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've brought up my son to avoid people like you who feel it's someone else's job to fund the lifestyle they want. And my daughter, too. Nothing to do with feminism, but an utter pisstake.

You're not likely to get far with your attitude, just looking for someone to fund your ideal lifestyle of having kids and staying at home whilst they graft away or they're somehow not good enough for you.

Not at all surprised you're still single, you're bringing nothing to the table besides wanting to use someone to enable you to do what you want, use him as a baby daddy who'll pay for you to play housey as long as you want, just seeing £ signs without seeing the value of the person and living for a scenario that might not even pan out, I mean, one or both of you might be infertile, one or both of you might get sick and earning compromised, all sorts of situations. That's just sad. As a parent, I'd be very pissed off if someone looked upon my own children as just some tool they could use and not the wonderful people they are.

cendrillion the only example i have is someone i dated last year who owned over 1m worth of properties and had all sorts of money from family inheritance. i ditched him because he was uninspiring. so i think both are important but i absolutely couldnt live with someone for money and that is not what this is about.

And I don’t think it’s anti feminist to say that I want to stay at home with children.

It's not antifemenist but it's not very ambitious. You're certainly not alone in this desire though. You just have to ask yourself what you have to offer to the very small pool of ri

tim i think it is sad that you say this: "You're not likely to get far with your attitude, just looking for someone to fund your ideal lifestyle of having kids and staying at home whilst they graft away or they're somehow not good enough for you."

how sad that chidcare is not considered grafting away. childcare is an admirable thing which is very often much much harder than going into work everyday. yes i expect a an to "graft" at work, and yes, i would consider equal "grafting" to be happening at home!!!

Small pool of rich men you're after. Like a previous poster said, for a lot of them it'll boil down to whether you're young and attractive enough

banangana why do you say that? i wouldnt want to give up my career forever but how is it not ambitious to choose to look after your children rather than spend hundreds on childcare costs? if you met me IRL you would think i was hugely ambitious - and i am. wanting to be a SAHM for a short time does not take away from that.

It's pretty ridiculous that you're just dating people with £££ in your eyes envisioning this life and kids you might not even have. Nothing to do with how you see childcare, you don't even know if you can have kids! You're not even living with someone or married and already speculating on things you know nothing about! Here's a newsflash: if you actually ever have kids, there's actually no real way of knowing how you'll feel about staying at home or going back to work or PT work, etc until they are here and no way to know for sure if/how you even can work or in what capacity. All sorts of things can happen. It's a leap of faith into the unknown. So it's always a good idea to choose your spouse on the basis of their own person, who they are, how the two of you are together as a couple, rather than pin things on some hypothetical life that may not ever exist.

for a lot of them it'll boil down to whether you're young and attractive enough

Yep! And if you're a decent person who values them for themselves and not for being able to fund you in some lifestyle you think he owes you because you both procreated together .

cendrillion the only example i have is someone i dated last year who owned over 1m worth of properties and had all sorts of money from family inheritance. i ditched him because he was uninspiring.

That’s very interesting. Do you mean he was uninspiring in terms of personality / intellect, or that inheritance had spoiled him so he didn’t have that ambitious “edge” to propel himself to the next level?

cendrillion he wasn't particular;y intelligent and i just couldnt talk with him properly. he was nice enough i guess.

Nothing wrong with knowing you want to be a SAHM and discussing that with potential husbands. It’s vital to discuss when discussing do you want kids?
Some women know this up front,p. My sister did. And luckily she found a lovely trust fund gentleman who also had the same preference for child care.
I don’t consider being a SAHM a “lifestyle” in so much as a vocation. It is hard, valuable work to raise kids. Paid work is not the only valuable work.

my original post was about wanting someone who matches what I have carved out in life

But then you want them to take over all responsibility for bringing sufficient income in to meet your lifestyle demands while you sit back at home and raise any children. It's like you're jumping in a time machine from the 21st century and going back to the 1950s. Hardly surprising you're single really. Your values sound confused. You want financial security which you currently provide for yourself yet you'd give up your own financial security to be dependent on a man with a high income.....who could just dump you on a whim and you're left with no security at all. And at no point do you mention a man who treats you well, who's kind etc. And you seem more concerned about living vicariously through someone's career. Where's your ambition? You're criticising Mr 38 year old for not being ambitious enough but you're willing to shelve your career completely and you're not even 30 yet. Talk about pot and kettle.

