So basically doing him a disservice, particularly considering that she doesn't appreciate him no matter how good he is unless he throws money at her (the way prostitution works). Considering the rest of the article things are even worse for this guy. Of course, in her twisted world because he's paying her money just to be with her, she thinks she's doing him a favour by marrying him and subjecting him to further parasitism.
Want a second date? Pay for the first
Men, pay attention. Women place a high value on how a potential partner treats them right at the start. Generosity will go a long way.
It was our first date. He was handsome, tall, educated, thoughtful and funny. He had a British accent and a great body. We sipped martinis and nibbled on perfectly seasoned tenderloin in a gourmet restaurant in downtown Boston. To say he was a catch would be an understatement. Yet the deal was not fully sealed until the dinner check came. He reached to pay it without hesitating.
Reader, I married him.
Generosity is a typical euphemism for a good provider. Someone who throws money at her. God forbid she should come to depend on this boundless generosity considering that would mean he was oppressing her.
There was, of course, more to it than that. But one of the things that most attracted me to my husband was his boundless generosity when it came to me.
Who would have thought we'd find a feminist glorifying the act of not applying logic, required for objectivity and fairness, to ethics. She can't escape the conclusion that she is a hypocrite so she attempts to dress it up. She's a hypocrite so her value must be greater. Umm yeah right.
Me -- the feminist, the aggressive professional, the battler of gender inequality wherever it lurks.
Me -- the woman who thinks the man should pay for the first date.
F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."
I must be a genius. A hypocritical genius.
Never mind that a lot of people were sold feminism on the basis of equality and were convinced that women paying for dates would be a good thing for men, so supported feminism, only to find out now that it's been a big bait and switch all along. See this crappy questionnaire, I recently wrote about for example.
Well, of course she isn't with the advantages she can claim by pursuing equality when it suits her. To paraphrase what she just said; feminists believe in equality but that they are special and should be treated like it.
One of my many sisters in this hypocrisy is Donna Spangler, a former model and author of "How to Get a Rich Man." She says she simply wouldn't go on a second date with a man who didn't pay for the first. "There's something about the strength of a man who pays," says Spangler. "If a guy doesn't pay for you, you're not being treated like you're special. . . . A woman shouldn't gravitate toward that kind of man."
The feminist in me cringes at those words, but, God help me, I agree with her. I have many devoutly feminist friends who agree as well. Some might say that our position on this matter is inconsistent with feminism, but I'm not ready to hand in my NOW card just yet.
This is not the only reason that feminists are their own worst enemies when it comes to being taken seriously when demanding equality.
Still, I have seen the enemy and she is me -- and Donna, and my friends, and every other woman who is appalled when asked to go Dutch on the first date.
"How could you throw women in jail for the same amount of time a man would get?"
"How could you not give women complete control over reproduction and not force responsibility on men?"
"How could you let women be subjected to violence and punish women who subject men to it?"
"How could you not give woman sole maternal custody in 85% of cases?"
"How could you not make sure a husband pays a woman money after a divorce?"
"How could you say women should be subjected to behaviour men can handle in the workplace?"
"How can you let the market forces which dictate whether a man gets hired dictate whether a woman gets hired or not?"
If he can't provide for her, he is a wimp, but she must have economic equality with him. Sounds reasonable. This new "intelligent" form of hypocritical ethics seems to have advantages for everyone. I wonder how this cunt would feel if men decided that hey we're just going to be hypocritical about everything when it comes to gender relations and claim it's because we're "intelligent". How about women go back to the kitchen but still pay an equal amount for dates? Sound good? It's "intelligent".
Perhaps we can rationalize that our desire for a man to pay is the modern version of an age-old evolutionary urge. The female of any species gravitates toward a mate who can provide for her and any potential offspring, says Boyce Watkins, a finance professor at Syracuse University and author of "Financial Lovemaking 101."
Prehistorically, man provided food and shelter to show a woman he was interested. Millenniums later, that dynamic is re-enacted at Italian restaurants every Saturday night.
"Paying for the first date is one way to show that there is an allocation of valuable resources to your significant other," says Watkins. "And let's face it, I don't care if you're a human or a bear in the woods, no female wants to mate with a wimp who can't provide."
Notice how won't has become can't here as well. Typical shaming tactic. If he won't pay, it really means that he can't so is a wimp. The fact that he might be a wimp for acquiesing to her ridiculous demands is sidestepped here.
It's not a compromise, it's an excuse. A rationalisation. This is pretty much what feminism is about these days, creating new and inventive excuses for why women can have equality in some areas because they are just as strong and capable as men, while in others they are entitled to special treatment, usually based on women being in some way weaker. Turns out the weakness card is exactly what she plays:
No wonder men are perplexed by the modern woman. We're actually prehistoric hypocritical geniuses.
"A lot of men are confused by gender equality," says Watkins. "They hear a woman is equal to a man, but the minute you try to apply this to dating, you find she doesn't want to go out with you anymore."
