[Discussion] Men talking to men about Feminism

This thread is for people who believe that when it comes to feminism it's important for men to listen to women and to talk to men.

In this thread we assume Feminism is something you wholeheartedly support or want to support. Questions about the validity of Feminism are for somewhere else.

Here are the scenarios

A) you inadvertently offered to pick up the check, that was nice of you. Her turn next time

B) she took advantage of how nice you are

C) she was trying to orchestrate a date and wishes you would take the hint already

P. S. Not normal, I always go Dutch with friends. If someone offered to take me out for my birthday I wouldn't expect someone to pay for me but if they did that would be lovely, I certainly wouldn't be expecting to pay for both us given it was their idea

I have picked up the bill a couple of times when out with mates but only when it was decided before hand, like when my best mate was poor for a month but I wanted to hang out with him at a pub anyway, me and my other mate paid for his drinks. However I wouldn't just expect someone to pay for something.

On dates, I tend to offer to pay but only once (most likely out of some weird sense of social duty) but prefer it when we split the bill, especially if they have a better paying job than me (I mean this is where it all comes from isn't it? the idea that men should earn more than women). At the moment I'm dating a guy who is on low income, so I don't mind picking up the bill, especially since we don't see each other that often. So in short, it's a confussing system and it needs to become social norm for folk to split the bill.

I only pick up the tab on dates or with very close friends. I feel awkward on dates when I do pick it up. I try not to use it to subtly or explicitly pressure my date to be intimate with me in the manner that I want, but there's always that undertone of trying to influence her mood with money. When we were dating, my wife regularly offered to go Dutch or split, but I always paid up both because I could afford it, and because I was quite happy to spend the money if it meant having her around for company.

At its heart, paying for a date is very much a money-for-sex or money-for-company sort of deal. I don't know how comfortable I am about the former, but the latter I'm pretty okay with doing, even with friends. I'm even more comfortable with it if I'm the one who did the inviting and the place is a tad pricey for my friend. But if I asked a friend out to a place I know I can't afford and then they paid the bill? That feels horrible.

LarryC wrote:

At its heart, paying for a date is very much a money-for-sex or money-for-company sort of deal.

Actual quote from my wife on our very first date: "OK, you can pay for dinner, but I'm not going to f*ck you because of it. Not saying I won't f*ck you, but if I do, it won't be because you bought dinner."

Jonman wrote:
LarryC wrote:

At its heart, paying for a date is very much a money-for-sex or money-for-company sort of deal.

Actual quote from my wife on our very first date: "OK, you can pay for dinner, but I'm not going to f*ck you because of it. Not saying I won't f*ck you, but if I do, it won't be because you bought dinner."

Well...?

At its heart, paying for a date is very much a money-for-sex or money-for-company sort of deal.

I mean, it can also expression of rampant codependence, speaking from personal experience.

Of course, my personal experience is from going out (on "dates") within the context of a 20+ year monogamous relationship with a fairy strange financial system. Even before we were married we shared finances, but in a slightly less that average way — recognizing each our our own personal flavors of financial anxiety, we've developed a system where we maintain separate bank accounts, but divide the responsibility for saving and spending in ways that help manage and minimize our collective stress. We each have discretionary budgets for our own personal hobbies and fun, she manages savings for large vacations, big splashy extravagances, and large household projects, and I mange regular maintenance stuff like the majority of the bills, and smaller outings.

So, when it comes to regular dining out, or going to the movies, I'm generally paying from my accounts, and that's partially an expression of how we've naturally divided things up —- but, it also goes a long way towards satisfying my deep seated and sometimes pathological drive to feel like I'm taking care of the people I love. While technically it's always "us" paying for everything, it still does the trick. Partially, this is due to culturally ingrained ideas about the man being a provider, which does feel a bit gross and unnecessary most of the time, but also there is a very real, very meaningful, genuinely good component where she (mostly) gets to relax, enjoy herself, and indulge in small extravagances without it having a chance of triggering fairly severe anxiety issues around finances. She knows that we've got a good handle on all the basics and essentials, she can trust that I've got a very up to date picture of this portion of our budget, and she doesn't have to worry. That's real, and that's valuable, and I know because that system is similarly reciprocated when it comes to portions of the budget that she manages more closely. (Although I don't think she gets nearly the codependent dopamine hit from it all that I do. )

This also means that outside of "dating", when dining out with friends and family, I'm also one of those pushy assholes who is often trying to steal the bill before the rest of the party gets a chance to look at it. Generally, I feel okay engaging in this clearly obnoxious behavior because as a dual income, no children family where both of us found good paying, stable careers early in life, were generally a bit more financially flexible than most of our friends and family, and on top of that we're sort of food snobs so we often take people places that are maybe (definitely) a bit overpriced, so I feel guilty if others are paying for our preferences. And, you know, it helps me vent my codependent urges to hopefully minimize how much they express themselves in more malignant ways. But yeah, it probably annoys the crap out of most people, and probably reads as something a bit more unsavory than I intend.