There is so much more to life than money. Do you have some deep-seated issues or is there some backstory why you think this way?

I work in Financial Service so know lots of men who would fit your high-earning and ambitious requirements. But if they were attracted to you as an equal, they're be pretty pissed off when you did a complete about-turn and gave up work to stay home with any kids. Whilst you were wanting to share in their career 'glory'. That wouldn't go down well at all. They want an equal, not a passenger. And the few remaining men who are old-school 1950s mysognists, well they want some pretty young thing on their arm to make them feel good. It sounds like you're missed that boat already if you're in late 20s.

angela that is exactly what i mean. it is something i want to do...not as a cop out to work or because i think it will be easy (far from it from what ive seen with friends!). i think it is sad that some people on this thread seem to consider childcare the easy route and "playing house" as i think someone said. crazy.

Missed your chance with that one I reckon OP.

I'm 38. I am over being ambitious and driven really - I want balance - financial stability, a bit of stretch but mostly autonomy and freedom. It's time my career worked for me. I find the ability to enjoy the present rather than constantly striving for more to be more attractive really. It's up to you, obviously, but try not to look down on people who choose differently.

hundred have you ever looked after a child for more than a day? there's no "sitting back at home" about it!

as ive said i would certainly want to go back to work at some point.

looking after children is not lack of ambition and it is extremely sad and worrying that women are still saying this and not standing up for themselves. 1950s housewives hard it hard, FYI.

simone sorry, i don't follow your post...

So much venom on here.
Wanting a parent to be home providing childcare, is merely a childcare preference, not a moral failing.
Gosh, used to be that a mother wanting to work and use a child minder was looked at as a moral failing. Taking the piss to abandon her children so she could earn money for frivolous luxuries.
When did we get so judgemental about SAHMs? It’s just a child care preference! Let people raise their kids or outsource it without all the judgement.

Turtleneckjumpers
Thanks for the clarification I see where you're coming from in some respects.

Being at home Vs working is a different type of graft.

Ultimately staying at home for many women is an economic necessity due to low incomes and poor childcare provision or it is a luxury that those with comfortable finances can afford to choose.

This thread doesn't want to be derailed into a who has it harder thread, but when a woman is making a choice to step out of the workplace and a career she has built where she is earning a lot because she wants to have time out with her children, I'm not sure it can be considered ambitious (especially when a potential partner has been considered unambitious for only wantinh to earn £45,000). A valid choice for her and her partner is due course? Probably but not ambitious and does seem to be a little hypocritical in terms of the yard stick for measuring a potential partner.

timshelthechoice is right about not knowing how you'll feel if and when the time comes. Ruling out potential partners just because you think they won't earn enough in a few years time is short sighted, especially when we aren't talking breadline here. We're talking a lifestyle significantly above the national average.

lola i completely agree that i may not feel this way if and when the time came. i would be surprised if i didn;t but of course i cannot know for sure.

im genuinely shocked at the number of people commenting on a woman's choice to be a SAHM. i've worked hard and i am ambitious and not once would i ever claim that going into work is "graft" and childcare is not, or is lesser graft.

yes ukgift because i have an opinion and have responded to individual posts that makes me a troll. thanks for your contribution!

Disgusting. Men who prefer a parent be home with kids are NOT 1950s misogynists.
You have to be more tolerant of people with different values from you. Not everyone things ambition and money are the #1 meaning of life.
And you are wrong, there are like minded men and women there with this value. My brother is a high earner and he just married an air crew lady he met while flying first class. They want a family, she wants to be home with kids and he travels so much he agrees with that family set up. And she’s pretty but he’s quite handsome but they are close in age..she is 33 and he is 35.

@ukgift2016

Lol. You just chastised the OP on her grammar with two grammatically incorrect sentences. Oh! The irony.

I think they are viewing the SAHP decision in light of someone saying they consider themselves ambitious, £45,000 and being content is unambitious, wanting someone who wants to provide.

As far as my opinion, a woman can make whatever decision is right for her and her family situation as long as it's an informed one and she doesn't come back later having chosen not to be informed complaining. (E.g. don't give up work for a DP for 7 years and then when shafted claim the law should be changed on marriage/cohabitation / don't ignore the impact of 4 years out on your own pension, earning potential and then complain that you can't get back in that line of work). I do personally see you view of ambition and monetary requirements from a potential partner to be at odds with your desire to come out of work and have your lifestyle at a level you want. For me they seem incongruent ideas, that's not to dismiss them but i find they don't fit together.