Hugo Schwyzer looks at the role men play in the dynamic between daughters-in-law and mothers-in-law.
My last column, You’re Not Your Daughter’s Handsome Prince focused on father-daughter relationships, warning my fellow dads against seeking emotional validation from their girls. Several commenters both here and on my Facebook and Twitter feeds suggested that I ought to look at another classic emotionally incestuous dynamic, that of mothers and sons.
I wrote that piece as a father of a daughter, writing to other dads. I’m not a mother, so I won’t venture on to exceedingly well-trodden ground and proffer advice to moms about their sons. But I am the son of a mother to whom I have always been close. And I can say that one of the most challenging tasks I’ve had as a man has been learning to set good, healthy, adult boundaries with my mother. Judging from what I see in my friends’ lives, I’m not the only one.
Epic battles between wives and their mothers-in-law are constant themes in literature from around the world. From Chaucer’s The Lawyer’s Tale to Tennessee Williams’ Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, we see venomous power struggles between moms and the women their sons married.
It’s not just the stuff of fiction: psychologist Terri Apter found that two-thirds of married British women complained of “long-term unhappiness and stress because of friction” with their mothers-in-law. In her 2009 bestseller, What Do You Want From Me? Apter noted that “this impasse divides women who should have so much in common, and who could benefit from each other’s friendship. It causes both sides terrible unhappiness and distress.”
In literature—and all too often in real life—the husband/son is strangely absent from the domestic battlefield. In the celebrated Williams play, the character of Brick famously hides in the bathroom while his mother and wife fight over how best to care for him. More than a few straight men I know do essentially the same thing, ducking out whenever it seems like the two women who presumably know him best head towards conflict. It’s something I did in my first two marriages. And as I saw in my own life and see over and over again in the lives of my friends, the emotional cowardice of the husband/son is at the very heart of the fights between the women who love him most.
♦◊♦
Terri Apter’s book locates the source of the conflict between mothers and daughters-in-law in a struggle for alpha female supremacy. She comes close to suggesting it’s virtually innate, which is why the press coverage of her book tended to feature headlines like Why wives are programmed to fight their mothers-in-law. This claim that women are hardwired to battle over him lets the son/husband off the hook. How can the fact that his wife and mother are fighting be his fault if this is simply the way women are? Best to hide in the bathroom until the storm’s over because there’s nothing you can do to stop the trouble. That’s what far too many men believe.
One source of the problem is the refusal of so many guys to grow up, a problem in which mothers are certainly complicit but which adult men are solely responsible to change. This is another manifestation of the myth of male weakness, in this case the myth that every adult male is simply an over-grown boy who is essentially helpless without the devotion of a woman. As countless wives will surely attest, among the most common fights they have with their mothers-in-law are the struggles to see which of these two women can better care for a man who is apparently incapable of taking care of himself. (Let’s be clear, too, that there are many moms who are good friends with their sons’ wives and girlfriends. That’s usually a testament to the maturity of all involved.)
It is not the fault of little boys if they are raised to be domestically and emotionally incompetent. It is not a 10-year-old boy’s job to demand that he be taught to cook and clean as well as his sister. It’s not his job to demand that he be allowed to express his own feelings thoughtfully and articulately, or to be instructed how best to nurse himself back to health when he’s sick. Boys are not to blame if they grow up hearing the scornful refrain that “men are all just big babies who need women to take care of them.”
But when boys become adult males, they are responsible if they expect their girlfriends and wives to assume the same role that their mothers once played. (Of course, it’s young women’s job to question their own socialization; they do well to break as early as possible any connection between their own self-worth and their ability to nurture a lover. There’s nothing wrong with the desire to care for someone who can’t care for himself, but that’s why we make babies and adopt puppies. Healthy men and women don’t go to bed with the same people whom they parent.) If a guy’s wife or girlfriend is fighting with his mom over how best to care for him, the real cause of the conflict isn’t estrogen. The problem is that he isn’t making it sufficiently clear that he is an adult who doesn’t actually need the care they’re so frantically proffering.
