Misconception: Minimalists don't care about people.

[Ultralight]

I had a conversation last night with my girlfriend about sentimental stuff.

The discussion was not about my stuff or her stuff, but about how her half-sister (and many other people in the world) deal with sentimental stuff. Her half-sister's mom died a few years back. Half-sis was left the house and all the belongings in it. Half-sis could not bring herself to sell the house, so she rented it out. The renters have nearly destroyed it. All the stuff went into a storage unit or was absorbed into half-sis's household. The trashy renters and the storage units and the new clutter in half-sis's home caused a lot of headaches for her, her husband, her kids, etc. Not to mention the financial costs...

The discussion got intense -- not an argument, but emphatic on both my part and my girlfriend's part. I told my girlfriend that I would not hold onto all that stuff if someone close to me died. She said: "I know you wouldn't! You aren't close to people or emotional about people. You can just cut people out of your life like they never mattered. You're a minimalist."

Now this... This right right here is a major pet peeve of mine: The misconception that minimalists don't care about people and/because we don't care much about their "stuff."

Any other minimalists, "right-sizers," or SLers deal with this misconception?

[SteveinMN]

I can't say I have encountered the misconception. I certainly may be less sentimental about "stuff" than many other people (GF's half-sister, for instance). And I could see that that comes off as less caring about people. But one of the reasons I chose to live simply was to be able to spend more time on people than stuff.

There are many people who really don't engage as much with people around them. How much of that is cultural or even gender-related I can't say. I think your GF is coming to an incorrect conclusion based on existing facts.

[catherine]

I think you were just pushing her buttons and she became defensive. That's another whole question, though.. a relationship one, and none of my business.

I don't see any correlation between minimalism and hard-heartedness. Was Jesus hard hearted? Buddha? Tolstoy? St. Frances? Mother Teresa? Sorry about the religious references--I DO know who I'm speaking with here ;), but the point is, these people were NOT known for being hard-hearted, and you could also describe them all as "extreme minimalists." The whole idea of minimalism is to keep material distractions at bay so you have more TIME for more meaningful, deeper relationships. You discard THINGS so you can embrace PEOPLE, and I do believe that is a driving force for many minimalists--certainly not all, though. I wouldn't want to generalize.

[Ultralight]

I think you were just pushing her buttons and she became defensive. That's another whole question, though.. none of my business.

I don't see any correlation between minimalism and hard-heartedness. Was Jesus hard hearted? Buddha? Tolstoy? St. Frances? Mother Teresa? Sorry about the religious references--I DO know who I'm speaking with here ;), but the point is, these people were NOT known for being hard-hearted, and you could also describe them all as "extreme minimalists." The whole idea of minimalism is to keep material distractions at bay so you have more TIME for more meaningful, deeper relationships. You discard THINGS so you can embrace PEOPLE, and I do believe that is a driving force for many minimalists--certainly not all, though. I wouldn't want to generalize.

catherine: Despite my ardent anti-theism I am incredibly intrigued by the minimalist lifestyles of Jesus, Buddha, St. Frances, and even Mother Teresa. Gandhi too (minus the creepy stuff).

You might be right about her being defensive, though the conversation didn't really become intense until she said that. I explained to her that when I lay down for the big sleep that I'd certainly want all my stuff donated promptly. I tried to explain that I care about people and not so much about things. I said caring little for stuff means I can invest so much more in people -- like my involvement in the Recovering From Religion and Life After Belief support groups or the environmental groups and community groups I take part in. I'd rather spend time helping a friend cope with coming out as Atheist to his family and friends than spend time shopping at a mall or sorting through my collection of widgets.

[catherine]

I explained to her that when I lay down for the big sleep that I'd certainly want all my stuff donated promptly.

I've said this in these forums before, maybe pre-dating your joining, but my mother became a minimalist when Fate stepped in and she lost everything she owned--home, belongings, health, relationship. She was 50 at the time. When she died, my brothers and I stopped by her room at an assisted living place and put her clothes in one plastic bag and donated them, and put the few belongings she had (photographs of us, mainly) in a cardboard box, and that is now stored at my brother's house. That was it. Her estate. She did us a great favor by leaving the world so lightly. Her legacy was in her kindness, cheerfulness, generosity and unconditional love.

There were no fights among siblings over who gets the painting and who gets the silver. There were no wrenching decisions about having to get rid of stuff there's no room for. I kept her watch and a rain slicker she had gotten 2nd hand from a friend. There really wasn't that much else to keep.

You're on the right track!

[Ultralight]

She did us a great favor by leaving the world so lightly. Her legacy was in her kindness, cheerfulness, generosity and unconditional love.

A legacy cannot get any better than this!

[jp1]

It's possible that half sister (and possibly also your GF) equate stuff with people. Not that stuff is people, but that it's a direct physical manifestation of the deceased person (or living person). My first BF had an assortment of things that had been his mother's and grandmother's. His apartment was jammed with it (but very clean and neatly organized.) All that stuff gave him a sense of still being close to his mother and grandmother, both when they just lived in another state and later after they had both passed away. It was like he literally felt his grandmother's presence every time he sat in her ugly living room chair that she had sat in for many many years. Had he not passed away as well I'm sure he would've kept that stuff for decades.

