It is a basic rule that men support women; that women do not support men. A man gives money or provides for things that cost money and the woman receives money or services and benefits that cost money. This is a basic inequality between men and women. Men give and women receive. This in turn leads to the gender hierarchy of men being dominant over women; the man needing to protect his investment in the woman. If the man gives nothing to the woman then the man has no need and no strong motivation to be dominant over the woman; this being what gender equality is. The feminist man gives nothing to the woman and therefore sees the woman as his “equal.”
It needs to be understood however that a woman is very different from a man because femininity (the particular strengths of the woman) is very different from masculinity (the particular strengths of the man). In particular femininity is dependent while masculinity is independent. Masculinity does not need femininity to be established first; masculinity can function on its own unilaterally and independently. Femininity on the other hand needs for masculinity to be established and functioning first so that the masculinity can then support and protect the femininity; femininity only being able to function well when it doesn’t have to “take care of itself.” Masculinity is strong and protective; femininity is weak and fragile.
Money is masculine. Let us remember that. Work or paid employment is masculine; work then pays us money so money by extension is masculine as well. Making money is something that men are good at and that women are not so good at; making money being a strength for men and a weakness for women. This is consistent with money being masculine or an area of male superiority. As late as 1981 well into the feminist revolution the Median Full-Time Year-Round earnings of women in the United States was 59.2% that of men (this ratio rising to 78.3% in 2013). For a very very long time historically women’s earnings were about 60% that of men’s. It is only recently that the ratio has moved above 60% indicating women frenetically becoming more career oriented and men dropping away from career ambitions and a focus on making money. In 1981 26.1% of men and 20.4% of women 25 to 34 years old had college degrees; by 2013 these ratios had risen to 31.3% for men and 37.9% for women; the proportion of men having college degrees having increased by 20% while the proportion for women increased by 86%.
Since money is masculine that means that money is something that men earn and possess and then give to women gaining control over women in the process. Masculinity is service to women and control over women both; the purpose of masculinity being to serve women to empower and enable women’s femininity. Men owe to women their areas of inherited strength and superiority; masculinity being the male area of strength and superiority. Since money is an area of masculine superiority men must give women money and give to women that which money can buy. Men support women financially and not the other way around because men are better at making money than women are. Making money is the man’s natural strength and therefore the man’s natural duty and responsibility.
Now to some of the practicalities regarding money and the development and maintenance of romantic relationships with traditional women.
First off money makes a woman safe; spending money on a woman makes it safe for the woman to interact with you romantically. You want to pay for the date so that the woman is “being taken care of” while she interacts with you. You want to give her a luxurious or fun environment with maybe some food involved while she interacts with you romantically. You are paying for everything (as the man) because romantically interacting with you should be a safe and protected experience where you are meeting her needs as a woman while she interacts with you as a woman (in a romantic way in a romantic context).
The thing to remember about a date is that it is romantic; it is a romantic interaction between two people as part of the process of learning about the other person on the road to possibly marrying that other person. Marriage is the man financially supporting the woman in a romantic context; therefore the date that is part of the process of possibly eventually marrying someone is a kind of microcosm of the man financially supporting the woman in the form of the man supporting the woman at least during the time of the date. You pay for the date with the woman just like you later pay for the living expenses of your future wife.
The romantic interaction is special; it is about the woman making herself dependent upon the man. A woman enters into a state of dependency when she chooses to interact with a man romantically. You as the man have to be aware of this and acknowledge this and support the woman’s needs accordingly when the woman has granted to you the favor and the honor of agreeing to your request to interact with her romantically. When a woman agrees to go on a date with you she is placing herself into a subordinate and dependent position just as a wife is subordinate to and dependent upon her husband. It is this state of vulnerability that a woman places herself into when romantically interacting with a man that imposes upon the man the duty to pay for the date; the man paying for the date being the mechanism by which the man provides for the woman’s needs within the context of the date making the date a safe and protected environment for the woman so that the woman can then experience her romantic interaction with the man as the pleasant and desirable experience the man intends for the date to be.
