Dear Abby: I just went on a first date, and the guy asked me to split the bill. Not that I was expecting him to pay, but he made it seem like a big deal — one rooted in gender equality — that honestly left me feeling kind of sour. Is it worth seeing him again?
Man, you guys would not believe how many people ask this question. It’s a pretty contentious topic in the realm of modern dating, which is pretty strange, because this wasn’t a major problem in the past.
What I mean by that is that for most of the 20th century, society operated under much more rigid gender norms. Men were expected to be the providers, while women were expected to be the homemakers. In that context, paying for a date wasn’t seen as optional for men — it was a mark of being a good, respectable man.
There’s also the fact that women didn’t have their own source of income. If they did, it was hardly comparable to their male counterparts. So practically speaking, men paying was often the only realistic option for going on a date.
But the thing I’ve been thinking about is that if “old-fashioned love” was so steeped in gender norms, why do we all continue to romanticize it so much?
Just recently, a friend told me about a first date in which she split the bill with her date. Our surrounding friends were quick to respond that the notion was absurd and that she shouldn’t see that man again. Is it wrong that part of me almost agrees?
See, the broader cultural discussion around gender equality, feminism and partnership roles wasn’t as mainstream as it is now. While women were fighting for equal rights in many spheres, the idea of splitting a dinner bill just wasn’t yet a focus of feminist discourse — not until now.
The more I thought about it, I couldn’t help but wonder: Is having the man pay for dinner less about gender equality and more about the kindness of the gesture?
The gender role debate
There’s no denying the expectation for men to pay on the first date comes from traditional gender roles — that much is clear. But let’s be honest: One of the most common justifications men give for not paying anymore is, “Well, what about gender equality?”
And here’s where that argument falls apart.
True gender equality still doesn’t exist — not in the workplace, not in leadership, not in politics and certainly not when it comes to safety or representation. We’re still fighting for equal pay, still dealing with disproportionate rates of harassment and still vastly underrepresented in the rooms where decisions are made.
So to suddenly demand perfect 50/50 “equality” over a dinner bill — while women are still navigating inequality in nearly every other corner of society — feels disingenuous at best. Splitting the check on a first date isn’t the great feminist victory some make it out to be — if anything, it feels like a distraction from the real issues.
Let’s also be clear: Women today don’t need men to pay. We’ve worked hard to be financially independent. We can lead, earn and build, just like anyone else — but that doesn’t mean we no longer value gestures of respect or thoughtfulness.
When a man offers to pay on a first date, it’s not about dominance or control — it’s about effort, intent and, yes, respect. It shows he’s willing to invest in the relationship, both emotionally and financially. It sets a tone of generosity and seriousness, which is especially important in a world where dating has become increasingly casual and transactional.
This isn’t about going backward — it’s about acknowledging that equality doesn’t have to mean sameness in every interaction. We can advocate for fairness and equity in the big-picture issues while still appreciating some traditions that feel respectful and meaningful.
So yes — women can pay, women can lead and women can do it all. But on the first date?
Men should still pick up the check.
Ok, seriously, do you even know what women have to put up with?
Before we even sit down across the table from you, we’ve already paid — in more ways than one.
Let’s start with the basics: Just being a woman is expensive. We spend money every month on things we don’t have a choice about — pads, tampons, liners and birth control — and somehow, many of these necessities are still taxed as luxuries in some states or countries.
Then add the infamous “pink tax”, where products marketed to women — razors, deodorants, shampoo and even basic T-shirts — cost more than the male equivalents for no good reason.
Now layer on the cost of getting ready for a date — I’m talking hair, makeup and nails. Don’t forget the outfit either, because yes, even if we already have one, many women feel pressure to wear something “fresh” or styled a certain way.
All of that is time-consuming, labor-intensive and expensive. And it’s not just about vanity — it’s about the social pressure to look “put together,” to be attractive but not too much, to look like we effortlessly tried — which is, ironically, never effortless.
So when a man complains about covering a $15 cocktail or a dinner tab under the banner of “fairness,” it can feel a little out of touch. We’ve already made an investment — one that’s rarely acknowledged.
This isn’t about being high-maintenance. It’s about the unspoken costs of femininity — the things women are expected to do and pay for just to meet the baseline of what’s “socially acceptable.”
So yes, equality matters. But don’t pretend the playing field is even just because we’re sitting at the same table. The truth is we’ve already paid our share — and then some — before the date even starts.
When you should ‘Go Dutch’
If you’re a man reading this, you’re either nodding in agreement or wondering how we got here — but pause and hear me out.
Let’s get one thing straight: I’m not saying you can never split the bill. Of course, there are situations where “going Dutch” makes total sense.
If you’re both broke college students, for example, splitting allows you to enjoy more dates without breaking the bank. And honestly, it can even take some pressure off.
Splitting the cost works just fine for casual hangouts — coffee runs, weekday lunches and spontaneous outings. Not everything needs to be formal or expensive. But there’s a big difference between that and a first date, or a special occasion like an anniversary or Valentine’s Day — those moments carry more weight, intent and emotional investment.
Another important factor is who is in a better financial position. In long-term relationships, especially, it’s only fair to consider whose income stretches further. If your partner has a salary and you’re still in school — or vice versa — it just makes sense for the person with more means to contribute more often. That’s not just financial maturity — it’s partnership.
My Point
Having the man pay on the first date isn’t about outdated tradition — it’s about thoughtfulness. It’s a gesture, a sign of respect and a reflection of genuine interest.
We’re not asking for handouts — we’re asking for effort. It’s about someone showing they value our time, our presence and, yes, the investment we’ve already made before we even walked through the door.
So no, splitting the bill on a first date isn’t the radical act of equality some claim it to be. In fact, it might just be a missed opportunity to show you care.