Annie's Mailbox® by Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar

LW1 - Wow, wanest advice ever from the Annies. By the sounds of it, lw1, you've been married a long time, and have gone along with this for a long time. What can you do? Well, the obvious - get your own car, have a frank conversation with your husband. I assume the first option isn't possible for some reason - lack of space, financial issues, etc. and that the latter option has been attempted but hasnt gone anywhere. If it comes down to it, are you willing to go on like this? I would bet that your husband will not have an easy time breaking his habit of collecting junk cars, and by the sounds of it he doesn't want to change. Unless you can take some control over the situation, you have to decide whether you are willing tolerate/fight this forever.

LW2 - she's a new convert, selfish and fanatical. I bet you that by next Christmas, she will have relaxed quite a bit. If not, keep up sending her the odd email and avoid sending her anything mentioning anything remotely religious. I do think that, soon enough, she will be embarrassed by her behaviour.

LW3 - yeah, easier said that done. Children are stupid and self-absorbed, and even with the best training they may fail to find something to eat that they like, or to decline politely. It is SO much easier to just ask ahead and prepare something you know they'll shut up and eat. Is it really worth the whining and hungry kids, just to make a point?

Re: Zoe

Zoe, I have to disagree with you about LW3. First of all, while I agree that children are self-absorbed, I do not agree that they are stupid. That is a really harsh statement. I entertain both my and my husband's families all the time and we have a girl who claims to be vegan, and she may be, but the reality is that she is bullimic and we have to ignore the vomiting. Her brother has an intolerance to gluten. We know about these problems, and we probably would have provided good choices for both of these children, even by accident, as we always serve fruits and salads and a wide variety of food.

I do always ask their mother if I am providing acceptable choices, but I am talking about a family situation where needs are well known. People throwing random dinner parties do not have an obligation to get a scorecard about who wll eat what and when. The Annies are right in this situation. A variety of food should allow even the neediest person to get through an hour or three of a meal.

* * * * PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT * * * *

LW3 refers to the second letter on 4 January 2013, and was also discussed on 8 & 23 February 2013.

And, Zoe, I really have to reiterate my position about your blanket statement that "children are stupid." Maybe you don't have children, maybe you do and you think your own children are stupid, but either way, you are generalizing and making a really ugly statement about a good percentage of the world. I have seen a great deal of intelligence and compassion in dealing with my nieces and newphews, not to mention my own child, and sometimes the kids nail the bad behavior of their older relatives.

LW1--Tell him if you can't have a car to get to work, you're going to quit. That always worked for me. Seriously, if you work full time and have a decent income, you've should be able to buy your own car. It doesn't have to be brand new.

You don't have to have his permission or signature to buy your own car. That all changed back in the 60s. It sounds like you've got some trade-ins on your property, too.

Lw1- You seem VERY angry. I think I might also if in the position you describe. It reads like you've been dealing with this for some time......So.....don't just vent, do something. Talk to your partner, go to counseling, leave if your that fed up. My point is to DO SOMETHING besides I.
Lw2- Im all for people doing their own thing as far as religion, no religion, spirituality, none, etc
my concern for her is that this may be cultlike. Cults cut out holiday worship as a way to sever recruits from people that can give them reality checks. I'd say be available but let this person be as long as you think they are safe and happy.
Lw3- Of course hosts should try to please guests. That's a no brained. As far as picky children,...I was sent to bed at least twice a week from the table ( don't know why my parents implemented that rule) for things like peanut butter soup and liver. Can you blame me? Lol.

Somehow between fighting with creators to get my comments listed they were listed wrongly. Lw1- Leave if It doesn't get better after counseling and being repeatedly isolated with no transportation because "your car" is gone or not available to you.
Lw2- It's a no braiNER to cater to company, although we all know not everyone does. Sorry for the mistypes.

Oh for Pete's sake, LW1, if you make a decent salary, then go out and buy your own car. Then pack it with your stuff and drive off into the sunset. Find a home where there are no cars on the lot, and let your husband find someone who can actually think of one thing they like about him. Date a man who takes the bus.


Annies, your answer to LW2 is completely off the mark and prejudiced: "Your daughter's lack of tolerance is not unusual for someone who has adopted new religious beliefs." Wrong Annies. Being religious is supposed to mean being more tolerant and kind to others, not less. I would wager there are far more people who find new religious beliefs and become so, but you don't have people writing in about them. Ever hear of Buddhism or Hinduism, for example? Those who claim to be religious but are intolerant are not religious, they are either extremeists or nutcases. You wouldn't blame science for the atom bomb or pharmaceuticals with bad side effects or car exhaust; you wouldn't blame the institution of government itself and demand government be abolished because of some leaders who decide to embezzle taxes or launch nuclear weapons; why do people constantly blame religion itself for the actions of idiots? People who are intolerant are intolerant, period. They can claim to be religious if they want, but they're not. Shame on you, Annies, for bringing in your own brand of intolerance and bigotry regarding truly religious people.

very fast before work.

LW1: Only part of Annie's advice I agree with is put your foot down and that the car is yours cause you pay the bills! Not him. You should not have to beg.

I disagree with others here saying if she has enough money she should buy another car. Even cheap car can be hardship for someone who is the breadwinner. But LW1 MUST do something. Leave him, put her foot down and say how things will be, whatever it is. If he is lying about money . . . this marriage is not good.

Also he sounds like hoarder. 10 cars that don't work with the every lasting promise of getting them fixed. Sorry this sounds like hoarding and the mentality that can come with it. I'm surprised the city hasn't cited her for having "junk" in her yard.

LW2: It sounds like your daughter has become a convert to Jehovah's Witness.

You should write your daughter a letter, telling her that you love her and that you miss her. Apologize for including her on your holiday list, and let her know you respect her conversion and that it won't happen again.

Don't get your hopes up though. She may feel more comfortable being around other people of her same religion, especially at the beginning of her conversion.

LW1: You must live on a big piece of property if you can have more than 10 cars on it, just hanging around. I'm surprised that zoning laws would allow that many undrivable cars on one piece of property either.

Ok, that being said, you have MUCH bigger problems than a few cars hanging out.

Problem 1: You are basically supporting the family but are being treated like a second class citizen in your own home.