A man might think to himself, “Why should I pay for the date? Isn’t a date something that both the man and woman participate in, something that both the man and woman wants based on mutual attraction?” A date is mutual in the sense that both the man and woman are interacting with each other and learning about each other; an experience both hopefully think is fun and interesting. However the basic inequality between men and women in a romantic relationship together should not be overlooked. The man is dominant in his relationship with the woman and the woman has to be taken care of by the man in order for the woman to fulfill her potential as a woman. It is this fundamental inequality in status and roles that leads to the inequality of the man giving the date and the woman receiving the date. Both the man and the woman mutually want the date and they both benefit from the date but the man must be the giver and the woman the receiver because being the giver is consistent with masculine independence and power while being the receiver is consistent with feminine dependency and submission.
A man might feel it is degrading to have to “buy” a woman’s attention or a woman’s affection. He might think to himself “Doesn’t she like me? Why do I have to pay for everything and give her stuff just to get her attention when she gets attention and stuff given to her just for being a woman? That isn’t fair!” What you have to keep in mind here is that going on a date is safe for a man because dating is an expression of the man’s dominance. For a woman however going on a date is an act of surrender to the man; a privilege the man must pay for to remove from the woman the danger a woman experiences when she surrenders her power to the man. You see, a woman surrendering power without protective and supportive compensation has just damaged herself and her ability to function as a woman and serve others as a woman. When you pay for the date however the woman is being supported and protected in her state of submission making her submission to you beneficial to her rather than damaging to her.
Paying for things related to developing a relationship with a woman unlocks or actualizes the potential for a relationship with a woman but it does not create potential with a woman. You can’t buy attraction. Your attractiveness to women is based on your masculinity; the masculine characteristics you project outwards for women to experience and respond to. The starting point of a relationship with a woman is her feelings of attraction towards you. Money then serves the role of unleashing or actualizing the feelings a woman already has towards you. In other words money makes it safe for a woman to act on her attraction towards you; it doesn’t create the attraction in the first place. Yes making good money is part of status and performance and in that way is masculine and therefore attractive but here money is just part of an overall profile combined with other factors that put together equals your attractiveness in different women’s eyes. The point however is that without money or a willingness to financially contribute to or support a woman a woman will not enter into a relationship with you regardless of how fundamentally attracted to you she is because without your ability or willingness to support her it is just plain dangerous and unwise for her to enter into a relationship with you.
Looking at the different ways of spending money on a woman; they can be arranged in a hierarchy from least serious to most serious.
First is paying for the date. This is just basic and fundamental. This is where you get a direct benefit for the money you are spending. You spend money and immediately you get the reward of interacting with the woman. It is a kind of one for one exchange; a certain amount of money spent for a certain amount of time. When the date is over the money is gone and both of you leave with just the memory and the experience.
More serious is buying gifts for the lady. This is part way selfish and part way idealistic. With a gift the intention is to benefit the woman in a lingering way; to benefit her materially and symbolically where a practical benefit is given to the woman even after the date ends “invading” her regular life. Also the intention is to benefit her in a specific way that will lead her to “think of you” whenever she is enjoying the benefit of your gift to her.
More serious is giving money to the woman directly. This is idealistic in that it is a pure practical benefit to the woman with a minimum of symbolic meaning and personalized significance. Giving money to the woman directly is getting close to the husband role of directly financially supporting your wife.
Most serious is the marital relationship itself with its lifetime commitment of full 100% financial support to the woman you love and the mother of your future children.
These are the different tools a man can use to assist in his goal of developing a relationship with a woman and ultimately marrying her if the woman lives up to what he seeks and demands in a wife.
Also, let’s not forget about the man’s power and authority in his relationship with a woman. What a man gives he can also take away or fail to continue to give; in other words money can be a tool of discipline or punishment to enforce obedience and subordination upon the wife. It has to be kept in mind that a man is duty bound to use his authority in service to the woman or for the promotion of the interests of his relationship with the woman and that the punishment should be the least damaging option for trying to enforce a rule or decision made by the man and that punishment should be based on the withdrawal of a reward rather than the infliction of a harm. All that being said definitely money can be used as a source of control for the man thereby enabling a healthy stable relationship dynamic where the man can achieve and then sustain the dominant position he needs to have for the relationship to work well.
