3 ms·
It's called indirect discrimination. Just because the social concention of "whoever first suggests the date should pay for it" might seem gender-neutral, in pra
by nawitus 13y ago
It's called indirect discrimination. Just because the social concention of "whoever first suggests the date should pay for it" might seem gender-neutral, in practise that leads to men paying for the vast majority of dates since men are the ones who are making most of the propositions.
As it's extremely difficult to fix the gender balance of date propositions but a lot easier to fix the paying model of dates, I suggest that everyone should adopt the social convention of "everyone should pay for their own drinks/meals at dates".
In fact, here in Finland the norm pretty much is that the bill is split, even though men still make most of the date propositions. The latter gender inbalance is a lot harder problem to fix.
- EvanKelly 13y agoI would tweak your model just a little bit. I think splitting the bill is a nice default, but if someone wants to pay for the dinner than they should be allowed to without violating social convention. If I suggest dinner with a friend, when I know they would probably not be going out for a meal, I'll almost always pay for both of us. if it's more of a mutual, "yeah lets try that new Greek place" type deal, we'll usually split. The same applies if I approach someone and offer to take them out. It was my idea, I'll take care of the financial responsibility, especially since I chose the venue (which could be dramatically more/less expensive than the other party would want to pay). I think online dating might be a good model for splitting the bill because both parties are entering the situation ostensibly looking to go out for something. Additionally, when I pay for dinner, most people graciously accept and then suggest that they'll buy the first round of drinks or ice cream or whatever we might end up doing afterwards.