.png)
My understanding of the arguments about men paying for dates (apart for cultural traditions), is that it's kind of like a tax on sexism. Women are compensated less in all areas of society, our skills are valued less, we are disadvantaged in relationships due to cultural conditioning, and we're at higher risk for sexual and physical assault and our society doesn't offer nearly adequate support for that. Not even mentioning the consequences of having a baby with somebody.
Anyway, I was thinking about expectations of men always paying to make up for systemic sexism, all things else equal. However, in US society, if a nonwhite man begins dating a white woman, then this oppression argument seems to break down. If you compare a white woman to a nonwhite man, who has the overall advantage ? Especially since white Americans have collectively stolen significant amounts of wealth from several different ethnicity groups and benefitted from discriminatory policies. Does the argument of demanding the man to pay for dates to compensate for systematic sexism break down if there is also a racial inequality?
Girl, I totally see you and your attempt to be anti-racist- but talk to any WoC and you will hear horror stories about men of color treating them horribly. Please do not incentivize these men to continue with their scrote behavior. Think about it as doing us a favor and prioritizing WoC by helping us hold the line. Use your privilege for good and have even higher expectations for them.
Men providing is not an opression tax nor a beauty tax. From my experience it is primarily what they need to see us as high value and treat us with respect. Liberal women who lower the bar get punished and treated worse than normal. Do it at your own peril- and don't be surprised when he treats you like trash.
Put it this way- with your logic, how much bad behavior could men of color get away with then? They'll try pushing your buttons and see how hard they can wring out your bleeding heart. So... don't do it. The worse he treats you might be the best he treats a woman with less privilege than you.
Men of all races and ethnicities are at an advantage in all cultures compared to women of same or different ones.
If a man wants to use race and ethnicity to act LV then that's his choice. When did we succeed in changing a man anyway.
What we as women should be concerned with is that no excuse is a valid reason for LV scrotes to do their thing with or around us.
Be calm and walk away. He probably would have sucked as a man even under better circumstances.
the man always has the most advantages when it comes to heterosexual relationships. they can kill us with their bare hands and, regardless of being more likely to be punished for being a POC, you'd be dead anyway. so it doesn't matter.
these men still cheat, they can still give you STIs, get you pregnant, be abusive, etc. don't let them guilt trip you into lowering your standards.
if a man questions your standards, he's not for you. he questions because he disagrees. he argues because he thinks it's not fair. "oh so it's never okay to ask questions?" No, it's never okay for a potential partner to question your standards because they exist to protect you from LVM who can be the death of you.
I am a Black woman and I feel like the amount bs all women potentially risk by vetting any man should set your standards high. Women should ask for more because they value their own self. Self-preservation, something a man does naturally.
Yes, some women have had, and still have, it more challenging.
But no woman should accept less from any man. That is a recipe for oppression to follow.
There is no reason that WW - who were also oppressed by their own men historically - should ignore the history but that's not what you use as the final calculation of your value. It gives context and helps us to make better decisions so bad history doesn't repeat itself, but it isn't the why.
You are valuable because you are you. Regardless of your race...you are valuable because you are a unique and capable lady who is 🔥 [fire] without a man. So, you want him to accept accommodating the lifestyle that's least stressful for you because you are not here to make a man's life easier. [Surely, he can do that himself.]
My point is: a man makes your life easier from Day 1, you definitely do not need to do that for him, regardless of your backgrounds.
My own 2 cents: men don't pay for dates because of sexism tax. They pay because women bring value, meaning and substance to their life. The least they can do is treat you to a meal for even bothering to give them an hour of your presence so that you can consider if you want to give them more of your time. Men seem completely lost and pointless if they do not have a woman in their life whereas women function just fine, even better without a man in their life. Men go on killing rampages all because their wife wants to divorce them or a woman they like rejected them, while women will eat ice cream, cry with their friends and work on themselves if they are rejected by a man or are dumped in the relationship. This is why it makes sense for the man to "earn" you instead of you trying to "earn" him...you're the one that's going to make his life better and lengthen his life span.
It's not just systemic oppression, men are just a bigger personal risk to us than vice versa, no matter their race or economic background. Sometimes it's actually the less privileged men who are the most dangerous. We impose a "tax" to stay safe, not to be reimbursed for the higher cost of being a woman.
From what I've understood about FDS' rules which fall in the more hard-and-fast category, there needs be a very strong and valid justification in order to deviate from them. For example, high achieving MoC of certain ethnicities typically go for becoming a doctor as their profession. If you're a high achieving woman who's similarly career driven, like being a lawyer, perhaps it's worth considering dating a man like that who has yet to start earning substantially due to long years of study. But other than this, I don't see how to justify other scenarios which could likely lead to becoming Barb the Builder.
It's not a "sexism tax" it's proof that he really values your company and wants to treat you well. If he is asking you out, he should pay because he wants you there.
In a same-sex relationship, whoever initiates asking the other person out should pay. Every time I asked a woman out, I made sure I could pay. Splitting the bill does not make sense to me even in same-sex relationships.
I'm a WoC and I find the question of "does a white woman or nonwhite man face more oppression?" kind of silly and irrelevant to a dating context. In dating, relationships, marriage and childbirth women always have the disadvantage. Nonwhite men have disadvantages compared to whites in other areas however, like employment and education, where they are discriminated against. But this is not signifcant to the question of who should pay on a date, which should always be the person who initiated the date. FDS is also against straight women making the first move for various reasons, so there shouldn't be a situation where a straight woman should have to pay because she shouldn't be asking out anyone in the first place.