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?

I think this guy has had one hell of a lucky escape. OP seems to be another one that thinks home ownership is an adequate substitute for a personality

OP, do you realise earning above 30k puts you over the 67th percentile point in the UK (source from 2017 so may be slightly different now assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/782765/NS_Table_3_1a_1617.xlsx)

What do you think the thousands of nurses, carers, retail workers, waiters, even early career police officers earn? Because it isn’t 35k and above. You do seem to have a skewed view of salaries (said as someone who does earn more than that)

OP, are you sure you want to be a sahm? Ignore me if I'm talking bollocks, but it sounds like you want a man whose career you can share vicariously, when you might actually be happier as the breadwinner. If your dp was the main carer, or you hired a nanny, you'd still have the security and ambition of your own career and your dp's might not matter as much.

Im finding it confusing that someone who places such weight on ambition and drive and men matching or exceeding your career and wage (to the point of ruling out men who wouldn't be enough of a breadwinner) is 100% up for their future spouse to be never involved in bath times and day to day parenting because he'd dedicated to his important job.

Maybe I'm way off the mark here but it doesn't seem like you're seeking a relationship of equal ambition and resources (which was what was suggested in the Op).

As you say it's your "job" to sacrifice your career around children in due course, you're seeking a man with enough money to sustain you being a SAHP at a lifestyle level you are accustomed to (which is quite different to what was suggested in the early posts).

It's up to you what you seek in a relationship but I can see why the pool is limited.

I know it's not de rigour to say, but sometimes I think the type of man you're after wants a pretty young thing with low earning potential rather than their equal. So maybe you'll have to lower your expectations?

THIS. Men do not care how much their partner earn as long as they are attractive.

It is no wonder OP is single as she is significantly limiting her dating pool by chasing a small percentage of men who do not see her as an attractive option.

OP you live in a bubble. Time to wise up.

LolaSmiles - she never actually said that she wanted to be a sahp, just that she expected her career to be the one that took a back seat.

That can mean anything from SAHP to working part time, to working full time but flexibly or more locally to drop the kids to school or nursery.

Turtleneckjumpers
People have asked would I be ok not having a man around for bathtkme etc with kids and doing the majority of childcare. 100% yes and I would be extremely understanding and proud of them for having such dedication to work.

---

Some men actually want to forego working 17 hours a day for silly money in order to be there for their children and to play an active part in their development.

OP are you in London?

I don’t know anyone my age on less than 35k and most are on a lot more. So someone at 38 on 45k suggests they’re not that bothered about progression.

Pretty sure you're not living in the real world of teachers, nurses, paramedics, firefighters OP. You sound very entitled. I'm so glad I spent a sizeable lump of jy teaching career fostering your generation.

And for the record I'm a single mum, supporting, on my own, a child a uni (who is pursuing a creative career, and will probably never earn a fortune) and a child still going through school. On less than half your magic number of 45k.
And again, for the record, I DO care about progression - does the word altruism mean anything to you?

What fields do you and your friends work in? I'm twenty years into my career and I've only just got onto £46k. To me it's loads of money! I get what you are saying about an ambitious attitude, but that doesn't necessarily translate to a high income. Someone may be ambitious (e.g. want to be promoted) but not work in a lucrative field.

Ambition doesn't have to mean a high-flying career, though.

I can't think of anything worse than constantly working towards promotion after promotion. What's wrong with being happy with what you've got? I'd much rather have a job that paid less but that gave me a good work/life balance.

I get wanting a man with ambition; I earn close to that (early 30s) and although I’m not especially concerned about money I wouldn’t want to be at the same position for the rest of my career. I’d like to develop and move up. I wonder if ambition is also a personality trait? My DH is ambitious but works a lot of hours and that is the downside.

Batqueen
When asked how she would feel if she was responsible for all the childcare etc because her partner was working, she said she'd not have a problem with it.

People have asked would I be ok not having a man around for bathtkme etc with kids and doing the majority of childcare. 100% yes and I would be extremely understanding and proud of them for having such dedication to work.

I found that an unusual point of view for a woman who has built her career and is actively seeking a man who matches or exceeds her financially (because being content at £45k seems to lack ambition). Between that and the idea of her career taking a back seat and wanting a man who wants to provide, I wondered if the reason OP was seeking a man who is dedicated to their work, wanting to be earning more etc is to keep her at a certain lifestyle if and when she sacrifices her career for kids.

Lola yes that is definitely a big part of it.

But you don’t have to sacrifice your career OP - your partner could be a SAHD if he earns less and it made sense or better still you both cut your hours and share parenting 50/50 (as it should be, the assumption that a woman will make all the sacrifices when kids come alone while a man will make none is a huge problem imo, men are parents too and should actively parent)

Do you work in something very salesyOP like recruitment ? Or are you a solicitor/doctor etc, because I spent many years in HR and work in the creative industries these days and know very few people under30 who are on more than 32k — even in London, apart from the kind of sales based or highly paid professional jobs I mentioned above. I think you need to keep a very open mind, when I met H he was doing a total change in career and hence was on poor money at 30, then went on over next 20 years to be successful in a niche business , whereas I’ve known some very well off people lose the lot

Turtleneckjumpers
Thanks for clarifying.

You are entitled to seek that, however do you not see the hypocrisy at play? You expect a man to be ambitious and always seeking more money because you want his ambition to match yours, but then your end goal is to sacrifice your career and have him keep you in a lifestyle you are accustomed to (and in doing so sacrificing your earning potential, pension contributions, and so on).