Problem 2: Your husband is basically retired without any focus and is taking out his problems on you (passive aggressive: he takes the car and makes you beg because it probably makes him feel important).

Problem 3: You don't have a reliable source of transportation.

Problem 4: Your home is becoming an eyesoar.

The way you attack these problems is HEAD ON and NOW. First, you MUST get your own vehicle. I'm not usually a fan of buying anything on credit, but this is an emergency. Price some good used cars: there are a LOT of them out there. If you have enough space on your land to have 10 junkers, you probably live out in the country so you will need a good car and not one that will join the junkers. Joannakathryn is right that you can probably use one of those as a trade in: find the one that is in the best condition and see if you can trade that in. You can get a decent used car for under $10K.

Now that you've got the wheels, you just GIVE the other car to your husband. DO NOT let him drive your new car and it sounds like he's going to try to do that. That's because of Problem Two. He is lost in his retirement, we see that here all the time, it's not unusual. But how to get him out? He's probably happy watching videos and "puttering around on the computer" (find out just WHAT he's doing on that computer!) . Start with what does he do when he's using the car? Is he meeting with friends? Playing the ponies? Volunteering at the local animal shelter? Get him out MORE as long as he's doing stuff that's positive.

Finally, you need to deal with those cars on your lot. In my area, there are services that will pick up undrivable vehicles as donations for Salvation Army or other charities. You can write off donation as a tax deduction, I think, but double check. In our area, they give you a minimum of $2000 per car as a tax write off. If you've got 8 cars out there to recycle, that's a hunk of change. Now, your husband probably won't want to part with those cars, so I'd start this slow. Find one of the cars he hasn't touched in a long time (not the collectible or the drivables) and have the service pick it up when you know he's gone. I'll bet he won't even know it's gone for days or possibly weeks. Continue this until you are down to about 5 cars (he'll notice then) and then expect the fireworks, He's going to explode. But then you can tell him Look, you haven't missed any of these cars and we have a tax deduction now of $10K. That will probably calm him down (but maybe not).

Good luck. He sounds like a real piece of work.

LW1 - "The wrecks may be annoying but are not critical to your marriage." Oh, really? Did you even read the letter?? This woman is angry and annoyed as all hell and I don't blame her. More than 10 pieces of big junk on my property for nearly 20 years and always lying about fixing them? Not to mention, he gifts her a car and then makes her beg him to use it. When she tells him about her lack of a car, he says he "doesn't care." That doesn't sound like "it's not critical to your marriage" to me.

LW1, since you have a decent income, buy your own car. If he gets mad, tell him "Well you never let me drive my alleged car that you gave me and you said you didn't care that I had no way to get around so I bought myself a car with my own money. Deal with it!" I would also suggest seperate finances to prevent him from using your paycheck to "car repairs" that he's really blowing on other things. As for the cars itself, well, I don't know what you can do about that, really, in short of living apart.

LW2 - Some people are jerks when it comes to religion and your daughter sounds like one of them. She couldn't just delate and forget the email or nicely say, "Please do not send me religiou emails?" Hopefully she'll ease up soon. But in the meantime, continue to send email but make no mention of religion at all.

LW3: Carly, Zoe doesn't have any children and doesn't want any.

The answer the Annies gave here is perfect, although I will add that it's a part of parenting to teach your children to decline food offered politely. And I don't think it's a bad thing for a hostess to call ahead. I always do, especially if there are children coming. How hard is that to do!?

I would be sorely tempted to have those junk cars towed. I can't imagine putting up with such an eyesore for 20 years!

Not to mention, husband is lying about having money "set aside" when it's actually gone? Better have the husband towed too.

Re: Michelle

You bring up a good point about the money. I say she cuts off ALL the money right now, if she's contributing. He may have a pension though.

@jane, I think you missed the point of the Annie's remarks about religion - they specifically said NEW converts, not everyone who has a religious belief at all.

And they are correct. People who convert to a new religion as an adult are often quite zealous in the early stages, because its usually a big deal to them.

LW1: Actually, I'm not sure what to think here, aside from the obvious advice of get your own car.

I'd normally agree with advice such as nanchan's, in slowly thinning out his herd of cars. But just watch: The car you give away first will invariably be the car he was just thinking about fixing or otherwise paying attention to today.

Somehow, this guy rubs me as someone who'd notice if a pin dropped in the center of a room was misplaced. I don't know. Either way, he sounds exactly like several BTL'ers have described: "Oh, I'll get to it when I get time," only he never does. Whether that's because of OCD or ADD or whatever – gee, I'm into alphabet soup today? – he never does, but woe onto whomever dare sell his things, especially HIS things without HIS permission. (Of course, if you own them jointly, then I don't think that's such an issue. And if this is a city and there are laws against "nuisance" vehicles and/or zoning ordinances, he'd have his hands tied as well.)

The best I'm afraid that can be done is to grin and bear it, and then get your own car. Because as I read the letter, I wonder if there are other issues in this marriage (*cough* he's *cough* controlling *cough* you *cough*) that go way beyond the situation here.

Re: Carly O

Kids throw food around, poop in their pants, they struggle to write simple letters and numbers, and the tv they like has NO plot. I remember when I was little, 5 was my least favourite number to write because it had, like, three parts to it! Also thought that when you died, you turned into a skeleton right away, and then someone told me that you pooped after you died so I had this imagine of a skeleton in a hospital bed with a big turd coiled in its pelvis. See! Stupid! Maybe it was just me, I was a stupid child, but I was quiet in public. In my defense I think the adults in my life just lazed out on some things - I once asked if "Married... with Children" (the tv show) was about people married to their children and I remember being told that yes it was because it was easier than explaining the premise of the show to me.

I once watched this video where they did an experiment like showing a kid two rows of quarters except the first row has the quarters spaced out a bit more and the kid thought there were more quarters in that row. Actually if you google "Kids are dumb" you can find it, it's a College Humor video. Looks, it's not a bad thing, we don't expect them to be smart. For children, it's normal, but when you compare them to adults they are like really stupid adults.

