New Yorker Article: The Scold - Mr. Money Mustache’s retirement (sort of) plan

[exmmmer]

"Hi there. If we haven’t met, my name is Mr. Money Mustache. I’m the freaky financial magician who retired along with a lovely wife at age 30 in order to start a family, as well as start living a great life."

where did you find this quote?

Probably here...

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/22/getting-rich-from-zero-to-hero-in-one-blog-post/

[RetiredAt63]

I also tend not to worry about who is what.  Some threads are gender neutral, some are specific - men's grooming doesn't really affect me  ;-)  Many are thought-provoking (and/or amusing), and that is what counts.

It's funny about Biology, back when I was an undergrad most of the women were in Botany and Cell Biology, while most of the men were in Zoology and Ecology.  There have been huge shifts.  But yes, faculty is still lop-sided.  Just like politics.  Sigh.

Another one!  And here I just posted a lovely analytical discussion of stats and science on your journal!  Just for general consumption, the last advanced stats course I audited was about 50:50, and the TA's were grad students, 1 XX and 1 XY.  Engineering and science and math do not belong exclusively to the men.

I don't have an avatar, for exactly that reason.  Brooklyn Guy is protean. 

I really did appreciate the comment on my journal, btw.  To be clear I really don't give much thought about whether a poster is XX or XY unless it's keenly obvious (e.g. people who use their 'real' headshot as their avatar, like 'rebs... pretty sure he's a dude) and I'm largely just having fun here calling people plants etc. 

As for the gender composition in our department (biology), it's slightly XX heavy at the undergrad level and very XX heavy at the graduate student level.  In terms of tenure-track professors it's the reverse, 13 out of the 18 full time faculty are male.

[Gin1984]

I've always had a hunch he was sexist.  There are sexist undertones in some of his posts.  Other bloggers and posters have mentioned this as well.  They say they feel bad for his wife.  One thing really struck me from reading the article.  He discusses the makeup of his readership and says:

"More females than I thought."

Yep. I knew it all along.

LOLWUT?

He's not retired.  He's selfish.  His message of saving and not spending is dilluted by his income.  And now he's sexist too. 
Oh good! 

Strange dynamic going on in this thread.  Truly strange.  You all need a hobby or something.

Easy for you to say.   Are you a woman?  I ask because I wonder WHY he is surprised so many women follow the blog.  Does he think women aren't good with money?  Can't save?  Don't use the Internet?  Why?

Would it have been okay if he said he's surprised so many (race besides white) read the blog?

I am a woman and I think your original statement is ridiculous.

He is surprised because he should be. I don't expect to find a ton of women frequenting a money saving forum run by a nerdy, analytical type man. I expect to see them over on moneysavingmom.com or whatever where the website is frilly and girly and relates to their sensibilities more. Whether society likes to admit it or not the majority of men and women are in fact different.

I am a woman and think your statement is ridiculous.  Many of the women here and IRL have the exact same interests, jobs (and yes blue collar dirty jobs or engineering jobs), hobbies and financial strategies as guys do. Many of us aren't moms or into girly or frilly things exclusively. Some of us even drive trucks (oh the horror!!) and work on them and our home repairs as well. To make such a blanket statement as you just did is beyond sexist.

As for MMM being sexist, meh...I don't get that vibe at all. He seems to be pretty open minded about women being strong, capable and financially savvy. I believe there was a blog post on that awhile ago.

I didn’t mean that all women are girly and frilly I meant that a large population of them are, otherwise those mommy blogs wouldn’t be so popular. I was more commenting on the fact that MMM’s surprise at the stat’s shouldn’t be viewed as sexist because I thought the same thing.

Then you are implying that because you (a woman) thought it, the thought must not be sexist.  Sexism is in our culture, women are not exempt from it.

[Sweetloveginger]

I've always had a hunch he was sexist.  There are sexist undertones in some of his posts.  Other bloggers and posters have mentioned this as well.  They say they feel bad for his wife.  One thing really struck me from reading the article.  He discusses the makeup of his readership and says:

"More females than I thought."

Yep. I knew it all along.

LOLWUT?

He's not retired.  He's selfish.  His message of saving and not spending is dilluted by his income.  And now he's sexist too. 
Oh good! 

Strange dynamic going on in this thread.  Truly strange.  You all need a hobby or something.

Easy for you to say.   Are you a woman?  I ask because I wonder WHY he is surprised so many women follow the blog.  Does he think women aren't good with money?  Can't save?  Don't use the Internet?  Why?

Would it have been okay if he said he's surprised so many (race besides white) read the blog?

I am a woman and I think your original statement is ridiculous.

He is surprised because he should be. I don't expect to find a ton of women frequenting a money saving forum run by a nerdy, analytical type man. I expect to see them over on moneysavingmom.com or whatever where the website is frilly and girly and relates to their sensibilities more. Whether society likes to admit it or not the majority of men and women are in fact different.

I am a woman and think your statement is ridiculous.  Many of the women here and IRL have the exact same interests, jobs (and yes blue collar dirty jobs or engineering jobs), hobbies and financial strategies as guys do. Many of us aren't moms or into girly or frilly things exclusively. Some of us even drive trucks (oh the horror!!) and work on them and our home repairs as well. To make such a blanket statement as you just did is beyond sexist.

