How Strange: Mothers And Their Daughters; Mothers And Their Sons

[USU78]

The issue is social rather than strictly religious, and it's not one that's solely Mormon or Christian or even American.

The Genesis verse says that "a man [shall] leave his mother and father and cleave unto his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh." Some have postulated that the writers/compilers/adapters of the material that went into Genesis as we have it lived at a time when men, upon marriage, became part of the household of their fathers in law. Dowries and bride prices and bride gifts presupposed, according to this way of thinking, that the groom would bring a res of considerable value to the household in order to assure that neither he, his new wife, nor any children resulting from the marriage would become a burden to the inlaws' estate.

I've observed what I believe to be a pernicious phenomenon amongst Mormon women (and, again, not just them). And, frankly, I'm ashamed of the behavior. The first generation of Mormon women had to deal with letting go of things and people in very real and very profound ways. I believe that dealing made them stronger and better and more meet for Zion. They had to give up ownership of all of their stuff, though they retained a managerial interest over it; they had to give up ownership of exclusive rights to their husbands, though they kept a kind of interest in them. Having to wrest themselves away from such earthly concerns broke the hearts of many, but those who persevered were ennobled. Refined. Zionlike.

I have a very good friend who was driven from the Church by the following social phenomenon: he married a girl from La Jolla via yBu. Her father was quite wealthy but detached from family matters. Coming from a family of divorce when it was fairly rare, this did not concern him. What he discovered upon marriage, however, was that the mother/daughter relationship was not only a broken and unequal one, but corrosive. The mother-in-law bullied everybody in pants into submission on all issues, idealized her daughter, and spoiled the grandchildren terribly. She was also insistent that every holiday be spent with her, that my friend's mother and father not have any grandchildren time, and that her daughter have no relationship with her inlaws . . . and bristled at any notion of her son-in-law having any ties with his relatives. He tried to ignore her, but his wife's incessant howling over the issue caused terrible strains on the marriage. They divorced. They remarried. They re-divorced. All the time, this mother in Zion and her married looked down her nose at the terrible now former inlaws who were only "Utah Mormons."

When Church leaders praise Mormon women and accuse Mormon men (admittedly accurately) of abuse and poor husbanding and fathering, I am puzzled by the unequal treatment. The selfishness and fearfulness and territoriality of the woman/en I described above is not unique to them. I observed that each of my brothers' wives' mothers did the same thing to one degree or another . . . and I observed my mother engaged in much the same behavior with regard to my sister and her husband. I observe it presently with two of my stepsons and one of my daughters, though in the latter case it's the apronstringy son-in-law who facilitates the selfishness and fearfulness and territoriality.

Why must this be so? Why do women in the Church, who should know better, leave their sisters in the gospel alone on Mother's Day and Christmas and Thanksgiving because they have to have their daughters by them every single year? Can they not learn to share as their great-great- and great-great-great grandmothers did?

Help me understand this, if you can.

[thesometimesaint]

I guess I was fortunate my Father-in-Law and Mother-in-Law, while they had their problems, and every couple does, stayed out of our marriage. They supported us when times were bad, and rejoiced with us when times were good. I couldn't ask for a better set of parents, even if it were by marriage. Both have now past on, but it was a pleasure and a blessing to have them in my life. I look forwards to being with them in the next.

[USU78]

I guess I was fortunate my Father-in-Law and Mother-in-Law, while they had their problems, and every couple does, stayed out of our marriage. They supported us when times were bad, and rejoiced with us when times were good. I couldn't ask for a better set of parents, even if it were by marriage. Both have now past on, but it was a pleasure and a blessing to have them in my life. I look forwards to being with them in the next.

So . . . she didn't mind only getting called every other Mother's Day?

[thesometimesaint]

So . . . she didn't mind only getting called every other Mother's Day?

We always called/wrote them both every Mother's Day. When we moved back here we brought both flowers.

[rpn]

The scriptural injunction is to leave parents and cleave unto spouse. That is easiest to do when the people getting married have learned to work, have experience with problem solving and failure and fixing, and are themselves whole emotionally (or at least as whole and emotionally healthy as a typical person. It is almost impossible when the parents of this couple disapprove of something about the marriage, and/or are not personally healthy.

My recommendation in those circumstances is that parents attempt to become friends with the IL's on a personal level (maybe by inviting them to family activities you want your kids to attend). Emotionally needy (which is what most controlling people are) often respond to genuine caring.

