A
female
age
51-59,
anonymous
writes:I m being told for the past few years that I my attitude is wrong toward men and their financial situation.What do you think after I tell you my story?I m a professional woman with a good job that let's me have. Comfortable life with a nice place to live, some money in a bank, sources to travel and have nice things.Most of men that I meet are having some financial troubles or may be so they say. Either it's a child or wife support, or significant debts, or simply unwillingness to spend any money.I can't associate myself with this kind of men, and don't want even to have a second date with them. As soon as I start hearing about his finances I roll my eyes, and that is it for me.Why would I bother? I have a grown child, I m stil farely young and attractive, why to waist my time on men who reaching a certain age can't take care of their finances, and want me to split bill with them on a first date?My parents and my friends tell me that this way how I'm brushing everyone off I will never find anyone. Why not, I'm asking? Are men who simply are comfortable enough like me and smart enough not to accumulate some silly debts extinct?Why would I want to burden myself with someones financial problems at my age? I had a life of constant struggle with money when I was younger raising a child, now when I have it all so comfortable why would I go back and start seeing someone who doesn't have his life under control money wise.I m not looking for someone rich, it would be nice, but I m realistic, I just want to meet someone normal and stable , that's all. Are men like that exist? What do you think?
View related questions:
debt, money Reply to this Question
Share |
Fancy yourself as an agony aunt? Add your answer to this question! A
reader, anonymous, writes (19 November 2012): See how your experiment goes but don't be afraid to be open and honest about things ask them about stuff like this, and it's not a matter of bad experiences really OP just taste and opinion.
I was brought up to accept women as equals in all ways. To respect their freedom to live their lives and they're not dainty little princesses who need to have a jacket thrown over a puddle to protect their shoes.
My immediate family consists of a mother and three sisters. You may point out that perhaps lack of a father figure may be the reason I don't live my life like the 1950's but my mother and all my sisters are fiercely independent, successful women. Who better to teach you how best to treat a woman than 4 women?
I mean even my very old fashioned grandmother always taught me a woman who looks at you with disdain for using the desert spoon with the soup is one who will find flaws in everything you do. In the grand scheme of life token gestures and customs say absolutely nothing about the man you are.
In her day she had no choice. In Ireland back then you went from your parental home to the marital home with no independence in between. Her sister who worked for a living and loved it had to stop when she got pregnant and then after she got married because it was illegal for married women to work.
The women of their generation in Ireland really don't look back on what they had in comparison to what women have now in any kind of fondness. They would have loved to have had the option to pay, every single time they went out it was a reminder of who was the boss, pulling out the chair because they were too fragile to ruin their appearance by doing manual labour, not pulling the door open because women shouldn't have to exert themselves as they're too weak; outside hobbies, college, the freedom to shop for themselves, they had none of that unless their husband gave them money and permission and you didn't get divorced back then it was not only illegal but it was also a reason to be cast out of society. The only acceptable single mother was a widow.
A man then who was financially stable was not a requirement but a necessity and if circumstances changed then there was very little they could do but suffer or go work for very little money because they weren't supposed to.
You may have been raised to see it as a mark of respect. I was raised to view it as mark of a former suppression of status of women, the women who want to keep those are either exploitative, ignorant to their true meaning and reason for existing or just believe it's somehow right.
Like my female family members I'll just not understand how it makes a guy a gentleman when chivalry is about ownership of women and treating them as property. I was always taught to look deeper into who a woman was, to be good in all the ways possible and that simply opening a door is not a sign that I am somehow a good person or nice and that I actually have to be a good person, not just know all the little tricks that make it seem like I am.
My point is OP, you don't have to adhere to custom to be a gentleman. A woman doesn't have to keep her mouth shut and speak only when spoken to be a lady. That too was a custom back then you know.
You see as soon as my grandmothers generation realized they didn't have to be "ladies" anymore they very often went out and experienced what life is like as a woman. Why is it that men are supposed to be gentlemen yet women are no longer ladies? I mean you can understand why when you actually read what a lady was expected to do, so you cast those down because they're negatives, the speaking when spoken to thing, the not being allowed to be in a room alone with another man, the not being allowed to say anything negative about her man at all, a lady provided children, sex and a domestic servant for a man etc. So we still have to be gentlemen but women don't have to be ladies. Funny how they will drop one thing and expect to keep all the benefits.
