Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Recommended Posts

Yeah, I mean, we can't say how it should be handled, or if he will forgive her, or if he even should, or if she should forgive him, etc etc without knowing the issue at hand. 

I mean, if a fictional person named Barbaralla posted that she won't attend her son's wedding because they are white and the soon to be wife is black and it is against her personal moral code to mix the races and that according to her convictions God designed black people as inferior, we are all unlikely to start saying, "wow, your son is such a jerk to want you to go against your personal morality! Good for you for sticking with your beliefs - if he's upset he's a manipulative narcissist!"

Versus if Barbarella posted that her daughter is marrying a convicted murderer who got out on bail and has been physically abusing her daughter on the regular, and her daughter doesn't even like the guy but thinks if she marries him she can get her own reality show, make a bunch of money and then spend it on cocaine, and given all that she is not going to attend the farce of a wedding. In that case, yeah, we'd be likely to say she is right to hold firm. 

And a million scenarios in-between. 

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Catwoman said:

 

That’s a good point!

Scarlett’s son does seem to have a very strong sense of right and wrong. He doesn’t seem to be the type of person who would deliberately do something wrong or immoral, and he has always been close to Scarlett, so it seems highly unusual that he would have intentionally tried to hurt her. 

I think that’s a big reason why I’m having so much trouble figuring this out.

 

Is the girlfriend/now wife a JW?  I can't remember if she said she was????  I am reading that JWs often don't go to weddings if there is any part of the ceremony they feel is pagan or against their beliefs.  I don't know what JWs consider pagan/against teaching, but I am thinking maybe drinking?  Not having a Kingdom Hall wedding?  Having a wedding in a Christian Church?  

.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

I think that’s a big reason why I’m having so much trouble figuring this out.

 

Scarlett doesn't want us to figure it out and we need to own our own feelings about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, DawnM said:

 

Is the girlfriend/now wife a JW?  I can't remember if she said she was????  I am reading that JWs often don't go to weddings if there is any part of the ceremony they feel is pagan or against their beliefs.  I don't know what JWs consider pagan/against teaching, but I am thinking maybe drinking?  Not having a Kingdom Hall wedding?  Having a wedding in a Christian Church?  

.  

 

I don’t know very much about the JW faith so you probably already know more than I do, but I’m sure the new wife is a JW — or at least she was when Scarlett posted about her in the past. I don’t know if anything has changed since then, though. I assume she is still involved in the faith because Scarlett seemed to approve of the girl marrying her son.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

 

Scarlett doesn't want us to figure it out and we need to own our own feelings about that.

 

Very true! 

I own my feelings of extreme nosiness! 😁

  • Like 5
  • Haha 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

 

Scarlett doesn't want us to figure it out and we need to own our own feelings about that.

 

What do you mean own our own feelings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DawnM said:

 

What do you mean own our own feelings?

 

I mean Scarlett doesn't owe us satisfaction, and anyone who is irritated by that needs to, in the words of the immortal Man in Black, "get used to disappointment."*

*Princess Bride reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

Yeah, I mean, we can't say how it should be handled, or if he will forgive her, or if he even should, or if she should forgive him, etc etc without knowing the issue at hand. 

I mean, if a fictional person named Barbaralla posted that she won't attend her son's wedding because they are white and the soon to be wife is black and it is against her personal moral code to mix the races and that according to her convictions God designed black people as inferior, we are all unlikely to start saying, "wow, your son is such a jerk to want you to go against your personal morality! Good for you for sticking with your beliefs - if he's upset he's a manipulative narcissist!"

Versus if Barbarella posted that her daughter is marrying a convicted murderer who got out on bail and has been physically abusing her daughter on the regular, and her daughter doesn't even like the guy but thinks if she marries him she can get her own reality show, make a bunch of money and then spend it on cocaine, and given all that she is not going to attend the farce of a wedding. In that case, yeah, we'd be likely to say she is right to hold firm. 