When I was first married, I was still in my early 20s. One day, I came down with a really ghastly flu and was bedridden. My mother called, and when she heard the symptoms, she asked to speak to my wife. Mom then gave Alyssa a shopping list and a careful explanation of what soups to make that might help me heal. My first wife was upset, but too polite to challenge my mom and too young and uncertain of her own role to demand that I set a boundary with my mother. I remember thinking at the time that it made perfect sense to have the woman who knew me best teach the woman who was trying to take over that #1 spot how to give me what I needed. I was thinking like a child. I was thinking like someone still in thrall to the myth of male weakness.
What I should have done—and in time, would learn to do—was set a basic boundary with my mother. When we pledge in marriage vows to “forsake all others,” it’s not just a pledge not to cheat. It’s a pledge to prioritize our spouses over our birth families. It means saying to my mother (as I finally did a few marriages later) that if I’m sick and need help, my wife and I together make the final call on how best to care for me. A married man who is a genuine adult makes it clear to his mother that he still loves her (presumably), but that his wife now comes first. If mom has an issue with that, she needs to take it up with him, not her daughter-in-law.
Lest it seems like I’m only holding men responsible, it’s worth noting that there’s a partial parallel in the relationships between fathers of daughters and their sons-in-law. Some dads do criticize and compete with the guys their daughters date or marry. Sometimes, this is rooted in a refusal to see the daughter as an adult who doesn’t need a man to protect her any longer. And yes, it’s the daughter’s job to make it clear to her dad that their relationship has changed and he is, in fact, no longer most important man in her life.
♦◊♦
I love my mother very much and honor all she did for my brother and for me. I delight to see her as a doting grandmother to Heloise. But my mama knows that my wife and daughter come first now—and she knows that I have lovingly released her from the job of ensuring my well-being. That act of releasing was my responsibility alone. And when I finally learned how to do it, I liberated both my wife and my mom to become the good friends they are today. It wasn’t easy. Growing up rarely is.
The rivalry between mothers and their daughters-in-law is an ancient one. But the fact that this particular conflict is so old doesn’t mean it’s encoded into women’s DNA. Rather, the root of the conflict is our collective belief that sons and husbands are perpetual little boys, in need of care, feeding, and careful female management. It is the task of adult men to prove that myth to be a lie, both by demonstrating self-sufficiency and by demonstrating the capacity to set good boundaries with their mothers. When grown-up guys do that, they destroy the root cause of the quarrel between the women who raised them and the women they wed. That’s our job, and ours alone.
–
photo: ivko999 / flickr
About Hugo Schwyzer
Do mothers/women ever get to take responsibility for this or do the men, again, have to bear all of the burden?
I think you’re looking in the wrong place if you ever want to hear a message other than “Men aren’t doing enough.”
Try some of the other articles, by other authors.
” Some dads do criticize and compete with the guys their daughters date or marry. Sometimes, this is rooted in a refusal to see the daughter as an adult who doesn’t need a man to protect her any longer. And yes, it’s the daughter’s job to make it clear to her dad that their relationship has changed and he is, in fact, no longer most important man in her life.”
Did you forget that part, or just convenientely ignore it? Or perhaps you like to comment on articles you don’t actually read thoroughly?
Hugo is making the point that it is the grown child’s responsibility to put their relationships with their parent in place. It just so happens that this particular article is focused on mother/son/daughter-in-law relationships, in which the responsiblity falls on the son. The same responsibility falls on the daughter in a father/daughter/son-in-law relationship dynamic.
LOL! Did you actually read what you quoted?
He writes: if there is a mother-in-law/daughter-in-law problem, it’s the man’s fault (the husband/son). If there’s a father-in-law/son-in-law problem, it’s still a man’s fault (the father/father-in-law). “this is rooted in the refusal (by the father) to see his daughter as an adult. . .”
