cv wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:39:14 -0800, bluesmama wrote:
>
> >
> > cv wrote:
> >> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:41:41 -0800, bluesmama wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Jim wrote:
> >> >> Well guys, I admit it.  I made a mistake that I will learn
from.
> > I
> >> > was
> >> >> corresponding with a 'career-oriented' single early 40's woman
in
> >> > online
> >> >> dating.  I asked if she was interested in meeting one night
after
> >> > work for a
> >> >> cup of coffee as she indicated she enjoys a good cup
of coffee.
> > What
> >> > I had
> >> >> in mind was a starbucks, or something cheaper...nothing
> > extravagant
> >> > as it
> >> >> was a first date. She said "Coffee or a drink
sounds good".
So,
> > we
> >> > agreed
> >> >> to meet near her office (in NYC)...  so she picked a
restaurant
> > that
> >> > caters
> >> >> to the Broadway musical crowd.  We get in and she orders a
glass
> > of
> >> >> wine....I was planning on a coffee, but to be social, I
followed
> > her
> >> > lead
> >> >> and had a glass of wine.  We exchanged pleasant conversation
and
> > the
> >> > bill
> >> >> arrived and being the man, I naturally offered to pay and she
> > didn't
> >> > offer
> >> >> too much resistance to my magnanimous gesture.....anyways,   a
> > glass
> >> > of wine
> >> >> is not cheap in NYC,  total damage with tip was 20 bucks.   A
> > medium
> >> > cup of
> >> >> coffee at starbucks would have cost me a buck and a half, even
if
> > she
> >> >
> >> >> ordered a latte or other fancy coffee beverage, it would have
been
> > a
> >> > 5
> >> >> dollar proposition.  Needless to say, two days later, she
thanked
> > me
> >> > for the
> >> >> drink and subsequently informed me that she was not interested
in
> > me.
> >> >  It
> >> >> just rubbed me the wrong way...I asked her out for a cheap cup
of
> >> > coffee and
> >> >> she turned it into an expensive glass of wine...she got her
> > freebie
> >> > and made
> >> >> a fool out of me....never again!  A career feminist pig will
never
> >> > take
> >> >> advantage of me again!  I've learned my lesson!
> >> >
> >> > You asked her out, you pay. She asks you out, she should pay.
> >>
> >> Don't see how that follows. If both parties agree to go out then
they
> > are
> >> both interested in getting to know each other. It is more natural
> > that the
> >> person who risked rejection by doing the asking is compensated by
the
> >> other person footing the bulk of the bill.
> >>
> >
> > It might be more natural, but it seems more fair to me that the
person
> > who initates the date pay,
>
> How is an unequal division of responsibilities more fair? Unless, of
> course, you have no interest at all in the asker and you are doing
him a
> favor. In such a case, you should not go out and spend his money.

How is an unequal division of responsibilities more fair? Good
question, and you're quite right, it's not. It's just what I'm used to,
I guess, from both angles - those where I've been the asker & payer,
and those where I've been the askee and payee, for lack of less awkward
terms. I guess I just thought it all evened out in the end, what with
there being no guarantee from anyone or anything that life was fair, at
least in a situation-by-situation basis.

I can see that if you happen to be in the group (in this particular
situation) who is most often the asker and the payer, the unfairness
would be more apparent.

> > whether that is a man or a woman, and though
> > it doesn't happen as often (because women have been socialized to
wait
> > for a man to ask, for fear of appearing too "forward")
>
> I have been told by many women that the fear of rejection is the
biggest
> issue.

Something both sexes have to deal with, but men more often than women,
I suppose - women just have to worry more about not being called the
next day.

> > women do ask men
> > out, and the women who are fair-minded pay, in that case.
> >
> >> The asker-pays policy has an ugly implied message: that the
"askee"
> > is
> >> completely disinterested in the asker and won't spend a red cent
to
> > enjoy
> >> his company. It is up to the asker to charm her. If you are indeed
so
> >> disinterested, just say no. Don't toy with people's time, money
and
> >> emotions.

I don't know whether I agree with that or not, I'll have to think about
it some more. I always saw the asker-pays policy as someone offering
someone else a gift - whether the cost was the cash to pay for supper
or the effort required to cook it.

> >> I also note that this distasteful asker-pays policy almost always
> > works in
> >> the women's favor since men do most of the asking.
> >>
> >> > Unless
> >> > you both - gasp! - talk about it and agree to go Dutch.
> >> >
> >> > You want to go to Starbucks, insist on Starbucks. You made the
> > date.
> >> > You give up your choice (for whatever reason, not wanting to
start
> > a
> >> > confrontation, not wanting to appear "cheap", hoping
agreeableness
> > will
> >> > lead to getting laid later, whatever) then you have to live with
> > the
> >> > consequences.
> >> >
> >> > No one can take advantage of you unless you let them.
> >>
> >> The same reasoning can take all the bite out of hardpan's rules
post,
> > yet
> >> you found that to be one of the saddest things you'd ever read. Is
it
> >> easier to understand and excuse women's manipulations than men's?
> >
> > Manipulation by either sex is understandable, but inexcusable. The
> > reasoning "no one can take advantage of you unless you let them"
speaks
> > to the individual's choice when presented with a situation in which
> > someone is trying to manipulate them. The motivations of the
> > manipulator aren't addressed at all, so I don't see how your
argument
> > has any merit.
>
>
> In other words you were not saddened by the fact that some men
manipulate,
> and some women get manipulated. This makes sense to me because, on
the
> average, women are far more manipulative than men and a bit of
payback is
> nothing to write home about. Instead you were distressed by the men's
> reasons for doing so?

Manipulation is sad whenever it happens, and to whomever it happens.
Because manipulation precludes honest, intimate connection - that's
what I found especially pathetic about Hardpan's Rules post, and it
would have applied even if the article had appeared in some god-awful
women's magazine like Cosmo and been about tips and tricks women could
use to manipulate men. D Magazine, here in Dallas, ran an article one
time about "How to Marry Rich", aimed at women, and it struck me as
being just as pathetic as the Rules post.

> And what might those reasons be? Being continually rejected? Taken
> advantage of? Providing endless emotional support only to end up in
the
> LJBF territory?

LJBF? Live-in Jewish BoyFriend? Loose Jointed Bovine Fetishist? I'm
acronymically-challenged, will have to look that one up.  :-)

Everyone suffers through rejection and being taken advantage of, it's
not restricted to one gender. It's still not an license to be
manipulative, it's just an excuse.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/20/05 8:59:12 PM ---