When it comes down to it I pretty much am with a woman who is very much like my mother. I guess you're looking for a man very much like your father. Just understand while my opinion may differ, it's not a judgement and neither of us are wrong or right. The beauty of life is variety and difference it would be boring as hell if we all agreed on everything.
I nothing else your experiment will shut up the people in your life who say you're wrong. You have nothing to lose and who knows, you may be pleasantly surprized.
I wish you luck and happiness OP. You sound like an intelligent, well-rounded woman, regardless of whether I agree with your views on this topic.
A
female
reader, anonymous, writes (19 November 2012): I think the last 2 posters you both hang up on the idea that women in a world are out there to get you and use you just for your money. It looks like both of you are too much absorbed in an idea of women that are on a hunt for trusting men and their money. I m sorry that you had such a bad experience with women. Not me or anyone I know are like that. As I said in a beginning of my post that I don't need other person money, that was not what my post was about. I was talking about men who reached a certain age and for various reasons, badly made decisions, life situations, seem not to be able to have their act together.Men that make me split the bill embarrass me, I just cant help it. I'm embarrassed to pull my wallet in front of servers. Men that don't open door for me are in my mind very poorly brought up by their mother, as they never learned manners. If a guy pays for my dinner it doesn't mean he is buying me, and also it doesn't mean that I'm cheap to pay for myself. Also If I'm cooking dinner for him it doesn't mean I'm buying him, or he is too cheap to cook his own dinner.I'm just noticing these things, may be I shouldn't for my own sake, but I do. My father still wouldn't sit at the table until my mother sits first. He still opens doors and carry heavy objects for my Mom. And so do my brothers for any woman in their surroundings. When I go out with my married brothers and bring my girlfriend with me, not me or my girlfriend ever have to pay the check, my brothers don't let us, not because they want to buy us or have sex with us, or put anyone down. They do it because they want to treat us nicely and be gentlemen.Women are not there to get you, men or use you unmercifully. With all that said and listened to, I'm willing to make an experiment and go against my beliefs, and give another chance to the next guy who I like initially and who has your points of view. May be you are right and I'm wrong, who knows we'll see what happens :)
...............................
A
female
reader, anonymous, writes (19 November 2012): I'm your age OP and I agree with you. Enjoy the stability you've wi raked so hard for. Find an equal to share life with. The last thing you need is someone who's going to drain you.
I agree, if he asked you out for dinner, he pays. It's a gift after all. He's invited you. You wouldn't give someone a bunch of flowers and ask them for half the cash back.
Stick to your guns!
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (19 November 2012): "It's not going to cost you much to make a first good impression on a woman"
I'm not going to buy a woman and she has to impress me too. Having her own money and being too demanding and cheap to pay her own way, means she is a gold digger to me or an old fashioned person who thinks that paying is actually a sign of being a gentleman, and is going to be very disappointed when she realizes paying means absolutely nothing of the kind, a wife beater can pay too, it's literally the easiest, least amount of effort a guy has to do to impress a woman it's important to and women like that have very low standards if they think it's important. Basically she wants the benefit of having things bought for her but also wants to be treated like an equal, sorry but if you're going to sell yourself for money then you're property that I'm putting a down payment on, then I'm going to ensure I get my money's worth before I dump you for a woman who is willing to be an equal partner in a relationship.
It was called being a gentleman because women had no money, they couldn't go outside the house unless the man paid, old-fashioned is fine but don't say you want to be a respected equal if you still want to hang on to the benefits of when you weren't, it means you start of by exploiting the guy you're dating and putting a monetary value on him as a person.
If you think holding doors open pulling seats out makes a guy a gentleman and he's not if he doesn't do those things then your standards are very superficial. Guess what, 90% of the time we guys do that we don't even get a thank you, women just feel they're entitled to be treated that way. I asked my girlfriend what a gentleman is, she's in her mid 20's and she told me that she views a guy as a gentleman for the time and effort he puts into making his company pleasant. He's polite to people, will pick a person up if they fall and will give a person a hug if they feel down. He doesn't have to pay, he doesn't have to hold doors open or treat women like they're some kind of dainty fool who can't do anything for themselves, he is just a good guy who does good things for people and respects them. I guess I'm lucky to have a woman can be her own person and doesn't need a man to pay for her, hold doors open etc. she can do those things for herself.
