How would you know the patriarchy is dead?

I never took it that you, personally, accused me, personally, of rationalizing here.

Then I suppose that I misunderstood you.

But in general, don't you find that people resort to that sort of vocabulary (I'm not a native English speaker, but this one is near-universal, as it permeated virtually all languages via popular psychology) in ways that could be described as intellectually dishonest?

Yes, I think that many people resort to accusations in order to win an argument. I also think that people resort to rationalization in order to win an argument. I think I was careful to phrase my question in terms of the argument itself and the subjective view of a third party. That's probably all I have to say on the subject for the time being; frankly I'm not at all interested in carrying on a discussion about this.

To be honest, I don't think I ever actually lived in the "men always pay" world. It's like this large myth I'd heard of, but that never actually represented my lived reality. It may be a sort of a tradition that has meanwhile largely dissipated; I suspect it may continue to be alive and thriving in some circles, but I think that very many people of my generation have sort of spontaneously moved away from it.

Consider two random people on a date: person A and person B. Suppose that person A was expected (by a majority concensus) to pay for the date. Now consider two random variables; variable X: 'did person A ask out person B?'' and variable Y: 'is person A a man?' This setup suggests a little matrix of probabilities

| X: A asked out B | ¬X: B asked out A |----------------|----------------- Y: A is a man | P(X∩Y) | P(¬X∩Y) ¬Y: A is a woman | P(X∩¬Y) | P(¬X∩¬Y)

Now if the value of P(X∩Y) is very large, like 0.9 or something, then it's going to be very difficult to determine whether or not men are expected to pay because they're men, or for some other reason. But the fact would remain that the world was a de facto "men always pay" world. I wonder how you would fill out that table.

From a sort of conception that it's men who extend graces to women, to a sort of (imperfect, inconsistent, in-flux - but still changed) conception that it's both men and women who extend graces to each other, but more in function of "role" (e.g. initiatior) than in function specifically of sex.

The only time I've ever heard this position articulated is by feminists responding to questions regarding the unfairness of dating etiquette.

What was probably my first "date" was unplanned - I was asked by a guy to go for a coffee with him, then and there. It was awkward, because I literally had no money on me, so I said so, and he told me: "Duuh, I am inviting you for a coffee, of course I don't expect you to pay." I was a teenager, it was already 21st century, and the stated motive for why I wasn't paying wasn't that I was a woman - but that I was the asked-out one.

That's consistent with my model as well as with the one you've proposed.

While I can't say that my experience is representative (I just don't know),

Your experience is very representative insofar as the man asked out the woman and paid for the date.

I've had plenty of other situations that pretty much followed the pattern.

Then it sounds like you did live in a world where men always pay, but you've chosen a less common interpretation for that world.

For the record I've lived in more than one country and had these exchanges in more than one language, with men my age of different nationalities. With almost all men it was extremely hard to say whether any concessions they were giving me were on account of me being a woman or on account of them caring about me as an individual and wanting to extend extra kidness to me that way (I did those things, too).

I have, on a handful of occasions, paid for a date and then said some words to the effect that there was some reason for it other than social pressure. I have never said, "I am going to pay because I am a man and you are a woman." That's part of the awesome double-bind of dating while male; you have to capitulate to women and then concoct some alternative explanation so that they don't feel uncomfortable about it.

So could it be that these new-emerging models are the "new" reality for very many young people?

Yes, I do think so. I also think that ultimately the expectation that one party pays for the other will disappear.

/r/AskFeminists Thread Parent