[Ultralight]

It's possible that half sister (and possibly also your GF) equate stuff with people. Not that stuff is people, but that it's a direct physical manifestation of the deceased person (or living person). My first BF had an assortment of things that had been his mother's and grandmother's. His apartment was jammed with it (but very clean and neatly organized.) All that stuff gave him a sense of still being close to his mother and grandmother, both when they just lived in another state and later after they had both passed away. It was like he literally felt his grandmother's presence every time he sat in her ugly living room chair that she had sat in for many many years. Had he not passed away as well I'm sure he would've kept that stuff for decades.

jp1:

I think that is probably the case, at least partly. Though half-sis's inherited house was in WI and she lived in GA since her early 20s. So she was not in the house often. And the majority of the stuff was in storage, maybe still is. I am not sure.

What I think you are referring to is an incredibly hard thing for most people to deal with: A person is not their stuff.

[Kestra]

Interesting questions.
I haven't had much feedback about minimalism as it doesn't really affect my friends/family that much. But people do seem to think it can impede dating - no car, no real bed, no sofa, no own place, etc. But I think it is fine for the right person. I don't want those other people anyhow. I actually make a point of bringing up my minimalism to any men who I see dating potential with. So far they've all also been people who practice minimalism in some capacity, or have in the past, or are at least interested in it. If I ever have the minimalist conversation with a man who is completely the opposite, I'll let you know how it goes. :)

For death and relatives, I think my family generally agrees that the best gift you can give your children is to get rid of most of your stuff before you go. My will specifically indicates to either donate or sell all my stuff. Anyone I'm giving anything to needs the cash more than boring household stuff. None of my mementos will mean anything to anyone else.

I think the bigger relationship stumbling block is the frugality. People see you as cheap and uncaring if you don't give gifts. They also think it's hard to date frugally. I disagree. But I do have an amount of money I plan to spend each month on social activities. I'd rather do cheap ones but paying is necessary for some things.

I think spending time with people is more important than money. Generally people who disagree just aren't in my life that much.

[jp1]

jp1:

I think that is probably the case, at least partly. Though half-sis's inherited house was in WI and she lived in GA since her early 20s. So she was not in the house often. And the majority of the stuff was in storage, maybe still is. I am not sure.

What I think you are referring to is an incredibly hard thing for most people to deal with: A person is not their stuff.

Thank goodness I don't have this issue. By the time my dad passed away the only stuff he had left was all really old and not noteworthy in any way. I can't imagine having spent money to bring it to San Francisco and then have to deal with it crowding our place up. We have plenty of stuff of our own. The few exceptions, such as my mother's cedar chest that she kept some family heirlooms in, are now in our home. When I look at the cedar chest, though, I don't think "wow. that represents mom." I think, "gosh, that's a nice chest. I hope the cats never get the urge to scratch it..."

[Kestra]

double post

[Ultralight]

But people do seem to think it can impede dating - no car, no real bed, no sofa, no own place, etc.

If you are a guy then having no car, no real bed, and no own place pretty much destroys your dating life.


For death and relatives, I think my family generally agrees that the best gift you can give your children is to get rid of most of your stuff before you go.

Really? How'd you all swing that kind of understanding?


I think the bigger relationship stumbling block is the frugality. People see you as cheap and uncaring if you don't give gifts. They also think it's hard to date frugally.

So true! If I could have all the money back I spent on 1st dates in the past couple years... I had a nice IRA! haha


My will specifically indicates to either donate or sell all my stuff.

Seriously?

[ApatheticNoMore]

If you are a guy then having no car, no real bed, and no own place pretty much destroys your dating life.

I have seen the having no car limit people's social lives, how visiting friends was weighed against the hassle of taking buses.

[Ultralight]

I have seen the having no car limit people's social lives, how visiting friends was weighed against the hassle of taking buses.

For men and dating, the having no car is less about your ability to transport yourself and more about not owning a status symbol or a symbol of one's financial resources. Same for not having your own place and to a much lesser degree, not owning a "real" bed.

On many, many dating profiles women say: "No car? No house? No date." Or something along those lines.

I have seen more than a few that say: "No bedframe or box springs? Dealbreaker!" lol Obviously I am paraphrasing...

[rodeosweetheart]

I don't think there is a right or wrong way to be, I think you just need to get into relationship with people who agree with you in certain areas, and things like minimalism will no longer be something to argue about.

So I like living with a husband who enjoys the fact that I collect seeds and have no desire to stop doing that, and we own three pianos (although one of them is at my mother;s house) or that we spent 1300 dollars to bring his grand piano up here. He's a professional musician, I am an amateur, I own three guitars, a cello, and a flute, we own three pianos.
So what? Now if it makes up unhappy, or we don't have the money to ship something somewhere, then that is a problem we have to work out, in relationship.

Yeah, I am more minimalist than he and wish he would get rid of all the stupid yogurt containers and toilet paper rolls he grows things in in the spring, but the toilet paper rolls really are a cool idea and they biodegrade in the soil, etc. So I think it is a balance, and you have to be sort of on the same page.

I enjoy the hand me down heirlooms I have and I was just out in the barn with my 89 year old mother looking at a rocking chair that looks awful now, but it was her father's, and it makes her feel close to him, and I told her we'd take it in and restore it for her. She's 89 years old, my granddad died in 1947, she feels happy remembering him, and it works for her.

So just like you may not understand why some people find minimalism unattractive, I understand why I would feel criticised and hurt if my husband was knocking the rocking chair or my mother for keeping the rocking chair.

This is why WASPS own houses in the country with barns!

[ApatheticNoMore]

Well it is true if you have no place of your own and your gf does she will realize "it's a good thing both people in this relationship aren't minimal!" since truth is you may hang out at her place if you want some privacy (unless you have the type of roommates that are never around or you can request to give you some privacy - hotels are expensive as well).

[iris lilies]

We will be completing our will this fall. All of our property will be sold (or donated or trashed) and the proceeds will be divided between organizations and siblings. With perhaps one exception or two (very small family heirlooms) i am not foisting my crap on others.

