I agree with you that mothers can say and do just as threatening things for their sons. I think the difference is that the damage done manifests itself in different ways for men and women. I just read an excerpt of Hollis' Middle Passages on Amazon and one example he used was with Ernest Hemingway and his mother.
I also think that mrsCAC4 wrote that "it's hard to imagine". She did not say that mothers could not be threatening to sons as much as she did not imagine how. I know it's nitpicking but I think that it is helpful to write what you are thinking. So my assumption wasn't that you disagreed that it might be hard for her to imagine but rather that mothers can inflict damage on their sons.
But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads? ~Albert Camus
Do you guys think it's wrong for a Mom to tease her son about wearing size 14 shoes? I mean I don't do it in a sexual way (yikes/yuck). I just say things like "Please remove your boats from the middle of the living room floor.".
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
Do you guys think it's wrong for a Mom to tease her son about wearing size 14 shoes? I mean I don't do it in a sexual way (yikes/yuck). I just say things like "Please remove your boats from the middle of the living room floor.".
nah.
but you know what they say...
"big shoes/big....."
(the correct answer is "feet").
-Chuck, who is only a mere 9 1/2...but proudly EEE
Quote: ------------------------------------------------------ I know it's nitpicking but I think that it is helpful to write what you are thinking. So my assumption wasn't that you disagreed that it might be hard for her to imagine but rather that mothers can inflict damage on their sons. ------------------------------------------------------
I have been known to be quite wordy when the subject demands it, but most of the time, I see little need to overstate the obvious.
All the best, -NOPkins-
I will ferret out an affair at any opportunity.
-An affair is the embodiment of entitlement, fueled by resentment and lack of respect. -An infidel will remain unreachable so long as their sense of entitlement exceeds their ability to reason.
First here is an important caveat for any of my comments or opinions: I do not believe there is necessarily one absolute answer to these issues. I think we can have slightly different opinions about how a father can tease a daughter. I believe you are cutting too close to the line with your daughter with a comment about her breasts (or lack there of) however that does not mean that I think you have done any harm, mean anything destructive or that she will develop any neuroses based on comments like those. For me, I prefer not to walk too close to those kinds of lines. I look at similar issues and I risk -benefit type analyses. What is lost if you do not make those comments versus what is gained by them? TO ME I don't see a gain but I see the POTENTIAL for loss. Notice the word potential because that is the key to me. If there is not much gain but a significant potential for loss, I usually cut those things out. Again that is how I handle my life and may not work for others.
True, but IF the child knows where the father's comments are coming from (in a harmless, non-threatening manner), then distinction can be made with the teacher/coach's comments.
That's a BIG IF. The problem is the one that MrsCAC4 and James Hollis addressed: a child does not have the tools to understand the distinction. At what age they start grasping the distinction, I cannot say. Plus isn't that part of development, you look toward your parents for what is appropriate and assume if they do it, it's okay for others?
I have spoken with my counselor about this and how fortunate I was to have my Grandpa live next door to me for 10 years. I spent a lot of time with him and with many of his friends - fishing, playing cards, etc. I also was very close to my Grandfather along with the good relationship I had with my father. No one in this group of adult men ever commented about my physical looks in any remotely sexual way. (except for one uncle and one comment at the "ripe" age of 17 or 18 which is probably why it stood out) I think this is part of the reason why I have such good relationships with men I work and that I am friends. However I also do not tolerate inappropriate remarks very well either. I think the close male relationships I have had have given me a strong sense of how men are supposed to act toward me. However on a personal relationship it is a whole other story, I welcome "inappropriate" comments, looks, touching, "groping", etc. For me these are the interactions I sometimes saw between my mom and dad and even my Grandfather and Grandmother. Again I "learned" that these were behaviors that were acceptable between committed people who were in love and respected each other. It is important to note that no one in my family treated ME that way.
But I think she is still directing her anger at her dad and denying the role her mother could have played. So CAC4 ends up paying the price for her father's actions because he is the obvious perpetrator. It is a victim-like form of rationalization, IMO.
