Expectations of men as a modern woman dating...is this unreasonable?

[Turtleneckjumpers]

I'm single. I have a decent job which allowed me to buy a house in my late twenties (by no means a mansion, worth circa 220 in 2015).

I care about a nice home and want to see a bit of the world. I'm not materialistic in the sense of buying designer clothes etc (I'm a Primark person mostly!). But money bothers me. It is important to me because it is a safety net in many ways. So I work hard and hope to always be able to support myself.

Here's the question. I date. So many men have either not bought a house (I do understand this isn't easy, but by age 38 I question this!!) or in an average job earning less than I am - significantly.

I've met a lovely man, 38, good fun. But in a recent conversation he voluntarily disclosed what he earns (45k) and said he has a good bonus and car and he's happy with that. I didn't say this but i was thinking really?! Are you just going to think ok I'm happy with that?!

I've been thinking about how awful this probably makes me and how it is probably why i have been single for a few years now. Also people into their jobs are often (not always i know) not the best partners. But i can't help being bothered by this. I want someone who wants to provide and is ambitious. Am I attracted to the wrong things here or is this reasonable?

45k is okay but not a lot If you had a good start and set of roles. It's above the national average but so what ?

The money is not important but the point on drive .. don't settle for someone who doesn't match with you on that front ..

There are also so many options for e.g shared parental leave, flexible workings- why fixate on the old fashioned model before you even know what your family will look like and if that will work for you?
Because despite claiming to be ambitious and wanting a man ambitious and promotion hungry to match, the OP has told us it's her "job" to sacrifice her career (phrased as some noble sacrifice rather than being a SAHP) and it's "inevitable" that the woman's career gets hit.

She's decided that she wants to come out of work for a while and all the way through the thread there's this old fashioned model of man has important job and earns the money, woman stays home with house and kids and is distinctly proud of her man's achievements at work.

if it was about money then I would have married already. I have had the opportunity more than once.
But it is about money!
You're ruling out guys who hardly know because you don't think their pay packet and approach to promotion is good enough for you when you come out of work.

You can't say 'its not about money because I've turned down some wealthy men' when you are putting a wealth filter on your dating pool.
You've also acknowledged you want your lifestyle maintaining at a certain level, which is surely going to cost more to support a family on one income Vs a single person on one income (presumably why you've ruled someone out at £45k and not getting promotions). You can't acknowledge you want a lifestyle maintaining and then later say but I don't mind a change in lifestyle.

I hope you find someone but you've got a limited pool and I think your approach is not going to work for most people. Be careful you don't bypass some really nice middle earning guys because you want your stay at home being supported to an appropriate standard dream.

Why is it inevitable that a woman takes a step back from her career when she has children? You do realise it's 2019 don't you?

This is a prime example of why personality is more important. I chose not to have children with my high earning ex because there was an expectation that I would take a step back as he viewed raising children as women's work.

Instead I had children with someone who sees raising children as a partnership and both out our careers have flourished since becoming parents but it only works because we support each other.

I get that 45k isn't a huge amount in London but it is in no way comparable to bring jobless and it is way about the average salary.

If it was purely money I would have dealt on that surely? It’s not just about money. Money is a factor and apparently that’s not ok.

As for the pool of men being minimal for a woman in her thirties when a man earns 60k. This was funny to read...a ma earning 60k has such a fancy lifestyle he can get anyone he wants?! Where are these men living, Nepal?! 60k does NOT buy you a fancy lifestyle to get a trophy wife.

The irony of the idea that men who already earn a decent amount will be married OR won’t want to marry someone who isn’t hugely younger than them has clearly passed some posters by.

Most if not all men I work with earn on average 130k. The ones who are married have not married supermodels.

I actually think it is sad that people seem to be conditioned to the idea that 45k is a lot of money. People earning double that are likely doing less work than you are. Yes they may send an email after 5pm on a Wednesday night. They are by no means chained to their job and the attitude of posters on here is exactly why they get away with it. They are laughing from up there on their huge pack packet. In some instances I agree that people who earn a lot never have any time and give up their life to work. That is far less common that you’d realise. This is how people in high paying jobs get away with it though...nobody below them questions it.

benes a woman is pregnant and has to give birth. Even 2 days out of the office is a step back, especially in competitive industries:

turtle well that's a bit of an exaggeration.
The problem is that attitudes like this actually harm women's career development. It's a sad state of affairs when women are convinced that it's inevitable that their careers will take the hit and inevitable they they need to take a step back.

You contradict yourself constantly. You say you realise 45k is a decent amount to ear, then you say but for someone at 38 to just settle for that and never try to earn anymore is not acceptable.
You do realise that some jobs have no progression and some people aren't willing to risk losing a job, where they earn a lot more than the national average, to go and find something better.
You sound like someone who will never be satisfied, perhaps go find yourself a millionaire?
You say it's not about money but you are not interested in someone earning 45k a year plus bonuses. It's about the money!

Turtleneckjumpers
And yet up thread you were on about how a man who supports you would do so knowing you can pull in a fair amount of money around / after having kids (which I when I pointed out all the ways a long career break at home affects women).

