Would you marry a man who has a bad relationship with his mother?

[Anonymous]

^^ typing too fast...delete "a" and change "many" to "may".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today I saw this: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story.html. I thought of this thread.

I will never again form an opinion of anything in life with a "single story". I like this so much I'll probably post it in another thread. This is good stuff.

You seem dumb

Dumb? What the heck? NP here: I love this TED video, PP. Used it as part of a lesson earlier this semester, and my students (university undergrads) loved it, too.

Dumb to take the very complex message embedded in the video and use it to shame women into ignoring their own instincts when entering relationships.

yes, it's dumb. pp seemed dumb.

I posted the video and clearly I don't think it was "dumb". I felt, and still feel, the video's "very complex message" was relevant here in that the question was about using a single part of someone's background as a determinant for a whether a long lasting, healthy relationship was possible. The video's message helps one see the limits of this approach. You many very well miss the richer part of a person's experiences by focusing on one negative.

Perhaps pp, you've had too much to much to drink today OR maybe you missed your last pill popping time.

Well, dumb people don't know they are dumb. We use "single parts of people's stories" all the time to make decisions. If I said "abusive alcoholic", you'd probably be happy with relying on that part of the story. So, really, unless you have identified some limiting principle, "love everyone because they are complex" is an inappropriate, and dumb, addition to the conversation.

Not sure what this has to do with pills or alcohol.

[Anonymous]

"Honestly I hardly know anyone with truly satisfying relationship with their parents. Wonder if that's a generation thing and if things would improve now that BFing and cosleeping and natural birth and parenting are more in fashion"


Huh?

[Anonymous]

Short answer is yes.

You cannot write someone off because of one bad parent. It is more complicated than that. You are asking for a psychological damage assessment.
There are many people who can overcome adversity, as long as there is at least one positive figure in their childhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today I saw this: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story.html. I thought of this thread.

I will never again form an opinion of anything in life with a "single story". I like this so much I'll probably post it in another thread. This is good stuff.

You seem dumb

Dumb? What the heck? NP here: I love this TED video, PP. Used it as part of a lesson earlier this semester, and my students (university undergrads) loved it, too.

Dumb to take the very complex message embedded in the video and use it to shame women into ignoring their own instincts when entering relationships.

yes, it's dumb. pp seemed dumb.

I posted the video and clearly I don't think it was "dumb". I felt, and still feel, the video's "very complex message" was relevant here in that the question was about using a single part of someone's background as a determinant for a whether a long lasting, healthy relationship was possible. The video's message helps one see the limits of this approach. You many very well miss the richer part of a person's experiences by focusing on one negative.

Perhaps pp, you've had too much to much to drink today OR maybe you missed your last pill popping time.

Well, dumb people don't know they are dumb. We use "single parts of people's stories" all the time to make decisions. If I said "abusive alcoholic", you'd probably be happy with relying on that part of the story. So, really, unless you have identified some limiting principle, "love everyone because they are complex" is an inappropriate, and dumb, addition to the conversation.

Not sure what this has to do with pills or alcohol.

I never said this, but I do feel, from a spiritual standpoint, that we should love all people (that's for another thread). However, that is not to say marry someone because they are complex. As others have noted - looking at any one variable is no way to determine if your mate is marriage material. The decision should be made after an evaluation of many factors - NOT JUST ONE.

BTW, injecting personal attacks into the "conversation" has no added value. If you didn't agree that the TED video was relevant, you could have posted your own insightful two cents. Instead you chose to take the low road. A lot of perspective can be gained from DCUM, unfortunately there are a handful of miserable souls on here who love nothing more than to pull others down to their level. So sad.

[Anonymous]

^^

pp here again. Your twisting of the video was offensive. The video is talking about people with NO voice who practically have external narratives forced on them essentially. It's a TOTALLY different situation. Frankly, "complicated white Western men" is the standard in music, literature, art and film. Nobody ever stops talking about their stories. Nobody ever stops deconstructing, explaining, justifying, understanding them. They are literally the least voiceless people in the world. Your comparison is offensive and DUMB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^

pp here again. Your twisting of the video was offensive. The video is talking about people with NO voice who practically have external narratives forced on them essentially. It's a TOTALLY different situation. Frankly, "complicated white Western men" is the standard in music, literature, art and film. Nobody ever stops talking about their stories. Nobody ever stops deconstructing, explaining, justifying, understanding them. They are literally the least voiceless people in the world. Your comparison is offensive and DUMB.