That's the point I was trying to make - you can't expect the same behaviour from kids as from adults, because they aren't on the same level. If you want me to think that kids aren't comparatively stupid, I am going to start being a lot meaner to them when they are acting the fool in public! Hah. But we all tolerate, or should tolerate, a certain amount of weird behaviour from kids, which may include not having the wherewithal to politely decline liver and onions at a stranger's house. Yes of course, they should learn how to, but do you really want your house to be a learning ground for your friends' kids? Just make some chicken fingers and fries and they'll stfu and stay out of out your hair for like 30 minutes or however long it takes kids to eat.

Re: Jane

When I first read LW2 I thought Buddhism, but then I thought Jehova's Witnesses which makes the most sense. My neighbours are that and they are awesome. But I also wanted to add that my step-FIL's adult son is a convert to Buddhism and is the most annoying self-absorbed religious guy I've ever seen. Of all the people I see posting on my Facebook feed, he's the only one whose religion is obvious. And he's something like 1/16th native american so he thinks he's fully native american. I think the guy is just a douchebag and would be regardless of his religion, but it makes total sense that he'd choose Buddhism.

But while I agree with your statements, I think you misunderstood the Annies. New converts are often so enthusiastic and dedicated that they get tunnel vision, or they see attack where there is none (and often where there is, passive aggressive Christmas cards from mom, that sort of thing).

Re: Bobaloo

If you're going to use "whomever", PLEASE use it properly. I once knew this girl who used "whom" in place of "who" every time because she thought it sounded smarter, but it's worse than if she just used "who" in place of "whom" out of ignorance.

LW1- Two things that must be done immediately. Do not wait, do not mull it over in your head, do not make excuses. Open a new checking account and make sure you have automatic deposit for your paycheck. This does not mean you will not pay your fair share of bills, only that you will have a little more control of the money coming and going. The second thing you must do is buy a car. I don't believe the anger lies solely on the amount of cars at your home, but the fact you don't have one to drive and must 'beg' for independence. Know that I have been there done that, and not having a car can create a whole lot of emotions and anger. Do it now.

I see the seeds are sewn quite early today for another bar brawl on the forum.

Re: Bobaloo

re: thinning out the cars - sometimes, even having the first part of the clutter/hoarding removed, is the wakeup call that these people need.

When I was a little girl, I read a book about a man who lost his wife and was so depressed that he couldn't clean his house. (I wish I knew the name of this book!) Finally, someone close to the man gave him a beautiful flower. The man put the flower in a vase and then said "This flower is so beautiful and this vase is so dirty, I have to clean the vase" Then he put the clean vase and the flower on a dirty table. He decided the vase and flower were so beautiful that he cleaned the table. Then the room. Then the house. And finally himself.

The point of this story, which I have held close in my heart most of my life, is that the SMALL steps often lead to big changes. IF the LW's husband sees one car is gone, it MAY wake him up. IF he realizes his wife is TRUTHFULLY unhappy enough about the cars to have them towed, then MAYBE it will have some effect on him moving forward.

And if he DOESN'T change, well, that would be the tipping point for me and I'd be gone from the marriage.

Sorry, Mike, I'm not sure I agree. Yes, I did note the Annies were talking about new converts, but the point has no bearing on what I was saying. Whether someone is a new convert, a mid-life convert, someone born into a so-called religion or someone with no belief system, one can be equally intolerant or tolerant as they so choose to be.
Because of that, I disagree with your contention that the Annies are correct. For the sake of argument, I'll say, sure, perhaps a new convert might be more enthusiastic about their new religion than a long-time believer, although the argument could just as easily be made that a long-time believer is less open to change--the new convert has at least changed from one belief to another; the whole-life believer has never changed at all. But the Annies weren't talking about levels of religious enthusiam, they were talking about levels of tolerance: "Your daughter's lack of tolerance is not unusual for someone who has adopted new religious beliefs." My problem with the Annies' reply is that their opinion itself is bigoted in that they make the assumption that religion = intolerance. You seem to make the same assumption.
I pointed out that some religions actually hold that people should be MORE tolerant, so to paint all religious beliefs with the same brush of intolerance is wrong to begin with. But moreover, in my opinion, those who latch onto a new religion (or hold on to an old one) that holds intolrant beliefs are intolerant bigots to begin with--that is why they were attracted to that religion in the first place. To therefore blame the concept of religion itself for a person's intolerance is putting the horse on backwards. Intolerance was always there; the individual(s) simply use religion as an excuse to justify it.
The problem with holding religion itself responsble for intolerance is that people think that if they get rid of religion, everything will be all sunshine and lollipops. Not true--the intolerance will still be there, it will simply be justified through a new means. For example, the proponents of one of the most insidious types of intolerance, eugenics, rationalize their intolerance on the basis of science and natural selection. Yet no one is claiming that science causes people to become intolerant or that science should be abolished.
If we really want to eradicate intolerance, I think we need to look at the root causes and address them, and stop fooling ourselves into thinking the social constructs we create are to blame. Instead, we seem to be simply creating one more level of intolerance, by automatically perpetuating the prejudicial sterotype that any person who is religious is automatically intolerant.
And FWIW, I don't belong to any religion.

I, too, think that the Annie's answer to LW1 is just about the lamest I've heard from them in at least a week. Clearly, the LW is on the brink of hysteria (10 junk cars in the yard and a husband who plays video games. Where are my smelling salts?) but to write the Annie's and ask them "Why doesn't he do something about these wrecks?" Just once I wish the Annie's would say "How the hell should WE know??"

So, yes, she needs her own car, her own bank account, and enough spine to say "enough." One thought, though. I'd lay money that this husband grew up in white trash conditions where the more junk cars you had, the richer and more secure you felt. Anybody not believe me? Like I said, I live in one of the redneck capitals of the South, and the tolerance for junk cars on property - even in town - is unbelieveable.

Kids being stupid? Now, Zoe, you know I love you, but what you describe isn't stupid. It's funny and adorable and imaginative (well, except for the row of quarters maybe). I think if one day we all shared some of the bizarre things we thought as children, it would be great entertainment, but the point is, children have only been on the planet in life for a short time and they have to figure it out as they go. It would be like our being dropped down in the middle of a third world country where we had no idea about the language, customs - anything - and were trying to figure it out as we went. Even harder, because as adults, we'd have some frame of reference and children have very little.
That said, yes, some kids are just stupid.