As for MMM being sexist, meh...I don't get that vibe at all. He seems to be pretty open minded about women being strong, capable and financially savvy. I believe there was a blog post on that awhile ago.

I didn’t mean that all women are girly and frilly I meant that a large population of them are, otherwise those mommy blogs wouldn’t be so popular. I was more commenting on the fact that MMM’s surprise at the stat’s shouldn’t be viewed as sexist because I thought the same thing.

Then you are implying that because you (a woman) thought it, the thought must not be sexist.  Sexism is in our culture, women are not exempt from it.

Valid point

[Travis]

No offense, but many of you are bit shit insane.

You mean "batshit"? ;)

Bit shit, batshit, Great Shit. It's a sliding scale.

[dramaman]

I think MMM could alleviate these concerns (I share some similar concerns with running a for-profit anti-consumerism blog) by running the blog as a nonprofit or foundation. As a tax lawyer, that is how I would advise MMM (disclaimer: I am not MMM's tax lawyer and nothing here constitutes tax/legal advice). This method seems optimal for the following reasons:

<snip>

(3) Tax benefits. Even using tax optimization strategies (discussed in MMM's most recent blog post), his tax bill is going to be quite large with 400k/year earnings. Even a 15% effective tax rate is 60k/year in taxes! He could avoid almost of these taxes by establishing a nonprofit

Losing $60K by leaving the affiliate ad business in a for-profit tax structure doesn't seem very Mustachian or badass. Unless, of course, he is doing so because he wants to make a profit. Maybe he needs more money set aside for the future when he is actually finished running businesses and, oh, you know, *retires* :) But then if *that* is true, why say that you intend to donate it? If that's the case, why toss $60K out the window first?

If the $400,000 is total cream that is not needed with no as of yet plan for it, I imagine there is no perceived urgency to save $60K of it by jumping through all the hoops of organizing as a legal non-profit organization. Plus that would also eliminate any potential tax write-off when the money is donated to charity. I don't know where you got the 60K, but if that is based merely on the taxes one would pay on 400K, then giving that money to charity would dramatically lesson the tax burden anyway without having to deal with the rules of being a non-profit organization.

Ultimately, it is MMM's money and he's been transparent enough that we know he doesn't need it to enjoy his standard of living. So whether or not he optimizes it to avoid taxes, gives it away or just burns it, it really is nobody's damn business but his and his family.

[MrMoogle]

I could be very wrong here, but when I think of the 'isms (sexism, ageism, racism...), I think if you use more encompassing terms, all, most, none, few, then it tends to be more 'ist.  "No women like MMM" - sexist.

If you're using (and thinking) in less absolute terms, I don't think it's that bad.  "Many women like moneysavingmom.com" - not sexist. (IDK if this is even true).

MMM's quote could go either way, depending on his reasoning.  "It surprised me because I am an engineer, and many women are not engineers" or "It surprised me because women don't like to get their nails dirty, and I do a lot of DIY."

But without that context, I don't see how his statement is sexist.

[Travis]

Throwing my $.02 on the retirement question. Zuckerberg, Buffet, and most others you might toss up as examples have legal obligations to come to work every day.  Pete can drop his blog completely tomorrow and there are no real consequences.  Nobody is making him be there.  Nobody is really counting on him.  To me, this is a hobby/crusade that he's managed to monetize even though he doesn't need the dough.  I don't really think you could call him self-employed for the same reason. He's not doing this for the money, but to fulfill something on a personal level. 

[nereo]

"Hi there. If we haven’t met, my name is Mr. Money Mustache. I’m the freaky financial magician who retired along with a lovely wife at age 30 in order to start a family, as well as start living a great life."

where did you find this quote?

Probably here...

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/22/getting-rich-from-zero-to-hero-in-one-blog-post/

Ah, thanks...  the power of google...

[nereo]

...
MMM's quote could go either way, depending on his reasoning.  "It surprised me because I am an engineer, and many women are not engineers" or "It surprised me because women don't like to get their nails dirty, and I do a lot of DIY."

But without that context, I don't see how his statement is sexist.

yeah, or as was suggested upthread, maybe 70% of the attendees were women and he had expected 50/50.  Or maybe lower ratio of women rsvp'd than he saw.  or maybe all the women were hanging out near the entrance and that's who he immediately saw.  we could play this game til the cows come home - without context it's hard to know for sure. 

I once was making a deal on craigslist and the emailer's address came up as 'Bruce' on my mail client.  When we finally met in person I said "oh, you're a woman!' which she took some initial offense to.  After explaining she told me she hadn't even realized the listing was made under her husband's account since they share devices.  Sometimes we see sexist statements where there are none.

[Moustachienne]

Mr. MM's story reminds me of the English Quakers.  After a long period of being persecuted for being "weirdos", executed even, they were finally just marginalized from British society (e.g. couldn't hold public office or go to university) to get on with their commitment to simple living and ethical business practices. Darned if that didn't translate to roaring success - Cadbury, Fry, Rowntree, Lloyds, to name just a few businesses of Quaker origin.

Some of the following generations started wearing plain clothes of very fine  material; others kept the faith, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bournville  No doubt none of them were perfectly virtuous or perfectly not.

Not surprising at all that MMM has had success and the best of luck to him in continuing to live according to his principles.

[Tetsuya Hondo]

Semantics - exactly.  Why should we give a shit what it's called?