I don't see anything wrong with men paying for dates. Women have to pay an order of magnitude more to dress up. With $50 bras, wearing 3 shirts because layering is fashionable, expensive jewelry, makeup, and paying 3X as much for haircuts, it really adds up. It rubs me the wrong way when a man says he's taking a stand for equality by making his date pay for half, when all it does is serve to move the scales in the wrong direction. By all means communicate with your date to find out what you both want, but it's not doing anyone any favors by refusing to give someone a meal for giving you their time.

Edit: I don't mean to imply any kind of transaction value to the date. More that it takes a woman more time, money, and effort to get ready for a date than a man.

Delbin wrote:

I don't see anything wrong with men paying for dates. Women have to pay an order of magnitude more to dress up. With $50 bras, wearing 3 shirts because layering is fashionable, expensive jewelry, makeup, and paying 3X as much for haircuts, it really adds up. It rubs me the wrong way when a man says he's taking a stand for equality by making his date pay for half, when all it does is serve to move the scales in the wrong direction. By all means communicate with your date to find out what you both want, but it's not doing anyone any favors by refusing to give someone a meal for giving you their time.

I.. really?
Assuming a generally equal relationship, aren't you each giving each other your time?

lunchbox12682 wrote:
Delbin wrote:

I don't see anything wrong with men paying for dates. Women have to pay an order of magnitude more to dress up. With $50 bras, wearing 3 shirts because layering is fashionable, expensive jewelry, makeup, and paying 3X as much for haircuts, it really adds up. It rubs me the wrong way when a man says he's taking a stand for equality by making his date pay for half, when all it does is serve to move the scales in the wrong direction. By all means communicate with your date to find out what you both want, but it's not doing anyone any favors by refusing to give someone a meal for giving you their time.

I.. really?
Assuming a generally equal relationship, aren't you each giving each other your time?

It's not a zero sum game. Why not be kind?

If I specifically ask someone to dinner, I assume I'll be paying for them and if they say they want to cover their own expenses, I'm fine with that.
If someone asks me to dinner, I assume I'll be paying for my half.
If me and some friends go out to eat all together, everyone pays for themselves.

Of the handful of times I've offered to pay for a date I have never once regarded it as a transaction for either sex nor company. That's a POV that goes against everything I consider about dating and how inter-personal relationships work. If I offer it is almost entirely out of generosity (and maybe a little bit out of wanting to make a good impression).

If a date is going especially well I have also offered to pay on the proviso that they pick up the tab the next time but that's less about who pays and more a cute way to signal that I'm both interested in another date and interested in making the process of dating a genuinely shared process.

Delbin wrote:
lunchbox12682 wrote:
Delbin wrote:

I don't see anything wrong with men paying for dates. Women have to pay an order of magnitude more to dress up. With $50 bras, wearing 3 shirts because layering is fashionable, expensive jewelry, makeup, and paying 3X as much for haircuts, it really adds up. It rubs me the wrong way when a man says he's taking a stand for equality by making his date pay for half, when all it does is serve to move the scales in the wrong direction. By all means communicate with your date to find out what you both want, but it's not doing anyone any favors by refusing to give someone a meal for giving you their time.

I.. really?
Assuming a generally equal relationship, aren't you each giving each other your time?

It's not a zero sum game. Why not be kind?

I will agree with that and the sentiment. I at least think the initial burden (date cost) should fall more towards the person seeking the initial date. After that, communication between them should handle it.
Of course, I'm so far out of the dating game, that I am not great arbiter of how things should or do work today. Also, I'm the exception where my wife was the one who both initial made the move and proposed to me.

If the world needs a new 'who pays on the first date?' rule of thumb I would be super happy with 'whoever did the asking out'

Let's pick that apart a bit more.