I also thought Jehovah's Witnesses, but I think this is more about NEW converts. They get really full of themselves. Let's hope she comes back down to earth before she damages all her relationships.

Forgot who mentioned the wannabe Buddhist who is also a wannabe Amcerican Indian. Was that you, Zoe? Totally get it. Your friend should know that unless one of his parents is FULL BLOODED American Indian, he's basically a "Cheri-honky." A white who's trying to make people think he's cool, because he's, like, a real INDIAN and stuff! Just tell him to try to fit into any reservation in the country and see how fast he gets escorted off.

Re: Jane

I think you're interpreting the Annies use of "intolerant" incorrectly. I don't think they meant religious intolerance. I think they meant literally, new converts may have less tolerance for other religions being "forced" upon them and so may speak out more readily than someone who has had the same beliefs for longer ("been there, done that" sort of thing, I guess).

Re: Maggie

"It would be like our being dropped down in the middle of a third world country where we had no idea about the language, customs - anything - and were trying to figure it out as we went." - True true, but even if you stuck me in Myanmar I probably wouldn't crap my pants and openly point at their weird clothes and laugh (when I was a kid I called an Indian cab driver a turban-head, not to his face, and my dad was all, wtf kid -- I probably got it from my grandma who is ultra racist but doesn't even realize it). I really didn't mean that kids are incapable of not being stupid, or learning, but about a lot of things, I maintain they are, just like I'd be stupid about another culture's customs at first. Sans the poopy drawers and Spongebob.

And yeah, that was me, with the Buddhist/Native American guy. I have never met him in person but apparently he is equally insufferable in person as online. He's really gone all out, changed his name to Lama whatever, and his poor, poor kids, because they are not being given the choice to immerse themselves in the religion - or NOT. And also they have dumb names.

Re: Jane

Kind of like how I'm intolerant of sundried tomatoes. I don't wish them any harm, I just don't want to eat them because they taste like I ate fresh tomatoes and then threw them up.

RE LW#1------
The key to the problem is in these words:
"He always has excuses about why he can't fix the cars."
"I have lost my mobility and independence and he doesn't care."
"I am angry and tired of his lies."
"I am sick of all of the excuses and lies."
.
He is well aware she is unhappy about what he's doing. Does he care? Not really.
If some of those cars have been sitting there for 20 years, she's right, they will never get fixed------they are just there so her husband can maintain the fantasy that he will, someday, do something about them. With every year that goes by, he just postpones his fantasy to a later, future date. People like that have no reality------they just drift along fooling themselves and get angry if anyone tries to make them face the fact that they are NEVER going to actually do it.
.
Plus, she now has the fact that even though he's now retired, he has no intention of using the free time to actually attain his 'goal'. That's because it's not a real goal. Problem here is, he can't/won't face reality, accept that he will NEVER do what he says he's going to, cut his losses, and sell those cars. This vague 'someday I'll do it' is to hide from himself that he is just drifting aimlessly and doesn't have the will power to change things. It's an actual illness, I believe, similar to hoarding.
.
The good thing, for the LW, is that she is still working, so if she decides to give an ultimatum and he doesn't accept it, she's got options. Why should she have to go buy another car when she has a perfectly good one that he's taken from her? Let him either hop to it and fix one of his junkers, drive the car he 'doesn't like to get dirty, ' or sit home. (Unless, of course, she's willing to concede everything to keep her marriage together. If that's it, she may as well just give up ever having the say-so about anything in her life. What a lousy way to live!!!)
.
I, for one, hope she sets an internal deadline for herself and starts preparing to get out if it's not met. Otherwise this is what the rest of her life will be--------him sitting there saying "I'm GOING to do it------just not right now." He won't do it because he can't. Maybe he might try to get help if she threatens leaving, but probably not. She can only decide how she wants to live---------with him and with no say-so, or alone and in control of her own life.
.
The Annies say "The wrecks may be annoying but are not critical to your marriage." Wrong------they are a major symptom of what's wrong with the marriage. She's married to someone who can't face reality and is affecting her by his refusal to do so. Any time one person controls things by 'veto power' and refusing to even listen to what the other person wants, that's a critical problem.

A family member converted (back, it had been her childhood religion) to become a Jehovah's Witness. She was always quoting from the bible, and always took great offence when we invited her to family Celebrations for any holiday. I sent a Christmas card to her family, as I had always done, and she made her husband call to scold me. She HAD celebrated all of these things in the past, and we knew nothing about her religion, so I just shook my head and ignored her scolding. Some relatives were not so cool about it. They would argue bible verses with her, and family visits became contentious. That was years ago. Most of it has blown over, because she no longer tries to proselytise at family gatherings, and she no longer quotes bible verses around us. The Annies are correct, new converts can be over zealous, and they do simmer down when everyone refuses to engage.

LW1—I think there's more going on here than your husband hanging onto a bunch of wrecked cars. The basic issues are poor communication and a rising resentment over what you perceive as a lying lazy bum who fritters away his money and the day and also who robbed you of your mobility and independence by taking your car too. If you have an ounce of love for this man, then insist he go with you for marriage counseling. Hopefully a good counselor will help you broker a compromise with your husband in which he sells off the wrecked cars while keeping the drivable one, the collectable one and using the proceeds to by himself another drivable one. If your husband isn't willing to help fix what's broken in your marriage then my advice would be to inform your husband that the marriage is wrecked and no longer drivable and so you're leaving it to add to his collection while you make a new life for yourself.

LW2—“Now, I don't hear from her anymore. What can I do?” Count your blessings.

LW3—Is it any wonder why so many parents resort to fast food and other junk?

Lw2 You had to tell her you didn't share her beliefs? I would think, since she is your daughter, she would know that you do not share her religious beliefs, as you are not part of her religion, and she was not raised in the religion she has now converted to. I think Jehovah's Witness? There's nothing you can say or do, except keep in touch with her as best you can through phone, letters, e-mails, Facebook, etc.

LW1 - You're the one with the job and the money. Sell the cars to a junkyard and have them towed off your property. Use the money to buy yourself a new car (or put money toward one). When your husband complains, tell him he had years to fix the cars and his chance is over. Add that he is welcome to decide whether he wants to stay with you or with the cars, because he can't have both, and you've had it with old, non-working wrecks that sit around the house making your life miserable. If you know what I mean.