Yes, why are some people so insistent that anything MMM does must be defined as "retirement"? And that "retirement" means whatever they want it to mean?

The problem isn't whether we think he's technically retired, it's the issue of him using that word and potentially losing a new reader by them saying 'he's not retired! (as I define the term)'.  I don't think we can argue that MMM doesn't fit into the 'common' persons definition of retirement, as we see the objection constantly any time he gets talked about outside of the ERE/MMM community.  So with that being the case, the question is would the message be better delivered to new readers if he avoided using the word 'retired'?  Maybe, but the problem is most people don't really understand the significance of, or care about, the term 'financially independent', even though that would technically be more accurate.

For me, it's not about semantics either. It's about whether or not Pete is full of shit. People saying "it's not retirement" seem to be essentially saying he's full of it. That's what irritates me.

Again, he's discussed all of this on his blog posts. I don't see why it's so hard to believe that he does construction because he likes it. He blogs because he likes it. He's said that he initially did ads to pay for the increasing costs of running the site and - surprise! - over time it started generating some money. It doesn't sound like he went out looking for it or needed it. But for fucks sake, who passes up free money?

This is the worst thread ever and I hate myself for getting sucked into it.

[arebelspy]

Semantics - exactly.  Why should we give a shit what it's called?

Yes, why are some people so insistent that anything MMM does must be defined as "retirement"? And that "retirement" means whatever they want it to mean?

The problem isn't whether we think he's technically retired, it's the issue of him using that word and potentially losing a new reader by them saying 'he's not retired! (as I define the term)'.  I don't think we can argue that MMM doesn't fit into the 'common' persons definition of retirement, as we see the objection constantly any time he gets talked about outside of the ERE/MMM community.  So with that being the case, the question is would the message be better delivered to new readers if he avoided using the word 'retired'?  Maybe, but the problem is most people don't really understand the significance of, or care about, the term 'financially independent', even though that would technically be more accurate.

For me, it's not about semantics either. It's about whether or not Pete is full of shit. People saying "it's not retirement" seem to be essentially saying he's full of it. That's what irritates me.

Again, he's discussed all of this on his blog posts. I don't see why it's so hard to believe that he does construction because he likes it. He blogs because he likes it. He's said that he initially did ads to pay for the increasing costs of running the site and - surprise! - over time it started generating some money. It doesn't sound like he went out looking for it or needed it. But for fucks sake, who passes up free money?

This is the worst thread ever and I hate myself for getting sucked into it.

I think the people disagreeing with you don't care if he likes it or not (your second paragraph), but whether or not he's getting paid.

That's where the schism is.

The people who call it retirement say he's doing it for fun (in retirement) and happens to get paid.  The people who say he's not retired say he has a paying job, and it's great that he likes it and doesn't have to do it, but it's still a job.

No one's gonna change anyone's mind at this point, so probably time to just move on.

[spud1987]

I think MMM could alleviate these concerns (I share some similar concerns with running a for-profit anti-consumerism blog) by running the blog as a nonprofit or foundation. As a tax lawyer, that is how I would advise MMM (disclaimer: I am not MMM's tax lawyer and nothing here constitutes tax/legal advice). This method seems optimal for the following reasons:

<snip>

(3) Tax benefits. Even using tax optimization strategies (discussed in MMM's most recent blog post), his tax bill is going to be quite large with 400k/year earnings. Even a 15% effective tax rate is 60k/year in taxes! He could avoid almost of these taxes by establishing a nonprofit

Losing $60K by leaving the affiliate ad business in a for-profit tax structure doesn't seem very Mustachian or badass. Unless, of course, he is doing so because he wants to make a profit. Maybe he needs more money set aside for the future when he is actually finished running businesses and, oh, you know, *retires* :) But then if *that* is true, why say that you intend to donate it? If that's the case, why toss $60K out the window first?

If the $400,000 is total cream that is not needed with no as of yet plan for it, I imagine there is no perceived urgency to save $60K of it by jumping through all the hoops of organizing as a legal non-profit organization. Plus that would also eliminate any potential tax write-off when the money is donated to charity. I don't know where you got the 60K, but if that is based merely on the taxes one would pay on 400K, then giving that money to charity would dramatically lesson the tax burden anyway without having to deal with the rules of being a non-profit organization.

Ultimately, it is MMM's money and he's been transparent enough that we know he doesn't need it to enjoy his standard of living. So whether or not he optimizes it to avoid taxes, gives it away or just burns it, it really is nobody's damn business but his and his family.

I agree that it his money and he can do whatever he wants with it. I was just offering a better use of that money given his stated goal of giving it all away.

To respond to a couple points you made:

(1) he likely wouldn't need a future tax write-off from donating money if all blog income accumulated in a non-profit. as others have discussed (gocurrycracker.com and rootofgood.com) the tax burden of someone who is FIRE-d is relatively low. donating the money in the future may be the worst option because: a) he pays full taxes on the money now when he earns it and (b) he may not get any tax benefit when the money is donated. Again, he can do what he wants but it doesn't seem very tax efficient.

(2) he already jumped through a number of hoops when setting up an S-corp with employees. A tax-exempt entity has a few more hoops, but he is already paying a tax professional so the burden is not much greater (all tax prep fees are deducted out of earnings for S-corps and tax-exempts).

Haha, I've already spent way too much time analyzing a stranger's tax situation when I wasn't asked and don't have complete information. But it was fun nonetheless.

