Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, OP, you would be happy for a woman to turn up for a date in scruffy clothes (perhaps man's sweats?), with a short man's haircut, no makeup, and smelling of man's shower gel and soap?

OP here -- before I got married I only dated queer women (hetero women are terrible at threesomes), so... Yes, since that suggests she's not 100% straight, all other things being equal?

You are totally gay. Just come out of the closet already.

OP here -- in the spirit of full disclosure I'm open to making out with dudes at parties, because kissing isn't particularly defined by sexual orientation, but no, not bi as I'm really not interested in dick in the slightest, and very happily married (to a queer woman). I do find it telling and sad that you see being gay as something negative that you'd try to use it as an accusation on an anonymous message board, though. Way to fail at being an ally!

Anonymous wrote:OP sounds very very cheap. This is just a way of making excuses to not buy something expensive. Being cheap is really a red flag for other issues. If I was the girlfriend, I would not marry someone with this line of thinking. It's a preview of bigger issues to come.

OP here -- you sound ridiculously white. Only a WASP would use a term like 'cheap' as a pejorative rather than as a positive. I'm damn proud to be cheap, and so is my spouse.

In the multiethnic area I grew up in on the west coast, before I got assigned to this hardship post, as a kid in school with jews, mexicans, salvadorans, koreans, filipinos, vietnamese, chinese south asians... we'd actually have competitions to see who was the cheapest. Cheapness was a virtue. None of us were poor; the area ranged from working class to upper middle class. We just had superior values. Only the white kids wouldn't participate, because their parents didn't raise them right.

I pity the WASP saddies who see 'cheap' as a negative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, OP, you would be happy for a woman to turn up for a date in scruffy clothes (perhaps man's sweats?), with a short man's haircut, no makeup, and smelling of man's shower gel and soap?

OP here -- before I got married I only dated queer women (hetero women are terrible at threesomes), so... Yes, since that suggests she's not 100% straight, all other things being equal?

You are totally gay. Just come out of the closet already.

Anonymous wrote:I would never, ever marry a man who won't buy an engagement ring. For one, after marriage all our money is "ours." So technically the engagement ring is coming out of a soon to be joint pot of money.

FWIW I bought my DH a 5k bicycle as an engagement present. I did expect him to ask both sets of our parents for a blessing (not permission though) and to be down on one knee when he proposed with a ring.

If there's some equivalent trading of presents, then that makes sense, I suppose. I would run screaming away from marrying the sort of person who spends 5k on either jewelry *or* a bike, but it sounds like you found someone with similar tastes/priorities so You Do You!

Anonymous wrote:So, OP, you would be happy for a woman to turn up for a date in scruffy clothes (perhaps man's sweats?), with a short man's haircut, no makeup, and smelling of man's shower gel and soap?

Because, "sexual revolution" aside, there is still a marked "female tax" markup on women's clothing, toiletries, and even hair treatments/cuts. It costs a LOT more for a woman you take on a date to arrive looking presentable/good. Do you want your wife to share your clothes, forgo makeup, and just hack off her hair into a mannish cut at the barber shop that won't take any more to keep up than your own?

I'm guessing that no, you have high standards for the physical appearance of a woman you date.

+1

I literally used to feel rage everytime I picked up the drycleaning, so now I make my husband do it. If I tallied up the amount it costs to keep myself minimally presentable (i.e. not a ton of fancy or expensive makeup, quarterly haircuts, clothes) versus DH I would probably blow a gasket.

I would never, ever marry a man who won't buy an engagement ring. For one, after marriage all our money is "ours." So technically the engagement ring is coming out of a soon to be joint pot of money.

FWIW I bought my DH a 5k bicycle as an engagement present. I did expect him to ask both sets of our parents for a blessing (not permission though) and to be down on one knee when he proposed with a ring.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Men paying for dates is not a feminist issue.

Feminists are concerned with the very serious issues that face women, not least of which is the wage gap. Making it so men don't have to open their wallets.... yeah, not exactly on the list.

Spoken like someone who's not much of a feminist. The personal is political.

Ugh. Yes, the personal is political. However, "men paying for dates" is more of an issue for men who don't want to be paying for dates.

