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.

I don't suppose someone would do a blanket ruling out based on income, but if I wanted to eat out once in a while at, let's be modest here, Prezzo's, and my new beau could only run to a pack of cheese and ham sandwiches on a park bench, then I would feel we weren't quite compatible. It's probably more of a case at my age of not wanting to give up what I have already acquired (not much!). Also I think most people are conscious of pot hunters. Who doesn't shake their head at those daft women in Take A Break who marry some bloke they met on an exotic holiday and then complain they've been left high and dry after transferring their life savings into some spurious bank account.

Well I suppose I just find it odd that some women are essentially looking for a man who can fund their "lifestyle choice" of staying home and raising their children.

My attitude is I can support myself and my child - if I then meet a well off partner and we mutually agree I should stay at home than that's great, but I'm not actively looking for that.

Icanhearyou, what do you bring to the table?

A good prospective career, ability to support myself, kindness, consideration, love.

I haven't answered this question with the qualities I have because that isn't what is being asked.

The assumption that I have no qualities because I expect my life to be richer (in many ways) with a partner is barmey.

I have plenty of good qualities to add to a marriage, I know this because I've just come out of one.

Age has made me selective and there is nothing wrong with that.

But Lainie, if YOU want to eat out once in a while at Prezzo, there's nothing to stop YOU paying for it either.

I very much doubt I would want to be a position where I stayed at home with the children, beyond the obligatory 9 months I am more than happy doing 20hrs work a week.

Still not going to work to support myself and my children and then take a step back for 'romance' though, if it is going to work it needs to be beneficial to all of us. Otherwise it can just be a boyfriend/girlfriend situation and he can stay put.

There would be no point remarrying (in my eyes) unless it was in order to facilitate more children and his income would be an important part of that.

FWIW the friends that said this are mostly in fairly low paid jobs and when they say "well off" I am fairly sure they mean earning 50k plus.

Holly - you started a thread on Mumsnet mid morning on a normal working day and you're surprised to find lots of woman who actively chose to be SAHMs or working Part time after having DCs rather than lots of woman who were back doing 12 hour days when their DCs were 4 months old? Really?

For some woman, this is an active choice, some others would like to be SAHMs but can't afford to stop working because their DH doesn't earn enough to make that a viable option for the family without a massive drop in standard of living. Why are you surprised that those who have done it say that being an option is important to them?

As I said, we could have done it the other way, me do long days (I'd have had to be in the office for 8, leaving between 6-7pm, hour each way commute) and DH being a SAHD - it was an option, not one we chose to do because a) once I'd had DCs I didn't want to do those sort of hours and decided my career wasn't as important to me anymore and b) DH didn't want to be a SAHD. Now, my DH might not say it was important for a man to find a woman who could support him being a SAHD because it's not something he wants to do, but I know other men who would want that who may think it was important in a partner.

Having similar expectations about money is important and a decent standard of living makes everything else easier. In my youth I imagined living with some boho commune type but now it would drive me mad being with someone who earned significantly less than me, unless they were being SAHD for a few years.

From your last post OP your friends sound like they want a 'Richard Gere in Pretty Woman' type. Someone who will whisk them off into a fairytale lifestyle.

IME a lot of men with a good income want a partner who earns decent money too.

It is the expectations that is important isn't it my

I have done the 'can only afford lentil soup' parenting and it is like a cancer, it just permeates the whole of life and now that I am back on my feet, it is going to be a bloody mission to get out of the debt that those years put me in.

I am not EVER going back there again. I would rather be single and love can take a hike!

oh and re wanting someone to fund your lifestyle choice, yes, in a lot of ways, it's important to find a DP/H who will be able to support your lifestyle choices, be that if you want more than the standard 2 DCs, or none at all, you need a partner who's up for it. If you want to work 12 hour days and need them to be prepared to put the time in at home instead with DCs, you need a partner who's prepared to do it. If you want them to come travelling round the world with you you need a man who's interested in that and think it's worth the money.

Whatever you want from life, you need a partner who'll support that, both finanically and emotionally. There's nothing wrong wth looking what you want from life, and making sure you pick a partner who can/will give that to you, or at least won't stop it being something you can do for yourself. Overly romantic notions are for 16 year old, woman pushing 30 should know what they want from life and be practical about getting it.

I think this thread has boiled my piss a bit actually, why is it SO BAD for a woman to want to insist on financial security for her existing children? Why is that something to look down upon?

I have utter respect for women who assess their love interests with their children in mind. Far more than I do for people who jump into relationships with people who have no intention of ever bringing anything to the table.

The blokes who are up for the Pretty Woman or Officer & A Gentleman scenario often have a shopping list too: they'll want someone who looks pretty darn hot. How exhausting.

Maybe all online dating sites should have a requirement that you HAVE to specify a) your salary and b) minimum salary you would accept from a potential partner.

As a single man, this thread has been quite an eye-opener. I think I might start asking women I date what they earn and if I don't think it's sufficient for the lifestyle I would like to lead, tell them that's the reason I don't want to see them again. Am sure they'd take it really well

I think it was the fact, ICanHearYou, that you wanted Mr Big Salary, Mr Fantastic in Bed, Mr Great with your Existing Children, and Mr Super Sperm too. No pressure for any suitors, then.

ICanHearYou - You are right. If moving a new partner into the family home will lower the standard of living for your DCs, you shouldn't do it.

I know woman of my mum's generation who had spousal maintenance arrangements that would stop if a new man moved in, and so kept separate homes and 'dated' until their DCs left home. They put their DCs needs for a financial stabilty above their desire to live with a new man (who couldn't /wouldn't make up the difference).

It was my quote about expecting someone to own their own home etc by 30 and the reason was that I wouldn't want to be funding someone else's lifestyle. If I were single I would own my own home, drive and run a car, have money to travel etc. I would not want to be supporting someone else, ferrying them around, paying for them to go on holidays/to dinner all the time or missing out and pretending it didn't matter.

I did romance and no cash at 19. Freezing your arse off and eating beans and potatoes for a fortnight is not fun.

I would want someone who was an equal.

That's a good point, chunderella. I feel sad when I see threads where someone is moaning about their partner not earning enough money. In fact in real life I know someone who left her dh because he was a low earner and had few prospects. The trouble was they lived in a fairly affluent neighbourhood and their lifestyle was markedly different from other people's there. He was a nice man, she admitted, but their status was making her hate him.

If the 'pressure on potential suitors' is too much for them, there is no obligation for them to hang around!

I am not going to make my children suffer for my lifestyle choices, plain and simple.

I do hear you, ICanHearYou!

Some women move unsuitable boyfriends into their homes without a second thought about the effect on their dcs. Never mind the money or lack of, I'd be hiring Columbo before any strange bloke was allowed to cross the threshhold here.

For me a hard worker is important, not so much the pay. My DH is a middle earner now but at the beginning we were both low paid. I never wanted to be a SAHM until I tried WOHM with DD1 and hated it. Luckily from DD2 I could stay home as DH works hard/quite good pay. It means everything to me now to SAH or work very p/t. It may be taboo these days but it can be 'natural/normal' for a mum (or dad) to want to be main carer rather than pay someone else!

I think it is perfectly OK to know what you want in a partner and be willing to only 'accept' people who fit that list.

People shouldn't settle when it comes to relationships.

I wanted ambitious and clever along with all the assumed things like kindness etc.

I am not as ambitious, I like maximum money for minimum work though which is a skill DH admires.

Together we are good. I won't pretend that the lifestyle we have isn't part of that or say that it wasn't the plan.