[zephyr911]

So now we're on to some weird sort of meta-IRP debate, and the sexism thing. This thread is like a trainwreck and I can't stop coming back to look. #killme

[EnjoyIt]

This thread is completely ridiculous.  Who cares what MMM calls it, or what you call it. The guy accomplished something amazing, this blog, and he deserves every penny that he makes.

MMM currently has and makes more money than he know what to do with.  And it is absolutely no one's business if he chooses to give it away, today, tomorrow, or spend it all on fancy cheeses and espresso beans.

I imagine at some point his vacations will get fancier and he may even travel 1st class.  Shudder the thought.

Basically, you have one of two options.
1)  You can stop supporting his site since you think he is full of it.   
2)  Leave it alone, continue with your life, and work on your own plans of FI and retirement no matter what you define it.

[zephyr911]

I think if MMM was inclined to ever increase spending based on increased income, he'd have done it by now. He's clearly an incredibly principled guy, unlike yours truly, who hasn't even FIREd yet and is continually tempted to make FP-worthy consumer sucka decisions. MMM will never make enough money to change his mind about what's worth buying and what's not, because it's not about the money at all.

[boy_bye]

Lots of us XX types are also nerdy and analytical.  MMM (blog and forums) appeal to me more than the girly type forums.  I don't think I am alone [...]

I like analytical. I like  rock and roll interaction on the web such as face punching. I like swearing. I am woman.

Fucking A! Seriously, soooo not girly. But realistically, I know that I'm not the norm. I hate shopping, never wanted children, am not into a lot of the things that a lot of women seem to enjoy. Maybe that's why I like it here. A bunch of women talking about optimization...

So ... yes this is slightly OT but I can't let it slide any more ... this whole "I'm not like other women" thing is in and of itself quite sexist. How? In a couple ways:

- it assumes that all/most other women are "girly"
- it assumes that girliness is somehow inferior to non-girliness

"I'm not like other women" is a time-worn, subtly self-hating trope. Time to retire it.

[dramaman]

I think MMM could alleviate these concerns (I share some similar concerns with running a for-profit anti-consumerism blog) by running the blog as a nonprofit or foundation. As a tax lawyer, that is how I would advise MMM (disclaimer: I am not MMM's tax lawyer and nothing here constitutes tax/legal advice). This method seems optimal for the following reasons:

<snip>

(3) Tax benefits. Even using tax optimization strategies (discussed in MMM's most recent blog post), his tax bill is going to be quite large with 400k/year earnings. Even a 15% effective tax rate is 60k/year in taxes! He could avoid almost of these taxes by establishing a nonprofit

Losing $60K by leaving the affiliate ad business in a for-profit tax structure doesn't seem very Mustachian or badass. Unless, of course, he is doing so because he wants to make a profit. Maybe he needs more money set aside for the future when he is actually finished running businesses and, oh, you know, *retires* :) But then if *that* is true, why say that you intend to donate it? If that's the case, why toss $60K out the window first?

If the $400,000 is total cream that is not needed with no as of yet plan for it, I imagine there is no perceived urgency to save $60K of it by jumping through all the hoops of organizing as a legal non-profit organization. Plus that would also eliminate any potential tax write-off when the money is donated to charity. I don't know where you got the 60K, but if that is based merely on the taxes one would pay on 400K, then giving that money to charity would dramatically lesson the tax burden anyway without having to deal with the rules of being a non-profit organization.

Ultimately, it is MMM's money and he's been transparent enough that we know he doesn't need it to enjoy his standard of living. So whether or not he optimizes it to avoid taxes, gives it away or just burns it, it really is nobody's damn business but his and his family.

I agree that it his money and he can do whatever he wants with it. I was just offering a better use of that money given his stated goal of giving it all away.

To respond to a couple points you made:

(1) he likely wouldn't need a future tax write-off from donating money if all blog income accumulated in a non-profit. as others have discussed (gocurrycracker.com and rootofgood.com) the tax burden of someone who is FIRE-d is relatively low. donating the money in the future may be the worst option because: a) he pays full taxes on the money now when he earns it and (b) he may not get any tax benefit when the money is donated. Again, he can do what he wants but it doesn't seem very tax efficient.

(2) he already jumped through a number of hoops when setting up an S-corp with employees. A tax-exempt entity has a few more hoops, but he is already paying a tax professional so the burden is not much greater (all tax prep fees are deducted out of earnings for S-corps and tax-exempts).

Haha, I've already spent way too much time analyzing a stranger's tax situation when I wasn't asked and don't have complete information. But it was fun nonetheless.

On #2, you may be right in regards to complexity. In regards to #1, you presume that he won't be giving away his income to charity in the same year that he earned it. I get the feeling that currently he is still deciding how the money should be used / who to give it to. I would imagine once that decision is made, he could easily funnel it to the charity/charities in the same year that it is made and thus get a tax write off to offset the taxes that would otherwise occur from earning that money.

Ultimately however, I question whether minimizing taxes on earned money that you don't need is necessarily mustachian. It may appeal to MMM's sense of optimization, but it has no bearing on FIRING and doesn't impact his minimal consumption lifestyle which I see as the core of MMM's mustachianism.