Bottom line, no matter what the problem is (literally, no matter what), from this blogger’s view, it is 100% of the time a man or boys fault. 100%.
Here are more feminist misandristic gems.
“One source of the problem is the refusal of so many guys to grow up . . .”
“As countless wives will surely attest, among the most common fights they have with their mothers-in-law are the struggles to see which of these two women can better care for a man who is apparently incapable of taking care of himself.”
“It is not the fault of little boys if they are raised to be domestically and emotionally incompetent. “
“Boys are not to blame if they grow up hearing the scornful refrain that “men are all just big babies who need women to take care of them.”
“If a guy’s wife or girlfriend is fighting with his mom over how best to care for him, the real cause of the conflict isn’t estrogen. The problem is that he isn’t making it sufficiently clear that he is an adult who doesn’t actually need the care they’re so frantically proffering.”
Is there no end to thie hate? UN-believable.
“He writes: if there is a mother-in-law/daughter-in-law problem, it’s the man’s fault (the husband/son). If there’s a father-in-law/son-in-law problem, it’s still a man’s fault (the father/father-in-law). “this is rooted in the refusal (by the father) to see his daughter as an adult. . .””
He also makes it clear that the problem in this situation is the mother not seeing her son as an adult. He’s saying that when you’re in a relationship, you have to make it clear to your parents that your spouse comes first and that you don’t need them to take care of you. So, the daughter has to tell her father that her husband comes first, and the son has to tell his mother that his wife comes first.
“He also makes it clear that the problem in this situation is the mother not seeing her son as an adult.”
Where does he make that “clear?”
There is only an allusion to that and, predictably, it is presented as the fault of the son (male), not the mother (female).
In the reverse, it is presented as the fault of father (male), not the adult daughter (female).
One thing I will say is that these arguments are rock solid consistent in their bias and discrimination.
I do believe he put that to bed in the third to last paragraph when he drew the paralell with daughters and fathers. This isn’t a gender issue, this is a family relations issue. It IS the responsibility of the blood-related partner to set boundaries with the (possibly) line-crossing parent.
My former fiancee sat sheepishly by while his mother steamrolled me on a regular basis…I suppose that’s why she was amenable to our age difference…in her mind I was too young to talk back. Maybe if he stood up for me I would have actually married him.
Flash forward several years to another relationship where he did set boundaries, she and I had an enviable relationship.
If my father would have ever crossed a line orbeen anything less that the gentleman he was, it would have be up to me to discuss it with him. There are usually too many socio-cultural rules and boundaries in partner/parent relationships to risk it. A VERY wise lady told my mom (a MIL) once: “No matter how close you are, no mater how much you love each other, no matter how many years she lives with your son, she is not your daughter. Love the the same, but know, you cannot speak to her the same way you would speak to your blood daughter…she will not take it the same way.” I have MANY sisters and brothers-in-law, it’s alarmingly true.
What he did in the last paragraph, is what he did throughout, blame men for any and all problems. He lays 0% responsiblity on the two women. 0%.
He says, in conclusion, regarding who is the cause of problems between wives and mothers-in-law, or husbands and fathers-in-law: always the man, always.
3rd to last…I believe I said 3rd to last.
I think men who have never been able to express their anger at their mother sometimes marry a woman as opposite her as could be found. The wife expresses the anger, and she is seen as the bitch. The husband sympathizes with his poor insulted mommy but has the satisfaction of the anger being expressed without taking responsibility for it. At least that has been my experience twice. There is no point in divorce; you just dance the same dance with a less experienced partner.
It is not a 10-year-old boy’s job to demand that he be taught to cook and clean as well as his sister And if a 10-year-old boy can’t read, should he demand to be taught to? And if by 10 he had never been tought how to walk or talk – shall he demand some walking and talking lessons?
I wonder, why you think cooking and cleaning and sewing and boot-polishing are any different?
