Bitch Kitty Racing

“Dutch Treat” was originally an insult that implied that anyone who insisted on all parties paying their own way was cheap. For the boomer generation, a college-age boy who insisted that a girl split the bill might not have gotten many second dates. Furthermore, the boomers’ parents routinely viewed men who had women pay their way as gigolos.

One would assume that this prejudice stemmed from thousands of years of human culture in which men were stereotypically viewed as protectors and the hunters of sustenance, while women were viewed as gatherers and caretakers of home and family. Popular American culture has certainly reinforced this stereotype, with the last century defining a woman’s place as in the home raising children, except when the men were away during WWII. After the war, women were expected to go back home, and a propaganda campaign was actually created to encourage this.

The housewife image began breaking in the 1960’s and 1970’s, yet even today there is inequality in pay for equal jobs, which suggests that the stereotype still exists, at least in the eyes of male employers. It would be wonderful to attribute this to the older generations, with their older mores, being in positions of peak power, but Gen-Y’s use of the word “bitch” to connote both weakness and women would suggest otherwise.

In modern thinking, rational adults expect men and women to be equal. Let’s create an illustrative couple named David and Elaine. In Western culture of 2006, is it really respectful of David to presume that Elaine needs a big, strong man to take care of poor little her? In the modern world, Elaine is just as much of a hunter as David. She has to go to work every day just like he does. She is expected to pay for her home just like he is. She has to eat with or without him. She buys her own clothes. She has her own car. She has her own financial advisor. What, really, does she need him for?

Assuming that the ancient biological function of dating is to find a mate, the only thing Elaine could possibly need David for is sperm, and it’s highly unlikely in the modern world she even needs him for that. Men being what they are, Elaine could go to any bar on a Friday night, choose an acceptable genetic donor and, after minimal pleasantries, probably have what it takes to make a baby. She could also go to a fertility clinic and search through catalogues of men who have willingly given their entire personal and family histories for the specific purpose of a woman like Elaine being able to find what she wants in a child.

Elaine has evolved past the monkey stage of evolution, however, though homo erectus and all the way to modern homo sapiens. She probably does not view David as merely a potential sperm donor, but perhaps views him as a potential life partner. If she were merely a monkey she would be instinctively looking for David to be a dominant male, strong and healthy, able to produce strong and healthy children that would survive into adulthood. It is thought that the homo erectus part of her wants David to be monogamous as well, for if he strays he will leave their nest and lower the chances of her offspring’s survival.

The fully human part of her still carries those desires as instincts, though her personal psychology will determine her choices. The stereotypical attractive male is good-looking and masculine, traits which indicate a healthy body. He should also be wealthy and powerful, traits which indicate dominance and the ability to provide. He should also sensitive to his responsibilities regarding home and family, traits which will keep him close to the nest and less likely to leave Elaine. All these traits are instincts designed for successful reproduction. All of these instincts can be rationalized or ignored by Elaine because she’s not a monkey.

Lorelei Lee says in the 1957 film Gentlemen prefer Blondes, “Don’t you know that a man being rich is like a girl being pretty? You wouldn’t marry a girl just because she’s pretty, but my goodness, doesn’t it help?” Lorelei obviously knows that her instincts are not a rational reason for mate selection, yet concedes their influence.

But what of David? David has the same evolution as Lorelei and Elaine, and also has instinctual preferences. David’s modern instinct, though culturally moderated, is for women with ample breasts and hips. David’s monkey brain wants to successfully reproduce just as badly as Elaine’s, so he seeks out a mate that will be able to bear a child and then feed it though infancy (it is said that men’s attraction for full buttocks is a visual reminder of breast cleavage, though the current obsession with frottage might lead one to believe the other is true). He seeks out pretty as a sign of health. Pretty is often what is most regular in face and form, without defect. For David’s monkey forbears, pretty would have signified health, and health the increased success that his child will be born.

Modern men’s pornographic magazines are filled with large breasted, ample-hipped, pretty young women. In the ancient world, those women would have been most likely to attract mates, and in the modern world they apparently still are. Even women seem to pick up on these signals, hence makeup, surgery and Botox to reduce the signs of age, breast augmentation, and the plentiful Stairmasters at gyms.