I did not see it that way. My POV was that this was how Mrs CAC4 had coped in the past and is what she has admitted has driven her behavior with her H. I thought she has clearly recognized this and is now going back to figure out how to work through it. I did not feel that she ignored the role her mother played at all. In fact I thought she clearly stated the negative aspect of her mother in her life as distinctly as her father. IMO I think it is useful to view them separately even though they interact also.
My questions to MrsCAC4 center around this very point. If her mother had not exhibited fear toward her father’s advances, would MrsCAC4 even had known there was something to worry about?
Is this just a hypothetical question? I am not sure if we know which one came first. Did MrsCAC4's mother react fearfully to "normal" advances? Or was a fearful response appropriate to the way MrsCAC4 father approached her mother? I would guess that MrsCAC4 would be hard pressed to look that far back and know what the answer is. Plus this can become a circular argument. In my mind even if her mother reacted fearfully to normal advances, could her father have been sensitive to that issue by realizing it was not a comment about him but about her background?
Why are sexual advances like she describe automatically deemed fearful in one household but can be viewed as healthy, playful behavior in another?
I just read an article in this month's Health magazine about a similar issue. A woman had been physically molested by an adult neighbor when she was 4 or 5. She had difficulty with men through college until one boyfriend. When he tickled or touched her, he noticed how she withdrew and rather than personalize it as a rejection of him OR make it her problem, he reached out and wanted to work through it with her. This is the key to me. HE took on HER problem and made it THEIR problem. If he had seen it as his problem and a reflection of himself, he might have just left the relationship thinking something was wrong with him because of her actions. If he had seen it as her issue and continued to tickle and pressure her insisting that she "figure" it out because what he was doing was normal that probably would not work either. Not because he was doing anything "wrong" but because she would now feel that she was REALLY wrong and would have felt even worse about herself. Is this difference noticeable to anyone else?
I think the reason why people respond differently has a lot to do with their background. Some families yell and argue and everyone seems comfortable. Yet in another family yelling would signify a real problem. So the analogy is why is yelling acceptable in one family and not in another? A friend of mine has been dealing with this because her parents never yelled so when her husband yelled at her she really thought something was wrong. But for him yelling was just normal. Who's right and who's wrong? I would say neither however they need to figure out a way for BOTH of them to communicate together.
Who is at the center of these differing interpretations? Answer THIS question.
Back to the initial idea that both parents are part of the interpretation, I would say the parents first. Of course Mrs.CAC4 also has her interpretation. However it may be the other way around from the way you described. She may have felt an uncomfortable feeling from her father FIRST and then began to notice her father's advances and her mother's reactions. I have no idea I am just posing another possibility and there are probably a few more.
I also believe this is extremely difficult and painful to accept, if it is true (and I may be completely wrong on this). But it is too easy to blame the obvious perpetrator (the maximizer) and not see faults of the minimizer that helped to create those conditions.
I think blame is the key word. Blame is not particularly useful because mrsCAC4's childhood is over and done. What is more useful is understanding. I am not so sure about my exact opinion on this issue but it is something like: the perpetrator's actions come first, are the perpetrator's responsibility and are the initial cause of events. However how victim reacts is the victim's responsibility and is the next step in creating a pattern. So while I agree that the minimizer is an active contributor to the pattern, I do not agree that they created the initial conditions. Obviously the extreme version of this is the physical abuse cycle. I would hope that we can all agree that a woman does not "deserve" to be hit. So the initial hit is the perpetrators "fault." From the first hit though, it does become a pattern in which the abused woman does allow the pattern to continue. This is a fine line because I certainly do not want to appear like I am blaming the victim. I am just trying to look at the pattern that they allowed and not saying that they are to blame for being hit.
As far as the Middle Passages/Midlife crisis issues, Hollis points out that it is something with which EVERYONE has to deal. We all of shadow selves which were part of our development. Hollis points out that complexes are unavoidable because we all have a personal history and the problem is not that we have complexes but that they have us .
But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads? ~Albert Camus
Quote: -------------------------------- A great approach when everyone agrees to what's obvious. --------------------------------
Exactly.
-NOPkins-
I will ferret out an affair at any opportunity.
-An affair is the embodiment of entitlement, fueled by resentment and lack of respect. -An infidel will remain unreachable so long as their sense of entitlement exceeds their ability to reason.
