As Long As He's Backing Harper, He Can Pay For My Meal...

People always have an opinion on this one: Who should pay for the meal?

Claire McGowan, over at the f-word, offers an interesting explanation of why she fights for her own way to pay.

There was a time in my life when I was pretty down with the whole splitting the bill thing...and, not because my mother told me, "Don't let them pay; they expect sex then you know!" I just felt that somehow it was giving up some of my power by letting men pay...many of my reasons were consistent with McGowan's analysis. But, I now have a slightly different take.

The following is McGowan's analysis, along with my reactions:

Have you ever had to argue with a man for the right to pay for your own food? It might sound like a stupid thing to fight for. You could say he's making a 'chivalrous' gesture, and trying to show you he's a decent kind of guy who doesn't baulk at forking out for your noodles and beer. If you've only ever been used to skinflint students, you might find it a refreshing change. Parsimony is never a sexy quality. I know all this. I know he's just being nice. So why can't I accept it?

I never used to understand why it made me so uncomfortable. Like most young girls, I learned that we should aspire to find a man who wines and dines you, buys you boxes of chocolates, brings flowers. Now I understand - it's because of what it represents. When a man refuses to let you pay for your dinner, what's really happening is that deep down, it reflects an ingrained cultural belief that a woman can't afford to feed herself; or maybe that she shouldn't have the right to. He's giving you permission to eat.

In all societies, controlling the supply of food brings power. Societies feed the members which they value. In the majority of countries, women and female children eat last, and boys are fed first. Think about when you were younger - was your brother encouraged to eat more, as a 'growing boy'? Did your mother take smaller portions and serve the rest of the family first?

In what we might call less developed communities, both women and men by necessity take part in food production, yet women's access to that food is still restricted. Marilyn French was writing about this fourteen years ago in her book The War on Women, where she points out that although the male pursuits of hunting often yield much less food than the female tasks of farming and gathering, men are still seen as providers. We know that female infanticide and selective abortion are harsh realities of a world that values girl children less, but such atrocities are the extreme end of a continuum whereby females are consistently undernourished.

In our society, however, if you have money you can eat no matter who you are. In theory, that is. We certainly aren't being starved in this country. (Yes, that is because our society controls the global supply of food. So, more importantly than paying for our own dinner might be asking our companion what his position is on trade, debt cancellation, protectionism, and so on.) We can walk into any shop and buy whatever we like to eat. But are we being deprived of food in more subtle ways? An ideology of female thinness leads girls to starve themselves voluntarily, fighting against a dieting regime, a sort of religion of being 'good' and 'naughty', in which they are both tyrant and subject, priest and penitent. The purge and splurge mentality is alive and well, with binging and cringing as a side order. Even more widespread is borderline malnutrition. Women can eat, but are restricted from the most energy-rich calories in fats and carbohydrates. We're being 'naughty' if we eat high-quality proteins and 'good' if we stick to dull roughage and salads. (Embrace the naughtiness.)

They don't advertise slimming products in men's magazines; at least not to the same extent as in women's magazines. Even though studies consistently show that some fat may be beneficial to female health and fertility, and even though a high-fat diet is much more dangerous to men, it's rare to find a man who feels guilty about guzzling down a kebab, a few pizzas, or a full English breakfast.

Which brings me back to my dinner date. If he's paying, will he be dictating what I eat? Will I feel happy ordering the triple chocolate cake, or the most expensive steak on the menu? If he's picking up the bill, what's my end of the bargain? It may be pricey, but I'm much rather pay my half and then feel free to go home alone should I so wish. I'd rather order what I want, and pay for it myself. When a man is always paying for you, however good and innocent his intentions, he's controlling when and what you can eat.

I'd rather order what I want and have him pay. I have lived on my own since I was eighteen...I feel pretty sure that I am the one who controls when and what I eat. If someone wants to dictate that I eat something other than a veggie burger, I salute them.