[mm1970]

Ok, well I don't disagree with your definitions per-se, my two underlying points here are that 1) almost everyone IME gets some form of compensation at some point when they are supposedly retired, and 2) once you are FI (which itself can be a very squishy definition - e.g. is someone with 25x expenses really FI or just deluding themselves about future market returns) whether you are "retired" or self-employed/semi-employed/sporadically working etc. is largely based on the individual's perception. Someone who hits the FI/25x threshold but keeps working part time because they aren't convinced of the future is inherently different from someone who has the same level of FI but paints watercolors every sunny day and sells them once a month at the farmer's market because that's what he/she has always wanted to do.
Who am I to come in and say "well he's retired but she isn't" (or "neither of you are really retired")?

Also - perhaps i missed the explanation but you stil didn't explain what was intellectually dishonest about how MMM portrayed himself.  He's talked a great deal about how he likes rehabbing houses and how he's earned money doing so.

A few other examples regarding why setting limits on "retirement" is a bit silly
1) In HS our swim coach was a "retired" high-ranking naval officer who just really wanted to coach.  Teacher's unions what they were, the school was required to pay him.  He ceremonially donated his entire salary back to the athletic department each year.  Was he really "retired"?

2) my father recently "retired" from being a doctor at age 68.  Now he's being invited to give talks to all sorts of groups about care for aging parents.  The talks almost always involve dinner (either at a restaurant or catered) and twice they've put him up in a hotel when he had to drive over an hour to get there.  Is he "retired"?

3) My uncle got injured on the job and took a buy-out settlement in his late 50s and hasn't had a paycheck since.  Now his wife is the mayor of a small town.  He's helped manage her campaigns and goes to many of the functions.  Technically he gets paid nothing but his wife has a nice salary and he does get perks.  So is he "retired"?

4) my old landlord was somewhat of a recluse who had no job and had no interest in fixing anything. He lived off a combination of my rent and his savings and gave me a reduced rate under the agreement that I would take care of most any problem that came up (and deduct the cost of materials).  Is that "retired" (or just unemployed)?

If this all sounds a bit like semantics, that's because it is.  As soon as you start placing restrictions on when other people can consider themselves retired things get very sticky, and people that most people would agree are retired suddenly don't fit the definition(s).  If you are busy litmus-testing people about whether they are "retired" or "FI" I believe you've missed a key point of this blog, which is that it's relatively easy to reach a level of continual cash surpluses if you are willing to forgo a lot of the BS and avoid the traps most of society falls into.
My personal take - if you have a perpetual cash surplus and you doing what you want regardless of the money or benefits (as in, you'd continue to do it even if you weren't paid anything at all), then you can consider yourself retired if you so wish. If your id and ego would prefer the terms "self-employed" or "entrepreneur" or "semi-retired" that's fine too.

Pretty much this.  I could retire *today*, but I bet you not ONE person would call me retired, at the ripe old age of 45.

I'd just be a SAHM.

[zoltani]

I put this article pretty low on my list of things that twist my underpants into a bunch.

Good to know this whole blog is just some potheads delusion though, it all makes sense now.

[EnjoyIt]

I think if MMM was inclined to ever increase spending based on increased income, he'd have done it by now. He's clearly an incredibly principled guy, unlike yours truly, who hasn't even FIREd yet and is continually tempted to make FP-worthy consumer sucka decisions. MMM will never make enough money to change his mind about what's worth buying and what's not, because it's not about the money at all.

You don't have to buy useless junk to spend money.  It is always easy to spend money on experiences.  Such as I alluded to, flying first class. or getting better seats at a concert.

One of the amazing things that MMM did for me is teach me what the value of my money is.  That is should not be wasted on silly things that purchase little happiness.  I now spend my money on experiences, or ways to make those experiences better.

Maybe he does the same thing and therefor opted to not write about it this year since he is spending more.  Either way, who cares what he spends, or how much he spends.  None of that detracts from his message.

[zoltani]

who cares

exactly!

[robartsd]

I think MMM was surprised by the gender demographics because he simply felt he was presenting his message in a way that would appeal to men. While I'm sure he believes his message is universal, I imagine that he thought his presentation was more appealing to males. Of course the fact that his message cuts directly against the consumer propaganda that perpetuates much of the stereotypes we have as a society may be one of the reasons the demographics are considerably different than what stereotypes might predict.

[Tetsuya Hondo]

No one's gonna change anyone's mind at this point, so probably time to just move on.

But, we haven't even talked about Nazis yet.

[Chris22]

Lots of us XX types are also nerdy and analytical.  MMM (blog and forums) appeal to me more than the girly type forums.  I don't think I am alone [...]

I like analytical. I like  rock and roll interaction on the web such as face punching. I like swearing. I am woman.

Fucking A! Seriously, soooo not girly. But realistically, I know that I'm not the norm. I hate shopping, never wanted children, am not into a lot of the things that a lot of women seem to enjoy. Maybe that's why I like it here. A bunch of women talking about optimization...

So ... yes this is slightly OT but I can't let it slide any more ... this whole "I'm not like other women" thing is in and of itself quite sexist. How? In a couple ways:

- it assumes that all/most other women are "girly"
- it assumes that girliness is somehow inferior to non-girliness

"I'm not like other women" is a time-worn, subtly self-hating trope. Time to retire it.

When women start calling each other sexist it tells me us guys have no hope and no matter what someone is going to get pissy so I can stop worrying about offending someone.

