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?

Stay at home mothering is the way forward

All said and done, the best thing a human being can have is to be brought up in a home with a father who provides and protects and a mother who beautifies and nurtures.
This, amongst other needs such as a spiritual belief system and the perception of validation by the people around him or her is an important ingredient for a fulfilled and happy life.

However, as we all know, it is not that simple. Life can get very complicated especially where it ought to be simple.
Most men provide in some form or another. If they are not providing for a family of their own (and I include here adopted children, not just biological), they are providing for someone else's in the context of cuckoldry, weird cultural traditions and taxation.
It is becoming more and more common nowadays however to come across men who simply refuse to work, or if they do, simply refuse to share their resources with anyone else. The causes of this is multifactorial: painful divorce battles siring deep resentment, lifelong bachelorhood, immaturity of mind, to name but a few.
The purpose of this post is not to point fingers, but to elucidate where a solution might be found.

Continuing on the theme of 'the teacher appears when the student is ready', another surprising (to me) trend of recent years is the number of young women (mostly newly married with babies/young children, but increasingly also single with or without children) who are leaving the workforce in droves in pursuit of a better quality of life for themselves and their children, or in the case of those not yet (or ever to be) parents, for themselves.
Why surprising? Well, around 40 years ago, women were told they could 'have it all'. They swallowed the dogma, and have been trying to prove it ever since. What started out as an attempt (hmm, was it ever as innocent as all that?) to better the lives of 'downtrodden' women ended up as a cynically contrived effort to take Mother out of the home thereby destroying the Family, which happens to be the bedrock of society.
It is pleasantly surprising (to me) that many women of today, who instead of finding an improvement of their mothers' lives over their grandmothers', saw a decline and took note. And acted on their God-given intuition which told them that they had been sold a turkey and it wasn't Christmas.

I have had a successful career for many years. It has brought me many rewards, including one of the needs mentioned above: a spiritual awareness. I often wondered if, when the time was right, I could make the transition to become the kind of wife and mother I would need to be, to give my future children the best thing as I see it, as defined above?
Or would I cling to the (self-directed) rewards of my career and in so doing destroy my God-appointed destiny to live life as a woman with all that this entails? And run the risk of becoming another 'man-substitute' who will work till she drops, and in some form or another pay for other people's children?

Apparently, I was not the only one thinking such thoughts. The happiest women I know are the ones who 'threw in the towel' as far as careers were concerned, in favour of pursuits more 'natural' to their being. The timing of this 'detour' does not seem to be the deciding factor on where one ends up on the 'happiness spectrum', but my guess would be that if it happened at a time before a woman's fertility window had closed, and therefore gave her the chance of achieving all that is attainable in the realm of womanhood, the chances of and the degree of satisfaction would be maximised. Just a guess.

I recently decided to look up a friend I had not seen for over a decade. When I knew her, she was aiming high in a high-flying career. She had recently gotten married. Twelve years later and several children later, she is a Stay At Home Mother (SAHM) and very happy, albeit no doubt stressed. Note I did not say she was now no longer (gainfully) employed. She is in fact working harder than when I knew her over ten years ago. Not only do her children and husband take up much of her time, she is also in a profession which is perfectly in sync with her child-oriented responsibilities.

I have no doubt that she went through the cognitive dissonance stage where the inner conflict (career vs family) was killing her very soul. Unlike so many women, she (eventually) yielded to the greater good and gave up the personal/financial/psychological/social/mental rewards her work brought her in favour of what would be best for her family and herself as a unit. Personally, I am meeting women like this almost everyday of my life nowadays.
When the student is ready...

In contrast, the 'what not to do' models are omnipresent in my field of vision too. The seriously messed up and selfishly stubborn women (and interestingly, these are the very ones who could afford to do the right thing by their husbands and children, because they are not hard-up single mothers with no choice in the matter) who doggedly carry on working in insane conditions even when it is beyond clear to everyone concerned that this situation is not working for, well...everyone concerned. Why? Because they need to feel that they are contributing something to the world other than the ability to push out babies.
Yes. Need. We didn't just swallow the hype, we actually believed it.
What a shame.
How tragic for our society that young women do not know that their greatest work is that in the home. I include myself in this category bar the last few months.

If there is one thing I have learned in the last few months, it is this: Men are simple, and reactionary.

If most women would stay at home to care for their husbands and children, most men would go out and work. Because that is how Nature designed things.
Of course, to avoid disappointment and a failed relationship, most women who would want to stay at home to care for potential husbands and potential children would select a man who already knows how to and does go out and work.
And then most children would get the 'best thing in life' as I described it above.
Which really is a need.

If it were not a need, we would not be seeing the rise in feral kids quite to the same degree as we do.

It really could be that simple.