And a million scenarios in-between. 

 

Exactly. I can't commiserate with her, because there simply isn't enough information and all attempts of "comparisons" were so overboard from what the situation apparently is in reality.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

Yeah, I mean, we can't say how it should be handled, or if he will forgive her, or if he even should, or if she should forgive him, etc etc without knowing the issue at hand. 

I mean, if a fictional person named Barbaralla posted that she won't attend her son's wedding because they are white and the soon to be wife is black and it is against her personal moral code to mix the races and that according to her convictions God designed black people as inferior, we are all unlikely to start saying, "wow, your son is such a jerk to want you to go against your personal morality! Good for you for sticking with your beliefs - if he's upset he's a manipulative narcissist!"

Versus if Barbarella posted that her daughter is marrying a convicted murderer who got out on bail and has been physically abusing her daughter on the regular, and her daughter doesn't even like the guy but thinks if she marries him she can get her own reality show, make a bunch of money and then spend it on cocaine, and given all that she is not going to attend the farce of a wedding. In that case, yeah, we'd be likely to say she is right to hold firm. 

And a million scenarios in-between. 

 

Yep. You are our resident novelist. 

😂

Seriously, though, good point. Details matter. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

 

I mean Scarlett doesn't owe us satisfaction, and anyone who is irritated by that needs to, in the words of the immortal Man in Black, "get used to disappointment."*

*Princess Bride reference.

 

While that’s true, her original post did solicit responses, which could vary substantially if the details were known. While I respect the OP’s right to privacy, this thread was kind of set up for failure. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect she didn't want the blow back of choosing to skip her own child's wedding hence the lack of details.  She said she skipped the wedding.  The title says it was her decision.   She jumped on the posts right away saying something like that could drastically affect a parent-child relationship.  Honestly, both of them sound pretty hard headed.  Hope they can heal over time.  

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Seasider too said:

 

Yep. You are our resident novelist. 

😂

Seriously, though, good point. Details matter. 

 

Expect Barbarella's story to hit the bookstand soon, lol. Poor woman! Between her son and her daughter, she can't win, lol. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Catwoman said:

 

Wow. I feel so sorry for that poor man. But good for him for attending his dd’s wedding despite knowing that most of the attendees wouldn’t talk to him, because it was more important for him to be there for his dd.

I can’t relate to the shunning thing at all. (I don’t know if the JWs call it that — sorry for not knowing the proper terminology.) If I was getting married and a lot of the guests were going to refuse to talk to my dad, I would choose my dad above all of them and tell them that they weren’t welcome to attend my wedding. I would choose my family over church members. (And ok, I wouldn’t be a part of a faith that would do something like that to someone in my family — or to anyone else, now that I think about it — so I guess I can’t relate to the situation at all.)

I personally felt sorry that her father turned up. In the weeks before the wedding he had run off with another woman. His daughter was still very much angry with him for what he had just done.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Melissa in Australia said:

I personally felt sorry that her father turned up. In the weeks before the wedding he had run off with another woman. His daughter was still very much angry with him for what he had just done.

This kind of drama is why my husband and I went off and got married in Scotland without anyone there but the photographer and videographer. (and the priest, lol). 

But, we DID discuss it with family ahead of time, and come to the compromise of hiring that videographer and then playing the video at an event at our new home, etc. And our parents understood our decision. Had it been something that was going to drive a wedge in the relationship we would have done it differently. Which is why I just don't get not working this all out ahead of time. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Catwoman said:

 

I can’t figure out what’s going on, but whatever it is, Scarlett has to decide if being what she considers to be right is worth potentially losing her entire relationship with her son. 

She says she is willing to forgive him, but she doesn’t seem to be willing to make any compromises, and that doesn’t bode well for the future, particularly because her son seems pretty stubborn, too. I’m concerned that neither one of them will give an inch, and that their relationship will be irreparably damaged. I would hate to see that happen. 

