It sounds like this is more of psychological issue than a financial issue.
I will say it was a real issue for me, since the 4% SWR for 30 year, wasn't particularly reassuring to a 40 year old retiree like myself back in 2000. Even though I had a bit more money and very similar spending to yourself.
It took me a few years of flailing during the bear market of 2000-2002 before I finally hit upon dividend and interest income as the paycheck replacement for me.
There are ongoing debates on the forum on the wisdom of dividend vs total return. I am of the opinion that it generate similar returns, with less volatility. Other believe in the efficient market hypothesis and I think I am kidding myself. But one thing dividend/income investing absolutely does better is act as a paycheck replacement.
I have a mix of individual stocks (not really recommended), bonds and ETFs typically about 40 in all. I have a spreadsheet with either their currently quarterly dividend/interest payment in the case of individual stocks/ bonds or last 12 months distribution in the case of ETF/funds. The total income the portfolio generate acts as floor for my target spending for the year. I know I can't run out of money if spend that amount.
I update the spreadsheet several times a year, with 40 ETFs/stocks/MLPs, most of whom raise dividends annually and some more often, I am always getting a raise. While individual raises are small typically $50-$100/year cumulatively they added up to several thousands a year. In fact they are even better than a raises you get while working cause you don't have to sit through the performance evaluations to get them.
Except for 2009 my income has always increased. In fact if you look at the S&P dividend distribution for the last 100 years there have been only 9 years where they have decreased by more than small (~1%) amount the last one being in 2009. I also allow myself to dip into the principal by a small amount 1% in some years like 2009,and recently to do home remodeling. A 1% reduction in principal also makes it hard to run out of money.
Two other advantages of this approach. First, is your find yourself not stressing over the market fluctuation,since you are really concerned about the income these assets produced, and not what the manic-depressive Mr. Market seems to think this assets are worth this millisecond.
Second, you will find yourself a lot less likely to have a large cash position. Even with 2.3 million assets and modest goal of $60,000 in income. You will find it difficult to generate $60,000 in income when you have $700,000 sitting around in cash earning virtually nothing.
Now whether you stick the 700K in Total stock market (VTI) generating $12,600 worth of income a year (but with higher growth potential) in Vanguard Total Bond Market (BND) generating $17,200, or Vanguard Wellseley making $22,400 is up to your risk tolerance. But in the long run, I am pretty sure you'll be better off having your money work hard for you rather trying to outsmart the Wall St types and guess when the Fed will raise interest rates, or the market will correct.
And I feel a special kinship to the women on this board as it obviously appears we are in the minority and are a unique breed. 