When I was dating, we split bills or traded who paid. If I asked someone on a date, I didn't expect him to pay for me, and if he asked me, I went into the date willing to pay for myself anyway. If he offered to pick up the bill, that's fine, but I would never expect someone else to pay my way.

Anonymous wrote:OP, if you were an ardent feminist, there would be no ring. You would view it as an inappropriate sign of possession, barter, and subjugation and neither of you would want to have one.

But that's not the point you made. So since you have no qualms about the ring itself, man up and buy it.

OP here -- try re-reading my post again, I wasn't describing my own personal situation.

My wife and I didn't have engagement rings, in fact! And our wedding rings cost $15 worth of sterling silver and some time with a lathe to make.

The question pertains to what I see around me with other couples.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"men don't expect much in the way of material things from women."

This may be true in the sense that men don't expect expensive tangible gifts. BUT, over the course of a relationship, especially a lifelong one, generally, men expect a LOT of unpaid labor from women and, frequently, that women make choices that give up their own earning power in favor of their husband's or child's welfare. This IS actually a MATERIAL gift to men. Men just don't perceive it that way because they perceive a woman's time and energy as having no or less value than their own, male, time and energy. Frankly, it's a material gift that adds up to a hell of lot more value than an engagement ring.

OP here -- I agree that that's a) awful and b) very common, so... don't marry a dude like that.

OP, the point that poster was making is that MOST dudes are like that because that is the way that society is structured. Even in many otherwise equal partnerships, there is an expectation that if a child is sick, the woman will be the one who takes the day off work to care for that child. If a child has an issue at school, the teacher calls the child's mother. It isn't even necessarily the fault of the child's father that this is how things often are - in my office, when men miss meetings because of kid issues, it's seen as unusual or them going above and beyond. When I miss meetings for the same reason, it's expected.

Anonymous wrote:
Men paying for dates is not a feminist issue.

Feminists are concerned with the very serious issues that face women, not least of which is the wage gap. Making it so men don't have to open their wallets.... yeah, not exactly on the list.

Spoken like someone who's not much of a feminist. The personal is political.

Anonymous wrote:
"men don't expect much in the way of material things from women."

This may be true in the sense that men don't expect expensive tangible gifts. BUT, over the course of a relationship, especially a lifelong one, generally, men expect a LOT of unpaid labor from women and, frequently, that women make choices that give up their own earning power in favor of their husband's or child's welfare. This IS actually a MATERIAL gift to men. Men just don't perceive it that way because they perceive a woman's time and energy as having no or less value than their own, male, time and energy. Frankly, it's a material gift that adds up to a hell of lot more value than an engagement ring.

OP here -- I agree that that's a) awful and b) very common, so... don't marry a dude like that.

Anonymous wrote:So, OP, you would be happy for a woman to turn up for a date in scruffy clothes (perhaps man's sweats?), with a short man's haircut, no makeup, and smelling of man's shower gel and soap?

OP here -- before I got married I only dated queer women (hetero women are terrible at threesomes), so... Yes, since that suggests she's not 100% straight, all other things being equal?

Didn't I pay for half of it? I mean, we combined our finances shortly afterward. If he hadn't bought the ring, then I would have had half of the $5k that he spent on it. (Really, I would have had almost all of it because after we got married, I did most of the running of the household, social plans, clothes purchases, etc.)

I get deciding as a couple if you do or don't want to buy a ring, but I really don't get going halfsies on it.

My husband gave me a ring and I gave him a watch. It did seem weird to me that I got an expensive piece of jewelry and he didn't. He also spent more on the ring than I wanted him to (not sure of the exact amount, but when I looked at rings at one point, they were way more modest than what I got).

But, that doesn't make me any more or less of a feminist. Also, it's absolutely none of your business. It's nice to get your SO a nice gift.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you are not a feminist. You can be an ally, but you are not female, and therefore cannot be a feminist.

However, a feminist ally would never speak the way you do. Never, ever ever and your flimsy attempts to couch your obvious misogyny behind feminism is a combination of amusing and just gross.

Only women can be feminist? Wtf? Do you know what feminist means?

Yes.