Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think being "well off" is the least important quality in a man?

196 replies

HollyGuacamolly · 13/07/2014 20:49

I am single and pregnant and bitter but went for lunch with a group of friends (also single) and were discussing what qualities we want in a man; I was surprised that all of them listed "well off" as an important factor, but not one of them mentioned anything along the lines of kind/treats me with respect.

Is this standard attitude? Or do I hang around with gold diggers weirdos?

FWIW obviously I don't want someone who's shit with money and a total liability, but when assessing someone's potential as a new partner I can honestly say I don't take wealth into account.

OP posts:
NotNewButNameChanged · 14/07/2014 08:19

I have a distinct feeling that if you asked a group of men what qualities they looked for in a woman, "well off" wouldn't be among them.

NoArmaniNoPunani · 14/07/2014 08:26

To me, well off means earning 100k or more a year. It is totally unimportant to me, I earn my own money, DH earns less than 30k a year but he's kind, loving and generous. I'd take that over well off

SaVred · 14/07/2014 08:29

gennz, my parents used to say a version of that saying.

If money can solve your problem, you've no problem. Not sure I ever really got that as I was thinking, eh refer to my original problem; no money.

But I have heard that repeated often whenever I complained!

SaVred · 14/07/2014 08:31

notnewbutnamechanged
oh yeh, a group of men in their forties compiling this list would focus entirely on physical attributes I'm sure. She's got to be slim but not thin, ten years younger than me (even if that's never ever happened to them before), his friends would have to think she wasn't unattractive.............

personality? i think that gets considered late in the deal for men. Confused

NotNewButNameChanged · 14/07/2014 08:37

SaVred - How said that you feel all men are so stereotypical.

I am 40 and never once has it ever passed my mind whether my friends thought any of my girlfriends or my ex long-term partner was attractive or not.

My ex was a size 14. My first girlfriend was a 10. My most recent girlfriend was a size 16. I also once dated, briefly, someone who was size 18.

Because, actually, after initial attraction, which we ALL have to feel, personality is absolutely at the top of the tree if you're planning on spending years with someone.

BitOutOfPractice · 14/07/2014 08:54

When I was online dating I had "solvent" on my mental list of 4 traits I was looking for.

I have worked hard to build a nice life for md and the DC and I didn't want some feckless idiot jeopardising that.

Also, I wanted someone who had similar attitudes to spending as me. And who could afford to do stuff with me, without me feeling I was bankrolling him. Which I would resent

SaVred · 14/07/2014 09:01

hmm......... and yet! despite being healthy, content, solvent, employed, good humoured, generous, with a decent circle of female friends anyway, no man ever shows any interest in me like that .

So I don't think it is 'sad'. You are trying to suggest that I dislike men, adn that's not the case. I have often liked a man, but they friendzone me as they saying is. I think we have a connection, and they're looking over my shoulder at better looking (or younger women) so, 'sad' no. Realistic, yes, although because I still have some optimism left (how!??) I hope that there will be an exception. I know if I were just better looking I'd be with somebody. It's that simple. All the other things are in place.

moonfacebaby · 14/07/2014 09:23

My exH was well off - he had an affair & my DP is not in a great place financially - debt & erratic earnings because he's self-employed. We've not had lots of evenings out or weekends away, but I'm still happy with him.

I view loyalty, fidelity, honesty & being trustworthy as more important qualities than his financial situation.

We don't live together though - if we ever do that, I'd like to see my DP be more proactive about sorting his finances out. He's getting there & his problems financially aren't to do with reckless spending at all - just a change in the industry he works in.

He's brilliant in other ways but I have no doubt some women would have written him off for not being able to take them out more, buy presents etc....

Fattyfattyyumyum · 14/07/2014 14:59

If "well off"' means employed and holding down a decent job, then yes I think it's vital and would be close to top of my list.

"Well off" because mummy & daddy worked hard and give him everything he wants without having to work for it - one to be avoided!

Works hard but is not "well off" is more of a grey area for me - I would question his level of ambition & intelligence

2rebecca · 14/07/2014 15:15

Having a strong work ethic and a similar attitude to money to me are important to me. No gambolers, spendthrifts or meanies.
Definitely no cocklodgers.

Apatite1 · 14/07/2014 15:19

I value my husband's kindness, loyalty, easy going nature way more than his salary (not sure of the definition of well-off?) But actually, if he was bad with money despite earning as much he does, I'd boot him out. THAT would be the deal breaker for me: the lack of sufficient financial intelligence to live within your means. Very off putting!

Eminorsustained · 14/07/2014 15:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

HerRoyalNotness · 14/07/2014 15:32

It's important, maybe not MOST important, but it is important. It would be very difficult to live without enough to pay the bills and live a little. You only have to see here on MN how people struggle on low incomes.

But, I have a friend who does see it as the MOST important trait in a man. Which I think is delusional. She could end up with another arsehold, but she'd probably put up with it if he were rich. Being well-off brings other problems also, I see another couple, seemingly perfect life, lovely home in the best neighbourhood, DC in private school, but the DH is always working, if not in the office, then on his phone, or playing golf or travelling without the family. There is not much time left over for them, and he has set their life up to be so expensive, he has to keep working and striving to pay for it all. I wouldn't like that tbh.