[boy_bye]

Lots of us XX types are also nerdy and analytical.  MMM (blog and forums) appeal to me more than the girly type forums.  I don't think I am alone [...]

I like analytical. I like  rock and roll interaction on the web such as face punching. I like swearing. I am woman.

Fucking A! Seriously, soooo not girly. But realistically, I know that I'm not the norm. I hate shopping, never wanted children, am not into a lot of the things that a lot of women seem to enjoy. Maybe that's why I like it here. A bunch of women talking about optimization...

So ... yes this is slightly OT but I can't let it slide any more ... this whole "I'm not like other women" thing is in and of itself quite sexist. How? In a couple ways:

- it assumes that all/most other women are "girly"
- it assumes that girliness is somehow inferior to non-girliness

"I'm not like other women" is a time-worn, subtly self-hating trope. Time to retire it.

When women start calling each other sexist it tells me us guys have no hope and no matter what someone is going to get pissy so I can stop worrying about offending someone.

I didn't call anyone sexist. I said that this particular rhetorical structure is sexist and should be retired. Please read before commenting.

[Chris22]

Lots of us XX types are also nerdy and analytical.  MMM (blog and forums) appeal to me more than the girly type forums.  I don't think I am alone [...]

I like analytical. I like  rock and roll interaction on the web such as face punching. I like swearing. I am woman.

Fucking A! Seriously, soooo not girly. But realistically, I know that I'm not the norm. I hate shopping, never wanted children, am not into a lot of the things that a lot of women seem to enjoy. Maybe that's why I like it here. A bunch of women talking about optimization...

So ... yes this is slightly OT but I can't let it slide any more ... this whole "I'm not like other women" thing is in and of itself quite sexist. How? In a couple ways:

- it assumes that all/most other women are "girly"
- it assumes that girliness is somehow inferior to non-girliness

"I'm not like other women" is a time-worn, subtly self-hating trope. Time to retire it.

When women start calling each other sexist it tells me us guys have no hope and no matter what someone is going to get pissy so I can stop worrying about offending someone.

I didn't call anyone sexist. I said that this particular rhetorical structure is sexist and should be retired. Please read before commenting.

Potato potahto. The point stands. You women can't decide what's offensive to yourselves, so how can I be expected to keep track?

[boy_bye]

Lots of us XX types are also nerdy and analytical.  MMM (blog and forums) appeal to me more than the girly type forums.  I don't think I am alone [...]

I like analytical. I like  rock and roll interaction on the web such as face punching. I like swearing. I am woman.

Fucking A! Seriously, soooo not girly. But realistically, I know that I'm not the norm. I hate shopping, never wanted children, am not into a lot of the things that a lot of women seem to enjoy. Maybe that's why I like it here. A bunch of women talking about optimization...

So ... yes this is slightly OT but I can't let it slide any more ... this whole "I'm not like other women" thing is in and of itself quite sexist. How? In a couple ways:

- it assumes that all/most other women are "girly"
- it assumes that girliness is somehow inferior to non-girliness

"I'm not like other women" is a time-worn, subtly self-hating trope. Time to retire it.

When women start calling each other sexist it tells me us guys have no hope and no matter what someone is going to get pissy so I can stop worrying about offending someone.

I didn't call anyone sexist. I said that this particular rhetorical structure is sexist and should be retired. Please read before commenting.

Potato potahto. The point stands. You women can't decide what's offensive to yourselves, so how can I be expected to keep track?

I have a solution -- don't speak to or about women.

[Eric]

I put this article pretty low on my list of things that twist my underpants into a bunch.

Good to know this whole blog is just some potheads delusion though, it all makes sense now.

Best comment. Can we just end this scold thread on this?

A Pothead's Delusion

Agreed!  But...

No one's gonna change anyone's mind at this point, so probably time to just move on.

But, we haven't even talked about Nazis yet.

[RetiredAt63]

The thing is, there is still so much social pressure to be "feminine" (whatever that means) that those of us (for this paragraph us/we=women) who do not quite fit the stereotype tend to perceive ourselves as somewhere on the outer part of the bell curve.  If we actually stop to think about it, the social image of femininity is probably somewhere towards one side of the bell curve, those who fit it least are on the other side of the bell curve, and the rest of us are somewhere in the middle.  And we all to some extent tend to hide our less feminine side and try to outwardly conform to the social stereotype.  There are social penalties if you don't - look at the portrayal of women on the Big Bang Theory, although it is getting better.  One of the blessings of an anonymous forum is that we can be ourselves to a much greater extent.  No-one here cares how much makeup I am wearing (except in the Mustachian sense).  But the trying to fit in, and be more feminine, whatever that means, means that we all think we are more feminine than we really are, because we are not seeing our full diversity, until we know each other well enough and trust each other well enough to come out of hiding.  And if you are pretty, no-one assumes you have brains as well.  When half the dumb blond jokes are about guys, we will have achieved parity.  When people fully understand in their guts, not just their heads, that women are as diverse as men and have as many different desires and goals and strengths and weaknesses, then we will be equal.  We are not there yet. 

To sort of get back on topic, Mr Money Mustache is also way out on one side of the bell curve, and Pete is right there too, so of course he is going to seem unusual to people who aren't used to people who inhabit that part of the curve.

Lots of us XX types are also nerdy and analytical.  MMM (blog and forums) appeal to me more than the girly type forums.  I don't think I am alone [...]