How would he demand talking lessons if he can’t talk? You don’t know what you don’t know, you don’t necessarily know the importance of what you don’t know. How would a 10 year old know what life skills he’ll need as an adult? They’re not usually looking that far ahead…
He can at least mime, I hope.
How would a 10 year old know what life skills he’ll need as an adult?
That is the very thing I don’t like in the post. If a person is growing up in a normal family, by 10 any bboy already knows how to be self-sufficient, and that includes not only cooking and tidying up the place, but lots of other things as well.
Wrong, as usual. Not everything is the man’s fault. Get it? This recurring theme is not only boring, it doesn’t solve any problems. My wife and I didn’t have to screw this up multiple times, only to think and hope we’ve got it figured out. My wife and mother have a good relationship and always have.
But, the main credit does not and should not go to me or any other husband. Everybody needs to be a grown-up, NOT just the man. In fact, the key person is NOT the husband; it’s his mother.
The mother-in-law is the key. Why? She has at least 20 years more life experience than her adult child and his wife. She’s the senior member of the team and should know better than either of the other two (since she probably has her own mother in law) that she needs to butt the he** out of their marriage, unless asked by both parties.
He shouldn’t need to tell her this but should and must (in a loving, respectful, but firm way) let her know that his wife is now his #1, and she must respect that.
At the same time, the wife should recognize that her mother in law (as is usually true) raised the man she loves and respects, so she must know something about life and something about him. Further, as the mother she deserves to be respected. So, she can benefit from her experience, just as she still can from her own mother’s life- experience. If the mother in law stays in her place and the daughter respects her, things can work out – not perfectly of course, but good enough for government work.
You’re right that we deserve no credit. You can’t choose your mother(s), and you can’t force them to treat you like an adult – either they’ll have the wisdom to, or they won’t. You do have a say in who you marry (usually), however, but that’s a pretty minimal credit. How your wife and your mother choose to relate to each other is not something you can control (and they’re both adults, it’s not something you should try to control.) I’m hesitant to give any credit, because women who treat their partners like children are (in my experience) usually elsewise abusive, and so it feels victim-blamey. (At least, I’ve had two partners who treated me like a child, who were also physically abusive, emotionally abusive, whatnot. So it feels connected to me.)
“He shouldn’t need to tell her this but should and must (in a loving, respectful, but firm way) let her know that his wife is now his #1, and she must respect that.
At the same time, the wife should recognize that her mother in law (as is usually true) raised the man she loves and respects, so she must know something about life and something about him. Further, as the mother she deserves to be respected. So, she can benefit from her experience, just as she still can from her own mother’s life- experience. If the mother in law stays in her place and the daughter respects her, things can work out – not perfectly of course, but good enough for government work.”
I suspect that Hugo would agree with this.
Doubtful. If that were the case, that would have been the message presented.
This subject could have been treated with reason and balance, articulating that husbands do have a responsibility to, if need be, create and enforce groundrules to ensure that his mother knows that his wife is without question his closest relative and life partner, and that his wife knows that his mother should be treated with respect – while leaving out the broadside attacks on men and boys.
I think you’re reacting too fast to what you think Hugo S. will say. The advice experts give on in-laws is for their child to deal with them. Of course it would be nice if parents never caused problems, but they often do. Then the husband needs to stand up to his parents and the wife to hers.
Can we get an installment of this series that speaks to the unhealthy emotional expectations between the family man and the family pet? It would go a long way towards closing the emotional circle.
