There use to be two different level of wages for men (in some jobs), there was the single mans rate and a married mans rate (which was higher than the single man)but don't hear about that.

Suzies line about male nurses and female wages was true, however what suzie forgot, is back in those days, it was the bloke who paid for the night out.

Some restraurants had two different menus, the male got the one with the prices and the female menu did not have the prices.

Suzeonline

Took the words right out of my mouth. My immediate thought after reading this article, was that hourly rates should be equitable for the type of work done.

And another, why is it assumed that women do all the child care and dealing with domestic issues? Many men share parenting and domestic chores - are their pay levels 'devalued' as a result of 'taking Timmy to hospital'?

JamesH <" Suzies line about male nurses and female wages was true, however what suzie forgot, is back in those days, it was the bloke who paid for the night out."

Oh well, fair enough then! It was perfectly ok if men were paid more per hour than women because they would pay for a movie and popcorn once a week for the little woman aye? Yeah right!

Thanks for that Severin. Men were given more pay in those days and even still these days because most people running the companies and setting the wages were men.

Suzeonline:"they would pay for a movie and popcorn once a week"

The cost of entertainment for young adults should not be underestimated. Young women tend to spend all their money on themselves, while young men spend a great deal of theirs on young women.

When I was a young bloke at uni, one of my girlfriends was a nurse. She earnt several times what I did, which was mostly "TEAS" as the student benefit was called then and a bit of p/t work.

Thinking back, I can't recall a single instance in which she offered to pay for anything at all. If ever we took her car, I was expected to put fuel in it, but if we took mine - not her problem.

Not all of my g/fs were quite like that. Mostly they would offer a small amount saying "I don't feel safe carrying cash, it's all I have" or some other lame excuse, and the very rare one would offer to go halves, which of course, I always chivalrously rejected.

I can well recall spending a couple of hundred dollars on a Friday night to ensure both of us had a good time, when my income for the week was not much more, then having to hitch hike home because the g/f hadn't even brought cab fare with her.

That may have changed, but I doubt it. Young women know full well that they have something young men regard as especially valuable and they ensure it's properly paid for.

Of course, they call it "being respectful" or something, but its funny how that often translates to "show me the money'.

The transfer of wealth between genders is the elephant in the room when discussing relative income levels. If a man is paid a wage but the wife gets to decide how the money is spent, who does the money belong to? Who enjoys the benefit?

The old saying never rang truer: "what's yours is mine, what's mine is mine".

anti,

You really don't like women very much do you? Times were different, and men wanted it that way too. Or unthinkingly accepted it. It's what I always argue about with pynchme. That's why you two are the same. pynchme would say men oppressed women into having the babies and looking after the house, and all women hated that. Well, most didn't, and most men didn't mind paying for the nights out. That's just what people did, and there was no malace or resentment like you two try to pretend.

But, as you point out, no feminist sees that side of things at all, that men pay a lot of dinners for women. Or id they do, it's just another example of controlling behaviour, or patronising.

Note: I don't think women are all thinking 'let him pay if he wants to use my body'. Heaps of chicks are like 'let him pay, and I cant wait to shag him, but no guy likes an easy chick, and he wont marry me if I put out straight away.'

Why don't you think women struggle too with new gender boundaries as much as you seem to? The way you talk they're all on top of the situation exploiting their boyfriends. You're a victim junkie.

Some chicks even now may be afraid to pay as it might be sending the signal to the guy of 'I don't want to have sex with you, don't get any ideas', when they really cant wait to get their hands on the one-eyed trouser snake.

As you say, the odd girl moves around the dance floor soliciting interest for free drinks, but the guys pay willingly. As The Strokes say, 'Trying your Luck'. The wonderful dances between the genders should be seen as just that, rather than a poor little nice guy exploited by the sluts routine.

'The transfer of wealth between genders is the elephant in the room'
Only to blind feminists. As I say about the pay gap, it's more important who spends the money than who earns it.

Houellebecq:"there was no malace or resentment like you two try to pretend."

Of course there wasn't, that was my point. Men were quite happy to be exploited in that way.

It's no doubt that most women were just as happy to be paid for.

I don't think that any of it is especially a conscious behaviour, but as you say, more a courtship dance, akin to the display behaviour of bower birds. "Look at how valuable I think you are"; "Yes, I know, is that all you've got"; "No, see?"; "I think I love you" <Fade in David Attenborough perving through binoculars while hiding behind a rhododendron>

Wealth transfer between genders is never discussed at a public policy level. When gender and earning or wealth are discussed, it's always assumed that couples are individuals for the purpose of calculation and the transfer from the higher-paid member to the lower-paid is not mentioned.

Funnily enough, it does get a guernsey in the Family Law and Child Support Acts, where it is regarded as sufficiently important as to be an obligation.