Money is a very important part of relationships between men and women; money is something a man needs to have and a woman needs to receive. A woman cannot function as a woman without support from men; that is the bottom line. This is why men must be the givers and women the receivers.
Source of Statistics:
Historical Income Tables: People – Table P38
Educational Attainment – CPS Historical Time Series Tables
Secular Patriarchy 
So, as a woman, I have to be a prostitute who gives out my time in exchange for currency? How is that different from work – something you call “masculine”? If I am spending time with a man because he is paying for it and not for the inherent value of his company, I am not on a date. I am on the job.
A woman should be supported by a man and enjoy a man’s company combined; the woman should receive both the benefit of intimacy with a man she is attracted to AND the benefit of that man’s financial support. A woman being supported by a man does not compete with the woman enjoying the man’s company; the two things should go together.
“Work” or activity designed for the purpose of making money is masculine because exchange of goods and services between strangers with money being used as the medium of exchange is an activity in general better suited to the strengths of men.
It is an interesting proposition to suggest that a woman going on a date is “work” for the woman because she is offering her time in exchange for something of monetary value such as a free meal at a restaurant. The point of a date however is not utilitarian exchange between strangers for mutual advantage which is what “work” in the ordinary sense is based on. The purpose of a date is building a romantic relationship between a man and a woman where the man communicates his caretaking role and responsibility by paying for the date.
Marriage is definitely an economic arrangement between husband and wife because the husband is financially supporting the wife. Still the activity of the husband where he works at a job and gets paid money which he then uses to financially support his wife is different from the activity of the wife as homemaker and primary caregiver to the children and overall caretaker and doer of good deeds for her wider social network. The man works for strangers on a contract basis getting paid money in return; the woman gives to the man things that the man values in the context of a relationship in exchange for financial support from the man. The difference between what the man is doing and what the woman is doing is that the man works for strangers on a quid pro quo contract basis where specific “work” is done in exchange for specific money while the woman is benefiting others in a relationship context and is given overall financial support in exchange. These are different kinds of activities based on different relationship models where the “masculine” side is done by the man and the “feminine” side is done by the woman; the man’s service to others in the form of “work” being well suited to men’s particular strengths and the woman’s service to others in the form of maintaining various relationships and caretaker roles being well suited to women’s particular strengths.
It should be a universal norm that men pay for the date and that husbands financially support their wives so that no matter what man a woman chooses to date the financial support aspect of the relationship is just assumed. It may well be that a woman will choose to date a man and ultimately marry a man because he is particularly successful financially even though she may not love him as much as a poorer man that she loves more. This is a choice by the woman where she is prioritizing more money over an alternative superior emotional connection. Still this kind of trade off a woman may make does not invalidate the fact that romantic relationships should be based on both mutual love and male support of women combined. A woman has the right to both love with a man she is attracted to AND financial support from that man even though different men will have different relative strengths of their attractiveness as men versus their ability / willingness to financially support a woman. Just because a woman may choose greater money over greater love that doesn’t mean that only money matters; both love AND money matters.
I guess the question I’m left with is “why?” Even if we take money making as an inherently masculine thing (which I’m still very much iffy about because you don’t seem to have any clear way of distinguishing between the taking money in exchange for services that takes place within an assumed romantic relationship and that taking place outside, except that you’re starting from an assumption of difference), I’ve never met a “perfectly feminine” woman or a “perfectly masculine” man. Most people are a hodge-podge to varying degrees. It seems to me that forcing people into pre-set models regardless of their personal inclinations would only result in individuals feeling unfulfilled.