NP here: (1) that's not exactly what the video's about. the speaker talks about the external narratives that people of ALL cultures impose on those cultures and people they've "othered." She includes American culture as one of those "othered" cultures. (2) I didn't realize this thread was focusing solely on "complicated white Western men." (3) Your tone is unnecessarily hostile and it's offensive. PP shouldn't have responded with comments about drinking, or whatever it is she wrote, but you did start this out on the wrong note.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^

pp here again. Your twisting of the video was offensive. The video is talking about people with NO voice who practically have external narratives forced on them essentially. It's a TOTALLY different situation. Frankly, "complicated white Western men" is the standard in music, literature, art and film. Nobody ever stops talking about their stories. Nobody ever stops deconstructing, explaining, justifying, understanding them. They are literally the least voiceless people in the world. Your comparison is offensive and DUMB.

NP here: (1) that's not exactly what the video's about. the speaker talks about the external narratives that people of ALL cultures impose on those cultures and people they've "othered." She includes American culture as one of those "othered" cultures. (2) I didn't realize this thread was focusing solely on "complicated white Western men." (3) Your tone is unnecessarily hostile and it's offensive. PP shouldn't have responded with comments about drinking, or whatever it is she wrote, but you did start this out on the wrong note.

1. The speaker paints a much more complex picture than that the pp supposes.
2. This thread is certainly not focusing on African women. Btw, you don't need to put othered in quotes, it's a real term with real meaning. Please explain more about how voiceless and othered, the DH's on this thread are. It's a offensive comparison which doesn't even make any sense.
3. My tone may be hostile but it's hardly offensive. It's no harsher than the PP's personal attacks for example.

[Anonymous]

1. The speaker paints a much more complex picture than that the pp supposes.

Yes, Adichie's message is more complex - much more. Agreed.

2. This thread is certainly not focusing on African women. Btw, you don't need to put othered in quotes, it's a real term with real meaning. Please explain more about how voiceless and othered, the DH's on this thread are. It's a offensive comparison which doesn't even make any sense.

Again, agreed, the thread's not focusing on African women. Neither does Adichie, by the way.

And I agree that othered doesn't need quotes. I've seen it half the time with quotes, and half the time without. Since DCUM isn't academia, I didn't assume posters are familiar with the term, so I used quotes. I accept your correction. It's more important to move the conversation onto a constructive track than to disagree on this trivial issue. And that's where I take issue with your response to PP. So her connection was a little far of the mark - so what? She's making constructive connections, shifting her perspective, encouraging us to shift ours, too - that's one of the points of Adichie's talk, and she (Adichie) makes it in a powerful way.

3. My tone may be hostile but it's hardly offensive. It's no harsher than the PP's personal attacks for example.

PP was out of line. Agreed. She was responding to what you wrote. Whether you meant it as hostile or not, it comes across that way.

[Anonymous]

pp here again. I have to say, thank you for your reasoned response. I apologize for my frustration and I agree was an overreaction. My frustration comes from the fact that it seemed like the OP was being shamed for her post. She was being called "irrational" and this particular post implied she was being intolerant, which several others seemed to agree with.

The reason that really gets to me is that it seems that if women object to anything or try to self protect, they are basically insulted. They are called picky, snobs, intolerant. And of course, women are ruthlessly judged for failed marriages and for pursuing their own happiness above that of partner, children, family of origin. Essentially they can't win. Be picky and walk away from a problematic relationship and you are "judging by a single story", but stay in the relationship and then watch it break down and it's "why did you marry such a loser".

It seems like a sexist double standard which was why the use of the TED talk was particularly galling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:pp here again. I have to say, thank you for your reasoned response. I apologize for my frustration and I agree was an overreaction. My frustration comes from the fact that it seemed like the OP was being shamed for her post. She was being called "irrational" and this particular post implied she was being intolerant, which several others seemed to agree with.

The reason that really gets to me is that it seems that if women object to anything or try to self protect, they are basically insulted. They are called picky, snobs, intolerant. And of course, women are ruthlessly judged for failed marriages and for pursuing their own happiness above that of partner, children, family of origin. Essentially they can't win. Be picky and walk away from a problematic relationship and you are "judging by a single story", but stay in the relationship and then watch it break down and it's "why did you marry such a loser".

It seems like a sexist double standard which was why the use of the TED talk was particularly galling.

This is so true.