David shares Elaine’s instinctual preference for monogamy, though perhaps for a slightly different reason. Elaine’s female ancestors “knew” that a male than had sex with many other females would probably not stick around the hearth and help to rear the offspring, lowering the chance of their survival. Such a male had a high likelihood of winding up protecting another of his children even over hers, lessening the chance that her DNA would be passed on. David’s male ancestors preferred a monogamous female because monogamy assures paternity, and David’s selfish genes do not want to rear another’s child. They also want to be passed on.

Like Elaine, David is not a monkey either. Though he is hard-wired to react to certain physical characteristics, it’s the erectus part of him and not the sapiens. The sapient part of him is not going to marry a girl just because she’s pretty, though he may date her for solely that reason and practice passing on his DNA. However, being rational, David will select a mate based upon the same fundamental instinctual characteristic as Elaine: compatibility.

If David and Elaine are successfully dating, it’s assumed they have the same ideas regarding home and family, and also their future together. If Elaine were a 1906 kind of gal, David would bring home the bacon and she would fry it up in a pan. In the year 2006, this is ludicrous. Most families require two incomes to thrive these days. Many families need two incomes merely to survive. If the couple wants children, rearing them is a group effort. Even single parents need additional help if they are to work, either in the form of family or daycare. It takes more than one.

The child-rearing example previously illustrated also applies to the success of the couple to have the life that most people seem to favor, a life of security. Many people want to have a home, money in saving, a retirement plan, vacations, perhaps a special car. It is so much easier to afford these things when the cost is shared. Indeed, in many major cities it is not possible for an average person to afford a house. In Seattle for example, the median housing price is over $400,000, while the median income is only $55,000. Simply put, in Seattle one median income does not buy a median home. It takes two to own a home these days.

Yet there are still the outmoded bioanthropological and cultural instincts to overcome. David and Elaine’s culture is divided on the hot dating issue of who pays. By assuming his historical responsibility of paying for dinner, David may be beating his monkey chest and showing to Elaine what a good provider he is, how he has wealth and the intelligence required to accumulate it. Elaine may even instinctually react deep down to the big strong man, yet as stated she is perfectly capable of taking care of herself and is furthermore expected to do so when David’s not around. Many, if not most, modern women realize this and would see David’s insistence on paying some sort of dominance game with which they will have no part. It can actually be seen as offensive or the act of a “male chauvinist pig.”

Let us assume that David and Elaine each make 50K annually. Living in a city with its high cost of living, each can afford to spend one hundred dollars on a dinner. Under the historical system, David chooses a restaurant that fits his budget and each gets an unspoken allowance of fifty bucks. In the back of his mind, David may actually worry that Elaine is going to order the most expensive thing on the menu; he may be concerned that this dinner will cut into his ability to pay rent. And goodness, what if they go out after? How expensive it will be if Elaine wants to have digetifs at the new hot club up the street!

Look at the anthropological scenario this situation sets up: David is instinctually trying to show Elaine how well he can provide for her. He is a strong hunter; he can kill many filet mignon to feed their potential offspring. He is able gather a fine Côtes du Rhône to keep Elaine sustained while she guards the nest. His mighty credit card shall ward off potential wolves that may carry off their children.

Elaine has her own money. She doesn’t need David’s. Why should she have restrict her good time to David’s budget? If they each make 50K, and each can afford one hundred dollars for dinner, imagine how much nicer the dinner will be if they each spend the one hundred dollars they can afford. Together they can go to the fancy new restaurant, the one neither could comfortably afford to treat the other to. They can both relax and have a good time, order whatever they want, and sample all the offerings. If the happy couple wants to go away for the weekend, imagine how much farther they could get if they shared expenses. David or Elaine should be able to indicate what they can or cannot afford by simply making alternate suggestions for activities

If they continue dating they’ll have to learn to work together and rely on each other financially anyway. Historical roles do not work in today’s world. If David insists on paying for everything, he may up with a wife at home taking care of the children. It’s highly unlikely that she’ll be satisfied as a person and the couple will never have all they deserve, either in possessions or happiness. If Elaine insists on his paying for everything, she will find herself a mate that coddles her and treats her like a possession, like something he paid for. She will not be treated with the fullest respect that men reserve for equals. Neither will she have all the nice things that a couple can afford, but an individual cannot.

It’s just splitting the bill, but the ramifications are so much more. It’s time to put our instincts behind us and use our rationale. Our brains evolved so we could thrive. Let’s actually use them.