Whereas there's no need for you to sacrifice your career and for him to work long hours in stressful jobs to pull in enough money for a higher than comfortable lifestyle. And there is no need for you to do all the wifework because it is certainly not automatically woman's job anymore.

The professional couples I know are much more equitable in how things are split, both careers are valued, no he has a flying job and I stay at home like a good old wife, I parent the kids because he has an important job.
You're looking for a specific type of wealthy man here. I'd also have reservations on a feminist level about the sort of high flying man who actively seeks a woman he can have at home doing all the wifework and childcare, limiting her options, reducing her pension, being financially dependent on him.

What Lola and HUZZAH said. You're judging this man you're not even in a relationship with for his lack of ambition because you want him to fund you to stay at home with these hypothetical kids and you wonder why you're single. LOL! Wow. No, it's not surprising you're still single. Plenty of people these days, men and women, don't want to support a person fully financially, ambition works both ways.

It’s not about wanting someone to support me financially. It’s about wanting the lifestyle I have now when I come to have children. And I don’t think it’s anti feminist to say that I want to stay at home with children. If that suits the man too (and one of us would have to do childcare more than the other, it’s rare to be able to get a totally equal split and no neither career scarified) then I don’t see what is wrong with that?

Of course when my career is on hold in the above scenario I would like to not have to be on the breadline or live differently (yes accepting that children impact finances regardless to some extent). I don’t see what is so wrong with that? If the man was desperate to stay at home or be the one to work less then it would have to be a conversation wouldn’t it? But I’m actually yet to meet a man who would choose that over their career. And I’m ok with that. Being feminist means supporting female choices and mine would be, as far as possible, to stay home with any children when they were young.

I’m not a terrible person nor am I a gold digger...my original post was about wanting someone who matches what I have carved out in life.

Turtleneckjumpers I didn't say it's anti feminist to stay at home. I said from a feminist perspective I would question a man who felt that he's a high earner so he's seeking a woman who will have his children, sort his house out, limit her options and think he doesn't have to muck in with house/childcare because he works long hours and is dedicated to his job. There are countless threads on here where man in important job does very little because he earns the money and woman stays home becoming increasingly dependent as the years go on, but then she can't leave because she has no means of financing herself and the children.

It is about wanting supporting financially if you're wanting someone to not only match you, but who can keep you at the standard you want before children.
E.g. 2 people earn £50,000. They have a set lifestyle before children reflecting a household income of £100,000. They have children and the woman comes out of work and still wants to be in a position where she has the £100,000 lifestyle despite the loss of a wage and the introduction of children. So somewhere between getting together both on £50,000 the woman wanting keeping in her chosen lifestyle is expecting the man to be ambitous and earn more and take promotions so that he closes the gap and she doesn't notice any change in lifestyle.

That's my point. The reason for wanting an ambitious man is so that he can keep you in the lifestyle you want. You've said as much yourself

The whole living on the breadline is laughable. When you're ruling out partners for not earning enough at £45,000 you're not facing life on the breadline with children.

Ok but you’d hardly be on the breadline if your partner earned 45k and you stayed at home for a couple of years, would you?

@Turtleneckjumpers you sound sheltered and the sort of woman who wants a man to be her insurance against the possible poor effects of her own choices. Which, tbf isnt particularly unusual. I'd encourage you to think it over though.

£45k is an enormous salary. Wanting a man who wants more than that means you've a much smaller dating pool than most. If you're ok with that, great.

Typically a high earning, ambitious man, particularly one who is childless, won't be interested in a woman in her late 30s though - it can get quite transactional once a man is a high earner and ambitious. They've much more choice. That makes the pool smaller again.

Also, assuming that you'll stop earning and he will earn in your stead - phew. Bold assumption and it may not serve you in the long term. But, more power to you. Personally I find it a bit sad that men are seen as meal tickets / employment insurance in this way. I know you'll protest that it's not like that - but it is, really.

I earn the same as my partner, slightly more if you include my bonus... the idea that I'd be put out or disappointed in him if he didnt want to earn more is extremely strange. I am.with him because hes lovely, not because I want to be able to stop working someday / go part time...

i am not wanting the man to close a gap... sorry, i think i have expressed this wrongly. yes two people would always be worse off if one stops working. what i mean is, i want them to at least match what i earn in my own right. especially if i then take on any childcare, i expect them to work hard a their job and progress not to close a gap but to do as well as they can for their fsmily. of course consideration has to be given to work life balance and i wouldnt expect them to make themselves ill making money! i just mean that i would want them to take their job seriously and do as well as they could in that domain (as i would do if i were working). so if i am going to give up work for any time at all, they dont need to close a gap or make double to make up for what i am then not earning. ihopefully that is a bit clearer.

whilst i am absolutely sure 45k could be fine with children, i dont believe that you can live comfortably on that say, with a family of four. i dont see how that could ever be possible.

Turtleneckjumpers

I’m still curious, what about someone on 100k with little ambition, say if most of their income came from investments rather than a high-powered job? Is it the attainment or the effort that would matter more to you?

rvby i do get what you are saying about meal tickets/ employment insurance etc and it is spot on. if i give up work then he is the meal ticket and the employment insurance. and vice versa if the man was to give up work. "meal ticket" makes it sound shady... it isn't. it is the sad truth that childcare costs often outweigh the benefits to working and yes, that means you need your "meal ticket" as you put it, from somewhre else.