Old fashioned women don't get how easy being old fashioned makes them. Pay for dinner, she's impressed. Hold the door open, impressed. Insult her, treat her badly; flowers and chocolates will do the trick. Get her a gift, jewellery. Basically any way you want to make her feel special just spend some money. Easy. We don't have to put any thought into a woman like that, just open up a book of courtship rule from the 1920's and spend some money.
I much prefer the challenge and accomplishment of impressing a woman with the guy I am, and not just because I read the rules of dating and remember all the token gestures.
But it's only an opinion, you must date how you feel makes you happy and gives you the most benefit. If you feel paying is something that a man, needs to do then that's fine. But you are without doubt passing up on a guys that could be real good guys, guys who have known the pain of being used for their money by women and have learned to be cautious with it. Guys that may well be perfectly willing to pay for meals down the line, perfectly willing to spend money on women they trust but you'll never know because you don't give those guys a chance.
I think your views may just work against you here OP. Unless money is all you care about, which honestly does seem to be the case. That's fine too. But I'll never understand how not paying on the first date can be a dealbreaker, even if I think a woman is gold digger for wanting me to pay. I will give her a chance to prove me wrong.
...............................
A
male
reader, anonymous, writes (19 November 2012): Women in "old fashioned" times were allowed to judge a man by his money for a reason: That was the upside of women not having the education & career opportunities that men did.
You have the upside of being a modern woman with modern education and career opportunities. When you continue to hold onto the old-fashioned female expectations for a man, you are trying to have it both ways. Not fair.
...............................
A
male
reader, eddie85 +, writes (18 November 2012):
 I am going to agree with you 100% in your assessments of not dating men with financial problems.
Money is often a deal breaker in marriages. Some of the top reasons for divorce are sex (a lack of) or money problems.
I think you are being extremely wise in not helping or seeing a guy who has financial problems. He won't be able to treat you well and his obligations may wind up being your obligations. I wouldn't do it for a woman and I wouldn't want a woman to pick up my tab for anything (I am very independent and don't like to "owe" anyone).
At your age, though, the number of men who have their lives in order is less, than say if you were in your 20's. Most guys in their late 30's / early 40's who are single have children (and paying alimony or child support), are divorced, and with the economic climate, may be facing difficulties making ends meet. You will eventually find someone though -- the dating world is always tough and it always feels like you are facing tall odds when you are single.
I think you are being wise and wish you luck in searching for the man of your dreams. He IS out there... trust me and don't settle for a loser to make others happy. You'll only wind up disappointing yourself.
Eddie
...............................
A
female
reader, anonymous, writes (18 November 2012): Thank you all very much for answering. Different points of view, interesting.
Cerebrus, its the same as you guys testing water for gold diggers, its the same thing we tasting water for someone just being a gentlemen toward a woman.
We don't look at you, men, paying for our dinner ( by the way which you propositioned in a first place) as a sign of you buying our love, or as you stated pussy. Noone is going to provide you with sex after you paid for dinner, thats not how we look at it. I don't reconsider my equality to a man simply because he was gentleman enough to spend few dollars on me.
It doesn't make anyone a gold digger to go a dinner that a guy actually invited you to, and not to have to worry about check.
Equality is not sameness, we are not the same, men and women. We are very much different, call me old-fashioned.
It's not going to cost you much to make a first good impression on a woman, even if it didn't work out, so you spent few dollars to spend an evening with someone who you initially liked. But to ask a woman, so, how are we going to pay, its just for me below anyones standards.
...............................
A
female
reader, Honeypie + ♥, writes (18 November 2012):
 I agree with you there too on most points.
I married a man who's finances were in shambles and I honestly didn't know to what extend. Had I known, I would most likely not have continued to date him and I wold not have married him either. And that is me being 100% honest. I do love my husband and we do ok after 14 years together - but the amount of baggage and debt has been HARD to deal with.