Are we thinking here that women on average feel absolutely no pressure to at least be good company when a man offers or is assumed to pay for a date? I generally assume they do, hence all the getup. Maybe a specific woman won't, but I feel safer assuming she's going to feel some pressure from me if I pay so I do extra precautions not to imply or impose anything unintentionally. A small move to initiate or escalate a physical relationship might be okay without any context, but if I'm paying for a date, suddenly I'm aware that she might feel obligated to let things slide that she otherwise wouldn't.

But then that might be interpreted as failing to lead, which apparently is a bad thing.

Of course, the current dating climate means that, rightly or wrongly, a number of women will assume that it's a man's obligation to pay for dates, for whatever reason, so not paying or offering to go dutch could be interpreted badly as well, though it'll be bad in a way that's detrimental to us. I don't know that many women go home crying and devastated because a guy they liked offered to go dutch.

So there's where I'm thinking with that. Offering to pay isn't just being kind. It's also a sort of social pressure, which I, for my part, never intend to put out. I have to take extra measures just to make it clear that there's no pressure or obligation to do anything. And then I have to assuage some women that they're not taking advantage and that they're not users or anything. It's complicated.

If you really want to be the chivalrous one on a date, randomly select another couple in the restaurant and anonymously pay for their dinner

Chairman_Mao wrote:

If you really want to be the chivalrous one on a date, randomly select another couple in the restaurant and anonymously pay for their dinner

If you really want to be the chivalrous one, turn up in full plate armor on a horse.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

If you really want to be the chivalrous one on a date, randomly select another couple in the restaurant and anonymously pay for their dinner

Chivalry has nothing to do with it. Part of being a feminist is acknowledging the privileges we have being born male. If, after discussion, the woman decides she wants you to pay for dinner, perhaps the better action would be accepting without reservation. The alternative is trumpeting equality while conveniently making the date cheaper for yourself.

Jonman wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:

If you really want to be the chivalrous one on a date, randomly select another couple in the restaurant and anonymously pay for their dinner

If you really want to be the chivalrous one, turn up in full plate armor on a horse.

+1. Just check your lance at the door.

Delbin wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:

If you really want to be the chivalrous one on a date, randomly select another couple in the restaurant and anonymously pay for their dinner

Chivalry has nothing to do with it. Part of being a feminist is acknowledging the privileges we have being born male. If, after discussion, the woman decides she wants you to pay for dinner, perhaps the better action would be accepting without reservation. The alternative is trumpeting equality while conveniently making the date cheaper for yourself.

Chivalry was the wrong word. I think what I was trying to get at is that I agree that paying for a date's dinner creates some level of pressure on the person being treated. So if you want to avoid that but still pay money for something, spend it on someone else in the restaurant. I'll admit, I was always a pretty bad dinner date.

Yes there is a societal expectation that the man pays. And yes someone may feel indebted to you for paying for them. But I've generally found that if you can genuinely make the offer without pressure or expectation then people are usually pretty good at reading that you don't have any expectations and in turn won't feel pressured. At the end of a date you should have a pretty decent read on someone and be able to navigate that.

If you don't feel you can make an offer to pay and not set up an obligation in the other person then I'd just go straight to offering to split the bill, that's my go to assumption anyway. I guess some of the women I've split bills with were disappointed I didn't offer to pay and I've lost out on a subsequent date but frankly Iam 100% happy with that. There should be no more expectation that I pay than there should be that the other person puts out as a result.

OK, switching feminist topics....

I am in a private practice medical practice and one of the interesting things about our group is that we have full open disclosure regarding income. Every quarter we get a spreadsheet listing each physicians income so you know exactly who is making what in the practice.

Our group is about 1/3 women 2/3 men. Looking at the numbers the men in our group make about 20% more than the women. So it looks like a typical case of men in the same profession getting paid more than their female counterparts.

But we are all paid by the exact same formula based largely on production. So the more patients you see, the more income you get. The men overall are seeing about 20% more patients. We are all the same specialty and keep about the same office hours.

I think the reality is that many of the women still have obligations to go to kids activities, etc, so it is harder to work in emergency patients at the end of the day or come in on their day off to see extra patients.

So it got me to thinking. To be truly equitable, would it be most fair for women to make more per worked unit than men? This would reflect that there are still imbalances in domestic duties and take into account the overall societal work that women contribute. This would have to mean a cut in men’s pay per worked unit and an increase for women so that the profitability of the company isn’t impacted.

