Anonymous asked: Hi you posted a youtube video by blndsundoll4mj and of the many things she bright up I wanted to talk about two. Firstly what do you think about the way some women see themselves as anti-feminist and being worried about female politicians? The second point which is a very minor point is that when you date someone do you expect them to pay? I always get annoyed when I'm expected to pay rather than go Dutch because it seems like a bribe to get someones attention when you pay.
I’ll answer your points in order.
About women being anti-feminist and worried about female politicians: I think it’s an unfortunuate (but prediactable) product of sexist society that some women have been inducted into quasi-oppressive roles themselves. Who can say what made that particular woman think the way she does? I certainly can’t. But i know that it must have something to do with the way society has taught her about gender (i.e. misinformation). To spell it out, it’s internalised misogyny. It sucks.
On your second point: When i date someone, i don’t expect them to pay, no. With my SO, things are pretty equal and have been since our first date (which was drinks—we alternated rounds). Sometimes we’ll go dutch, other times he’ll pay and other times i’ll pay. We have an understanding that it’ll more or less even out (although i’m the sole beneficiary of our coffee shop loyalty card stamps…).
Money and dating is something that’s really tricky to navigate, i have to say. Although the best way to approach it is to go dutch, this can be a bit of a minefield where there are income discrepancies; if i were earning double what my SO gets and had correspondingly more lavish tastes, i couldn’t reasonably expect him to accompany me to fancy restaurants or plays or whatever and go Dutch every time. It wouldn’t be fair. In those sorts of cases, where it’s something out of the ordinary, i would generally go with it being the asker who treats.
I’m 100% an advocate for going Dutch on first dates in every scenario (i can currently think of). Having one party (and it’s usually the man, let’s face facts) treat can certainly act as you’ve suggested—it can be hard to tell someone’s true feelings about going on a date with you if they know they’re getting a free dinner and drinks out of it. Further, it indebts one party to the other and can thereby lead to expectations. i.e., that the person who was treated owes the person who paid sex/another date/whatever.
It also establishes a general inequity between the parties—if X paid for Y on the first date, X may also expect to have to pay for Y on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th date. Or Y may expect to be paid for. At the least, it can breed resentment where there need otherwise be none, and worse, it reinforces traditional ideas of “buying” or “keeping” woman and of material and financial assets being the markers of “manliness” and so on.
And, okay, if we retain the notion that men pay and women are paid for, who pays for the women if two go on a date together? That sort of thinking doesn’t make room for non-heterosexual relationships, so that’s just one more way that it’s rubbish.
(I know you said the second point was a minor one, but I have a lot to say!)
