Logically it seems wrong for me, a "lady" by society's definition, to question such an offer -- usually promoted by sports bars or any other location that aims to capitalize on women's sexuality. It's easy on my wallet, after all.

Pubs, concerts and even parties that offer women free admission are doing so to enhance their capital. That is, having beautiful women -- or lots of women in general -- around is a mark of their success. The women are their possessions, to be had by the men who pay their way in.

But this one marketing scheme speaks to a larger cultural issue I have with gender norms in the United States: that heterosexuality is dangerously empowering for men.

Let me preface this daunting feminist argument with the fact that I do identify as heterosexual. I heart men! What I don't heart are conventional heterosexual dating rituals that are fundamentally oppressive.

Some of my female peers express vague resentment when a date doesn't hold open doors or pay for their meals or movie admission or other ultimately conventional (and boring) date activities.

There isn't anything inherently bad about being disappointed in a male's lack of "mannerly" behavior -- except that I wonder if my peers understand where ideas about dating and romance stem from.

So, today, when a man buys a woman dinner on a first date and she lets him, probably with the intentions merely of being polite and traditional, the couple is actually perpetuating unfortunate ideas (for men and women) about relationships and gender roles within them. The primary idea here is, of course, that a woman must rely on "her man" for money. The thing is, it used to be that women had no choice but to do this.

My words might have potential of portraying me as some crazy or ungrateful subversive feminist, who is ardent about keeping her legs unshaved and hates soccer moms.

This is cache, read story here