Also, men hold all of the leadership positions in our company. It isn’t that women are excluded, none have wanted to take those roles I think because it means more meetings in the evenings, etc. but again from the outside it looks like gender discrimination.

In our practice, we just split the fees right down the middle, and the work as well. You come in, you're working your shift (or whatever). This works for both men and women, though I think it's also because we don't have as strong an emphasis on women going to kids and supporting them. I would feel like an extremely bad father if I didn't contribute as much as I could to kid stuff like that, and I do take on less work than my colleagues who do not have children.

I don't think it would be more equitable to pay for women's activities outside work. If you want your leadership to be fairer, make changes there. Ask women why they don't want to take on leadership roles and then adjust the role so that women can have more equal representation.

LarryC wrote:

In our practice, we just split the fees right down the middle, and the work as well. You come in, you're working your shift (or whatever). This works for both men and women, though I think it's also because we don't have as strong an emphasis on women going to kids and supporting them. I would feel like an extremely bad father if I didn't contribute as much as I could to kid stuff like that, and I do take on less work than my colleagues who do not have children.

I don't think it would be more equitable to pay for women's activities outside work. If you want your leadership to be fairer, make changes there. Ask women why they don't want to take on leadership roles and then adjust the role so that women can have more equal representation.

Most of the feedback that we’ve received is it’s the hours. We expect our leadership to maintain a regular practice (except the president) and so it is more evening meetings. We could change that but the group (including the women) have not been in favor of having physicians in leadership not also carry a practice. Frankly it is a really challenging job to balance leadership and clinical practice. I did it for years and it finally burned me out to the point of needing to step away from practice for a year.

But medicine is it’s own beast, maybe not a good model to draw conclusions about gender roles from.

In my previous practice we had a similar model to yours but it was not fair as we had docs seeing twice as many patients for the same compensation and it was causing hard feelings. The current model allows people to work less hard and make less money or work harder and make more money so it allows some work-life flexibility without causing resentment.

Docjoe wrote:

So it got me to thinking. To be truly equitable, would it be most fair for women to make more per worked unit than men? This would reflect that there are still imbalances in domestic duties and take into account the overall societal work that women contribute. This would have to mean a cut in men’s pay per worked unit and an increase for women so that the profitability of the company isn’t impacted.

Also, men hold all of the leadership positions in our company. It isn’t that women are excluded, none have wanted to take those roles I think because it means more meetings in the evenings, etc. but again from the outside it looks like gender discrimination.

This is the core of the argument around structural inequality. People who think the pay gap isn't necessarily a bad thing cite the fact that women devote time to childcare and that's why they don't spend enough time devoted to work to get pay rises.

The problem with that is the inherently sexist notion that men don't also have children. Last time I checked it was an overwhelmingly two-person affair. Here in Sweden we get 480 days paid parental leave and those days are split between both parents. We also have guaranteed full time kindergarten/childcare (including a provision for night shifts) so one parent is not forced to stay home to look after the kids. It's normal for both parents to work and for one parent to drop off the kids in the morning and work later and the other parent to go in early and leave early so they can pick them up.

There's still a pay gap in Sweden but it's been closing as more laws focus responsibility of childcare on to men. Adjusted for profession the gap is 5% but changing general perception of "men's careers" and "women's careers" is a longer term proposition that laws will take some time to influence.

I don't think it's healthy for leadership to require a certain lifestyle, particularly one that excludes women because of cultural expectations. Having women in leadership positions alone would be a strong gain in and of itself, even if you had to distribute the workload to more people so that there's a healthier work/life balance. But it's your gig and you do what you want with it.

You could delegate purely managerial administrative roles to positions with greater hours expected, and delegate policy and decision-making to roles requiring less hours. Or have a multiplier for patients to fees based on leadership position (because you do more non-patient work), not based on gender. That way, both men and women leaders will have better work/life balance and more time for parenting and household roles.

But once again, it's your gig. I'm just spitballing here.

The issue of who pays for a date is a vexed one but from my discussions with women friends about 10 years my junior the expectations of women are not that the man will pay but a presumption of going half each; though if an invitation is made on the basis of the man offering to pay (for example for a birthday dinner) then it would be accepted without discussion. This is one issue where I think, if in doubt, just ask your dining companion ahead. I think it's wrong to expect anything from paying for dinner or the date. Kind of in LarryC's camp on this one; I like paying for the company of whom I am dining with, but if my dining buddy feels strongly about it (eg like tonight my brother refused to let me pay for his birthday dinner as I booked and paid for concert tickets) then I will honour their feelings and give way to them.