[Ultralight]

We will be completing our will this fall. All of our property will be sold (or donated or trashed) and the proceeds will be divided between organizations and siblings. With perhaps one exception or two (very small family heirlooms) i am not foisting my crap on others.

Excellent!

[Tammy]

My parents - especially dad - are big collectors. Nice stuff of value. But lots of stuff. Two of my siblings mirror that life. My one brother and I don't. We all love each other and don't fight and don't accuse each other of not caring.

In light of all that --- it still feels awkward when our elderly parents want to go through their stuff and give it to the kids. They know I'm not interested in much at all and they laugh about it and accept it. But there is still this underlying thought (in my mind - can't speak for theirs) that somehow I don't value my family as much since I don't want all the stuff.

I can understand your girlfriends statement.

[Tammy]

And I would find a bike date way more appealing than a car date any day. Just saying.

[catherine]

So, Kestra and IL, I never thought of putting it in my will that the house/belongings must be sold and then proceeds divided up. That's a great idea. Based on our horrific situation with a) losing vast amounts of money on my MIL's primary residence and b) being locked out of significant income potential due to the emotional issues surrounding a house that she (not wisely, in hindsight) bequeathed jointly between her two sons, I do NOT want to saddle my children with real estate.

My DH feels such resentment over this unwritten expectation that we will "take care of" his brother, which means, we can't kick him out in good conscience. It's an ongoing issue that there is no easy answer to.

Plus, BILs house is still loaded up with her stuff (she died 5 years ago) and he has made no move to sell or get rid of any of it. It's like Miss Havisham's house in Great Expectations. This is not a middle-aged man's home.

Edinburgh crystal, anyone?

[Ultralight]

And I would find a bike date way more appealing than a car date any day. Just saying.

It is interesting. I have asked female friends, women I have dated, female acquaintances, etc. if they would date a guy without a car. They almost universally say: "No way!"

Then I spin it on them and say: "What if the guy was an ardent environmentalist who rode a bike?"

The answer they return the volley with is almost always something like this: "I'd respect him for his convictions. But that is just not the way I want to live. So no, I still would not date him."

Intriguing, no?

The first conclusion that everyone jumps to about a guy who does not own a car is that he is some busted, crumb-bum with no money, no job, and no future prospects.


I am a little ashamed to admit that a main reason I bought my car (back in 2013) was that I wanted to date! haha

[ApatheticNoMore]

I dated a guy without a car, I said I admired it as cars were destroying the world anyway (but was not going to give mine up - so of course not having a car was admirable compared to my hypocrisy but hey).

Truthfully he had no car because he had no money (and was often halfway trying to save up for a car) but never pretended otherwise (and no prospects? well ... no immediate prospects, but really it's hard to tell, he did have a college degree for all that - though not a marketable one so did a job that didn't need one). I guess the main reason I want a car is how necessary they are for job searching and starting new jobs even though you can of course eventually move close to work. They do make social life easier. All of this could be done much more inconveniently with rental cars I suppose. Since driving significant distances everywhere is a pain (no matter how nice your car) and there's traffic everyday but Sunday and sometimes then, I wish people lived more locally and while a few do, most don't seem to (at least if they aren't settled down, married, with kids).

[rodeosweetheart]

OP, maybe the answer is to find a different girlfriend, one who agrees with you?

[Ultralight]

OP, maybe the answer is to find a different girlfriend, one who agrees with you?

LOL!

I'd sooner capture the Loch Ness Monster!

[Kestra]

If you are a guy then having no car, no real bed, and no own place pretty much destroys your dating life.



Really? How'd you all swing that kind of understanding?



So true! If I could have all the money back I spent on 1st dates in the past couple years... I had a nice IRA! haha



Seriously?

Re: my family - remember, I'm second-generation weird. On one side the grandparents decluttered quite well before their death. (My dad's dad had this wonderful tiny home on one of his son's property's for his last few years. They'd pretty much given up most of their stuff when they sold the family farm. My mom's mom had tons of stuff and it was a huge burden to my mother to deal with all that. My parents were the weird ones in their family with all the eastern philosophy stuff, so objects don't hold a lot of meaning. They currently have quite a lot of things (big house) but they realize that it's almost all worthless and that none of the kids want it. They are slowly downsizing.

About the wills, yes, my ex and I did the same thing. If the other was alive they'd get everything - so all the big things - house, car, etc. But at second death, it's all converted to cash. He had trouble with his siblings taking more than their share of valuable possessions when his dad died, so we both agreed it was better to liquidate and split the cash fairly. Even now we're still each other's executors and have an arrangement to divvy up the money to each other's family/friends should we die suddenly.

Maybe being car-free is more common here. Winnipeg definitely has a hippie-vibe. I'm delighted to find out that someone is car-free or car-lite. I want someone else who also likes to walk a lot and live more centrally in the city. I avoid men who need status-symbols like the plague.

[catherine]

It is interesting. I have asked female friends, women I have dated, female acquaintances, etc. if they would date a guy without a car. They almost universally say: "No way!"

Then I spin it on them and say: "What if the guy was an ardent environmentalist who rode a bike?"

The answer they return the volley with is almost always something like this: "I'd respect him for his convictions. But that is just not the way I want to live. So no, I still would not date him."

Intriguing, no?

The first conclusion that everyone jumps to about a guy who does not own a car is that he is some busted, crumb-bum with no money, no job, and no future prospects.