Re: nanchan (#21)

I don't disagree at all that the sale of one of his cars might be a "wakeup call." I'd even suggest trying it ... except that if indeed there are other issues present in the marriage (indeed, she doesn't say it outright, but there may be •cough• • cough• control and anger •cough• •cough* issues) I'd be more afraid of waking the sleeping giant.

The question is, if indeed there are those other issues I've suggested ... is she intimidated by this man? Are there also the issues Chris suggests, too: poor communication and resentment over the husband's behavior and how he's spending his free time. (In addition to any disorders he may have.)

BTW – as for the control issues, there was this statement from the LW: "He drives it (the driveable car) every day, and I have to beg to use it. I have lost my mobility and independence, and he doesn't care." Is it any clearer?

Other than that, everyone is right. He is NEVER going to achieve his goal of fixing up all these cars. Perhaps he did at one time, when his collection was just one or perhaps two cars. He's now overwhelmed and needs to come to the self-realization that he needs to get rid of the cars and let go of his "hobby."

My ex-FIL had junk cars all over his yard. It took the neighbor's complaints to the city to get anything done about it.

LW1 can't very well sell property if her name isn't on the title - so much for telling her to sell hubby's cars. She CAN separate her income so hubby can't squander it, however. The advice to have direct deposit in a separate account is excellent; I'd go one step further and suggest that it is MANDATORY that the account be at a different bank from where she now banks (with hubby) - and to have all statements mailed to her at her business address so hubby doesn't have a clue on which bank holds the account (keep checkbooks, etc. away from home as well); a quick trip to the bank as soon as the doors opened is all that saved MY income from being frozen by my ex just prior to our divorce.

I'm rather shocked about the 20 cars because where I live only one unregistered vehicle can be kept on a property; if this man is keeping all those wrecks registered, that's a big chunk of change each year.

Personally, I think I'd be telling this guy it's me or the cars - take your pick. And if "her" care isn't in HER name, she needs to have him sign the title over to her or just stop driving it, insuring it, registering it and either rely on public transportation or buy her own car - even a clunker to which only she has access is a good beginning. Or, start spending som eof the "set aside cash" for cab fares and see how long hubby keeps his heels dug in.

Why doesn't he do something about these wrecks? I see you answered your own question "Some have been sitting there for 20 years."

No consequences. I think the Annies were right in that your husband wants to believe he will fix those cars up "someday." My mom was the same way about our school clothes -- saved all those cute little dresses and moved them, over the course of 30 years, to 4 different states. She was going to make them into memory quilts for each of us, you see. Even though she never quilted!

So, that's a quirk of his. You've let it go for 20 years, and it was no threat to your marriage then. It's really not now, either, except that you're angry about not being able to get to work. Don't misunderstand -- I fully understand that.

But I'm not clear on why you have to "beg" for transportation if you're bringing in income. There certainly are some options: You take custody of the keys for the drivable car, confiscating his set, and just go, without asking him, as you need to, leaving him the car he "doesn't like to get dirty." Or you make a copy of the collectible car's key, and drive that if he's gone off and left you without wheels on a day you need to go somewhere. (He wouldn't like that? Well, perhaps he should have considered that you are a licensed driver, and you have responsibilities, and that is the only other drivable car on the property.)

He COULD fix up a wreck or he COULD sell the collectible to generate some cash to buy a new car. Those are options you could suggest to him.

But he's been entitled for a very long time; perhaps you've already tried these or had these discussions.

In which case, you're going to have to ask yourself eventually, LW, if he won't change his ways, are you prepared to drive away (in your car) and not come back?

LW1 can't very well sell property if her name isn't on the title - so much for telling her to sell hubby's cars. She CAN separate her income so hubby can't squander it, however. The advice to have direct deposit in a separate account is excellent; I'd go one step further and suggest that it is MANDATORY that the account be at a different bank from where she now banks (with hubby) - and to have all statements mailed to her at her business address so hubby doesn't have a clue on which bank holds the account (keep checkbooks, etc. away from home as well); a quick trip to the bank as soon as the doors opened is all that saved MY income from being frozen by my ex just prior to our divorce.

I'm rather shocked about the 20 cars because where I live only one unregistered vehicle can be kept on a property; if this man is keeping all those wrecks registered, that's a big chunk of change each year.

Personally, I think I'd be telling this guy it's me or the cars - take your pick. And if "her" care isn't in HER name, she needs to have him sign the title over to her or just stop driving it, insuring it, registering it and either rely on public transportation or buy her own car - even a clunker to which only she has access is a good beginning. Or, start spending som eof the "set aside cash" for cab fares and see how long hubby keeps his heels dug in.

"so I had this imagine of a skeleton in a hospital bed with a big turd coiled in its pelvis."

I just snorted milk through my nose.

LW1: I'm going to guess there's a lot more going on than just the cars in this relationship... She sounds so angry. I wonder if the cars are just a scapegoat for all their other issues. Or maybe just the proverbial straw.

LW2 - As a child I endured the Jehovah Witness religion for a few years until my mother wised up and dropped them. I found their rule of no Christmas gifts and no acknowledgement of birthdays with gifts as a cruel religious belief towards children. I believe the church only cares about not wasting any monies on gifts since that is money they would like to be given to the church. Be aware also that the church pushes their believers to not have anything to do with people who don't believe like they do or who speak against their beliefs so sadly, your daughter will probably grow further from you no matter what you hope for or however much you try to honor her beliefs. Of course, you may see her knocking on your neighbors doors one Saturday morning in an attempt to recruit others. They use to love to tow children along on these door knocking "witnessing" excursions in the hope, I believe, that with a child with them, the doors wouldn't be slammed in their faces. I also am surprised to see that most of the Jehovah Witnesses these days are African-Americans since when we attended the church in the late 50's, early 60's the church was not so inclusive. I have to assume they became more inclusive when they needed new members. I could be wrong but this was my experience with this religion. Was not happy as a JW.

"You had to tell her you didn't share her beliefs? I would think, since she is your daughter, she would know that you do not share her religious beliefs, as you are not part of her religion, and she was not raised in the religion she has now converted to."