The economic “protection” model you describe is also a very dangerous one for women, leaving them in a precarious position. The Victorian era is a really good example of what I mean, since it had some of the most restrictive (and legally backed) assumptions of gender essentialism in recent western memory. It resulted in an “epidemic” of what the Victorians called “redundant women” – women who, for whatever reason, failed to marry while considered of marriageable age and, without the means to meet their own financial needs, were forced to remain dependent on their fathers. Many simply became destitute when their fathers died.
The same risk is inherent in modern relationships where men are assumed to provide for their wives. Even if we don’t allow for divorce, abandonment happens, death happens. A woman who is unable to enter the workforce and to provide for herself and her children is going to be in a lot of trouble.
Further, the potential for abuse in such a relationship is extremely high. You seem to assume an ideal world where men all simply live up to the expectations made of them and care for their spouses, but when we deal with individuals, we know that there are plenty of men who are abusive – whether that be physical, emotional, or financial abuse (or some combination of two or more). In a situation where a woman cannot support herself economically, she becomes trapped, with no resources of her own with which to escape.
Finally, you are starting from a set of assumptions that I do not see holding true in the real world. Men and women come in many different types, and many of those types simply would not find happiness in the model you describe. I do not want a “protector,” I want a partner, someone who can support me and benefit from my support, someone who can participate and contribute equally to a relationship. This is the model my husband and I have been using for the last fourteen years and it has made us happy. We find joy in each other, we are each other’s best friends and confidantes, and we enjoy the time we spend together. But that depends on us approaching each other as full equals. As soon as a power imbalance is introduced (which is exactly what happens when we assign one person the job of “protector” over the other), the possibility to meet each other eye to eye is gone. Maybe happiness can still be found in such a relationship, but I would say it makes it harder to have an authentic connection with your spouse. Certainly, that has always been my experience – both personal and observed.
I agree with MrPopularSentiment
Your arguments are not well reasoned or clearly articulated. Try reading “Sexual Politics” by Kate Millett and “The Second Sex” by Simone de Beauvoir. Yes, both feminists (American and French) but you might learn something about constructing original theories as opposed to making generic cultural assumptions about women.
What if the woman is being abused by the man? How does she escape.
I respectfully disagree with this. My mother always used to tell me the banking account should be run by the woman, why? One reason out of many, I’m reckoning, is that she is the keeper of the home so therefore she will know best what goes in and what does what. That doesn’t mean the man has no say – he’s got plenty, especially if he’s earning the money. But the lady should be in charge of the finances – or at least, I would argue, the one who knows how to manage money better – whoever that is – as I admit to serious weakness with financial issues on my side. I fail to see why a model where the man earns the money and the woman looks after it, ensuring that it is saved, channeled, and spent properly (while consulting the man’s input if she feels she needs to) is not the best way *especially* for a traditional minded household. After all, she is the one that traditionally does the shopping, her role is looking after the home, and therefore that would entail some responsibility with the money and buying with it food and clothes for any children she has. Some women have had to take a job and control some of the money out of necessity because their husbands would waste it all on alcohol if they could.
As for femininity being dependent on masculinity, if you mean my biological femininity it asserts its independence from masculine control every month and that’s why the patriarchy hates it so much.
A bank account does not need to be run by one person and no one should be dependent on another person. There are plenty of cases where one person empties the bank account and then runs off with the money even when they didn’t earn most of that money. Both parties should be aware of the assets and should be responsible with it and both should be aware of how the assets are being used.
Actually I agree with you. I was simply repeating what my mother said, but she also believes that both partners should be equally involved with the money, and she and my father actually are very good with each other when it comes to the finances. She’s a smart, old-fashioned broad with lots of life experience.
I stated as much when I said “or at least, I would argue, the one who knows how to manage money better – whoever that is – as I admit to serious weakness with financial issues on my side” but at the same time your point is taken and I think you’re correct really (if only life worked that way!). Are you egalitarian? Because it sure sounds like it from the comments you write but I’d like to be sure I’m not incorrectly classifying your position.
“Making money is the man’s natural strength and therefore the man’s natural duty and responsibility.” How do you come to this conclusion? Money isn’t something natural, it’s something cultural. So this sentence doesn’t make any sense.