Stephen Green (Vodkapundit) over at Instapundit has a new post up about a WSJ article: Who Pays on the First Date? No One Knows Anymore, and It’s Really Awkward. The WSJ article is behind a paywall, but the Instapundit post includes a snippet, including this gem:
There was a time when Tinesha Zandamela would dig around for her wallet at a first date, anticipating that the guy would insist on paying.
That was before she went out with one who “forgot” his wallet, or the one who requested to split the check 50-50 after eating nearly all the food. Now when the bill arrives, she sits still, not even attempting what some call “the reach.”
Green offers the following analysis:
The only awkward part is the confusion created by women who want to be seen as willing to pay when they actually aren’t — and skinflint beta males eager to exploit the chaos.
This kind of post is pure Trad Con bait, and the resulting Instapundit comments don’t disappoint:
If a fella pays for his girl’s meal, he was raised right. If the girl expects him to pay, she was raised wrong.
But whose girl is Tinesha? Who is her “fella”? It sounds like a long string of men, perhaps over several decades, have mistakenly thought Tinesha was their girl. More importantly, why should beta men pay for the experience of taking Tinesha (or modern women in general) on a test drive? I get that modern women need the energy to properly service bring the movies man (language warning). But why should a beta sign up to be the one to feed her?