Another friend has a business that is setup to virtually run itself. He tweaks it now and then as he needs too. He has a much better balance in life and has time with his DC and for his DW.

squizita · 14/07/2014 15:33

I don't personally, because I have always ensured I live within my means. I was in an abusive relationship in my early adulthood, where finance was a big issue (the whole 'lavish gift' thing) and would prefer someone who has a career job because that would show me they are hardworking and interested in something rather than for a pay packet.

I wouldn't date a loser, but I have absolutely no interest in him earning more than me.

Unfortunately, now I am about to go on maternity leave, I have found society places huge emphasis on it being 'normal' for the man to earn more. Forms given to the wrong person, awkward bank meetings. Friends laughing or telling him it's 'his job' to earn more than me so I can be a SAHM forever (I don't want to forever... infact he had a SAHD and would prefer to go part time himself, so PFB would have a parent caring for them). Borderline weirdly homophobic comments from women, mainly (and ones about how I should have 'thought twice' before being good at my job as now we're a weird couple). It's a disgrace people's prejudices when it comes down to it.

My DH is an honest man who does an honest day's work in a field benefiting society: we have a great marriage. Between us we have a house and a normal lifestyle. Why is he 'wrong' that out of our two perfectly reasonable wages, I earn more but am the woman?

squizita · 14/07/2014 15:35

Works hard but is not "well off" is more of a grey area for me - I would question his level of ambition & intelligence

What if he works in a morally valid sector which doesn't pay a great deal, and is hugely ambitious in another way e.g. saving the environment, caring for the homeless etc?.
Ambition to me doesn't mean 'climbing the corporate ladder'.
As for intelligence... university lecturers are paid appallingly as I understand it?

CalamitouslyWrong · 14/07/2014 15:36

My DH would say that earning potential (and willingness to work) was a quality he desired in a partner. He would not be willing to support a stay at home wife.

CalamitouslyWrong · 14/07/2014 15:37

Well, I say that, but I guess I mean someone who stayed at home by choice rather than, say, becoming unable to work through illness or disability.

Purpleroxy · 14/07/2014 15:41

Yabu.
A man who blows money he doesn't have is very unattractive.
Probably being "well off" means having enough money for essentials and the odd treat, it doesn't mean rolling in money.

BackforGood · 14/07/2014 16:22

kind/treats me with respect wouldn't have been on my list, if I'd been in your conversation, as they'd have been assumed - the bar wouldn't have ever been lower, for me to consider that a 'quality'.
Agree with everyone else though about 'well off' - it's not the amount of money they have that's important, but the attitude towards money and towards work and towards spending that would certainly be important if we're talking about a longer term relationship rather than a holiday fling.
Also agree this depends on your age, and stage in life - as a teen or a student, or early 20s, then clearly it's not what you'd expect, but if you are into your 30s or 40s, then I certainly would give a great deal of thought to starting a relationship with someone with massive debts if I'd worked hard to get myself established at that point. Not saying 'never' but certainly if we were looking for what we'd like in an "ideal" partner, then "well off" is not a bad thing to have on the list.

splendide · 14/07/2014 18:52

Very much agree with Squiz. It's amazing how weird some people still find it for the woman to be the higher earner. Also my DH is extremely intelligent, he just works in a field where not much money is made.

movingsoon23 · 14/07/2014 18:58

I had an interesting conversation with friends who thought I was shallow because I rejected a man (internet dating-we had a brief conversation and didn't take it further as seems to be the norm if you are not interested) on the basis that in his 30s he was working in a local shop in his hometown and had no qualifications. I did not say anything judgmental about him as a person - just that I didn't think we would have much in common and I wanted someone more driven as a partner. I studied and worked hard and am lucky enough to earn a decent wage with the intention that if I had children I could provide well for them and would want to be with someone with similar goals.

These same friends outright rejected the idea of dating somebody smaller than them or who they didn't think was physically good looking - yet insisted that this was just normal and not as shallow as my preference for a man who was ambitious career-wise.

Social norms are interesting!

mumminio · 14/07/2014 19:14

Not the most important quality, but attitude towards money/spending is quite important. Financial difficulties do take a toll on marriage, and knowing that a man has a spending habit or no assets/savings after 10 years in the workforce would definitely raise questions.

Perhaps your friends considered manners/respect etc to be so fundamental that they forgot to mention them?

Taz1212 · 14/07/2014 19:30

I didn't consider "well off" as a trait to be looking for when I met DH . I wanted a similar attitude towards money- specifically to never have any debt other than a mortgage. Our financial situation has changed in many many ways since we've been married but we have never argued about money.

WaitingForMe · 15/07/2014 22:39

The salary issue is interesting. DH gave up work to come and work for me. It didn't work out (he struggled without a clear work v. home life divide) so he's back in formal employment but you'd have thought we were doing something deeply perverse. How very dare I be successful enough to support us both?

The really dirty secret is that long term it's me who'll make us financially free then he'll be a man of leisure on his wife's money. I honestly think some people would be more comfortable if he kept his (very good) career and wore a gimp mask every day!

FrontForward · 15/07/2014 22:55

It's important to me. Having bank rolled an ex husband and partnered a man who spent lavishly, it is really important to find someone with a similar outlook on money as I have. I spend within my limits and have worked really hard to have a secure (as it can be) financial future

Partnering up with someone who threatens to take that all away is a complete no for me. I have a lot of sympathy with men who are reluctant to financially support girlfriends or wives. However I wouldn't have a relationship and refuse to put someone on the mortgage etc etc. I'd refuse the relationship