Emily, I'm wondering if Mama meant "didn't agree with" rather than share. We only hear one side of the story. She makes it sound like she admitted she doesn't share with her daughter's beliefs, but as you pointed out, the daughter clearly already knew this. More likely she said she doesn't agree with them, or refuses to accept them. Or maybe she did say she doesn't share them. Either way, I think there's more to this story and the daughter's reaction.

LW1 -
Two things:
1. Vehicles deteriorate quickly when left unused in the yard. Any car that's been left sitting for 20 years is no longer fixable.
2. Two people living in the countryside, one of whom works and the other doesn't, need each their own car.

Your husband sounds like a very selfish man, who views you as an extension of himself, and who only cares about his own needs being met.

The real question here is, are you willing to tolerate this for the rest of your life? If yes, then stop complaining because nothing will ever change - he already knows you're unhappy and that your needs aren't being met, and he doesn't care.

If not, then you need two things: a separate bank account and a separate car to which he doesn't have the key, and make sure you keep it on you at all times. You've got the separate job and paycheck, not get going.

I personally think you also need two separate households, and to let him be with his beloved wrecks, but that's me.

LW3 -
"It seems unfair to me to acknowledge her own children's food biases"? Why? Everyone has preferences. The real question I would ask is, how do her children behave in someone else's house if they're served sauerkraut or brussel sprouts?

You seem to think she's a fine one to talk from the moment her children dare to have dislikes, but you would only be right if they DEMANDED accommodations and treated the host like s/he was their personal short order cook.

A considerate and polite host will make sure there is enough of a selection to offer alternatives. Considerate and polite guests will smile and plug themselves with bread if absolutely everything on the table is all stuff they absolutely detest.

Jane/L2 - Oy. First you said "Being religious is supposed to mean being more tolerant", then later you backtracked and said "some religions actually hold that people should be MORE tolerant". That statement is a little more correct, because most religious BOOKS pretty much say to be intolerant. For instance, in the bible Luke 24:46-49 says that followers should try to convert everyone in all nations (admittedly, it doesn't say what to do if they refuse). Deuteronomy 13:6-10 says to kill anyone who tries to convert you to another religion. Qur'an 4:89 says to kill anyone who was a Muslim but then converts. My point is that saying that religions preach only love and tolerance is a nice fantasy, but just that.
Your quote: "The problem with holding religion itself responsible for intolerance is that people think that if they get rid of religion, everything will be all sunshine and lollipops." No, it won't be ALL sunshine and lollipops, there will still be people who hate people of other races etc., but it would be a huge step forward in world consciousness. I'm not against believing in a higher power etc., but trying to define what is indefinable only leads to alot of made-up bullsh*t, and only causes divisiveness, period.

Casey, good point. I hadn't thought of it like that before you mentioned it. Thanks for bringing that up. Too bad that the daughter can't agree to disagree. Hopefully she will cool off before Christmas.

@Jane, it's nice that you've had relatively mild experiences with many new converts, but I don't think that's the normal experience.

Changing your religion as an adult usually requires quite a bit of thought, and often a "triggering experience". It's not usually a decision taken lightly. That's why new converts are quite frequently more zealous, more willing to talk about their religion, more inclined to enthuse or promote their religion, and more likely to be a bit sensitive about what they see as disrespect over their "new" beliefs... quite frequently more so than someone who has belonged to the same religion for quite some time.

It's a fairly common experience that the Annies are referencing here, and I don't think there's any problem at all with what they expressed or how they expressed it. It fits in quite solidly with my own experiences and with experiences I've heard echoed time and time again.

Regarding LW3, like many others BTL, I have to wonder why people aren't being flexible on both sides of the coin. It does seem a rather thoughtless host who gets so very rigid about serving a specific menu and doesn't want to take into consideration their guests food preferences or requirements; and it seems that a good guest (even a child guest) should have a modicum of flexibility and politeness not to make a huge stink about not getting exactly what they wanted for one meal.

(And parents with young, particularly fussy children would probably do well to bring along some alternative foods "just in case"; a close friend of mine did that with good effect during a particularly difficult phase of her toddler's life, and it doesn't seem to have permanently impaired the child's ability to enjoy a wide variety of foods now that she's a bit older).

Is this a case of much ado about nothing? Maybe.

Re: Lise b
I think you misunderstood lw3. The original lw basically said that other kids with dietary preferences have been spoiled and coddled, but her kids are well behaved because they only dislike things that are "gross" to everyone. She is basically saying, I think, that children are allowed their likes and dislikes regardless of whether they dislike pizza or spinach.

LW1: My cousin is a car collector and has at least 12 vintage cars in his garage and back yard and a race car in the middle of his living room. (I have no idea how many of them are running.) He is married with one child, and his wife has health issues, too. He lives in Callifornia, and I've never heard his wife complain about the cars, or I might have thought this letter was from her. I agree with all the other posters that LW should be able to purchase her own car. I have an idea. LW, tell you husband that you want to buy your own car and that when you do so, you will not say another word about his collection. Then do both.

LW2: Your daughter will eventually accept the fact that not everybody believes as she does.

LW3: Just cook something that most people can eat/like to eat when you are entertaining and you'll be OK 90% of the time. Spaghetti with plain sauce, meatballs on the side, garlic bread and salad, you're good to go.

I'm posting this without having read through the BTL, so I am almost certainly going to wind up repeating what some others may have said...

LW1 -- You are asking all the wrong questions. You ask why he doesn't do something about the wrecks. It doesn't really matter why he does -- what matters is that you are stuck without reliable transportation of your own. I am wondering if your husband has always controlled the finances and still does, in which case telling you to just go buy your own car may be easier said than done. The fact that he is retired and you are still working doesn't mean he has stopped controlling the finances, and depending on how you get paid and how your accounts are set up, it may not be all that easy for you to just go out and buy a car, even if you really can afford to do so. I think the question you should be asking are what YOU can do to change this situation. Stop waiting for your husband to to "do something" about it. Assuming I am right about the way your finances are set up, you need to look into getting your own account so that you can save up for a car. Then you will be in a position to ask yourself the age-old question "am I better off with him or without him" -- and you will also then be in a position to ACT on the answer to that question.

