Just because men make more than women on average, doesn't mean that is the case for any particular couple, and practices based upon such an erroneous assumption are wholly unwarranted.

By and large, I agree with just about everything Carlyn has written here. But there is just one thing feel compelled to add, and I would be remiss if I failed to do so. Concepts of feminism notwithstanding, I kind of agree that the man should pay for that first date. It isn't rational, but it is traditional, and unless he is really struggling financially, it is not likely to be that big a deal for that first date. Still, if the woman has suggested a pricey place for dinner, and the tab pushes or exceeds $100, maybe this presumption bears some re-evaluation, especially if her drinking and dining exceed the cost of his. And that happens.

But my point is that this generality of men making more than women is wholly irrelevant in its unjustified consequences upon a particular couple. In my case, the woman I am seeing earns more than I do, and we both know that. So, after that first date, if there is to be a second, I think that relevant income is a legitimate factor as to who pays for social outings. You can split it, or take turns, or perhaps even it out with some meals for which the one generally not paying for meals out purchases the makings, and perhaps prepares the meal (or shares in its preparation). Otherwise, she is just a cake eater, plain and simple, and if she does not realize and accept that, she is not being honest with herself. And excuses about the disproportional cost of hair care, makeup, nails, and clothing are just red herrings. I suspect that, for most women, she would have incurred at least 90% of those expenses as “self-care” whether or not she had a date. The one meaningful factor I might buy into is that a single mother is far more likely than a single father to have to pay for a sitter for the evening.