I am a little ashamed to admit that a main reason I bought my car (back in 2013) was that I wanted to date! haha

I think you have to look at the big picture. Some women may very well see red flags if a guy doesn't have a car: i.e. "He's going to be dependent on ME." Sorry, not sure if it's anthropological, but many women do NOT want a guy who's dependent on them for basic things.

OTOH, if a guy is resourceful, and self-reliant, and doesn't have a car on principle but doesn't need one, that's a different situation. I'm thinking of some of my permaculture acquaintances who are 100% in it. I can respect that. I can't muster as much respect for people who find it convenient to "allow" other people to provide for them while they shun the very things they gladly accept--when it suits them. I've known a few of those people, too.

[JaneV2.0]

In theory, I might date someone without a car since I have one. Or if I lived somewhere like New York where one was more trouble than they were worth and a person could rent if necessary. But since I'm not particularly interested in discussing the evils of technology with a latter-day Ted Kaczynski ad nauseum, I would first want to reassure myself that his carlessness was not ideological (or a result of DUIs or something), but strictly a practical matter. That's just me. YMMV.

[Ultralight]

I think you have to look at the big picture. Some women may very well see red flags if a guy doesn't have a car: i.e. "He's going to be dependent on ME." Sorry, not sure if it's anthropological, but many women do NOT want a guy who's dependent on them for basic things.

OTOH, if a guy is resourceful, and self-reliant, and doesn't have a car on principle but doesn't need one, that's a different situation. I'm thinking of some of my permaculture acquaintances who are 100% in it. I can respect that. I can't muster as much respect for people who find it convenient to "allow" other people to provide for them while they shun the very things they gladly accept--when it suits them. I've known a few of those people, too.

Good points here! When I imagine my car-free life (some day!) I imagine having a Car2Go membership that I rarely use and rarely accepting rides from people. Why? Because I don't like driving or being a passenger. Being a passenger gives me a hint of noticeable anxiety. I trust no one! haha

[kib]

It's possible that half sister (and possibly also your GF) equate stuff with people. Not that stuff is people, but that it's a direct physical manifestation of the deceased person (or living person.

This.

I think the reason so many of us suffer over Stuff is that we're on the fence. We don't really want these things, but we feel a personal connection between the things and the people they belonged to, or in the case of the living, the people who gave them to us. The things represent the people and they're physical proof that we loved someone, we had communion with someone, and they loved us back. Frankly, bless the fire that allows us to purge the stuff without having to deal with the sense that we're cutting people out of our hearts.

Feeling that way about inanimate objects when you want to be streamlined and unburdened is ... a pain in the neck. I envy the minimalists who have avoided this (probably learned) attitude, or whose intellectual clarity about unnecessary junk clearly over-rides any emotional clamor.

Maybe sentimental tattoos are the 21st century answer to an attic full of relics?

[Ultralight]

In theory, I might date someone without a car since I have one. Or if I lived somewhere like New York where one was more trouble than they were worth and a person could rent if necessary. But since I'm not particularly interested in discussing the evils of technology with a latter-day Ted Kaczynski ad nauseum, I would first want to reassure myself that his carlessness was not ideological (or a result of DUIs or something), but strictly a practical matter. That's just me. YMMV.

Come on now! Comparing a car-free, joyful Luddite-by-choice to a Teddy K. is way off base! haha

[Ultralight]

This.

I think the reason so many of us suffer over Stuff is that we're on the fence. We don't really want these things, but we feel a personal connection between the things and the people they belonged to, or in the case of the living, the people who gave them to us. The things represent the people and they're physical proof that we loved someone, we had life with someone, and they loved us back. Frankly, bless the fire that allows us to let go of the stuff without having to deal with the sense that we're cutting people out of our hearts.

Feeling that way about inanimate objects when you want to be streamlined and unburdened is ... a pain in the neck. I envy the minimalists who have avoided this (probably learned) attitude, or whose intellectual clarity about unnecessary junk clearly over-rides any emotional clamor.

Articulate and eloquent thoughts there.

I'd hope that after I go to heaven that some underprivileged kid gets my fishing gear and takes to it well.

[catherine]

When I imagine my car-free life (some day!) I imagine having a Car2Go membership that I rarely use and rarely accepting rides from people.

Burlington (wink-wink) has a lot of Zip cars (I mentioned my kids don't have cars--this is one of the reasons they don't sweat it. They pick up a car on the street when they need it.)

[Kestra]

Burlington (wink-wink) has a lot of Zip cars (I mentioned my kids don't have cars--this is one of the reasons they don't sweat it. They pick up a car on the street when they need it.)

This kind of thing helps a lot. I'm a member of a car-share co-op so I can easily get a car when I need one. And the last time I rented for a full day it only cost $27 including gas, and I drove quite a few kilometers. I could rent a lot of car time before I'd get to the price of owning one. Eventually I'll probably need a car (or RV van ideally) for my business or mobility if I'm living more rurally. But the longer I can go without the better. I would always take the person's location into account on whether a car was actually required.

[Teacher Terry]

When someone I love dies I keep a few things to remember them by & that's it. My hubby however keeps a ton of things that just end up in the shed or garage or his office because I am not living in a cluttered house. So now 7 years after his Mom died the stuff is hidden away but he won't get rid of it. This makes zero sense to me.

[bekkilyn]

If I lived in an area with great public transportation, where a car really wasn't necessary, I wouldn't care whether or not a guy had his own car. I don't live in such a place though, so yes, a man without a car would raise some major red flags and perhaps makes me wonder if maybe he got too many DUI's. I'm also something of a traditionalist when it comes to relationships with men and don't really want to date any who seem less "manly" than me. :) I tend to expect them to want to take charge of certain things.

