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.