 

I don't think Scarlett has to decide if being right is worth losing her relationship with her son; I think she has to decide, and has decided, whether doing right is worth losing the relationship.

It's not like she's trying to prove something to him; she just has a moral/religious boundary she cannot cross.  It might not be one any of us share, but that doesn't make it less real for her.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

Yeah, I mean, we can't say how it should be handled, or if he will forgive her, or if he even should, or if she should forgive him, etc etc without knowing the issue at hand. 

I mean, if a fictional person named Barbaralla posted that she won't attend her son's wedding because they are white and the soon to be wife is black and it is against her personal moral code to mix the races and that according to her convictions God designed black people as inferior, we are all unlikely to start saying, "wow, your son is such a jerk to want you to go against your personal morality! Good for you for sticking with your beliefs - if he's upset he's a manipulative narcissist!"

Versus if Barbarella posted that her daughter is marrying a convicted murderer who got out on bail and has been physically abusing her daughter on the regular, and her daughter doesn't even like the guy but thinks if she marries him she can get her own reality show, make a bunch of money and then spend it on cocaine, and given all that she is not going to attend the farce of a wedding. In that case, yeah, we'd be likely to say she is right to hold firm. 

And a million scenarios in-between. 

 

Right, and because JW religious laws and personal convictions are often fairly out of the norm in the USA today, I can see why she wanted advice or sympathy from people undergoing a similar situation from their perspective without talking about the specifics of the situation, because, as you just said, a thread started about a specific situation that many posters here disagree with would veer sharply into "you don't have a right to feel that way because your values aren't modern enough" territory.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it's just that if you have fairly mainstream views, you have the privilege of being a completely open part of the community and can discuss things with people frankly.  If you're not within certain bounds on various topics (for Scarlett, evidently, JW religious convictions) then either you can't talk at all about various topics or you have to be vague and hope for people to have experiences to which you can relate, even if the exact circumstances are different.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the teachings of a faith drive a wedge between parent and child, for me, the relationship with child takes precedence.   Honestly,  if I were Scarlett's son and learned of various people giving their sympathies to her in regards to my behavior (which sounded like "concern trolling" to me), I would high tail it out of that town and probably that faith first chance I get.  Hopefully son will let bygones be bygones and work on restoring the relationship. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

You can talk about them, but people may not agree you are right. 

 

Of course, but if you don't want to debate about whether you're right, but want to talk about another aspect of the situation (the emotional effect of the conflict, in this case), you can't talk about the specifics because people will not be sympathetic to you or even be willing to talk to you about that aspect without castigating you about the thing they disagree with. (as you explicity said in an earlier post)

which, I dunno, whatever

It works if you're normalish (for this board)

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Melissa in Australia said:

I personally felt sorry that her father turned up. In the weeks before the wedding he had run off with another woman. His daughter was still very much angry with him for what he had just done.

 

Oh, wow! Now that you added that part, I totally agree with you!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it is true that on the whole I really don't belong here, and I guess this thread has me feeling it.  I was happy to talk with people about the different ways we've had trouble with kids growing up and rejecting us, or becoming independent, and reflecting on ways we did the same thing to our parents; it's given me some perspective for (very mild) issues we're going through now in my family.

But if I were explicit about the issues, I would absolutely not be able to talk to much of anyone about it, because the overwhelming response to me would be "you don't have the right to feel that way as your moral beliefs are backward and evil."  

I've gotten great book recs here before, listing the more mild of my criteria (which I still have to JAWM and still get blowback about); if I said what my actual criteria were there would be no recs, no discussion, just condemnation.