[Ultralight]

If I lived in an area with great public transportation, where a car really wasn't necessary, I wouldn't care whether or not a guy had his own car. I don't live in such a place though, so yes, a man without a car would raise some major red flags and perhaps makes me wonder if maybe he got too many DUI's. I'm also something of a traditionalist when it comes to relationships with men and don't really want to date any who seem less "manly" than me. :) I tend to expect them to want to take charge of certain things.

Define "manly?" ;)

[Teacher Terry]

As Suze Orman used to say-people first then $ then things. If I lived in an big urban area I could see being car less. But where we live now-no would not date a man without a car.

[bekkilyn]

Define "manly?" ;)

There are men who are girlfriends and then there are men who are men. ;)

[Ultralight]

There are men who are girlfriends and then there are men who are men. ;)

This is an interesting topic to me because I believe that gender is largely learned and gender performance ("acting manly," for instance) is culturally constructed.

My personal policy is: I will do whatever I want. haha This is regardless of how normative culture views it -- manly, not manly, feminine, etc.

I have been told I "talk like a f*g." Which I am fine with... whatever that means, anyway.

I have a full beard, fish, shoot clay pigeons, and can curse like a sailor. But I also read memoirs, love disco music, and enjoy ethnic cuisine. I can't fix cars or repair appliances. But I can butcher a duck and play a little harmonica.

I like to be balanced. ;)

[bekkilyn]

This is an interesting topic to me because I believe that gender is largely learned and gender performance ("acting manly," for instance) is culturally constructed.


Intellectually, I agree. I tend to view each person as an individual and do not base their strengths and weaknesses on gender stereotypes. I tend to be supportive of some very untraditional views and understand that what works or doesn't work for me personally is not the same for everyone.

At the same time though, I really don't want to "be the man" in a relationship.

[Ultralight]

Intellectually, I agree. I tend to view each person as an individual and do not base their strengths and weaknesses on gender stereotypes. I tend to be supportive of some very untraditional views and understand that what works or doesn't work for me personally is not the same for everyone.

At the same time though, I really don't want to "be the man" in a relationship.

Can you describe what "being the man" looks like?

[Kestra]

Now this is a new fascinating topic. As much as I hate the gender-stereotypes implied in the phrase "being the man" I don't know another way to say it.

For my relationship preference it's a balanced and dynamic thing. I'd be equally uncomfortable always "being the man" as I would be if he always was/had to "be the man".

IMO this usage means the person who has the ultimate control/direction over the household. It's his ultimate responsibility to take care of trouble, make sure there's enough money, and be the voice of reason and stability.

In practicality I'd never want to live where this pressure was put on one individual. I'd prefer a partnership where we have our areas of strengths, solve problems together, and deal with crises or decisions depending on who is in the best position at the time to do so.

[Kestra]

Physically and chemistry-wise that's different. I need to feel attracted to him in a "manly" way. But that isn't about personality or leadership at all.

[JaneV2.0]

I'm wary of stereotypical "manly" men and "womanly" women, personally. I don't want someone "taking charge" of me, and I don't care to act helpless or dumb just to gain some perceived social advantage. I like real people with interesting mixtures of male/female who don't act out scripted roles. And I like to pay my own way; that separates the wheat from the chaff pretty quickly.

[Ultralight]

Now this is a new fascinating topic. As much as I hate the gender-stereotypes implied in the phrase "being the man" I don't know another way to say it.

For my relationship preference it's a balanced and dynamic thing. I'd be equally uncomfortable always "being the man" as I would be if he always was/had to "be the man".

IMO this usage means the person who has the ultimate control/direction over the household. It's his ultimate responsibility to take care of trouble, make sure there's enough money, and be the voice of reason and stability.

In practicality I'd never want to live where this pressure was put on one individual. I'd prefer a partnership where we have our areas of strengths, solve problems together, and deal with crises or decisions depending on who is in the best position at the time to do so.


I like your opinions on this as I have been the person who has the ultimate control/direction over the household, ultimate responsibility to take care of trouble, make sure there's enough money, and be the voice of reason and stability.

And it is incredibly daunting, exhausting, and annoying. I characterized myself as the "manager" of the relationship when I was married. I usually worked and paid the bills, especially after college (during grad school and after). Any problems that came up: "Jake! Come find a solution!" I was the person who made sure the boat would not capsize. It was hard... But my ex really felt entitled to this way of life.

After she left she asked me to continue to take care of her for several months -- financially and by storing her stuff and whatnot. There came a point, and I actually think I said this to her verbatim, "You left me. So you are no longer under my protection. Get a job."

[Ultralight]

Physically and chemistry-wise that's different. I need to feel attracted to him in a "manly" way. But that isn't about personality or leadership at all.

What does this mean? haha

[iris lilies]

We had a phrase for calling The Man when I was growing up.

We--my mom and I--would wail "Daddy, Fix!!!'" like 3 year old children and as a call to my dad to please come and save us in whatever endeavor we were involved in. We were grown women, or I was nearly grown, and would laugh hysterically when we did it knowing how stupid our behavior was, yet, we needed my dad to fix it.

[Ultralight]

Forgive the serial posts, but this made me think. How would I react to dating a very "womanly" woman?

I probably would not like it. It is so old fashioned and smacks of old-school Christianity. It is also a lot of responsibility for me and I think I'd be like: "Grow up and be an adult!" Which is what I often felt like telling my ex, especially in the last year when she was not working or even trying to find a job. But even she was not totally "Womanly" because she did have a small tool set and could occasionally surprise me by doing something handy. Though that was the extent of it, for the most part...

