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

[HollyGuacamolly]

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.

Very important to me, I live with my two boys very comfortably, if I were to remarry I would need someone who was self sufficient, to the point where they were working towards owning their own home.

It would take quite a high wage earner to be able to combat the loss of tax credits and support I currently get to work/study and raise my children.

I would want 2 more children too, so that would need to be accommodated for. I have done the poor and raising kids thing, I won't be going back there again.

Well off is absolutely as important as being 'kind' someone can be as kind as they like, if they can't pay their way I am not interested.

Same goes for being fabulous in bed, they can be kind and well off but I'm not settling for anything less than mind-blowing, even if it means I spent the rest of my days single.

Those saying that having no money is romantic is only ok when you are young and dependent-less.

I think it's important to be with someone with similar aspirations/expectations as you. If you want a certain standard of living or comfort it is pointless hitching your wagon to someone who does not earn very much - unless you intend to be the main breadwinner. And, unfortunately, I still see (from threads here) that many women are uncomfortable with this, eg not wanting to return to work after maternity leave, or complaining about a dh's substandard homemaking skills.

What I would definitely not want (next time around!) is someone who is already very well off and I would be in the position of supplicant. I know women who have married very, very wealthy bankers and boy, do they have to dance to the husband's tune.

ICanHearYou - I think your shopping list would send most blokes running for cover...

One of my favourite movie quotes; Marilyn Monroe, from Gentlemen Prefer Blondes:
"A man being rich is like a girl being pretty; you might not marry her because she's pretty but, my goodness, doesn't it help?"

Ninja - I love that quote too!

My favourite is "Love and a cottage? Eh Fanny! Give me indifference and a coach and six!"

Icanhearyou, what do you bring to the table?

I am not particularly materialistic but when I started internet dating when I was 34, then yes, somebody earning a 'reasonable' salary was a must. I live in the NE, this was 9 years ago, so £25k+ was my criteria. It's about what I was earning at the time.

I was looking to get married and have children. I didn't want to have to compromise my lifestyle too much. If I'd met somebody my age earning £15k, then 1. Chances are they weren't particularly ambitious, and that would bother me and 2. It would probably mean both of us would have to work full time after having children, which I didn't want.

Although TBH, if I'd met somebody at work who I had a strong connection with but he'd earned half my salary, then all of the above would have gone out of the window!!! Regarding finance, I think a shared attitude to money is more important than how much you actually have.

I think that's such an unfortunate assumption, MsVestibule, that someone of your age but wasn't earning a lower salary automatically suggests they weren't particularly ambitious.

For example, if you working in the charity or arts sector, you can often not be earning large salaries but that doesn't mean they aren't ambitious.

I used to work in PR and when I was 26 was earning £30k (some sixteen years ago, which was pretty damned good). But, it being PR, I worked very long hours, which meant some days getting up at 6am and getting home at 8pm. So I built a nice nest egg but had no spare time to spend it and my social life wasn't the best. So, I'd have had the money you wanted, but you would hardly have spent any time with me.

I now work in the arts sector and earn £20k. I have my own flat (mortgage, but not huge). I work better hours, thoroughly enjoy my work which is varied and not run of the mill and have more free time to spend with friends or a special someone. I would like to move to another venue at some point but the pay won't be much better (unless I end up at the RSC or National Theatre)! Doesn't mean I don't have ambition.

Which would you rather have - someone with passion for what they do and enough to live perfectly acceptably on (on my salary I do manage to afford a couple of weekends away and a week abroad) and see them, or someone you hardly see but who brings home lots of money for you to spend?

Some of the comments on here seem very one sided and materialistic and it's very much about what a man can bring to the table rather than what TWO people can bring to the table TOGETHER.

MsVestibule is right when she says that who one wants on paper and who actually lights one's fire are two different things.

Yes, in the cold hard light of day on my shopping list would be: high earner, great diy-er, humerous crinkly eyes, kind... yeah, in fact all those attributes a guy in a chicflic has - you know, boat builder (but actually a disillusioned lawyer to indicate that he has a brain underneath all that brawn...) - in reality my shopping list boils down to solvent and own teeth! (Too much to hope for full head of hair at my age.)

People are bad at knowing what they want from relationships and tend to assume the "nice/respectful" etc part is a given, in practice that means you're not actively looking for it and focusing more on shallower aspects, probably because it's hard to tell if someone is nice, kind, respectful, grumpy, sexist etc at first glance whereas the other things have more instant feedback. It's easy to tell if someone likes the same kind of music as you or whether they're going to be a football/xbox bore. Not so easy to figure out how supportive they're going to be when you've got food poisoning and a toddler running around.

This. Ok some people take being kind/respectful as a given, but I think that is where they make the fundamental error. It's nice to focus on "well off, intelligent" etc. But don't miss out on making sure the person is kind.

I am surprised at the amount of women on this threat that say they'd want a well off partner so they wouldn't have to work full time when they have children.

I don't think it's that surprising Holly. It's still a very sexist world. There is also a big thing that women (but not men) should have a choice about whether to be a SAHM or a WOHM. You need a high earning partner to facilitate that choice.

NotNew - it is about what both bring to the table, but you know what you are bringing, it's not completely unacceptable to think practically about what you'd like the other half of a partnership to bring. Finances are a reasonable thing to think about for 30+ age group, it's about the sort of life you can have with that person - including options for DCs. Being poor shuts a lot of doors. You can be rich and still decide to live in a small flat and go on cheap holidays, it's not really possible to be poor and decide you want the lifestyle trappings of a rich family, without getting in massive financial messes.

Back to the OP's question, no, being well off isn't the least important quality, I think looks are the least important - don't get me wrong, I don't think it works if you don't fancy them at all, but looks don't last/stay as they are, they are the least important quality in a long term partner.

Mary that's all true to an extent but again, I don't see why I would look for a man to be responsible for giving me those options rather than earn myself. I am 30 + by the way.

Would you think a man was being reasonable to have a certain income in mind before he'd consider a female partner?

Plenty of lovely middle-aged blokes I know - well-off, kind, funny... are the ones you wouldn't have touched with sixteen barge poles when they were 25.

OP - why are you surprised? Most parttime working parents or SAHPs are woman.

Finding good, reliable childcare for 8am - 6pm (reasonable full time office hours for most careers) is expensive. Reducing your hours is often the most profitable option, if one of you are going to do that, it's often the mum who's just had a year off who gets the reduced wages. If you'd like to be the one who has more time at home with your DCs then you need to be with a man who can afford to support that. If you are with a man who earns very little, the obvious solution is for him to be the SAHP, but that's only fine if it's what you both want.

splendide: I have two male friends "on the loose" as it were who are definitely not looking to rescue Cinderellas. They are both comfortably off (one is very well off, in fact) and they just want to be on an equal footing - ie homeowner, employed, etc.

Splendide - unless what you want to have as an option is to be a SAHM. Then it's not if your DH is earning a low wage. Or to go part time.

If your wage is the one you live off, then you have less choices for your career. Great if you want that, but it doesn't mean you don't have all the same choices and more if your partner earns well too.

(I was earning about £10k over hte average wage and my full time wage would pay for all bills execpt childcare with a bit left over, so if DH wanted to be a SAHD instead, we could just about have done it, again, money gave us an option, it wasn't an option we wanted to use, but it was there, in a way that if my earning potential wouldn't cover the bills, we wouldn't have.)

That's fair enough I suppose lainie. Maybe I am being a bit romantic, it just seems really sad to rule people out (men or women) based on income.