OK, I get where you are coming from completely.

It is sort of a female bashing by men.

Yet, I do recall when I man offers you an expensive gift for no reason it is usually out of guilt.

To me,it is a slap in the face for two reasons.

Yes,it does appear to go back to the dark ages on both.

1. Ignorant,to think a woman needs permission to make a purchase for anything.She isn't a child.

2. That men think women can be brought with expensive gifts.

This is sign,is a mockery to us in several ways.

I enjoyed this article very much:)

Wow, that sign is horrible. Definitely deserves a rebuttal in the form of graffiti.

But I have some questions re: the second point of your post. You said, when there's some courtship going on... I feel like I'm special enough that a guy should be doing a little bit of work.
Now, why do you think it's the woman who needs to be made to feel "special," by the man? Aren't you both special? If the man is doing this little bit of work, what sort of work is required of you?
I think whomever asks the other person on the date should pay at first. But I definitely don't think hetero dating is an activity wherein the man must make the woman feel "special" by spending money.

I've actually seen one of these signs before at a shoe store. I almost got into an accident (I was in my car) when I saw it because I was so furious.

I think that, too often, society still plays on women needing permission from their husbands to spend money. I can understand it slightly I guess...especially when couples have a joint account. Maybe if I saw some "Your wife called and she said to buy whatever you want" posters in sporting good stores it wouldn't seem soooo sexist, but I doubt that'll ever happen.

I am originally from New York and I live in Louisiana now (major culture shock). Unfortunately that's how a lot of women think down here... in high school I ran into no less than a dozen girls who didn't want to go to college because they wanted to get married and to be a housewife for the rest of their lives. The sad part is that I'm not exaggerating. Here it's expected the guy does all the work and the girl just looks pretty, which infuriates me.

I think that a relationship should be equal...and by that I mean that women should treat for dates too. We complain about men, but sometimes we perpetuate the problem. I agree with sarah spending money shouldn't be required of men to make women feel special. If we want equality it needs to be on all grounds, not just when we want it.

It is hard to avoid those gender roles messages, especially when it comes to dating, so don't beat yourself up about it - and thanks for calling-out this common expectation of 'courting rituals' once you recognized it as a bit sexist. It's good to get us all thinking.

Back when I was single, I did make a point of offering to pay when I wanted things to be more romantic than friendly. It isn't just feminist, its also a good way to keep the evening going since, if my date said 'no, I'll get it,' it gave me a chance to say 'ok, but I'll get drinks at... / desert at...' depending on how well the evening was going. Also, it helped me weed-out some complete no-goes early when they said 'I don't think women should pay on dates' - which led into a conversation on all the other 'I don't think women should...' things they thought. So, what a great time saver.

I don't think it's that appalling, though I agree with kmackleberry that it'd be better if they had similar signs in men's stores. When I was young my mom did need permission from my dad to buy expensive things. To be fair, he'd normally call her before he bought anything that would make a serious dent, like a suit or leather shoes. If I were married and I wouldn't buy a valuable piece of jewelry without asking my husband unless I was sure I'd only be spending my own money on it. Most married women, even those who have their own jobs, keep their finances tied up with their husbands to the extent that it's really not fair to spend more than a hundred bucks or so without asking, just like most women would be pretty pissed if their husbands came home with $300 worth of fishing gear out of the blue.

As for dating, I don't think men should be obligated by social customs to spend more than women the way many of them are now, but I do feel that it's polite to offer. Especially if he picks the restaurant or orders for the table.

Thanks for your comments, everyone, and for being kind regarding my contradictions!

Regarding the sign, I was most upset by the implication. Reality-wise, many women's finances are very tied up in their husbands and I don't mean to say that that's a bad thing or that these wives are somehow "bad." But like Jeniann said, I would hope most partners would have a conversation about whatever expensive thing one wanted to purchase. The jewelry store ad sets up the husband has a sort of puppet-master with total control over the wife, as opposed to any sort of partnership. It just kind of grossed me out.

I'm still working out my own issues about dating and feminism and femininity and money...so thanks for helping me sift through them, everyone.

My fiance's mother has a pillow with that phrase on it, along with a lot of other annoying phrases displayed on towels, plaques, magnets, etc.

My boyfriend and I usually go by the rule that whoever invites/picks the place pays. Usually it's him, because he makes more money. Sometimes I pay even when he asks because I want to feel more even.

As for the sign, that's why I carry a Sharpie in my purse ;)

My mom would laugh herself sick at the sign because in our house, SHE'S always handled the finances. Yes, dad's the one that works, but she's always held onto the money. So usually it's dad who goes up to her and asks "Can I get this? How about that? Please?" My dad (and me, actually) suck with money. Mom, however, is a financial genius.

Never seen "Your wife called and she said to buy whatever you want" in a sporting goods store, but I have seen them in hardware and woodworking stores.

Pre-kid, we each had our own money for stuff like this, because we actually had money then. Ah, those were the good old days.

What an interesting post.

I find it almost impossible for women in the U.S. to NOT have complex and sometimes contradictory reactions to men-money issues. Your waking consciousness is humanist, feminist, logical. That's what shudders at the abhorrent sign and its underlying messages (as I shudder on behalf of caiis in gaining a mother-in-law so deeply invested in patriarchical conventions). This is the side that would shudder at a similar sign for men, because it treats them as less-than-agents, as children.