LW2: I do not believe that your daughter's first inkling that you do not share her religious beliefs related to holidays was that you sent her a a holiday greeting. I am assuming you raised your daughter, which means she lived with you a number of years and likely was well aware of your religious beliefs long before she converted to a different religion. So, it was not merely the fact that you don't share her beliefs that upset your daughter -- it is the fact that you do not RESPECT her beliefs that upset your daughter. My guess: you probably were dismissive and/or intolerant of HER beliefs during that conversation.

So, first, be honest: was your daughter "outraged" before she ever talked with you, or did the outrage only come on after you made some careless remark about her religion? If she was outraged BEFORE you talked, and ranted and raved at you for sending her a holiday greeting, then yes, she overreacted to something that she likely will need to get used to: there's a fairly giant majority of people in the U.S. who do celebrate holidays and birthdays and who will send her greetings related to those holidays and her birthday, not realizing that she has converted (or simply not realizing all the ramifications of her conversion or simply for having forgotten she converted). If she flips out at every single person who inadvertently sends her holiday and/or birthday greetings, she will soon have very few friends outside her chosen religion.

If, on the other hand, your daughter calmly called to say, "hey, I know you meant well when you sent me that holiday greeting, but I would ask that you try to remember that I have converted and no longer participate in holiday celebrations," and then you responded with a careless/dismissive remark making it clear what you think of her new religion, well, then you reap what you sow.

@Zoe,
Lol, love your sun-dried tomato analogy. Yes, you may be right that that's not the kind of "intolerance" the Annies are referring to. But I find some people who are like sun-dried tomato puke--well, they are always like sun-dried tomato puke. Sometimes there's just no fixing puke.
@Steve
Sigh. No, I wasn't backtracking. I simply softened it cuz I wasn't in the mood to get into a lame argument about "religion" being intolerant, since some people find it hard to wrap their heads around the idea that "religion" is nothing more than a manmade construct. It therefore is not and cannot be intolerant. Religion is a "thing". It can be no more intolerant (or happy, benevolent, sad or unjust) than a rock, the moon or my left shoe. My point was that it is PEOPLE who are intolerant, not THINGS. So your argument that "religious BOOKS pretty much say to be intolerant" proves my point. A book is not intolerant; the people who WROTE the book are intolerant. (Not to mention these books were supposedly written centuries ago, when humankind was less evolved socially--hold that thought.)
Your second point--"[if we do away with religion]...there will still be people who hate people of other races etc., but it would be a huge step forward in world consciousness...trying to define what is indefinable only leads to alot of made-up bullsh*t, and only causes divisiveness, period." That it ONLY causes divisiveness is a bit harsh--you might want to note that people who identify as non-religious are 33% LESS likely to help out a person in need and HALF as likely to give to a charity than someone who identifies as religious. So let's not pretend that people who do claim to be religious don't do the world a lot of good.
But that aside, again, how can there be a step forward in world consciousness if it is people who create religion, and not vice versa? As I stated in my first post, people are drawn to--and/or are drawn to preach--intolerance because they are intolerant regardless or a situation (fear, poverty, or lack of knowledge, for example) is encouraging them to be intolerant. Yes, PEOPLE preach intolerance in the name of religion, but just as many preach intolerance (and try to define the idefinable and madeup bullsh*t, in your words) in the name of science, government, culture, philosophy, social justice, and more. If you want to abolish religion, you will have to abolish all those things, and you will STILL have intolerance unless you address that root cause (e.g. fear, ignorance, etc). And going back to my "hold that thought" while those religious books you refer to were supposedly written some 2000 years ago, a lot of people in modern times who should know better by now are spouting equally crappy things under non-religious themes. If you're going to quote intolerance from the 2,000-year-old bible, I'll quote from more modern government, science and social trends:
"42% of Austrians say Hitler wasn't that bad." (This is from today's headlines, and it has nothing to do with relgious beliefs)
"The great problem of civilization is to secure a relative increase of the valuable as compared with the less valuable or noxious elements in the population... "
- Esteemed government leader Theodore Roosevelt
“I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing... War... has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation more deserving survivors could procreate freely...
--Scientist Bertrand Russell, THE IMPACT OF SCIENCE ON SOCIETY
"Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock."
AND
"Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying ... demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism ... [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant ... We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all."
- Margaret Sanger, sociologist, early feminist, and found of Planned Parenthood
I could go on, but you get the point. "Religion" is simply a scapegoat for what people do. Take away relgion and the same situation will exist under another name.
@Mike,
"@Jane, it's nice that you've had relatively mild experiences with many new converts, but I don't think that's the normal experience." Really, Mike? Where did I ever say that? Frankly, I've had my share of nasty encounters with idiots, whatever rationalization they were spouting for the bad behavior. I will have to say though that the most intolerant were the gays at a Pride parade booing the float of my bi son. And while you say new religious converts can be zealous, sure, I may agree, but I disagree with what the Annies said which implied that MOST new converts are INTOLERANT. Let's face it that those who ARE tolerant aren't are simply not going to be counted. Otherwise, can you imagine today's letter? "Dear Annies, I crossed a religious boundary with my daughter and she said nothing at all and was perfectly fine with it. What should I do?" For probably every nasty encounter you've had from a so-called "relgious convert" Mike, you may have encountered dozens of others converts who simply said and did nothing. That's the problem with only counting the malcontents. It gives a distorted view. And that's why I would never allow my experiences with a limited number of people to prejudice my views of all.

LW3 -- I cannot remember if it was clear from the letter how old the children in question were. Assuming that the host is providing a relatively well-rounded meal with a variety of dishes to choose from, older kids certainly should be expected to just say "no, thank you" to what they don't like and find something that they do like and just quietly make a meal of that. Younger kids -- even ones who ARE taught proper manners -- may need to be reminded of those manners, and one hopes their own parents will do it (but depending on the seating arrangements, etc., it's possible the parents didn't hear/see the interaction).

What I also do not remember is if it was clear how many people were being hosted. Certainly, a host shouldn't be expected to be serving 20 different dishes and to remember the dietary preferences and medical restrictions of every single person when s/he is cooking for 20 people. But by the same token, if the host is having just one family over for dinner, and that family consists of a mother, a father and two children (for the sake of example), then a wise host calls or e-mails either the mother or the father and says, "hey, I was going to serve shrimp, and then it occurred to me some people don't eat shrimp..." When I have had small children coming to my house, I ALWAYS ask the parents about what they do and do not like to eat. I'm not going to base the entire meal on the kids' palates, but I will at least make sure there is something they will eat among the dishes I am preparing.