As women, nourishing ourselves is vitally important. As well as looking after our own health, anyone who wants to have children has to strengthen and nourish their body well in advance. We need to take in adequate supplies of iron and calcium. In our generation we have a unique chance to control our own access to food and secure the best nutrition we can for ourselves and our future children (if that's what we want). So let's do it. Long ago, in the twenties, Virginia Woolf was pointing out that when women are poorly nourished they can never "think well, love well or sleep well". I wonder what she'd say about the desiccated and engineered 'diet' products and pills that pass for food among women, the watery skimmed milk and pitifully sparse low-fat 'treats'.

So why do some men still insist on paying all the time? Is it that they have been socialised into believing that this is the only way for they to prove his manliness to their dinner date; that to split the bill is somehow an insult to their masculinity? Could it be that the idea of financially independent women is deeply terrifying in a male-dominated society?

Look, when guys come to my place and eat the dinner that I make them and serve them on my plates at my table, they seem to pretty content with my financial independence.

In this way, women's magazines have betrayed us in no uncertain terms. Claiming to be the voice of women, instead they are the mouthpieces of advertisers. They exist to convince us to buy more. For the first time in our history, women should be earning as much as men. (KEY WORD: 'should') The laws exist to help us, and the employment tribunals are there to help combat sexism and discrimination. Let's leave aside for the moment the issue of unequal pay and access to pay rises. (Umm...let's not.)

Which bring me to my sore spot: Living in HarperLand, all his cronies can bloody well pay for my meal until the mechanisms that might allow me opportunity for equal pay are put in place, as opposed to the entire program for equality being hacked at by jackass Harper.

If women didn't need men financially, what would change? How would they be controlled? And yet high-earning women still make themselves poor, propelled by guilt into spending thousands on handbags, skin creams, shoes, food supplements, and gym memberships. Women's money is being clawed back by advertising agencies and big companies, mainly male-run. If we stopped listening to the guilt trips, we might have enough to pay for the man's dinner for a change.

Absolutely, advertising and the never ending beauty myth continue to be strong mechanisms of control and we all need to wake up to this.

There's no reason why etiquette should still dictate that the man pays. Chances are he doesn't earn any more than you, and is equally in debt from student loans as you are. (Holy shit...maybe in the UK, although I doubt it...but, here, home of Big Oil, chances are he does earn a hell of a lot more, even though I likely have more education and, hence, more debt.) We'll never move beyond the battle of the sexes if men try to control women through their wallets, or if women exploit men for their money.

We will never win the battle if we keep focusing on the micro issues: paying your own bill does little to rectify the continued devaluing of women's work (paid and unpaid). Moreover, we might want to consider how the devaluing of our work is directly related to the devaluing of the work of women in the Global South and the devouring of their agricultural industries...We might want to rethink who is really paying for our meal...

I suppose the ideal man would be one who is generous enough to offer to pay, but backs down in the face of my argument. Who, me, wanting to have my cake and eat it? Yes, but I'm happy to pay for the cake too.

Well, my ideal man would also back down in the face of my argument...and he'd be paying too. He can dictate whatever the hell I eat; I am more interested in focusing on the macroeconomic issues than what's going in my mouth.

Links:

The Food of Love? by Claire McGowan at the f-word

Comments

[Grog]

Interesting rant today, Polly.

The current government in Ottawa is overtly hostile to anyone who doesn't share their lust for a very masculinized idea of power. (Lot's of "big he-man" posturing, and a war or two to round it all out)

I'm heartened to see people starting to call Harper's government out. (I've never seen a government go from Minority to arrogance without a couple of majority governments in between before)

[Kuri]

Yes, great post - a lot to think about in here.

[Godammitkitty]

*raucous applause*
This food 'business' is a sore point for me. Anyway, v. good post, as usual!! Best wishes.

[pamused]

on the rare occasion when i go on a date, it's not uncommon for me to foot the whole bill. maybe it's naughty, but i enjoy the thought of him wondering whether he owes me something in return, or whether i expect it. guess i'm into turning tables.