's part of what feminists and sociologists speak of when they discuss gender as a social construct - the idea that it's men's "role" to do most of the asking and paying and all that stuff. I'd love to see things more equal in that regard. Another thing that bothers me is the whole man asking women to marry him kind of thing - the assumption that the woman was just waiting around for the man to propose, and let's face it, that's usually the way it is. If men and women were equal in all regards, then it should extend to dating, marriage, etc.
2007-10-11 05:51:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
This is part of the conditioning that feminism refers to by giving each gender a role. Men are told that this is part of being a male. If their was equality as feminist would prefer then this would be a non issue instead of a social construct. Men are also expected to support a family. What if he is unable to for some reason. He feels like less of a man when this again is a social construct by a patriarchal society. In a setting where both were equal a couple could work out a strategy to pay bills without him losing self esteem and worth by not living up to the standards our society places on him.
2007-10-11 05:57:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by Deirdre O 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
7. What shade hair and eyes and what faith did hitler choose his aryan race to be? 8. How come females under no circumstances invent something? 9. How come ALL adult males everywhere try this annoying element lulz? 10. i'm 12 and what's this? 13. How come professional-lifers do not care approximately absolutely everyone as quickly as they're born? and then there are the common ones, the questions approximately Indian transgendered human beings and a few chick's brother donning sarees and makeup and females's outfits, and the lost questions approximately faith and how dumb absolutely everyone seems to be for being religious.
2016-10-22 01:09:00
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
This question has been asked several times in the few weeks I've been participating on this board. My answer is still the same.
Whoever "asks" a stranger out for the first time is usually obligated to offer to pay. If I asked a woman I did not know to have lunch with me, I would break out my wallet immediately at the end of the meal. If we became friends, we could alternate paying or share the bill from that day forward.
I'm married now, but I never continued to date a guy who wouldn't let me alternate paying, because that says to me that he has views about gender roles that are not compatible with my views.
It's nobody else's fault if you date gold diggers, but I think that is the type of woman who is attracted to sexist men. You kind of made your own bed.
**** What is wrong with the ability of so many guys here to understand the written word?
Please read my answer again. I said, whoever asks a stranger out for the first time should offer to pay. If I asked a male or a female out for the first time, I always insisted on paying. Maybe that person wasn't anticipating the expense, maybe he or she is just being polite. I don't know, so I pay.
After that, if the person wants to continue seeing me, then we alternate or split the bill, because it's obvious that the feeling is mutual and we like each other. Get it?
You don't want the kind of woman who would insist on sharing the expense of dating. Trust me. That comes with too much confidence and a feminist attitude. You want the kind of woman who thinks it's a man's "role" to pay. That kind of woman will agree with your anti-feminist views anyway. So you don't need to worry about women like myself who don't believe in such nonsense. I'm pretty sure you'll never date one.
2007-10-11 06:06:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
I think it's pointless to hope there will ever be equality in the dating world. No person is the same as any other, and no couple is the same as any other couple. Because of individual differences, someone is almost sure to face a bit of unfairness in a relationship.
A lot of times, between a man and a woman, it will be the man who faces inequality, because he wants sex a lot more than she does (most likely). So, she's got something he wants and so it makes sense they he might face a bit of inequality trying to get what he wants. In other situations, the woman might be the one facing inequality, though this is rarer. As I see it, in dating it all too often becomes less about companionship and more about transactions...which isn't necessarily a bad thing, as everyone can get what they want. I want to avoid a relationship like this though.
2007-10-11 05:47:22
·
answer #5
·
answered by G 6
·
2⤊
2⤋
The dating rules are based in reproductive evolution, not the legal world of equal pay for equal work. No society on Earth has been able to "overcome" the reality of our evolved human design. EVERY society puts value on men who are good providers and women who are non-promiscous, young, and healthy. This is pretty much written in stone; most men will desire women who fit those categories, and most women want men who are good providers.
It doesn't benefit any one person to hide his "good provider" aspects or her "young and fertile" aspects, so why would people do it? They will lose dates to people that are willing to go along with 2 million years of evolved tastes in the opposite sex.
2007-10-11 09:52:44
·
answer #6
·
answered by Junie 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
Because, no matter what some women say or think, we want things to be traditional in our dating lives.
I don't think it's a matter of equality, but more a chivalry issue. Personally, I don't like it if a MAN isn't MANLY...and when we request equality in all sects of life, that is taken away. I want a man to feel pride in me, take me out to dinner, open doors for me, kiss me like I'm a woman, not an "equal" on all sides of life. I mean, if he kisses you like a buddy, there's not passion there. I realize that's a little messed up, but to me, nothing is better than letting a guy act like a guy. It really comes down to the fact that we want things to be fair when it comes to working conditions, government, etc, but we also want to be treated like ladies by our men in a more traditional sense.
We're women, we always want the best of both worlds and sometimes we have a hard time making up our minds. That's just they way it is; and honestly, that's why you love us.
2007-10-11 05:52:31
·
answer #7
·
answered by dahlia 4
·
0⤊
4⤋
Well, I don't even understand the answer you got to your previous question, but. . .
When I was dating as a divorcee, we shared costs, decisions on what to do, when, where to go, how, etc. Is that what you mean by equality in the dating world?? If so, I am all for it.
2007-10-11 05:49:19
·
answer #8
·
answered by jurydoc 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
Equality in any arena in life is an illusion. We are not all equal in who we are as people and how we operate in the world. This is life. I pay for some dates and he pays for some. There are all kinds of equality in relationships. I might give in one area and take in another. This is the human condition - its all about give and take.
2007-10-11 05:57:45
·
answer #9
·
answered by livelongandprosper2000 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
What are the advantages women have during dating? Are you talking about how men typically pay for dates? Usually men insist on paying for the first one, and I've given up on trying to push my money on them. So instead, I pay for the second, and we alternate from there on. I don't like someone paying for me all the time. In my last relationship, I made more money, so I paid for more of the things we did. I DO NOT want the best of both worlds - I do not feel comfortable with a man paying my way.
Dahlia's answer is interesting, she contradicts herself. At one point she claims that what she wants is what ALL women want. Then she says that this is her opinion only. Speak for yourself, and ONLY for yourself. I DON'T want what you want.
2007-10-11 05:44:32
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
3⤋