Heck, my neighbors across the street had my husband and I over for dinner just this past weekend. The husband called me and said, "you know, we're planning on doing steaks on the grill, and then it occurred to me you guys could be vegan or something, so I thought I'd better check." As it happens, we are not vegans and were perfectly happy with steaks, and even if we had been vegan, they also served salad, potatoes and asparagus, so we would have been "covered" anyway -- but it probably would have been a bit awkward when when the four of us sat down to dinner, and two of us politely refused the main course. It took him all of 30 seconds to make that phone call. In a case where it's just one quick phone call, why wouldn't you just do it? In a case where you are having a larger group over, then you just try to plan have a diverse enough meal that everyone is "covered."

@Jane -- still haven't read through the BTL but after I posted something on LW3, your post at #49 popped up and I read that. A few quick things:

1) You are so right -- sometimes there is just no fixing puke!

2) You are, of course, correct that "religion" itself is not intolerant -- people are. However, I don't know that being religious necessarily means being tolerant or more tolerant. Being religious means regularly following the tenets of one's religion. If the tenets of that religion -- as set up by the humans who established the religion -- teach tolerance, then someone who follows that particular religion (and is therefore "religious") is more likely to be tolerant. If, however, the tenets of a given religion -- as set up by the humans who established that religion -- teach intolerance, then someone who follows that particular religion (and is therefore "religious") is more likely to be intolerant. And, of course, it is not uncommon for a religion that is SUPPOSED to teach tolerance to be twisted by a particular leader, group or sect, and so someone who follows that particular leader group or sect (and is therefore "religious") is more likely to be intolerant, even if most people who follow that faith would disagree with that intolerance. So, I TOTALLY agree with you that it is PEOPLE who are intolerant -- but I don't agree that someone who is "religious" should be or is tolerant, as that very much depends on what the religion is and how that person is interpreting it.

@Jane, except that in this case of today's letter, the Annies response perfectly explains the daughter's behavior: like many new converts, she IS being overzealous and hyper-focused on her new belief to the exclusion of common courtesy.

If the pattern holds, then she IS likely to calm down and relax over the next few years, and all the LW needs to do is remain patient and try not to deliberately be provocative.

Again, I don't think the Annies comment says anything about religious intolerance in general; just a common observation that new converts can be overzealous. They didn't even say it was *common* for new converts; just that it was "not unusual".

I still think you're reading more into the comment than is there, although I suppose it's always good to remember that not every new convert is overzealous. It's just that I don't think I, the Annies, or anyone else today suggested that.

Re: Steve C #41
" but it would be a huge step forward in world consciousness."
Nope. Like you noted yourself, people would still hate others for being black, or gay, or poor, or of a different culture, or taller, or with blue/brown/green eyes... What would be a huge step forward is if someone found a way to eradicate this galloping allergy to the difference (ANY difference) that so many people suffer from!

@Zoe #45
You could be right - I didn't have the time to go back to the original letter before I posted.

@Jane #49
"42% of Austrians say Hitler wasn't that bad."
That's because Hitler did a lot of things that turned the economy around and, to 42% of the Austrian population, that was far more important than whatever suffering he imposed on different targets than their precious selves.

"Religion" is simply a scapegoat for what people do. Take away relgion and the same situation will exist under another name."
CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP, couldn't have said it better!

Re: Jane

""Religion" is simply a scapegoat for what people do. Take away relgion and the same situation will exist under another name." I get your meaning, but I'm not sure i agree. Relational affects how people think on several levels - for example, religious people are shown to be more racist, not because of the dogma but because they have are part of a tight-knit community of worshippers that mostly have the same skin colour, so the brain begins to perceives different-looking people as a threat. I don't believe that people are inherently wonderful and that religion has turned them bad, but I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be.

Re: Zoe
"religious people are shown to be more racist"
I dunno, man. When I think of the most racist people I have happened to know personally, none of them were religious. However, they WERE highly intolerant, and not just of skin colour.

While intolerance and religions can be intimately entertwined, to the point where it's difficult to figure out the chicken from the egg, I do believe that people are racist before they are religious, even if they'll naturally use religion to justify their racism. They'll not stop being racist if you strip them of religion, they'll just use another rationale.

LW1: any car that has sat without being properly stored is not going to run without time and money and probably not even then. He possibly plays around online and checks out similar cars advertised, dreaming that is wrecks are worth as much as a fully restored, running version of the same car. She should research the cars themselves and find out if any of them are rare enough to be worth fixing. I have been in the auto repair business for many years, and my standard opening estimate for a "garage queen" from tow-in to drive out is about $2000, not including body and interior fixup.
What I don't understand is that if she is the one working and he doesn't "let" her drive the only decent runner, how does she get to work? What would happen if she got up earlier and drove away before he had a chance to take it?? Does he drive her to work and then take the car all day, figuring he might as well get the use of it rather than have it sit in the parking lot at her job??

LW2:" Religion" is often a code for "tribe", and has more to do with differentiating your subculture from another than the actuall teaching of the religion. In general, I find that simply saying what you think in one sentence and shutting up about the subject works much better than arguing. People are more influenced by a lack of argument more than by being forced to defend oneself.

Re: Lise B

It's not racist in the way you're thinking, like the obvious, hateful type of racism. It's the subtle "you're different from me but I don't wish you any harm" racism that most people have to some degree. It is proven that the tighter-knit you are with one group, the more others start to look like outsiders, and because our brains are, in some ways, very stupid, we see people who look different from our group and see outsiders who are not to be fully trusted or accepted. Presumably, a multi-cultural group of worshippers would be less racist than a group of white worshippers subjected to the same dogma.

I do believe that religion changes the brain on a fundamental level (Chris' likening it to a drug a few days ago, for example), however I cannot say how much this change impacts us.

Re: Zoe
Oh, everything you say makes perfect sense. It is natural that human beings be startled at a visible difference - consequence of the human brain categorising what's known. It just becomes so easy to equal "different" with "bad", and a lot of people have never bothered to clean that one up.