I like analytical. I like  rock and roll interaction on the web such as face punching. I like swearing. I am woman.

Fucking A! Seriously, soooo not girly. But realistically, I know that I'm not the norm. I hate shopping, never wanted children, am not into a lot of the things that a lot of women seem to enjoy. Maybe that's why I like it here. A bunch of women talking about optimization...

So ... yes this is slightly OT but I can't let it slide any more ... this whole "I'm not like other women" thing is in and of itself quite sexist. How? In a couple ways:

- it assumes that all/most other women are "girly"
- it assumes that girliness is somehow inferior to non-girliness

"I'm not like other women" is a time-worn, subtly self-hating trope. Time to retire it.

When women start calling each other sexist it tells me us guys have no hope and no matter what someone is going to get pissy so I can stop worrying about offending someone.

[GuitarStv]

Stereotypes exist for a reason.  Are they always true?  Of course not.  Are they often true?  Yep.  Given this, if you're a part of a group and don't fit the stereotype, it is understandable to say 'I'm not like other ____'.  Maybe at some point in the future, 'girly' will refer to different behaviour.  At the moment it refers to behaviour commonly understood to be performed by the female sex.  Bristling at someone using words correctly is really rather pedantic, not enlightened.

[GrowingTheGreen]

$400k/yr blog income?

Take it from someone who's three months in. It's a shit ton of work.

[arebelspy]

Take it from someone who's three months in. It's a shit ton of work.

That doesn't matter so much, if you can make MMM type money (and need the money, or enjoy it).

More relevant than the amount of work: the fact that most blogs make well under minimum wage, and it's basically a labor of love.  Don't start a blog for the money.

[cityfolks]

@miss madge, THANK YOU for pointing out that "other women" is tired language and based on an outdated and narrow binary understanding of gender/sex.

I found the article interesting, in that as a regular New Yorker* reader**, it was a very focused and direct personal profile, which tend to focus on artistic and literary figures. It was great to see somebody outside that relative mainstream be featured in such depth.

It has also been my experience that people of any gender who refer to women as "females" are often thinking of them as a biological element and not as independent human beings.

* It was the New Yorker, and not the NYT aka New York Times, as one commentator misunderstood.
** Not only do I not drink lattes, drive an SUV, or whatever other misunderstandings of readership exist in this column - I get the magazine for free from my local library without even having to leave my sofa.

[RootofGood]

Also, after reading through this thread, I'm realizing how many of you have hilariously stupid stereotype ideas of what people are like in New York City... ;-)

Way to go perpetuating that stereotype.  ;)

[boy_bye]

@miss madge, THANK YOU for pointing out that "other women" is tired language and based on an outdated and narrow binary understanding of gender/sex.

I found the article interesting, in that as a regular New Yorker* reader**, it was a very focused and direct personal profile, which tend to focus on artistic and literary figures. It was great to see somebody outside that relative mainstream be featured in such depth.

It has also been my experience that people of any gender who refer to women as "females" are often thinking of them as a biological element and not as independent human beings.

* It was the New Yorker, and not the NYT aka New York Times, as one commentator misunderstood.
** Not only do I not drink lattes, drive an SUV, or whatever other misunderstandings of readership exist in this column - I get the magazine for free from my local library without even having to leave my sofa.

Yay, another unapologetic New Yorker reader! I just read that damn article for the fourth time and the more I read it, the more I find positives. I just don't read the negatives people were finding. Jeez, Nick wrote a love letter to Pete. And instead of debating whether 47 years of personal experience as a woman qualifies me to write that I have not always fit in among groups of women, that although I consider myself a feminist and in the abstract love my sistahs, I can't say I've always understood wtf they are talking about, I'll concede the point, fine, I'm totally a woman and we're all awesome, everyone's girley because grrrrrlllll power. Now can we talk about Nazis?

I don't always fit in with other people, either, whether they be dudes who are talking about the Steelers or women who are talking about nail wraps or something.

But, girly is as girly does. If a woman does it, then I believe, by definition, it's girly. This means that discovering radiation is as girly as going shopping.

*Throw your hands up at me.*

[boy_bye]

@miss madge, THANK YOU for pointing out that "other women" is tired language and based on an outdated and narrow binary understanding of gender/sex.

I found the article interesting, in that as a regular New Yorker* reader**, it was a very focused and direct personal profile, which tend to focus on artistic and literary figures. It was great to see somebody outside that relative mainstream be featured in such depth.

It has also been my experience that people of any gender who refer to women as "females" are often thinking of them as a biological element and not as independent human beings.

* It was the New Yorker, and not the NYT aka New York Times, as one commentator misunderstood.
** Not only do I not drink lattes, drive an SUV, or whatever other misunderstandings of readership exist in this column - I get the magazine for free from my local library without even having to leave my sofa.

Yay, another unapologetic New Yorker reader! I just read that damn article for the fourth time and the more I read it, the more I find positives. I just don't read the negatives people were finding. Jeez, Nick wrote a love letter to Pete. And instead of debating whether 47 years of personal experience as a woman qualifies me to write that I have not always fit in among groups of women, that although I consider myself a feminist and in the abstract love my sistahs, I can't say I've always understood wtf they are talking about, I'll concede the point, fine, I'm totally a woman and we're all awesome, everyone's girley because grrrrrlllll power. Now can we talk about Nazis?

