Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

by
Sarah Hoyt

Bio

August 21, 2013 - 8:00 am
Equality has consequences.

Equality has consequences.

We earn as much as they do — in fact, thanks to affirmative action and the government funding more “caring” professions than projects for brawny men, many of us earn more — and we compete in the same marketplace.

We tell them over and over that we are equals or better. We’re women, hear us roar!

Are we going to be shocked that they want to treat us as equals? Or do we want to choose where we’re equals and where we’re to be treated like fragile little flowers?

According to the New York Post, two-thirds of men say women should pay their share on dates.

After nearly 50 years of feminism, men want to go Dutch.

Nearly two-thirds of them — 64 percent — believe women should pay for their share of dates, a survey has found.

And 44 percent of men said they would drop a woman who never chips in, according to the findings reported at the American Sociological Association’s annual meeting in Manhattan.

Fortunately, if that’s too much equality for you… ladies, men are still hobbled by the tradition of chivalry.

But the traditions of courtship are too hard to break: 84 percent of men said they pick up the tab on dates.

And even after six months of courtship, 28 percent of them still do the paying, according to the survey of more than 17,000 people.

Sarah Hoyt lives in Colorado with her husband, two sons and too many cats. She has published Darkship Thieves and 16 other novels, and over 100 short stories. Writing non-fiction is a new, daunting endeavor. For more on Sarah and samples of her writing, look around at Sarah A. Hoyt.com or check out her writing and life blog at According to Hoyt.com.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Dating is like the warm-up to the big event. She's evaluating how much the man is going to be able to support her in the lifestyle to which she will become accustomed. If you "win", you then get to pay for her for the rest of her life (maybe via alimony).

Dating money is just chicken feed compared to the amount the big winner of her heart is going to shell out, as she sits on her ever-widening butt watching "The View" and "The Talk" and "Dr Phil", getting more and more worked up about how unfair everything is.

So I wouldn't really worry about paying for a few dates.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
and 100% of the women are outraged about being expected to share the burden.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I'm guessing you are no longer Don Rodrigo because you're now Don Quixote.

Just because she's a woman doesn't mean she has a right to my money. The chivaly of the past is dead, and a smart man doesn't waste his resources tilting at windmills.

You may not like it, but the social contract has changed. "Dates" and "dating" aren't what they used to be. You may have not have noticed this thing called the "feminist movement", but that's what killed chivaly, and smart men have adjusted their behavior accordingly. Modern American women have commoditized themselves, which means they're pretty much interchangeable with 100 other women who will happily pay their share.

Of course the old system was better. But women destroyed the old system. They can find some other old fashioned fool to take advantage of.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (29)
All Comments   (29)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
I believe in the Dutch treat thing, I am Dutch, they treat, nuff said:-)))
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I really don't see what the problem is. Women should not be seen as sex toys and men are not wallets. In a marriage, it's supposed to be a partnership. So we both contribute what we can to make the marriage work. I do more of the emotional support and he does more of the financial support, but that doesn't mean we aren't both responsible to give what we can. I iron his hankies, he takes out the trash, we are both taking care of each other in a way the other appreciates.

When I was dating, I figured whoever asked paid if it was a date. If we were just two friends going out, we'd split the bill or take turns treating - which is what I do with all of my friends regardless of gender. But on dates, most of the time the guy paid on the first couple of dates because he was usually the one who asked me out. After the first couple of dates, if I liked him I'd start taking my turn asking him out (and paying). In a long term dating relationship, it would just naturally evolve into something fair.

If he was broke and could only afford taking me out to Wendy's, that was fine. What was more important to me was how he treated me. Chivalry is not about spending money on someone, it IS about respect. If he kept interrupting me, was rude to the waiter, etc., I didn't care how much money he spent, he wasn't for me. If he opened the door for me, asked me about myself, was courteous to the wait staff, etc., then that was much more important. I never did get women who wanted to date rude jerks. I was always more interested in guys who had manners.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"I do more of the emotional support and he does more of the financial support ..."

----------

Some women who say things like that - I have no idea about you personally - DON'T really provide "emotional support", they provide constant drama and nagging that actually makes it harder for him to earn the money to pay for her. It's just a nice way of rationalizing that he is pulling the cart and you are riding in it (sounds equal to me).

Otherwise, it's an "ode to yourself", about how you would even go out with a broke guy who could only take you to Wendy's (what a coincidence that they always wind up with a "breadwinner" type) and how you only see into his heart. What a wonderful person.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
And you are not a wonderful person; you aren't even a nice person. You jumped on the ONE quote that could be taken wrong, out of context (which you did). You didn't even notice she said *more* of the support (whether she/he, emo./fin.), but BOTH are respon. for giving what they can.

Back when I was dating, I was right there w/this woman. Guy usually pd. first few times, b/c he asked me out - then I'd ask him out & pay. With just friends, you either take turns or go Dutch.