There's a lot of trying to have it both ways on here.
Wanting a certain lifestyle providing but also not being bothered about a change of lifestyle
Wanting a man to financially support you when you come out of work but it's not financial support
Ruling out men by salary and whether they'll get a promotion but then it's not about money
Modern women dating but clearly wanting a 1940s/50s model

I agree that the most objectionable thing is the OP's underlying sexism. OP you berate anyone who says that being a SAHP is somehow less ambitious than building your own career but you seem to find the idea of parenting unattractive in a man. I have quite a success group of friends and acquaintances but almost none of them have the model you describe - pretty much everyone has two parents working flexibly and share the childcare or attending school events etc pretty evenly. You say this is unusual but in my circle it's definitely not. I see your model as very old fashioned. It tends only to make sense where one parent has much lower earning capacity than the other and is borne out of necessity rather than choice.

Just looking at the wives/partners of the men with the income and position you're after is a poor guide. In most cases they will have met them years ago, when they were much more junior, and their wives have stuck with them as their worked their way up.

Why don't you let us all into the secret of how to get one of these high paying jobs.

I shall say the following.

This OP has no posting history prior to this really contentious thread and they know precisely what to post to add to the contention. And it's school holidays.

I have quite a success group of friends and acquaintances but almost none of them have the model you describe - pretty much everyone has two parents working flexibly and share the childcare or attending school events etc pretty evenly. You say this is unusual but in my circle it's definitely not. I see your model as very old fashioned.
Same in my circle but then we tend to be earning mid 30s to mid 40s and quite content so are probably too poor to offer any comment to the high flying world of everyone earning £60,000+ living an affluent lifestyle on one income.

I have to say, I think our approach does more for gender equality and valuing active fatherhood than the breadwinner-housewife model.

You could have a SAHD .

Ha Shatner's you're probably right. OP is just a bit too persistently clueless. She's probably a troll. But an amusing one.

@ShatnersWig I've held off responding for this reason.

You could have a SAHD .

I simply have a different opinion and working with all these sorts of people earning a lot of money means I know that they are certainly not doing more than those on much less pay.

A lot of couples meet in their 30's... I'd say that's the case for most of my friends (London, people in professional careers).

And the misconceptions about the breadwinner-housewife model... Most of those men that I know are very hands on. Obvs you do get the odd useless father/husband but that happens regardless of the woman working or not.

And yes, as we've established 45k is more than majority of people earn. However, if you're surrounded by people on 100k+ it won't seem like a lot.

It's NBU to have whatever requirements you prefer for a spouse, provided you accept that this has consequences and are happy to own them. We don't have to take equalities legislation into account when we're deciding who to let into our lives. I don't think it particularly matters what kind of person this makes you either.

However you also appear to be asking are your requirements sensible. Probably not. Whenever you're being particularly specific, you're always going to reduce your pool of potential matches, and as others have pointed out, you're sort of falling between two 'types': being very ambitious now but also wanting to jack everything in when you have kids is mixing and matching it.

Fundamentally with these types of threads, there's always the underlying question of whether you are bringing enough to the table to have a realistic chance of attracting the sort of partner you want. Without knowing and seeing you it's really hard to say. You may well be pricing yourself out of the market, but perhaps that's ok and you would rather do so than compromise?

It is a bit grim the idea of purchasing power in relationships and successful men being "able" to pick a younger wife. Surely what you're looking for is a connection, really. I supposed it's worth asking yourself OP what it was that put you off the rich successful men you have dated in the past? It may be that what you value on paper doesn't tend to result in a good match for whatever reason - perhaps you're better off thinking of people (single or not) that make you tick - people with shared interests or outlooks or whatever and seeing what kind of careers these people tend to have, to see whether there's a mismatch in your criteria.

In London (I am not sure where you are), £45,000 is not a lot. I would expect a reasonably ambitious man in any of the professions or finance or IT or executive role in the City to own a decent amount over that. 6 figures will not be that unusual. Those men don't get their pick either. They have normal looking wives and not particularly big houses or cars, unless their spouse earns equivalent at least.

I am in London and I don’t know a single person who earns over 45k. Not everyone works in banking, finance or IT you know. As it’s been repeatedly pointed out, in SOME jobs and sectors, 45k is about the pinnacle of what you can earn - some creative industries, charity, music, arts for example. How are some people too dense to appreciate that ‘ambition’ means different things to different people and not everyone wants a career where you can earn 6 figures?

OP is now just playing privileged wanker bingo now. Shes a good example of why people resent and despise the privileged, with her internalised sexism and utter inability to realise that her life is not representative of the masses. Having privilege is not the issue but have some empathy and awareness for Christ’s sake. Also, it’s not a man’s job to ‘provide’, what a sexist and outdated concept. Partnerships should be equal and people are responsible for providing for themselves. You want an extended period as a SAHM with no change to your lifestyle? Save up for it then! You don’t abdicate all financial responsibility within a relationship when you push a baby out your chuff

Also agree with @ShatnersWig

Good luck with the dating OP . I hope you meet your match .

@dodgeballchamp just how rude is your post? Just because someone would prefer more traditional husband-wife roles and that isn't your world view, you have not right to be nasty to them.

And if we're speaking of factual info, then the median income in London is 40k so there are millions of people on 45k+

People despise the privileged?

I worked hard actually. Is that not allowed?