Now, how would I feel about dating a "manly" woman (not a lesbian, obviously, but a straight/bi woman would simply did lots of "manly" stuff)? If she could change the oil on my car, fix stuff around the house, build a doghouse, chop wood, carry heavy stuff, open her own jars, etc.; how would I feel?!

Probably pretty flippin' stoked! Sweet!!! Also, I don't like make-up or fingernails painted or fancy hair-dos with products in it. So I think this would totally work. lol

[Kestra]

What does this mean? haha

Some men you notice in a physical way - like super aware of their bodies. And some just remind you of your brother or something. Chemistry, who knows?

[Ultralight]

Some men you notice in a physical way - like super aware of their bodies. And some just remind you of your brother or something. Chemistry, who knows?

Okay, just wondered. haha

[Tammy]

I like my egalitarian marriage of 34 years.

But there's several thousand marines in Phoenix right now for marine week - and I do enjoy all the tough man testosterone.

I've learned to really appreciate security people since working in a large regional jail and in psychiatric settings. Men to the rescue! I like being protected.

But I'm pretty much a feminist.

Can I have it both ways???

[bekkilyn]

Can you describe what "being the man" looks like?

Nope, I just know it when I see it!

Just to add on a bit after reading some of the responses is that I am not particularly a traditionally "feminine" woman. I am taller than average and tend to have a very dominant personality that I've discovered can be intimidating to many men. Also, I am used to being very self-reliant and independent. Unless a man happens to have enough of these same qualities and a personality that is *at least* my equal in the above, I get fearful of damaging him. A man needs to at least have a willingness and *capability* of taking charge even if he's not doing it all the time. Otherwise, he seems weaker than me and I'm just not very attracted to that sort of weakness.

I'm not talking about macho, egotistical jerks who require subservience. Just "manly" and courteous. Not sure how else to describe it. Again, I just know it when I see it!

[JaneV2.0]

...
Now, how would I feel about dating a "manly" woman (not a lesbian, obviously, but a straight/bi woman would simply did lots of "manly" stuff)? If she could change the oil on my car, fix stuff around the house, build a doghouse, chop wood, carry heavy stuff, open her own jars, etc.; how would I feel?!
...

I had a brief and doomed crush on a co-worker until I found out he was married to a woman who was at home building their deck.

Then I had a crush on her. I still need a deck built.

[Alan]

I've learned to really appreciate security people since working in a large regional jail and in psychiatric settings. Men to the rescue! I like being protected.



A man needs to at least have a willingness and *capability* of taking charge even if he's not doing it all the time. Otherwise, he seems weaker than me and I'm just not very attracted to that sort of weakness.

I'm not talking about macho, egotistical jerks who require subservience. Just "manly" and courteous. Not sure how else to describe it. Again, I just know it when I see it!
I know exactly what you both mean. I started my professional life as a policeman and eventually moved into a corporate security/executive protection role, each requiring a take charge attitude. The women I've encountered seemed to love it. Luckily, I've always known that it's not my manly good looks or manly build (snort) that attracts these increasingly younger women, it's the quiet confidence I've trained myself to exude and the willingness to stride into a troublesome situation while others are running away. It's embarrassing to say it, but it's true. I'm an old geezer but I'm still a chick magnet. :cool:

[ApatheticNoMore]

I don't see any correlation between minimalism and hard-heartedness. Was Jesus hard hearted? Buddha? Tolstoy? St. Frances? Mother Teresa? Sorry about the religious references--I DO know who I'm speaking with here , but the point is, these people were NOT known for being hard-hearted, and you could also describe them all as "extreme minimalists." The whole idea of minimalism is to keep material distractions at bay

asceticism is poorly understood by modern mentality I suppose, a hard concept to get the modern mind around, a positive case is seldom made for the value of asceticism as such in and for itself (well I think you and that list of people might understand why that term is the one that comes to mind...).

I have a book on fasting that makes asceticism seem oddly appealing - "Fasting an Exceptional Human Experience" - covers medical aspects briefly and other aspects but talks a lot about fasting saints etc.. It says both (short) fasting and meditation are mild asceticism, which seems correct to me (mediation is fasting from my thoughts and I hunger for them). Yea it briefly mentions more severe asceticism like mortification of the flesh and so on but hey neither the book nor I is really recommending those.

But it is easier to talk about the practicalities of dating a guy without a car. Choke me in the shallow water before I get too deep!!! (on which I don't have absolutes (I have been told "what women want" far more than I have ever been asked), only that it takes forbearance as it's not convenient and as a practical matter you may end up driving. :))

[goldensmom]

Sentamentalism vs minimalism. I care about people as in their well being but not their stuff. I am not sentamental about things but I am sentamental about memories which are in my head and don't take up space in the house. Sentalmentalism can co-exist with a minimalist lifestyle but doesn't have to be evidenced by the amount of physical things you keep related to a person. Just a matter of perspective and personality.

[Ultralight]

Sentamentalism vs minimalism. I care about people as in their well being but not their stuff. I am not sentamental about things but I am sentamental about memories which are in my head and don't take up space in the house. Sentalmentalism can co-exist with a minimalist lifestyle but doesn't have to be evidenced by the amount of physical things you keep related to a person. Just a matter of perspective and personality.

Excellent point!

[Miss Cellane]

Nope, I just know it when I see it!

Just to add on a bit after reading some of the responses is that I am not particularly a traditionally "feminine" woman. I am taller than average and tend to have a very dominant personality that I've discovered can be intimidating to many men. Also, I am used to being very self-reliant and independent. Unless a man happens to have enough of these same qualities and a personality that is *at least* my equal in the above, I get fearful of damaging him. A man needs to at least have a willingness and *capability* of taking charge even if he's not doing it all the time. Otherwise, he seems weaker than me and I'm just not very attracted to that sort of weakness.