But there's also your unconscious and your subconscious, the two faculties that have been pummelled since your toddler years with messages about women and men and money. Over and over, you've watched movies and seen relationships unfold in which men who don't pay for the woman are later revealed to be assholes, users, or two-timers. Relationship books warn--in the most ominous of tones--that a man's splitting the check on the first few dates or refusing to travel across the city to meet you are portents of a cheap-hearted jerk who will do you wrong. And so on.

Here's my problem: although my waking consciousness recognizes the paternalistic and anti-humanist elements behind the "man must pay" paradigm, as an individual, I must say that I feel uncomfortable with going out with someone who is not willing to make a few sacrifices as gestures of hospitality and courtesy. However, I am from a non-Western culture in which it would be unthinkable bad manners/character flaws for any party to not offer to pay for the meal/event, so take this with a grain of salt.

Basically, in my ideal world, a man and a woman on a date would each offer to pay, and would even argue a bit over who should. In the end, one person should "win" and should pay everything, as sign of both basic courtesy and general regard. However, the other person would then leave the tip, pay the cab fare, pay the parking garage, pay for ice cream or dessert at another location, etc. as a sign of good faith. (Then, the next date, that party can pay for the meal or event).

Oh, and LOL-ing that it was in Trump Tower.

I agree with your last paragraph, Okra. Although I've always split the first check 50/50 and then after that we'd take turns paying.

My husband handles most of our money (I'm in school and forget to pay bills way too often) so I do have to ask him whether or not we have enough money for certain things. But there are a couple of things I find wrong about this sign. First of all, why would my husband have to call to tell me? Shouldn't we already be discussing it like equals who simply share their finances? Second, I can buy anything? Again, the implication is that we aren't equals, that he's actually more akin to a "sugar daddy", which tends to mean that I was with him for his money and he was with me for sex....

As someone who is decidedly gay but over the [long, complicated, identity-forming ;)] years dated many men as well as women, I have to say that it was far easier to negotiate issues of money dating other women.

My samples are a bit skewed, since I would never go on more than one date with someone who wasn't distinctly feminist [regardless of sex or gender], but I found it harder for the men I dated to "let go" of being the primary date-payer. I also found myself less likely to think critically about money matters when this situation arose with men, which I attribute to an entire upbringing up media and social messages telling me it's not only "alright" for men to foot the bill, but actually required on some level, and to argue with that paradigm was to be disrespectful to the man in question.

Inevitably, I did argue with them about it, but they often won.

With other women, I find that I am "forced" to examine things more critically and more often [and I like being forced to do this!] because there are less set "rules" about who pays. Every time the bill comes and the question of who pays has not been previously discussed, it is awkward. It truly is the weirdest hesitation and pause for a few seconds, as neither person is sure what to do. Unlike on many dates with men, where the man will immediately assume he is paying and the debate about who should pay ensues subsequent to that expectation, the lack of expectation in a same sex relationship leaves a literal gap in the discourse about dating and money. A gap filled with seconds of awkward glances and silence. ;P

I love the system my fiancee and I have now, where we talk beforehand and consider (a) whether we can even afford to eat out [lol starving students], (b) who is financially able to pay, (c) who suggested the outing. It makes us think more about our choices, talk more openly about it, and take responsibility. It's nice.

Tonia - That's awesome. Your mom rocks.

Okra - Thank you for your post, you said so much of what I wanted to say, but much more articulately! I usually try to do what you described in your last paragraph. But all these weird romantic power dynamic things often plague me - you summed up the conscious/subconscious stuff so eloquently.

Llesbian Llama - I really appreciate the insight. Without society's imposition, a date between two women seems to bring up a completely different type of conversation, which is really interesting.

In my experience (which is slim, considering my age) and the experiences of my friends (which is vast as they range across gender, class, age and sexuality spectrums) the person who invites the other to a date pays for that date...but that's just my experience (and the experiences of most of my friends).

Great post, horrible sign!
I struggle with dating in general and the part that makes me most uncomfortable is the money side of things. I really dislike having things paid for by another person. Maybe it's reading to far into things but I always take it as coming with a set of expectations. I guess a better way of putting it is that my meal has been paid for therefore I have been paid for? If that makes any sense. By splitting the bill in my mind this is avoided and I am much more comfortable with this. Of course it is entirely possible that this stems from some neuroses of mine lol.
Does anyone else feel the same way?

I figure a guy is paying to hang out with me in public since my money is child focused. I don't go out to dinner when not on a date as its not in my budget. I also request male or female dates to help pay for a sitter. For me this is a way of weeding out potential mates who aren't ok playing second to my kid, cause he will always be first in my life and wallet. Plus I realized even if the other party treated, I was spending more on a sitter than s/he was on the date itself

LlesbianLlama, I will never understand men who argue with women on the first date, particularly about something like picking up the check. What, exactly, do they think is going to happen, that she's going to swoon over their superior debating skills?

This reminds me of what I saw on a shoe box
'using your boyfriends credit card is so now!' (or something similar)
ERG.
I have nothings against gifts now and then, but I don't see why a man should have to bribe me to stay with him (which is what all this 'ohh women need so much money spending on them' bullcrap seems to imply). I'm sure most men would rather not waste their money on useless trinkets either. (why are most 'romantic' gifts usually so bland? I'd much rather get a good cd or book than some heart shaped nonsense)