Going Dutch - the thorny issue of the Dutch Treat

Confession: I love all things Dutch. The collective national height, the national mode of transport, the National Day, tulips and the colour orange all hold significance for me.

The British are known for their 'Dutch courage' :-)
'The flying Dutchman' is a great piece by Wagner, apparently.
And everyone knows that a 'Dutch coffeeshop' is anything but :-)

There is so much to celebrate about The Netherlands and the Dutch.
But it I have to say, there is one thing about the Dutch that makes me squirm with unease.

I am sure the tradition of 'going Dutch' being attributed to the Dutch is nothing more than a smear campaign, because of course this phenomenon is not restricted to the Dutch.

However, I know that this practice is actually prevalent there. It really is. It is the way of life.
But, the point of this post is not to diss a whole country. I am just interested in this specific phenomenon with the unfortunate name.

We are all confused about the right etiquette on a date. This is arguably one of the more contentious issues in the SMP.
Charming Disarray describes brilliantly her own thoughts on the issue here.

What I really like about her post is the mention of the different ways in which men and women can 'give'. A man may well pay for the expensive dinner at that Michelin star restaurant, but who is evaluating the cost of the lovely birthday party she hosts in his honour? Or the simple picnic she puts together with all her heart, just for the two of them to enjoy?

Some women are very sensitive on the issue of who pays on the first date for two main reasons:

1. They may simply be principled people and feel that a first date is nothing more than a 'look-see' and should not oblige a man to pay for both parties. Nothing to do with feminism. These women just want to be fair to a man, who, afterall may well get rejected.

In a previous thread, Bellita mentioned the need for women to look at the dating world from the point of view of a man: He could easily spend hundreds of dollars before a woman might so much as kiss him on the cheek. Is this fair on men? Or is this part and parcel of his reality that he should just accept because a woman should not be thought of as a 'commodity' unless she advertises herself as such?
Which brings me uncomfortably close to my topic of choice, 'the bang-to-buck ratio'.
(Thank you Bill :-)


Is 'being fair' in this way by women viewed as a good or a bad thing by men?

These women are probably the very same ones who will choose to decline a treat from a man on a first date if she is about to reject him. Because she can't live with herself if she accepts his treat and then bails on him.
On the other hand, she might pay for herself because she actually likes him and is therefore wanting to show goodwill in the manner described below:

2. Some women may not necessarily be wanting to 'be fair' like the category above, but do so a little  grudgingly seeing how men are being treated by unscrupulous women, and as a result of this, they want to distance themslves from the whole 'golddigger' vibe.

And of course there are women who are true golddiggers and see men purely as walking cash machines and nothing else. She would rather look into his wallet than into his eyes over a romantic dinner.

But, it must be said: This 'golddigger' woman - who is often deried by both men and women alike - is sometimes just what a man appears to want. The woman who will accept his treat and make him feel like a man. The woman who is actually seen as 'feminine' because she is able to accept.
As opposed to her 'feminista' sisters who are so masculinised they want to pay for everything.

Like I said, we are all confused.
The conventional wisdom is that men should at least offer to pay. Because it is symbolic.
Symbolic of what?

Erm, dunno anymore...
Like I said, we are all....


Is there so much bad blood between men and women that even a symbolic gesture is not possible anymore?

Anyhow the focus of this post is actually not on first date confusion.
What happens when two people are established as a couple? Perhaps cohabiting or married.
Perhaps even with children.

What are the financial arrangements? Is a woman expected to still pay her way? Even if her capacity to do so is severely limited by her choice to be a stay-at-home-Mum or variation thereof?

Is there a code of conduct? Should there be a code of conduct? Or are we all content to fumble in the dark?

What do most modern men want in terms of home life and finances?

Because of the current divorce laws, do men want women who will work throughout their married lives, fully aware that this will take something away from their femininity and create exactly the kind of 'masculinised' woman they don't like...or do men want the woman who will be financially dependent on them fully accepting that in the event of a break-up she will have no alternative but to fight for as much financial assistance from him as she can get?

Are men just as afflicted by the notion of 'pie in the sky' as much as women are accused of? Do men even know what they want anymore? Or are they just as confused as women?

This is a perceived message from the modern man:
'I shall provide willingly for you and the kids, but in return, you must never pull that EPL crap on me no matter how badly I treat you.'

Or:

'You and I will share financial responsibilities for the household and kids equally, but I still want the right to be seen as 'the king' with all the conqueror's rights that come with it. Even if you have to go to work same as me, don't come home and be all bossy with me. In the home, you: little woman, me: The Big Boss. You Jane, me...forget Tarzan - me blooming King Kong!'

Fair or foul?
A tad facetious or the naked truth?
If we were to rewrite the rules, what would they be?