|
It's not the most
romantic subject for Valentine's Day, but the unfair expectation
that men must pay for dates, which came under commendable
feminist attack during the 1970s, is, surprisingly, almost as
strong today as it was before women's liberation. There are
several standard justifications given for not splitting the
check:
Justification #1:
"Women have to spend more on clothes, shoes, perfume, etc., so
it's only fair that men pay."
It's true that women's
clothes, shoes, etc., can cost considerably more than men's, but
men who date must reciprocate by having a presentable car and a
presentable place to live, both of which are far more expensive.
After all, a marriage-age man who lives at home is considered
undesirable, but did you ever see a man turn down a promising
date because she lived with mom and dad or drove an old junker?
I didn't think so.
Justification #2: "Men
make more money than women do for the same job."
This is one of the
most persistent myths of our time. Studies by liberal (AFL-CIO),
dissident feminist (The Independent Women's Forum), and
conservative (Hoover Institution) organizations have found that
single men do not earn more than single women. The gender wage
gap is caused by the career sacrifices that mothers make for
their children, and the personal sacrifices fathers make (longer
work weeks, more hazardous jobs, etc.) in order to earn the
money to support those children. Neither of these is generally
an issue in dating.
Justification #3: "I'm
old-fashioned. I expect the man to pay because it's chivalrous."
The problem is that
many men have understandably come to hear this as "I'm old
fashioned when it suits me. When it doesn't, well, that's a
different story." After all, what would a modern woman say if
her date said "I'm old-fashioned. I expect the woman to do all
the cooking"?
Justification #4:
"Whoever asks for the date should pay."
And who is always
expected to ask? Need I ask?
Justification #5:
"Well, if men expect to get something, they should expect to pay
for it."
It is Neanderthal for
a man to expect to "get something" simply because he has paid
for a date. Also, since women enjoy sex as much as men do, even
if a woman does have sex with a man "because he paid" it's still
unfair to the man because he's paying for the privilege of doing
something which is mutually pleasurable.
Justification #6:
"It's just easier this way."
This claim certainly
has merit. The rise of feminism demolished many of society's
rules and traditions, usually for the better. But when it comes
to dating, nobody really knows what the rules are anymore, and
in this confusion often both men and women find it easier to
fall back on tradition.
Enough! The obligation
of a man to pay can wound a budding relationship by placing
money and one-sided expectations where love and honesty should
be. In addition, its innate unfairness hinders the uneasy
rapprochement men and women are currently negotiating after
three decades of gender conflict. In the long run, abolishing
this outmoded social convention will benefit both men and women.
And what's fair is fair.
Oh, and guys, be sure
not to order the most expensive item on the menu, OK?
This column first appeared in the
St. Louis Post-Dispatch (2/14/02).
|