Another suggestion is to teach our kids how to have independence of thought, by letting them learn to make their own decisions and helping them understand how important it is for someone to discuss with their prospective spouse, how sharing works in their families of origin. And how it will work in the new family.

But I suspect it was just as hard in the old days for children who were coddled to leave the good things and show faith in the their new spouse who had not a whole lot.

[USU78]

The scriptural injunction is to leave parents and cleave unto spouse. That is easiest to do when the people getting married have learned to work, have experience with problem solving and failure and fixing, and are themselves whole emotionally (or at least as whole and emotionally healthy as a typical person. It is almost impossible when the parents of this couple disapprove of something about the marriage, and/or are not personally healthy.

My recommendation in those circumstances is that parents attempt to become friends with the IL's on a personal level (maybe by inviting them to family activities you want your kids to attend). Emotionally needy (which is what most controlling people are) often respond to genuine caring.

Another suggestion is to teach our kids how to have independence of thought, by letting them learn to make their own decisions and helping them understand how important it is for someone to discuss with their prospective spouse, how sharing works in their families of origin. And how it will work in the new family.

But I suspect it was just as hard in the old days for children who were coddled to leave the good things and show faith in the their new spouse who had not a whole lot.

Good advice . . . wouldn't work with confirmed narcissists, but normal, broken people might just respond.

[LoudmouthMormon]

My non-lds sister is obsessed with geneology, and she has made an observation. From her research, families stay together as a close unit, until the matriarch dies. If no new matriarch arises to take her place, the family unit disolves and other units rise into prominence. Very few in our tree are LDS.

This has certainly been true in my life. Paternal grandfather divorced and left - her adult kids revolved around her. She died, and everyone dispersed. Maternal grandparents presided over 9-10 kids, 20-30 grandkids, some great-grandkids. And managed to get all of them together for group photos. Grandpa died, nothing changed. Grandma died, and a few halfhearted attempts at a family reunion were made, and now it's just a loose association of barely related facebook groups.

My wife's family shows a similar pattern. Maternal grandmother died first, and the family togetherness decreased only slightly because oldest female child assumed the reigns. Maternal grandfather died, but the family is still cohesive because oldest female child is new matriarch.

[USU78]

So . . . selfishness and territoriality to the exclusion of all other "matriarchs" is a good thing?

[Maidservant]

My oldest son is engaged to be married so I am entering a new era of my life where I will be mother in law and I always wondered what kind I would be.

Good news and bad news. I do find myself wanting to give a lot of no-doubt unwanted advice because I'm just worried about their problems. But another part of my brain says, it's none of your business! They are smart kids! They'll figure it out! So I hope that side of the brain wins, ha ha.

In any case, my relationship with my son before fiancee has always been awesome. He is one of my best friends, he's a very talkative kind of guy, and he always likes to tell me what is going on in his life. But all my kids stopped asking my permission for taking life decisions since they were nigh about 13 years old, so I don't know how this will change just because I'm adding a daughter-in-law.

Anyway, I have been delighted by my soon-to-be daughter-in-law. She actually has said more than once, "We would like your opinion on [fill in the blank]." And I'm like "What?" Ha ha. I NEVER would have been caught dead asking my parents for what they thought about things, thinking it was my God given purpose in life as a young adult to do the exact opposite. So I'm impressed.

On the other hand, she called me the other night for a little girl talk and it appears that she and my son are trying to decide on an apartment and it's a many-stranded decision. She wanted my opinion again, and it seemed harmless, but after a while I got to thinking, what if I just turned into fodder for her side of the argument she's going to whack my son over the head with, lol! ("Honey, even your MOM thinks this is a good idea!!" ha ha ha). Well, I don't think she would do this manipulatively, she's a sweetheart, I don't mean that, but I just mean I am still trying to figure out my boundaries here and maybe I just shouldn't be talking at all! Because I wouldn't even want to inadvertently be a problem (having experienced that too much from my own mother in law).

Anyway, I think what you are talking about sound like just dysfunctional human beings, period. The woman you describe seems like an unutterably unhappy, toxic person.

[USU78]

She is not alone in her toxicity. It is a prevalent phenomenon. Mothers of daughters and the daughters themselves are a huge problem. They cause a lot of misery in the world.

[Maidservant]

Ha ha. That's like me saying all men are abusers since I've had to live with that a lot. It's not being a mother and a daughter that is a problem. But I'm sorry you got a big dose of some dynamics.

Obviously, toxicity of one sort or another IS a prevalent phenomenon. It's called earth life and we're all swimming in it.