I'm not talking about macho, egotistical jerks who require subservience. Just "manly" and courteous. Not sure how else to describe it. Again, I just know it when I see it!

Ah, I think I know what you mean. People tell me that I come across as very independent and in control. (Where they get that idea from, I have no clue. I do not *feel* all that much in control of anything.)

As a result, I seem to attract men who want/expect me to take care of them. Not a 50/50 sort of thing, a partnership. But coming home from work and whining about what Bob said to Sam, and I'm supposed to make it all better. Everyone is out to get them; no one understands them; no one ever gives them a break. They may act "manly" at work, but at home, they expect a lot of support and shoring up from their girlfriend. Emotional leeches. It's exhausting. They are childlike.

Maybe it's not so much "acting manly" as it is "acting like an adult." Dealing with your own problems as much as possible. Not expecting someone else to step in all. the. time. to validate feelings and offer suggestions and basically put a bandaid on whatever is oh, so wrong This Time.

[Ultralight]

Ah, I think I know what you mean. People tell me that I come across as very independent and in control. (Where they get that idea from, I have no clue. I do not *feel* all that much in control of anything.)

As a result, I seem to attract men who want/expect me to take care of them. Not a 50/50 sort of thing, a partnership. But coming home from work and whining about what Bob said to Sam, and I'm supposed to make it all better. Everyone is out to get them; no one understands them; no one ever gives them a break. They may act "manly" at work, but at home, they expect a lot of support and shoring up from their girlfriend. Emotional leeches. It's exhausting. They are childlike.

Maybe it's not so much "acting manly" as it is "acting like an adult." Dealing with your own problems as much as possible. Not expecting someone else to step in all. the. time. to validate feelings and offer suggestions and basically put a bandaid on whatever is oh, so wrong This Time.

Life partners support each other. It sounds like you're expected to be a therapist, cheerleader, and life coach. My question is: What do these men expect of themselves?

[pinkytoe]

Grew up in the 50s, so vestiges of the "Prince Charming" stuff pop up from time to time. The media of that time definitely had gender roles and it's hard to undo some of that. I much prefer an egalitarian marriage which we mostly have, but there are days when I feel like I am too much the "man" - having to make the big decisions just to make something happen. I don't know if it's because DH is not confident enough to or prefers not being resonsible for outcomes. Possibly, he is just avoiding an unhappy spouse if he makes the call and it isn't the right one. I am jokingly called "Bwana". Marriage is interesting. Confidence in either sex is very alluring - I must admit. We definitely have different feelings about stuff that doesn't affect our other issues.

[ApatheticNoMore]

As a result, I seem to attract men who want/expect me to take care of them. Not a 50/50 sort of thing, a partnership. But coming home from work and whining about what Bob said to Sam, and I'm supposed to make it all better. Everyone is out to get them; no one understands them; no one ever gives them a break. They may act "manly" at work, but at home, they expect a lot of support and shoring up from their girlfriend. Emotional leeches. It's exhausting. They are childlike.

sounds like these guys just need to cry (yea I know men don't cry, hey all women aren't much for crying either for that matter though usually slightly more than men, and I don't mean cry as a bid for attention - maybe I just mean cry alone where noone can see, but I do know the feeling of accumulated PAIN at the end of the day).

Yes I am familiar with all the other 'answers', but none of them work. Of course if they want a therapist, the question is why don't they get one, but therapy doesn't really solve all people's problems either whatever one may think and can misguide as often as it guides.


IMO this usage means the person who has the ultimate control/direction over the household. It's his ultimate responsibility to take care of trouble, make sure there's enough money, and be the voice of reason and stability.

oh it sounds so nice. adulthood is such a heavy burden to bear. but sounds nice and realistic aren't necessarily the same thing (finding out a long lost uncle I never knew existed died and left me two million dollars tomorrow also sounds nice ...)

[Zoe Girl]

[QUOTE=Miss Cellane;2

Maybe it's not so much "acting manly" as it is "acting like an adult." Dealing with your own problems as much as possible. Not expecting someone else to step in all. the. time. to validate feelings and offer suggestions and basically put a bandaid on whatever is oh, so wrong This Time.[/QUOTE]

i like that , acting like an adult. i am probably more comfortable with male feelings that are softer, but there is a difference between that and just wallowing around. i really don't want to tell someone what to do with their life, but i will talk things through.

[kib]

Ah, I think I know what you mean. People tell me that I come across as very independent and in control. (Where they get that idea from, I have no clue. I do not *feel* all that much in control of anything.)

As a result, I seem to attract men who want/expect me to take care of them. Not a 50/50 sort of thing, a partnership. But coming home from work and whining about what Bob said to Sam, and I'm supposed to make it all better. Everyone is out to get them; no one understands them; no one ever gives them a break. They may act "manly" at work, but at home, they expect a lot of support and shoring up from their girlfriend. Emotional leeches. It's exhausting. They are childlike.

Maybe it's not so much "acting manly" as it is "acting like an adult." Dealing with your own problems as much as possible. Not expecting someone else to step in all. the. time. to validate feelings and offer suggestions and basically put a bandaid on whatever is oh, so wrong This Time. Now that's really interesting. I feel like I could have written it. But I also feel like maybe I'm starting to be that "guy", a kind of passive rebellion against being pushed into the 3M role (maid, manager and mommy). Bleh!!!

[bekkilyn]

Maybe it's not so much "acting manly" as it is "acting like an adult." Dealing with your own problems as much as possible. Not expecting someone else to step in all. the. time. to validate feelings and offer suggestions and basically put a bandaid on whatever is oh, so wrong This Time.