I'm a new poster who just happened to watch the Ted Talk today - only because it's the 20th most watched talk. I think that people can transcend anything including traumatic childhoods - there is not "one universal story" here in regards to mothers and sons. Yet OP is ASKING FOR personal stories here, from women who married men who have bad relationships with their mothers. I have a feeling that Adichie would approve of OP's question - she's soliciting personal stories as she searches for her own truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:pp here again. I have to say, thank you for your reasoned response. I apologize for my frustration and I agree was an overreaction. My frustration comes from the fact that it seemed like the OP was being shamed for her post. She was being called "irrational" and this particular post implied she was being intolerant, which several others seemed to agree with.

The reason that really gets to me is that it seems that if women object to anything or try to self protect, they are basically insulted. They are called picky, snobs, intolerant. And of course, women are ruthlessly judged for failed marriages and for pursuing their own happiness above that of partner, children, family of origin. Essentially they can't win. Be picky and walk away from a problematic relationship and you are "judging by a single story", but stay in the relationship and then watch it break down and it's "why did you marry such a loser".

It seems like a sexist double standard which was why the use of the TED talk was particularly galling.

I posted the TED video. It was not to shame anyone. Ironically, I left a really bad marriage. I am on the receiving end of the kinds judgments the holier-than-thou crowd likes to toss around here on DCUM. As you noted pp, I put my own happiness (and sanity) above all else - partner, children and a society who generally says stay together "for the sake of the kids."

For me, the TED talk was empowering because I feel that I have been judged by a single story - a divorced mom with young children. After hearing so many people tell me that the Bible permits divorce only in cases of adultery, I felt really beat down despite knowing that I made the right choice for me and my children. So in a broad sense I felt the TED talk "fit" here as I also struggle with how to one day select a mate.

I was too quick to anger after your comment nearly extinguished my "high" from watching the video. I try to stay above board on this anonymous forum, I regret my failure to do so on this topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:pp here again. I have to say, thank you for your reasoned response. I apologize for my frustration and I agree was an overreaction. My frustration comes from the fact that it seemed like the OP was being shamed for her post. She was being called "irrational" and this particular post implied she was being intolerant, which several others seemed to agree with.

The reason that really gets to me is that it seems that if women object to anything or try to self protect, they are basically insulted. They are called picky, snobs, intolerant. And of course, women are ruthlessly judged for failed marriages and for pursuing their own happiness above that of partner, children, family of origin. Essentially they can't win. Be picky and walk away from a problematic relationship and you are "judging by a single story", but stay in the relationship and then watch it break down and it's "why did you marry such a loser".

It seems like a sexist double standard which was why the use of the TED talk was particularly galling.

I posted the TED video. It was not to shame anyone. Ironically, I left a really bad marriage. I am on the receiving end of the kinds judgments the holier-than-thou crowd likes to toss around here on DCUM. As you noted pp, I put my own happiness (and sanity) above all else - partner, children and a society who generally says stay together "for the sake of the kids."

For me, the TED talk was empowering because I feel that I have been judged by a single story - a divorced mom with young children. After hearing so many people tell me that the Bible permits divorce only in cases of adultery, I felt really beat down despite knowing that I made the right choice for me and my children. So in a broad sense I felt the TED talk "fit" here as I also struggle with how to one day select a mate.

I was too quick to anger after your comment nearly extinguished my "high" from watching the video. I try to stay above board on this anonymous forum, I regret my failure to do so on this topic.

15:57 here. Now I get it. Lots of different angles/stories in this thread alone! I posted several pages back - I'm divorcing a man with some serious issues that stem from his childhood and his hideous mother.

Take good care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:pp here again. I have to say, thank you for your reasoned response. I apologize for my frustration and I agree was an overreaction. My frustration comes from the fact that it seemed like the OP was being shamed for her post. She was being called "irrational" and this particular post implied she was being intolerant, which several others seemed to agree with.

The reason that really gets to me is that it seems that if women object to anything or try to self protect, they are basically insulted. They are called picky, snobs, intolerant. And of course, women are ruthlessly judged for failed marriages and for pursuing their own happiness above that of partner, children, family of origin. Essentially they can't win. Be picky and walk away from a problematic relationship and you are "judging by a single story", but stay in the relationship and then watch it break down and it's "why did you marry such a loser".

It seems like a sexist double standard which was why the use of the TED talk was particularly galling.

You're welcome, PP. I appreciate your explanation and understand where you're coming from on this subject. It's great we could have a constructive exchange about it.