I don't always fit in with other people, either, whether they be dudes who are talking about the Steelers or women who are talking about nail wraps or something.

But, girly is as girly does. If a woman does it, then I believe, by definition, it's girly. This means that discovering radiation is as girly as going shopping.

*Throw your hands up at me.*

Nah, we're cool. (1) I've just had some tequila, (2) I actually agree with you, but sometimes it's a pain to be scolded. I'm sitting here petting my girly dog with my girly hands. Life is good.

[cityfolks]

I am an unapologetic reader of a number of things! The library has many magazines and newspapers, and while I have things I like a lot and things I like less, I don't think people should feel apologetic about whatever they read.

Legit, was not trying to scold, just not let that one element fall out of the discussion. I think folks on these boards can bring a more nuanced analysis of these issues than man vs. woman.

Then again, if you are drinking tequila, you are made of sterner stuff than I! And since our apartment can only fit a cat, I may fit  more stereotypes than I choose to admit ...

[brooklynguy]

It has also been my experience that people of any gender who refer to women as "females" are often thinking of them as a biological element and not as independent human beings.

I'm not going to wade into this sexism debate, except to point out that anyone who wants to evaluate Pete's use of the word "females" should do so in light of the full original context (which no one seems to be doing).  The full quote from the article is as follows:

The blog's forum has nearly a million posts, on more than forty thousand topics. His readership is fifty-five per cent male. “More females than I thought,” he said.

In my view, this usage of the word "females" (in direct response to a description of men as "male") hardly seems objectionable.

[Adventine]

Calling all Internet Retirement Police! And sexists! And Nazis! And everyone else who wants to jump on the bandwagon! There's room in MMM's bigass bike trailer for all of you!

[nereo]

Calling all Internet Retirement Police! And sexists! And Nazis! And everyone else who wants to jump on the bandwagon! There's room in MMM's bigass bike trailer for all of you!

[josstache]

The attempted policing of the meaning of the word "retirement" is one step removed Big Brother's control of language in 1984, and, as we all know, George Orwell was heavily inspired by Nazi German censorship practices.  Ergo, the internet retirement police are essentially the same as Hitler.

[nereo]

This has been a wild and crazy thread.  I'd just like to take a minute and summarize the 9 pages of discussion so far.  Enjoy
>>>
Link to article
Thanks for sharing
Great article
$400k/year (Wow!)
Long article
Canada
“I should start a blog”
‘imputed rent’
Parenting
CC referral fees
Didn’t like the piece
MTG
Too much personal details?
Benevolent Dictator
Enginerd
Role of family privacy
REALLY dislike this article (Frankies Girl summary)
Discussing tone or article
Hit piece?
We are a cult (drink the Kool-Aid)
Home Schooling
MMM’s personal thoughts on the article
Thank’s for popping in MMM
Yay MMM!
More MTG
Comments on New Yorker Mag
Good/Bad exposure for forum?
$400k/year (again)
Donate blog income to charity?
MMM as a movement
Bogleheads cross-over discussion
Philanthropy and “is $400k a lot of money?”
Hating on Bogleheads
Hating on the New Yorker
IS MMM full of s**t?
Argument about driving to hardware store
Biking vs driving
Role of swearing
What is “retirement”?
FI vs “retirement”
Internet Retirement Police show up – bickering about “RE” continues
Who’s really retired anyway?
Are Warren Buffet and Mark Zuckerberg retired?
Pokémon
Going really negative now…
Is the MMM movement successful?
Sexism
“If I were a woman…”
First time poster shows up from New Yorker article
Who gets to decide if someone is retired or not (more IRP)
“Intellectual dishonesty”
“I am a woman”
“me too”
women aren’t plants.
“all of you are bit/bat s**t insane”
does stressing “ER” help/hurt blog readership?
Girls aren’t necessarily frilly.
English Quakers
Is “Retired” semantics, or not?
Velociraptors
Pot Heads
Nazis (thanks Tetsuya Hondo)
Pressure to be “feminine”, and what “girly” is.
Stereotypes
Defending the New Yorker
Beyoncé
The IRP are Nazis.

[RetiredAt63]

^^ Typical thread around here.  Interesting discussions we can generate, eh?  Lots of diversity of opinion and outlook.  Fun times.

[Basenji]

Nereo

[Adventine]

A fine executive summary, nereo. As the original poster who shared the link, can I add it to the first post of this completely insane thread?

[Penny Lane]

Gosh, I've read the beginning and end of this thread, but will go back and read the rest.  Such a wonderful bunch we are!

40 year NYer subscriber, going back to the day when (some) people wallpapered their bathrooms with the covers.  Never bought stuff from the ads.  I thought it was interesting that some thought the article was long-- actually, seemed on the shorter side to me.  I was happy to see that an individual's search for FI colored by his environmentalism was given such coverage.  Elizabeth Kolbert's work has been featured for years, highlighting the macro climate/waste issues, but not to my recall what one person can do/model.  I think the author was mostly bemused by our hero.

[nereo]

A fine executive summary, nereo. As the original poster who shared the link, can I add it to the first post of this completely insane thread?

Go right ahead... I don't think we're holding to any rules here anyway ;-)

[Adventine]

A fine executive summary, nereo. As the original poster who shared the link, can I add it to the first post of this completely insane thread?

Go right ahead... I don't think we're holding to any rules here anyway ;-)

Lovely. Done.