It's not only men who are confused. Women can't seem to come to a consensus, either. Struggling to maintain a semblance of integrity, they come up with a compromise: Whoever invites pays.
So again, the responsibility for asking the other person out is on men without any credit given for that. He risks rejection asking the female out. He pays. The woman justifies this by claiming that she is too emotionally weak to handle asking someone out. Sorry I thought women were just as emotionally strong as men, if not stronger, according to feminists.
"It's a host or hostess thing," says Jacqueline Mitchell, a writer for an alumni magazine at Tufts University in Boston. "If you ask someone to your house for dinner, you know you're footing the bill."
But there's just one tiny hitch.
"I'm never going to ask a man out for the first date." Mitchell admits. "It's not that I think it's wrong; I'm just too shy."
Actually it looks like who is being blamed is the real usual suspect, men. Typically unfairly as well. We have here a perfect example of women equating a man's worth with his income by insisting he pays on dates, so in terms of market forces, pragmatically, his value does equate to his income. She already admitted it's what she wants and that men are wimps if they can't do it. That's what this other silly bitch is glossing over when she says "society" caused it.
Fortunately, it seems, many men want to pay for the first date.
"Men don't want things to be too easy," says April Masini, a dating advice columnist and author of "Date Out of Your League" and other relationship books. "Men are hunters. When it comes to a relationship, the man needs to pursue the relationship. When it comes to romance, it's not the same as the boardroom."
Paying for dinner is a man's way of signaling that the date is romantic, as opposed to platonic, she says. If a woman offers to pay, men feel pursued, and the thrill of the hunt evaporates, making a second date unlikely.
Evolution is only partially to blame. We can point to the usual suspects -- TV, Mom and Dad, and "society," says Dr. Molly Barrow, a relationship expert, psychologist and author of "Matchlines." Thanks to brainwashing from this Terrible Trio, "most men feel that their job and their earning power equates with their self-worth," says Barrow. "Women do not equate their self-worth with their income. They do equate their self-worth with how their partner treats them."
Put the two together, and guess who's paying for dinner?
I'm sure men just love giving the money they worked for away for no apparent reason. We burn it in the fireplace on weekends just to validate our self worth.
Also notice how she's invoking an argument based on evolution when it suits her. Well, evolution made women to be bear and raise children. Guess you're going to have to accept that role. Nothing we can do about it I'm afraid. Back to the kitchen.
Strong women like the feminist, aggressive professional that wrote this article (who demands that men pay and ditches them if they don't)?
"Giving stronger female role models to children will help us break out of this pattern," says Barrow. "Men will eventually disengage from the money equals power equals self-worth thing and as they do that, females will learn to define their own self-worth differently."
Funny how when faced with examples of chivalry which women have long demanded, feminists blame it on "the patriarchy" and insist that the only way to put an end to this is to give women more power even though thus far all they've done with the power they have is attempt to make men more chivalrous and deferential towards women.
Fat chance, says writer Spangler.
"I don't care what the feminists say; a man is a man," she says. "He's got a sex drive and he doesn't value the girl that pays. There are some things that are true, whether you want them to be or not."
Well if the only way a woman feels valued is if a man treats her special, then obviously, according to her standards, he's not going to "value her" unless he treats her special. If he has a sex drive, will he have sex with her? If she's fun will he hang out with her? Why isn't that good enough for her? This woman obviously feels entitled to something more than that. Not surprising considering she's the author of a book "how to get a rich man". So she doesn't consider the relationship a success unless she "gets" him, and seeing as he has to be rich there must be something she gets out of it that she wouldn't otherwise. OH YEAH MONEY.
She's set up her own expectations, which happen to be milking a rich man for all he's worth, and decided that any man who doesn't live up to them is not worth her time. Translated this is her admitting that she demands a sucker.
Is that it? No "I guess seeing as I don't believe in equality I'm not a feminist"? No "I guess seeing as I believe in equality I should really start insisting I pay"? No. That's the end of the article. It's conclusion is "I guess I'm a hypocrite teeheehee".
Story of my hypocritical life.
Men aren't getting off any easier as a result of feminism. It's not like women pick up half the slack and we get to take half the week off work to sit around the house maybe watching advertising during the day enough to have even one male focussed show put on daytime TV, or play with the kids. Nope. Equality for men means women wouldn't be treated special so it can't be done. We are still expected to provide. When the woman is earning enough to pay her share, men are still expected to have even more money and provide for her or she's damn well entitled to kick him to the curb. Meaning that at the end of the day men have to work much harder than before feminism and it's hypocrisy. Great.
The worst thing about all of this is that they KNOW they are being hypocritical and they believe that they are getting away with it because they are "special" even though the vast majority of other woman have the same ideas (or it wouldn't work). One has to ask, if this is the case, how much value are these women putting on the men that accept this very raw deal?