He'll Take The Check

Historically, men paying for women was tied to economic realities. For much of history, men had greater access to wealth and employment, while women were restricted socially and legally from earning at equal levels. Covering the cost of a meal or an outing became a practical reflection of that imbalance.

I suppose that the price of a meal is a cheap price to pay when you consider that prior to 1974 when Congress passed the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, bank and finance companies required a husband or other male relative to co-sign credit cards and auto loans for women even if she had an income. Being the responsible party in default for a $25,000 car payment is much more of a financial commitment to a woman than buying her a corned beef sandwich.

Lenders often denied single or married women mortgages without a male co-applicant. Under the “head and master” law, a husband could mortgage or sell jointly owned property without his wife’s consent. Even the name of that law made it clear how society viewed male-female relationships. There was no doubt as to who was the subservient partner. 

Until 1988 in many states, when the  Women’s Business Ownership Act of 1988 (HR 5050) was passed, some states and lenders required a male relative as a co-signer for a woman to get a business loan. There were even stories of women needing a teenage son to co-sign.

It shouldn’t be too difficult to understand why today the dating tradition of men paying for women still persists as echoes of those traditions linger in subtle ways .

Regardless of actual financial need, gender bias has perpetuated the myth that women can’t take care of themselves and/or are all looking for sugar daddies.

Nonetheless, I bet a lot of men out there would gladly hand over the check to their female partner if they thought no one would think badly of them..