I’ve been married twice and had no problems with either mother-in-law. But my first husband did have problems with *my* parents. I know that popular culture portrays the most issues between daughter-in-laws and mother-in-laws and this may be statistically where most of the problems happen, I don’t know. But I think that if you have a problems between either the son-in-law or daughter-in-aw with either the mother-in-law or father-in-law, it often comes down to allegiances. I see both men and women who are unable to put their spouse first, and continue to play the child’s role of siding with his/her parents, perpetuating the cycle. It’s not that I think the spouse is always right, but I do know, from my own first marriage, that my inability to stand up to my parents and draw appropriate boundaries that let me function fully as a newly married adult did harm to my husband and marriage. I rarely look back and say this about my first husband, but he was right! I let him be the bad guy and I continued letting my parents push me around long after we were married. So, not sure what the role of gender is in these things, but my advice to newlyweds (and I am one again!) is make it clear to everyone that your spouse comes first.
Amen, Lori.
Drama between husbands & Fathers in law & wives and Mothers in law are so well known that they are almost a cliche.
Bottom line: Many married people – male & female do not set appropriate boundaries for family members (& sometimes friends) when it comes to their marriage.
The two participants in a marriage are supposed to protect & care for that marriage.
Are women truely that lacking in vision that the son/husband has to enforce the peace/boundaries between his mother and his wife/partner? Would not any one of the three adults in this emotional dance be able to end the issue…..by maintaining and sticking to clearly defined boundaries?
The point is that when the boundaries aren’t “clearly defined” it’s the job of the blood relative to set them. A man sets them with his mother, making it clear his wife comes first, and a woman sets them with her father, making it clear her husband comes first. The boundary has to be defined before it can be respected.
Agreed, but I’d say that sons *and* daughters set the boundaries with mothers *and* fathers. It does not have to fall along mother/son and father/daughter lines. The adult child draws clear boundaries that the spouse comes first.
“headlines like Why wives are programmed to fight their mothers-in-law. This claim that women are hardwired to battle over him lets the son/husband off the hook. How can the fact that his wife and mother are fighting be his fault if this is simply the way women are?”
…and what if the women involved have read the book – or some article on it – and they have decided the premise is valid? Not only men have the capacity to read! A shocking revelation in the 21st century!
“Rather, the root of the conflict is “our” collective belief …” “…That’s “our” job, and “ours” alone. ”
“Our collective” sounds more like a line from Star Trek with Jean Luc or good old K Janeway fighting The Borg. I am not “1 of Our”. Resistance is not futile and I hate being assimilated. Some may wish to be “ass-” but the “-imil” and the “-ate” are mine, and I control them.
So! That Is “Our” Minus One! Thank You!
Since “Our” implies a group that is complete – it should not be used. That leaves “My” as the only alternative as a pronoun. The most effective device to avoid this is the use of the definite article “The”. This allows people to look at the idea posited and asses it’s validity – rather than having to simply decide if they are part of a group created by the author.
“Our” collective belief – “My” collective belief – and “The” collective belief are all very different things.
“Our” means people have to asses membership. “My” means other people just leave you to it. “The” means the idea of the collective belief is where the fulcrum of debate lies. Implying that the author and all readers are of the same mind is even recognized as an error that invites ad hominum, as in “You Are Wrong” rather than “The Idea Is Wrong”.
Aint it odd how the use of pronouns and articles combined with mother-in-laws and daughter-in-laws can be like that. Our – Your – My – Mine – they all express directions and internal constructs that need to be checked carefully against the rest of the world.
Yours Faithfully
“Our-1″
Resistance Is Not Futile!
Amazing.
Women fight about men and it’s somehow men’s responsability.
Tell me Dr. S.: in your engendered view of the world do women EVER have agency? I wonder. Because almost every article I`ve seen by you somehow comes back to laying the root of all meaning in human relationships squarely at men`s feet.
Did you miss the bit about when men fight about women it’s the women’s responsibility to set the boundary?
Also, the whole point of his articles is ways in which men can carry on better relationships and take responsibility… It kind of makes sense that he would discuss and focus on the problems with how men behave. If his articles were about the ways in which women could carry on better relationships and take responsibility they would probably focus more on the problems with female behavior. There’s a difference between having some form of bias and staying on your topic.