What would be your suggestion on how to reply to the "winkie" comment?
You weren't replying to HIS winkie comment. You brought it up. But if a son asked about why he had a winkie and his sister didn't, I'd just explain that boys and girls are made differently and leave it at that. Why make him superior with the "jealousy" comment. That's where you went off track I think.
I want to comment to your reply, especially the latter part…
I look at similar issues and I risk -benefit type analyses. What is lost if you do not make those comments versus what is gained by them? TO ME I don't see a gain but I see the POTENTIAL for loss. Notice the word potential because that is the key to me. If there is not much gain but a significant potential for loss, I usually cut those things out.
I see your position, but to me I see a potential loss in not exposing my kids to what they might encounter in the real world, sort of a tough love approach. If a girl never experiences teasing comments from males, she will surely remember it the first time she comes up against it. If she has learned to blow it off, it probably won’t even be a memory by the next week.
Is this just a hypothetical question? I am not sure if we know which one came first. Did MrsCAC4's mother react fearfully to "normal" advances? Or was a fearful response appropriate to the way MrsCAC4 father approached her mother? I would guess that MrsCAC4 would be hard pressed to look that far back and know what the answer is. Plus this can become a circular argument. In my mind even if her mother reacted fearfully to normal advances, could her father have been sensitive to that issue by realizing it was not a comment about him but about her background?
I agree it can be circular. Nonetheless I believe there is value in working out the answer, especially if it seems to be a sore spot. IMO, if you find a topic distasteful or uncomfortable to speak about, then you have not fully processed and detached from that issue, and it WILL come back into your relationship.
This is the key to me. HE took on HER problem and made it THEIR problem.
Yep, adult attachment theory approach.
If he had seen it as his problem and a reflection of himself, he might have just left the relationship thinking something was wrong with him because of her actions. If he had seen it as her issue and continued to tickle and pressure her insisting that she "figure" it out because what he was doing was normal that probably would not work either. Not because he was doing anything "wrong" but because she would now feel that she was REALLY wrong and would have felt even worse about herself. Is this difference noticeable to anyone else?
This does sound ideal, but the reality is that most couples are not as healthy and differentiated as that guy. Since he was a past boyfriend and not her current H, either she dumped him or more likely he dumped her because she was too dysfunctional for him. Rarely do you end up married to someone so functional to help you through these things. You marry your own level of dysfunction.
[/b]So the analogy is why is yelling acceptable in one family and not in another? A friend of mine has been dealing with this because her parents never yelled so when her husband yelled at her she really thought something was wrong. But for him yelling was just normal. Who's right and who's wrong? I would say neither however they need to figure out a way for BOTH of them to communicate together.[/b]
My cousins grew up in a very quiet, docile family. No one argued, or even raised their voice. Nice and peaceful, quiet, civil. Also emotionally dead. Confrontation in the real world scares the bejesus out of my cousins. In my family, I regret the fights my kids have had to live through, but I do not regret all of them. This is just me, but I think some exposure to arguments is not all bad.
I think blame is the key word. Blame is not particularly useful because mrsCAC4's childhood is over and done. What is more useful is understanding. I am not so sure about my exact opinion on this issue but it is something like: the perpetrator's actions come first, are the perpetrator's responsibility and are the initial cause of events.
True, but just to argue theoretically, in MrsCAC4’s case, who was the perpetrator? Was it her dad or her mom? (likely both)
However how victim reacts is the victim's responsibility and is the next step in creating a pattern. So while I agree that the minimizer is an active contributor to the pattern, I do not agree that they created the initial conditions.
Actually my understanding of this dynamic is just the opposite. The maximizer is the one who blows up and is the “obvious” cause of stress in a relationship. S/he is usually the first to be targeted by a counselor as needing to reform behavior. The minimizer appears to be that hapless victim, the more subdued one. But the minimizer can actually bring more harm to the relationship. At least the maximizer lays it all out on the table and you know where s/he stands. The minimizer is more repressed, more cautious in letting out to much of him/herself, more calculating in his/her actions. S/he can sit back and evaluate the maximizer very carefully to find weak points and vulnerabilities.
