By MAMAMIA TEAM
It’s a question that’s been asked since the dawn of time:
If a caveman and a cavelady decide to join each other for a (possibly romantic) wilderbeast barbecue, is the man obliged to pay for their wilderbeast, or should they split the cost of their wilderbeast so that they each provide an equal amount of shiny rocks/human sacrifices/whatever is considered legal tender at the Bank of Cave?
The feminist position on the issue has traditionally been the latter. If men and women are equal, then they can fund an equal share of a good night out, and split the bill. Better yet, if the woman was the instigator of the date, and really enjoyed the time that she had, maybe even she could pay the bill, as a way of saying ‘thank you.’
But, this line of thinking is based on a crucial assumption: that men and women are financial equals in the first place.
And, with Australia’s gender pay gap rising, we all know that ain’t the case.
So, earlier this week, News Ltd columnist, Angela Mollard, argued that men should pay for dinner. Not just because they’re earning more in the first place, but because they are spending significantly less to get to the date, as well as throughout their lives.
Her revelation came after spending a TV appearance upholding the traditional feminist line of splitting the bill.
I promptly dropped my inner Germaine Greer in the aisle of Priceline because, after spending $12.95 on eye make-up remover, $6.95 on tampons, $24.45 on a new pair of tweezers, and $14.95 on cheap fake tan that will actually cost $114.95 to replace the ruined sheets, I realised there’s a reason men have traditionally stumped up in restaurants – they’re the only ones who have any dosh.
It takes a full-time salary to be a woman. We’re being fleeced magnificently for the inconvenience of having boobs, menstrual cycles, babies and a penchant for scented candles.
While her assertions that chicks can’t control themselves when they see a scented candle, and that fake tan is somehow a date night necessity (tell us it isn’t true!) are debatable, Mollard also makes some pretty bloody important points.
Women pay a tax on their bodies when they buy menstrual products each month. They are disproportionately responsible for buying household items and gifts.
And, Mollard also argues that women are overcharged by tradesmen who think that the sheilas won’t be able to tell the difference.
So if you think of it that way, having a man pay $30 for your dinner doesn’t seem so bad after all.*
*Assuming that he himself hasn’t spent any money on clothes/haircuts/shoes to impress you, and that he is actually in a better financial situation as you – which is not a given. Oh, and that tradesmen don’t just overcharge everyone.
Do you think that men should pay on a date?