Too all the Male Rights Activists in this thread:
Hugo’s calling out of men for some of the things in which they have a stake, and a responsibility, does not equal “always blaming the men.”
Hugo is a man himself. He’s had a broad range of experiences. He is mature, and thoughtful, and explores these issues in good faith. The fact is, there are a lot of things that men, collectively and individually, can do to improve their lives, and, through that, the lives of their partners, families, and friends. That’s all Hugo is about. Just because he accepts the label of feminist or feminist-ally doesn’t mean he’s a female supremacist. Indeed, neither are feminists.
Your whiny, entitled responses serve only to spotlight your own insecurities. You need these articles more than anyone.
Peace.
I don’t know if there are any MRA activists that have commented here. I certainly am not one, and can only comment for myself. I strongly oppose all forms of discrimination prejudice – and will call it out if and when I read or see it.
I don’t personally criticize this blogger as I don’t know him; however, the postings inexplicably but consistently reflect bad will toward men and boys. Is it just to get page views, I don’t know. Regardless, if someone consistently wrote misogynistic content, I would call that out as well.
I believe that it is wrong to let discrimination and prejudice go unchallenged. That is what I have done here.
Eric – What you have said reminds me of a question asked in a philosophy lecture.
“What happens when you confuse the general with the specific and at the same time confuse the specific with the general?”.
The students looked confused and one said “You get chaos?”.
The tutor smiled and agreed – and then pointed out that this often led to people attempting to make both the general and specific fit what they knew. The students cottoned on quick and said “Oh you men discrimination.”.
It’s always worth remembering that discrimination comes from a mix up of two different things and attempting to make them into one.
MediaHound, I don’t know what point you are trying to make here.
However, when I used the term discrimination regarding these postings, I was using what I thought was the obvious definition. Perhaps not. But, in case it was not clear how I meant to use the term:
Discrimination:
“Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice”
“treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.”
Eric – I agree with the definitions you use. It takes a clear and uncluttered mind to see discrimination clearly – and it seems you have such a mind.
But the definitions don’t describe the mechanisms at play. Confusing general with Specific and vice verse mixes up the person and the distinction – and denies merit.
Examples :
All disabled people need care – this disabled person needs care so all disabled people need it.
All men are rapists – a rape was committed by a man so all men are rapists.
All people of African decent have an innate sense of rhythm and music – performer x is of African decent, so all people of African decent can sing and dance like them.
Some see such examples as Cliche, but it’s frighting just how often they are still around in everyday life.
So many believe they know their own minds. It is also said that nature abhors a vacuum. When people discover a gap in their own thinking and knowledge, they plug it quick with what ever is to hand.
That “SO” is so dangerous and the cusp of the confusion between general and specific, which ever way they get mixed up. QED – quod erat demonstrandum – is often used by people when they claim that a discrimination is valid. They believe it means “So It Is Proved”. The actual translation is “which was to be demonstrated”. It’s about dragging things from the past and using them in the present as proof.
When people are attempting to prove that Discrimination is valid, they all too often rely upon things they have learned in the past and just demonstrate past learning and not present consideration and merit. Einstein said, “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.” and the same can all too frequently be said of knowledge.
I like the definition from the Devil’s Dictionary
DISCRIMINATE, v.i. To note the particulars in which one person or thing is, if possible, more objectionable than another.
It’s quite comically honest about just looking for something that is just More Objectionable and not objective. It indiactes that discrimination is linked to internal negative forces and seeking to negate them by externalization, which some paraphrase as self loathing.
Prejudice is an interesting word – it breaks down to “Pre Judgment”. When anyone uses Pre Judgment it again points to past experience and learning, rather than looking at the present facts. As the Devil’s Dictionary says of that:
PREJUDICE, n. A vagrant opinion without visible means of support.