You totally missed her point about not caring how much a man makes or if he's currently broke/unemployed. It doesn't need to be "Wendy's", that was just an example, a demo. of it being about how well the man treated others AS WELL AS her. When I was much younger & dating, I loved going on picnics, for example (still do, & hubby's a champ!). Real cheap, but if the guy made an effort for it to be fun & was nice to others around ... well, I'd see him again - & the next time I'd prob. make him a lovely dinner at my place.

Btw, what's a "breadwinner" type? A man who's a jerk to waiters or srv. ppl.? Someone who enjoys yanking ppl's chain? Being rude for little/no reason, just b/c he's "paying"? If you mean steadily employed, yeah, that's a breadwinner type, but still doesn't excuse crappy bhvr.! But if a woman starts dating someone who always expects HER to pay if they go out (b/c he's got: no job, no prospects, doesn't do anything but sit around, and has a list of excuses as long as his arm) AND he's a jerk? That's just called loser.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Equality is what was demanded, now accept it in it's truest forms. You would think that by now sharing would be a accepted idea ?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I used to use a very simple technique for deciding if i wanted to continue dating a woman, and a woman can use it as well.

When the check comes, and I invited the woman out, I wait to see if she mentions if she can pay her share, and I then tell her no, it is my treat.

for the woman the same situation exists, but if the man says fine, you may want to think about his generosity.


But as so many have said the women's movement has done a great deal of harm, while trying to convince so many that man and women are the same, save for the plumbing.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Dating is like the warm-up to the big event. She's evaluating how much the man is going to be able to support her in the lifestyle to which she will become accustomed. If you "win", you then get to pay for her for the rest of her life (maybe via alimony).

Dating money is just chicken feed compared to the amount the big winner of her heart is going to shell out, as she sits on her ever-widening butt watching "The View" and "The Talk" and "Dr Phil", getting more and more worked up about how unfair everything is.

So I wouldn't really worry about paying for a few dates.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You hit a home run on that one. Ever read "The Manipulated Man?"
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
When we treated helpless life as sacred and something to be protected mass school shootings didn't happen.

The first mass school shooting was the "I Don't Like Monday's" killings in San Diego in 1979: http://blog.billlawrenceonline.com/2012/12/14/thoughts-on-the-connecticut-massacre.aspx
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It should also be noted that the shooter was a young woman, a 16-year-old who said that the people she shot at "looked like cows." Two adults killed, eight children wounded - how's that for "Grrrl Power"?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Wrong thread. Sorry (blush)
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Report for flogging at oh dark thirty!

After your flogging, all will be forgiven.

Good post, anyway. ;-)
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
:-)
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Seven out of ten doctors who tried camels, went back to women.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I don't care who pays for our dates, only stop making me pay for your dates with other boyfriends. I know she is cheating because it's exactly like last time.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
That sounds like a good lyric!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
when I was dating in high school guys always paid. it was a different time.

when I got older and found myself divorced, it quickly became apparent the rules had changed. some gals would usually stop and get me some beers on their way over. different ladies had different styles. I liked them all. it was a fun time for me, overall. ahh the memories.

now i'm old, single again, and not so poor. I don't really pay attention to spending a good chunk on fun night out. that being said, if she doesn't take on certain expenses (according to her ability) it tells me a lot about what she would probably be like as a life-long partner. stingy w/ $$ is good to some extent for saving, as long as it isn't just stingy w/ her $$.

respect today demands intelligence. not very smart letting people take advantage to help themselves.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Liberated" modern American women have made their bed- now they are lying in it. And when you start to be unwillingly drafted into the Army to die along with your brother GIs, as the icing on the cake of combat position "opportunities" for gals, you can enjoy that "equality" as well.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"when you start to be unwillingly drafted into the Army to die along with your brother GIs, as the icing on the cake of combat position "opportunities" for gals, you can enjoy that "equality" as well. "

I would not mind that comeuppance, except for one small detail.

Good men will be killed because of it.

When the Israelis tried to integrate women into combat troops, their casualties TRIPLED.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I agree that it will be a big pile of fail. I'm thinking that it will take a big, steaming pile of fail before some people 'get' that we may be equal before the law, but we are not the same. So, in that mind, I'm all for compelling military front line combat service from women, not just things like being fighter pilots and general staff officers for women who 'chose' to have a military career. Maybe when women make up a significant amount of the next 50,000 casualty conflict, or have their kids taken from them during their combat deployments, someone will realize men have been getting the short end of the stick.

General male suffrage (right to vote) did not exist before the conscription of the civil war. It gave men an incentive to fight.

Years later, women got suffrage for nothing more than showing up. No risk of conscription, they pay the lowest level of taxes by any measure you choose. The first thing women did was elect people to give them goodies from the public treasury, and they've not stopped since. For all of the 'my body, my choice' crap I hear from them, they're the biggest bunch of meddling, controlling, sanctimonious, puritanical statist harpies who can't wait to get in the middle of other people's crap.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You are of course correct.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All