Yes, I think a lot of it is "acting like an adult" but there's also a sort of "masculinity" to it too. I just can't specifically put my finger on it though. Alan was pretty on the mark too though. :)

But yes, the whiny types...ugh! It's not that I'd care for the type that *never* shows a shred of emotion about anything, but there's a balance.

I was reading something on a different forum a while ago that kind of fits. A guy there was complaining about women never wanting to date him because he was "too nice." Someone else started talking about the qualities she liked in men and one of those qualities was decisiveness and how she didn't like to be the one to have to make *all* of the decisions in the relationship and how the "nice guys," thinking they were being nice, would always defer every single last thing to her. It's something that drives me crazy too. For instance, guy wants to go somewhere to eat, so you agree and ask where he wants to go. Response is, "I don't know. Where do you want to go?" Now I'm thinking in my head, "Hello! *You* were the one who had the idea. Why do *I* now need to be the one to decide this?" So rather than getting into a long drawn out back and forth thing of, "Doesn't matter, where do *you* want to go?" when the reality is that I *really* don't care as long as it doesn't involve green peas, I'll just randomly pick something only to get the response of, "Not really in the mood for that. Can't we think of somewhere else?" or end up going just to find out later that he really wanted to go to such-and-such and acts moody about it. Drives me *insane*.

I really liked a guy who I was friends with many years ago who would just decide he wanted to go to such-and-such restaurant, see so-and-so movie, visit such-and-such place, etc. and then just ask me if I wanted to go. I'd also do the same if I was really interested in something. None of all the above sort of wishy-washy-ness.

[TxZen]

I am not sentimental in the way of things. I have nothing other than photographs from my family. I may inherit some jewelry but beyond that, I don't have a single thing. On the other hand, my sister hoarded every last thing of my mother's should could. This is where I have to laugh- there is a pretty picture of some sheep in the pasture that supposedly belonged to my Great Grandmother. This was something passed down to the females on my mom's side of the family. About 15 years ago, I asked my Aunt about the picture. How did Great Grandma get it? Why is it sentimental? Well, the answer I got had me howling. It was something she was given when she traded some food she raised on the farm, to help a family out. She never really liked it and gave it to my Aunt, who gave it to my Nanna, who in turned gave it to my Mother. It went from a sentimental piece of art work to just another thing in an instant. :)

I have never been attached to things. At 16, I gave all I had to a local animal shelter for their yard sale. I kept some books, a teddy bear and a few small items. My mother about flipped out but it has never bothered me. I was thinking about this today. I am in my 25th year of simple/minimal living and am ever so grateful for living like this. I can't imagine moving the 18 times I have with a lot of stuff nor would I give up all the countless memories and places I have gotten to see, because of simple living.

When I went to CT last summer, I was looking around my parent's place. Yes, some stuff brings back memories of where we bought it or where it was in the house, but nothing I would want to take or keep. Like I said, all I took was a large envelope of photos.

[ToomuchStuff]

On the ORIGINAL post, I do think you pushed her and she got defensive and that will need further discussion to say if she actually believes that, or just said it that way to try to end it. One way to test it, would be with a COPY of a photograph (reprint, not photocopy). Because you could sit it down in front of her, and then ask her what the person is saying. Then ask her if she had the memory of the event as you tore up the photo. (this is why you need s reprint)
She may freak about that, which is why you would produce the original then. And explain that those that have suffered fire, flood, etc. have the memories, but not the possessions, or as a minimalist calls them, the entrapping. (have to pay for storage, upkeep, etc). The stuff isn't the person, but a physical reminder that brings back happy memories (or people don't tend to keep the stuff), and IMHE, the photo's are the thing most fire victims miss. (they also help with our memories later in life)

On the subject of selling everything, when one of my neighbors passed away, her entire estate was put up for sale. The auctioneer asked the entire crowd, if anyone minded if he gave the family the photo albums. There were three of us there, that were willing to bid on them for the family, just in case. Without any of us seeing them, I have no idea what was in the albums, if there were any that connected with her family (Paul Henning, creator of Beverly Hillbillies), but then the family had to bid on everything else. (missed a couple pieces they wanted, that went back a few generations)

[Ultralight]

On the ORIGINAL post, I do think you pushed her and she got defensive and that will need further discussion to say if she actually believes that, or just said it that way to try to end it. One way to test it, would be with a COPY of a photograph (reprint, not photocopy). Because you could sit it down in front of her, and then ask her what the person is saying. Then ask her if she had the memory of the event as you tore up the photo. (this is why you need s reprint)
She may freak about that, which is why you would produce the original then. And explain that those that have suffered fire, flood, etc. have the memories, but not the possessions, or as a minimalist calls them, the entrapping. (have to pay for storage, upkeep, etc). The stuff isn't the person, but a physical reminder that brings back happy memories (or people don't tend to keep the stuff), and IMHE, the photo's are the thing most fire victims miss. (they also help with our memories later in life)

On the subject of selling everything, when one of my neighbors passed away, her entire estate was put up for sale. The auctioneer asked the entire crowd, if anyone minded if he gave the family the photo albums. There were three of us there, that were willing to bid on them for the family, just in case. Without any of us seeing them, I have no idea what was in the albums, if there were any that connected with her family (Paul Henning, creator of Beverly Hillbillies), but then the family had to bid on everything else. (missed a couple pieces they wanted, that went back a few generations)

I think she and I will revisit the issue in a more calm space. She told me she felt bad for saying the stuff she said later one (something she rarely does, haha).