Since when do feminists endorse gender roles like the first picture? Chivalry is dead and should stay dead. Be courteous to people because it’s the right thing to do, not because of gender.
Regarding paying for dates, either the person who initiates the date pays, you split the bill, or you alternate paying for each date. OR, if both the man and the woman decide the man should always pay, or the woman should always pay, then that’s what they do. (This is, of course, in heterosexual relationships. What would “the man always pays” even mean in a lesbian relationship? They just skip out on the bill every time? Come on.)
The WHOLE POINT of feminism is to create a world in which NOBODY is confined to a role just because of their gender. All people have the right to make their own decisions about the roles they play, traditional or not. Whoever made this, I’m sorry some people gave you the wrong impression about feminism.
I agree with almost all of this as “should be” truisms. Based on hearing their own opinions, I believe the comic’s form of double-sided opinion is common to most women (and men), but also unfortunately many feminists. I think OP was re-targeting the original content to feminists in order to challenge this hypocrisy (which I think you agree it would be).
The “asker pays” rule is a suggestion which only seems fair while ignoring or denying some general truths about our entire courtship process … which is slow to change, and encourages some harmful forms of what I shall call social parasitism. Narrowing it down: Men do a lot more asking. Another common suggestion I’ve seen is that the man should always pay for the first or so date, and then, if it becomes a relationship, the woman kicks in money. That suggestion, to me, is shockingly and bafflingly receiver-centric. There are sure to be many more first dates than second, and more second than third, and after a certain point a couple just decides to stay inside together.
But men are left to “bribe” women to spend time with them. —Or at least to not discourage an affirmative decision. The alternative is a relative stranger asking you to actively socialize with them—oh, and also it will cost you money. So it’s a form of “Hey, hang out with me a while. Don’t worry, it won’t cost you a thing.” But yes, of course it really does, even if the cost isn’t obvious or tangible. Even the unselfish and genuinely interested are apt to view date expenditures, even mutual and equal ones, as a form of investment.
Does the financial disparity only follow, and is a secondary attribute to, an existing social pattern? Could be. I don’t know. If it is, the primary model is so old now, and has existed in cooperation with the financial aspect, that it’s hard to separate them. How do things happen in more enlightened societies? Do any followers know? Because as long as this financially exploitative courtship model is in place, the fabric of our own society depends, to a degree, on men earning more than women. This, of course, is particularly discriminatory to women not actively dating men, women dating fewer men than other women, and any men earning the same as or less than women. It encourages a classist (if not downright predatory) decision-making in dating (which is already profoundly deep, in my opinion). But it’s also circular. Because if women exist within an earning deficit, then they are incentivized by circumstance into a sort of “financial scavenger” role, extracting value from the men they socialize with, and selecting ones who offer the most value.
I’m not saying any of this bullshit is justified, I’m just saying it’s the way things happen right now.