Discrimination and Prejudice are historical bed fellows, and breed in objectionable ways – and they are both Vagrants in the mind of the person who displays them – they need no form of support. The offspring are left to play in the mind, and the Vagrants are not noted for parental care. P^)
You use your definitions, as they seem to be working well for you. Keep up the good work – it’s a bugger, but someone has to do it! P^)
Cheers.
On my wedding day, several people (her close friends) congratulated my mother in law on finally getting the daughter that she had always wanted. later on the same day, she pulled me aside, and said “I want you to know that I am not your mother. I have had my children, and I am their mother. I will not be a mother to anyone else.”
While I have a mother and didn’t expect her to be my mother, she still came off harsh, like she was laying down the gauntlet.
Lila – I have seen the opposite arise. One friend had lost her mother at age 16 to cancer. On The Big Day Very particular mention was made of the dearly departed – and framed photo of the bride’s mother was very prominently displayed.
At the wedding the newly acquired Mother-in-law started to tell everyone that she was so happy to replace the brides dead mother and she was now very definitely in that role. The Bride had had little to do with her Mother-in-law up to that point. The bride heard of this and was furious. The groom had to have words with his mother. It really damaged the day, and in the end the mother-in-law was asked to leave the wedding due to her conduct. The brides family were very upset at the disrespect shown to the deceased mother.
It wasn’t about possession of the son – it was possession period.
Some talk of possession being nine tenths of the law – but that is only applicable to objects. Possession of a person is seen as slavery, even in the possession is seen as emotionally based.
It’s not about gender – it’s about boundaries, respect and even social propriety.
I guess I grew up in another universe. No one I know holds any collective belief that Men are perpetual little boys in need of female management.
If we ALL believe men are little boys in need of “perpetual female management” we cannot live in a patriarchy. Those who are “managed” cannot dominate the “managers.”
Very good point.
Gotta love it when authors express mutually exclusive ideas.
My (now deceased) mom-in-law was very possessive of her son ( who couldn’t have cared less, which was a big fat warning sign which I didn’t heed). She and I couldn’t have been more different, but oddly enough over the years, we overcame our mutual suspicion to arrive at respect and love for each other…enough so that when I divorced him, she stated that I could get rid of him, but she would always be there for me (and…she was).
Thanks, Betty! I miss you and your grandchildren miss you.
I don’t know about the whole discussion about treating men like babies and them acting like babies. Yes, there are some men that act that way and that may play a part in a broken down in-law relationship. But where you are incredibly accurate with your article is that what this boils down to for BOTH spouses in the marriage is that they must separate from their parents and set-up boundaries with them for the protection of their marriage. Not all in-laws are intrusive, boundary-stompers but some are and some are created when their adult children allow them to much access, control and authority in their adult life. There has to be separation and it may be hard and painful, but if you want a healthy marriage and the potential for loving, good relationship between your spouse and parents, then it is the duty of each spouse to set those boundaries and maintain them.
there is real wisdom here, in this article.
thank you.
wish i would have read this when i was in my twenties, and married.
self care is EVERYTHING. one is born male, one has to learn how to be a man….this piece helps.
In many traditional Asian cultures, when a woman gets married, her new boss, or the person she is most expected to please, is not her husband but her husband’s mother. It’s common for the mother-in-law to be a judgmental task-master overseeing the new wife, nothing the wife does is good enough, and then the mother-in-law usually mellows out over time once the kids arrive. Then, when the wife has sons and they get married, she becomes a boss and perpetuates the cycle into the next generation. It’s a lot like a the hazing cycle in fraternities and military academies — you put up with abuse partly because someday you’ll get the privilege of mistreating someone else.
narcissists
narcissistic supply
and their sources of supply
Funnily enough, I’d adored my mother-in-law until we had a child. As soon as a grandchild appeared on the stage, she’s become an emotional wreck. Any attempt at telling her to respect our parenting choices makes her burst out in tears or storm off in a huff. And she often pretends to mistakenly call our son by her son’s name. So I’ve never had a problem with her lording over my husband. Just our child. Any theories here?