Not sure if this is the proper place but does anyone else that's not planning on having kids ever get sick of the constant lectures, that isn't really the right word but at times it feels like it, from anyone that finds out(friends, family, coworkers, etc). I imagine it's a million times worse for a woman that doesn't want kids.

I just don't really understand why people feel it's appropriate to put that kind of pressure on people to do something they don't want to do. Even more so when it involves something as life changing and important as having/raising kids. How much do you think that pressure on a society level leads to bad relationships and bad parents?

JeremyK wrote:

Not sure if this is the proper place but does anyone else that's not planning on having kids ever get sick of the constant lectures, that isn't really the right word but at times it feels like it, from anyone that finds out(friends, family, coworkers, etc). I imagine it's a million times worse for a woman that doesn't want kids.

I just don't really understand why people feel it's appropriate to put that kind of pressure on people to do something they don't want to do. Even more so when it involves something as life changing and important as having/raising kids.

Don't expect having a kid just to shut them up will work either. "You only have n kid(s)?! Why not have n+1 kids?!"

JeremyK wrote:

Not sure if this is the proper place but does anyone else that's not planning on having kids ever get sick of the constant lectures, that isn't really the right word but at times it feels like it, from anyone that finds out(friends, family, coworkers, etc). I imagine it's a million times worse for a woman that doesn't want kids.

I just don't really understand why people feel it's appropriate to put that kind of pressure on people to do something they don't want to do. Even more so when it involves something as life changing and important as having/raising kids. How much do you think that pressure on a society level leads to bad relationships and bad parents?

We don't want kids and decided not to have them. There are also additional medical reasons we can't.

If someone is going for the lecture I'll shut them down with the medical reasons we can't have kids. People quickly STFU when they realise they were being a judgemental ass; it's a good way to render people embarrassed for asking and I feel no shame making them feel small when they were in the process of trying to make me feel shame about our decision.

People who ask why we don't have kids and in good faith I'm usually pretty happy to unpack it and discuss all the issues. I'm not embarrassed by our choices and there are all sorts of social issues and pressures to reflect on and understand

You are 100% right that women feel the brunt of this. My MiL was all over laying the guilt trip on my wife. They've kind of reached an uneasy truce about it since the medical issues raised their head though. My sister after a lot of hand wringing and a great deal of reluctance did eventually have one kid, he's pretty cool now, but she is adamant she is never, ever having another. Oddly my sister comes from a long line of women that didn't really want kids (my mother's mother didn't want and was persuaded to have by my grandfather, my mother wasn't planning any and had my brother by accident etc...)

No idea whether it leads to bad parenting/kids. I'd guess a lot of that probably comes out in the wash.

JeremyK wrote:

Not sure if this is the proper place but does anyone else that's not planning on having kids ever get sick of the constant lectures, that isn't really the right word but at times it feels like it, from anyone that finds out(friends, family, coworkers, etc). I imagine it's a million times worse for a woman that doesn't want kids.

FWIW having been on both sides of this particular fence the judgmental crap doesn't stop when you have kids. It just becomes about how you're parenting wrong.

Some people are just assholes who want to tell you how to live your life.

Also, threads on this particular topic have been locked more than once so I'd just as rather swerve it here.

DanB wrote:

If the world needs a new 'who pays on the first date?' rule of thumb I would be super happy with 'whoever did the asking out'

I'd be interested in talking that out a bit but I'd like to point out that there are some very clear power dynamics at play with that kind of a system. It's marginally better than 'men do the asking out and are expected to pay' but it's still very vulnerable to class issues (where people would generally feel more comfortable asking out people who are financially less well off from themselves and nervous asking out people who are likely more financially well off). It's vulnerable to the same gender stereotypes and issues just without making them explicit.

How about the rule of thumb be that it's OK and expected to talk about it? Ask someone out and then be up front with whether you are treating them (making yourself the host/ess for the evening, even if you're going out) or if you're looking to share a fun evening (and expecting both to chip in). There are power dynamics at play there, too, but openly discussing them shows that you're emotionally and socially capable of establishing and respecting boundaries and communicating and if those things became the social standard for first dates I WOULD BE VERY HAPPY.