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.