[USU78]

Obviously, toxicity of one sort or another IS a prevalent phenomenon. It's called earth life and we're all swimming in it.

True dat.

AND . . . I've never asserted its endemic, just that it's fairly common phenomenon, that it's prolly at very least as common as bad husbanding/fathering, and that otherwise good Mormons of the female persuasion ought to eschew it.

[Calm]

The issue is social rather than strictly religious, and it's not one that's solely Mormon or Christian or even American....

I observed that each of my brothers' wives' mothers did the same thing to one degree or another . . . and I observed my mother engaged in much the same behavior with regard to my sister and her husband. I observe it presently with two of my stepsons and one of my daughters, though in the latter case it's the apronstringy son-in-law who facilitates the selfishness and fearfulness and territoriality.

I think your first observation is right, that it is a social and not a religious issue...I would suggest it is more about family dynamics than anything else, though there are some cultures who might promote this behaviour.

I have not seen any of this in any family connected with my own. I think many are attracted to marry into families that resemble their own in many ways (even if in other ways they are the opposite), people look for relationships that increase their comfort level and often that means familiarity. Unfortunately that means the habits that are comforting often come along with the corresponding habits that are not, which may include obsessive behaviour by father, mother, sisters, brothers or whatever. Thus one sees certain behaviours in clusters among extended families, even through in-law relationships.

I have never heard of any teaching in the Church that sees such behaviour as acceptable and much teaching that discourages it. If some women are acting this way, I cannot see them legitmately justifying it by claiming it is how the Church promotes family behaviour....and if they are held up in Church as fine examples of motherhood, it is most likely due to ignorance.

Edited May 1, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

My non-lds sister is obsessed with geneology, and she has made an observation. From her research, families stay together as a close unit, until the matriarch dies.

In my experience, it is generally the women in the family that keep the communication lines going (the men call not to chat and catch up but over projects, trips...concrete things to focus on) and since they feel more comfortable with their own families and often leave the in-laws to the husband to communicate with, it may result in an imbalanced situation. This may be an American or English cultural attribute though.

OTOH, when my mother-in-law suffered brain damage due to an accident, her husband stepped up and worked on keeping the family together by doing genealogy and encouraging family reunions though it was his children that did the actual organizing. They've assigned jobs and rotate them each year though all of the siblings and have kept the organized gettogethers going after their parents have both died, but the casual gettogethers are much less. My family never did well on large gettogethers, but try to meet family with family when life allows (we are spread out).

Edited May 1, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

So . . . selfishness and territoriality to the exclusion of all other "matriarchs" is a good thing?

Has someone actually said that?

[MorningStar]

She is not alone in her toxicity. It is a prevalent phenomenon. Mothers of daughters and the daughters themselves are a huge problem. They cause a lot of misery in the world.

Oh, come on! This has nothing to do with mothers and daughters, but some mothers who have a really hard time letting their children go. It's hard for them to get used to not getting to see their kids on major holidays. My own mom is fine with giving us equal time with my in-laws, whenever it's possible for us to go see them anyway.

My sister's mother-in-law is the one who can't let go. Every year she wants all of her married sons and their wives to go Christmas tree shopping together and can't stand the thought of them branching off and doing their own traditions, which my sister can't stand because the tree farm doesn't have the kind she likes, and it always has to be THAT tree farm because it's the one they have always gone to. But they also have the very nice tradition of treating them to a very nice lunch . She's not a bad person. She and her husband finally went on a mission, so we'll see if her expectations change when she gets back.

For me, the thought of waking up on Christmas morning without any children around my tree is heartbreaking and I'm hoping I'll be able to deal with it.

What makes a woman "Zionlike" anyway?

[rpn]

For holidays it helps if your family chooses traditions that are done at a different time. For instance, we do a Christmas Eve reader's theater. We hope extended family attends each year, and it is easier because they can give Christmas to the other family of origin or with their own children.

Some families do football before Thanksgiving dinner, or the macy's parade. It is pretty easy to accommodate that AND eat dinner with the other family.

[MorningStar]

For holidays it helps if your family chooses traditions that are done at a different time. For instance, we do a Christmas Eve reader's theater. We hope extended family attends each year, and it is easier because they can give Christmas to the other family of origin or with their own children.

Some families do football before Thanksgiving dinner, or the macy's parade. It is pretty easy to accommodate that AND eat dinner with the other family.

The tricky part is when you live away from both sides of the family and you're deciding who you're going to go visit.

[Skylla]

Thread closed. Insulting towards women.

Skylla