The minimizer is usually very reluctant to let anyone into his/her shell. The maximizer will usually open him/herself more readily, be more able to take criticism (even though s/he might get mad) and can usually forgive and forget quickly and therefore move forward after a fight. The minimizer has a hard time doing this. S/he internalizes too much and holds on to too much resentment. The minimizer can be every bit as guilty of creating the initial conditions as the maximizer, if not more so. Remember, what most of us want is a sense of connection. Even a bad connection can be considered better than no connection at all.
"I look at similar issues and I use risk-benefit type analysis. What is lost if you do not make those comments versus what is gained by them? TO ME I don't see a gain but I see the POTENTIAL for loss. Notice the word potential because that is the key to me. If there is not much gain but a significant potential for loss, I usually cut those things out." Fearless
"I see your position, but to me I see a potential loss in not exposing my kids to what they might encounter in the real world, sort of a tough love approach. If a girl never experiences teasing comments from males, she will surely remember it the first time she comes up against it. If she has learned to blow it off, it probably won't even be a memory by the next week." Cobra
To be clear I was talking about the borderline teasing about sexuality with children/teenagers as with your tease about your daughter's breasts or lack thereof. So your response does not make sense to me. IF the comments you make are not a problem as you argued earlier, then there is nothing she needs to learn to blow off because those comments are acceptable from you. IF they are not acceptable from you and something she needs to learn to blow off, how does hearing you, her father and protector, say them toughen her up in a healthy way?
But the core issue that you bring up is thought provoking. I have thought about this a lot looking back on my childhood, my xHs and other friends. I still do not feel like I know the best answer yet and probably there is no one right answer because children are so different. There is something to be said about raising your children to feel good about themselves and to have good self-esteem however I agree that they do have to deal with the "real" world. The question is how to do that. I still lean toward the idea of NOT necessarily "toughening up" your child by teasing them the way children at school might but by giving them a firm realistic foundation of the knowledge that they are a good person and deserve to be treated well. At the same time I do not believe in "coddling" or trying to artificially smooth over a child's life. (Two weeks ago a friend and I were talking about a mutual friend who grew up in a family of artificial perfection. The children in that family all struggled as they became adults) There are plenty of opportunities in children's lives to toughen them up. Usually it involves how other kids treat them or how they treat others. That is also why I like sports because I think it is another opportunity to deal with loss and hardship and to learn about hard work and discipline.
Thanks for bringing this up because it is worthwhile to consider how to best raise a strong healthy well adjusted child to adulthood.
Quote:
Since he was a past boyfriend and not her current H, either she dumped him or more likely he dumped her because she was too dysfunctional for him. Rarely do you end up married to someone so functional to help you through these things. You marry your own level of dysfunction.
This is a great example of a communication issue that YOU have. You filled in the blanks of a story to fit your expectations. Why did you ASSUME that the woman was no longer with the boyfriend and that she was now married to someone else? I never said the woman was married and did not state she was no longer with her BF. This is a good example of why it may seem to you that some responses to you are irritable. You do not always read EXACTLY what people write and then you add in your own meaning to fit preconceived ideas. It can be frustrating to the writer (in this case me) so we feel we have to write MORE and write more clearly and STRONGLY to explain what the ACTUAL events and feelings were. You assumed a story line to fit the theory of marrying your own dysfunction. I understand that that may be a typical pattern but I also know of enough opposite stories to know that it is not ALWAYS that way.
In reality, the woman had worked through her issues with the "patient" boyfriend and is with an "incredible" boyfriend 6 years later (from the article I cannot tell for sure if it is the exact same boyfriend. Pick up the Health magazine, check the article on Page 165 and let me know what you think). I think you are right that when you do not recognize your dysfunction you are definitely vulnerable to the whole being with someone at your same dysfunction level. I think the key is that you have to recognize and be willing to work through your dysfunction which this woman was.
I cannot respond the the minimizer/maximizer comments yet because I am not familiar with those terms. At first I "guessed" that maximizer was the same as perpetrator but I do not think that is accurate. But is the reverse accurate - is the maximizer the victim? I don't think that's true either. I'll have read up on it later when I have time.
But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads? ~Albert Camus