I see nothing wrong in setting the bar as HIGH as you like. However, you might have to look a LOT harder to find such a guy. So if you are willing to spend a LOT longer finding such a guy, then why not?
You might find it REALLY hard though in our age group to find a guy who doesn't have to pay child-support or is raising a child.
One thing I do want to point out is the "splitting the bill" on the first date. I think it is as much to gauge YOUR ability to take care of yourself as well as how much of a "materialistic high maintenance" kind of girl you are. If you willing to split the bill it means you are able and willing to take care of yourself, that you don't rely on a man for paying for you. And honestly with your other demands, I think you may re-think THAT one rule. If the guy otherwise seems like a decent fella without a couple of ex wives and a gaggle of kids, give him a second chance.
I see NOTHING wrong in going Dutch on a dinner. Now if the dude "forgets his wallet" it's over lol
Just my 2 cents.
...............................
A
reader, anonymous, writes (18 November 2012): OP if your friends and family say this is an issue then maybe you're too strict.
As for the splitting the bill thing, why would any guy want a free-loader woman who wants us to pay for everything? Sounds demanding to me and she sounds cheap too because she has her own money.
There is nothing wrong with having pre-requisites OP, unless they're working against you. Now I don't know you, but the people who love you and care about you seem to think you're going too far and being too strict or they wouldn't have said what they did.
Splitting the cheque on a first date is not the sign of a man who isn't financially stable OP, it's nothing of the kind. For me it's an equal start, call me cheap all you want I'm actually quite wealthy and have no problem splashing out, but I'm not going to buy a woman, pay for her company or pussy or have her put the size of my wallet as such a huge factor in our relationship that it's the sole reason she won't continue dating me. No sweat off my sack. I was completely broke, unemployed and with no prospects when I first started dating my current girlfriend. The reason it didn't matter to her was because I always paid my own way, I never got in debt and she knew me as a friend from before we got together to know that I was man who is driven, passionate, intelligent, kind, loving and ambitious. What I had to offer was more important to her than money and well I just recently bought her a €60k engagement ring so even if she was money obsessed she made the right choice haha.
If she judged me solely on my willingness to spend money on her, then she can find some other poor sap to buy her love. I have much better things to spend my money on than a free-loader or someone so shallow.
"simply unwillingness to spend any money." Sounds to me like you mean "spend money on me". Although I could be wrong.
Financial stability is a good thing, it's a good pre-requisite OP but personally I find there has to be limits. As I said I wouldn't date a free-loader, wouldn't date a woman who thinks I have to pay, not a good first impression for me and a sign of how she may want to go forward but that doesn't mean I wouldn't continue seeing them to see if I was wrong. People have a lot more to offer than just what's in their bank account.
I wouldn't date someone who's horrible with money though and has too many debts. But I have no issue dating someone who is broke but willing to do what they can to pay their way not just in terms of money but in terms of affection, respect, time and effort. I'm financially stable and just because someone is broke or thrifty with their money doesn't mean they're not financially stable.
Only when money is a problem to that person does it become a problem for me. Addictions, debts, overspending on credit thy're bad traits. A willigness to share the costs of a first date to me shows effort to keep things equal or to weed out the gold diggers. Pretty effective too because gold digger won't see you a second time and you save yourself the bother of continuing to see a woman who sees dating as a financial transaction.
OP exam your own pre-requisites and talk to your friends and ask them specifically which parts you may be too strict on. Talk to them about their relationships, you'll probably find a lot of them met really good guys who may not have been rich or may not have been a crazy spender of their money. It's not the most important thing in the world.
But then again it is your life and your choice. If it works well for you then why change it?
...............................
A
female
reader, oldbag  +, writes (18 November 2012):
 Hi
Probably yes somewhere. When men reach your age though they will more than likely have been divorced and therefore have the payments that come with that.In a way they are facing and paying for their responsiblities so thats a good quality.They also will not want a woman who will further drain THEM.However them wanting to go dutch on a first date is a sign of being tight or too poor to date,I would run a mile to!
I don't know where you meet all these men but perhaps you should try another way or venue. Its not alot to expect a man to be financially stable at all,I know enough, but it will be harder to find a single man with no Ex or children to pay for.
You just want to meet your equal and your friends and family want to see you happy and settled.
...............................
|
