This is the era of gender equality and women are like men and men are like women so there is no reason for a man to pay for a date or to hold open or a door. Feminism has eliminated all notions of masculinity and chivalry so men shouldn't pay
I always feel, man has to pay for everything because of 'Supply and Demand' situation, Women who expect to pay think they are more in demand, they are superior sex. You see that in business. I have heard women saying, If someone pays me for at least 3 days for dinner, then I will go to their home, it is a spirit of prostitution.
I am sure women don't like to be called a gold digger, because it's a sexist remark. Similarly, don't expect a man to pay for dinner because you enjoy the dinner with him. Everything is relative. You want a man to respect you, volunteer to pay so you don't look and act a gold digger. Gold digger will eventually be used and abused.
You're in the assumption that men have more money than the women. This is not true in most cases. Women can prostitute themselves and make so much more than men. Expecting the man to pay for everything is going with the stereotype that the man is the provider. This is BS. The man doesn't always have to be one. Women can provide for a change.
Sexism by definition is treating someone differently based upon their gender. A man being expected to provide the funds for the meal simply because he is of the male persuasion is by definition sexist.
It isn't a bad form of sexism though. We Americans are too caught up on -isms (racism, sexism, socialism, etc.). Does it work? Do the participating parties consent? Is it a good system? Those are the questions we should ask instead of if it falls into an -ism.
It is what is expected of a man, it does not mean he is superior. If the woman feels like she wants to split the check then she can do so, but it is common courtesy for the man to pay for the meal. It is equivalent to a man opening the car door for a lady or pulling out a chair for her.
Only when the man assumes the woman can or should not pay does it become sexist. A man can pay for a woman, but if it is done under the guise that he has to provide for the woman and that she is unable to pay due to her sex, then it becomes sexist and degrading to women.
The only ones crying that it is are MRAs, and frankly who the hell cares what they have to say about anything. It's a nice gesture and one that is more or less accepted. It's sexist if the man thinks it is a guarantee of having sex, but in most contexts there's nothing wrong with it.