 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, moonflower said:

 

Of course, but if you don't want to debate about whether you're right, but want to talk about another aspect of the situation (the emotional effect of the conflict, in this case), you can't talk about the specifics because people will not be sympathetic to you or even be willing to talk to you about that aspect without castigating you about the thing they disagree with. (as you explicity said in an earlier post)

which, I dunno, whatever

It works if you're normalish (for this board)

 

The problem is, though, that if you feel the need to be too vague about what happened, maybe this is a topic best saved for PMs with trusted friends or a private social group of likeminded people. If you don’t trust people to genuinely try to help you, it may be best not to start a thread at all. It’s very stressful to worry that people are going to be mean to you!

I think people wanted to sympathize with Scarlett and try to help her figure out how to repair her relationship with her son, but I can’t say that I blame people for having gotten annoyed after a while, because it started to feel like a game of cat and mouse, where Scarlett was adding a tiny detail here and there, just to keep people interested and curious. Don’t get me wrong — I don’t think she did it intentionally, but I can see how people may have thought she was messing with their heads by withholding important information while posting confusing and unrelated analogies. Again, I think she was just upset and worried and she wasn’t sure how much information she was ready to share, not that she was actually trying to dupe anyone.

I can definitely understand why she didn’t initially want to say that she hadn’t attended her son’s wedding, because that would be a big hot button issue for many of us, but on the other hand, it’s hard to answer a general question about whether or not a relationship can be saved without telling people what actually happened. The abortion analogy in the OP had no relation whatsoever to not attending a wedding, so the whole thread started on the wrong foot.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, moonflower said:

And it is true that on the whole I really don't belong here, and I guess this thread has me feeling it.  I was happy to talk with people about the different ways we've had trouble with kids growing up and rejecting us, or becoming independent, and reflecting on ways we did the same thing to our parents; it's given me some perspective for (very mild) issues we're going through now in my family.

But if I were explicit about the issues, I would absolutely not be able to talk to much of anyone about it, because the overwhelming response to me would be "you don't have the right to feel that way as your moral beliefs are backward and evil."  

I've gotten great book recs here before, listing the more mild of my criteria (which I still have to JAWM and still get blowback about); if I said what my actual criteria were there would be no recs, no discussion, just condemnation.

 

 

I have to say that, even in the threads where people have been tough on you, you have always been gracious. You aren’t nasty, and I admire that about you. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, moonflower said:

And it is true that on the whole I really don't belong here, and I guess this thread has me feeling it.  I was happy to talk with people about the different ways we've had trouble with kids growing up and rejecting us, or becoming independent, and reflecting on ways we did the same thing to our parents; it's given me some perspective for (very mild) issues we're going through now in my family.

But if I were explicit about the issues, I would absolutely not be able to talk to much of anyone about it, because the overwhelming response to me would be "you don't have the right to feel that way as your moral beliefs are backward and evil."  

I've gotten great book recs here before, listing the more mild of my criteria (which I still have to JAWM and still get blowback about); if I said what my actual criteria were there would be no recs, no discussion, just condemnation.

 

Well, I mean yeah..people are going to think some things are wrong. If someone asked you about the best way to say, lure a young girl into a situation where they could take advantage of her, you wouldn't be all "well, everyone has different morals" and just give advice, right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, moonflower said:

 

I don't think Scarlett has to decide if being right is worth losing her relationship with her son; I think she has to decide, and has decided, whether doing right is worth losing the relationship.

It's not like she's trying to prove something to him; she just has a moral/religious boundary she cannot cross.  It might not be one any of us share, but that doesn't make it less real for her.

 

It would be as if I decided to have my 50th birthday in the - I cannot believe this is a thing - sausage factory restaurant and cafe the next suburb over, and invited vegan dd2, and said 'Hey honey, it really matters to me that you can make it!'

Well firstly, that would be a major jerk move, because I would have failed abjectly to consider my daughter and her values as a person, placing my own need for her attendance before anything else. But secondly, I could hardly be surprised or angry if she said 'I'm really sorry Mum, but you know that I'm vegan, and it's an ethical choice for me, and I can't support the cafe with my presence or money.'

She's not telling me, in that hypothetical, that she is right - she is telling me that there are some things she ethically cannot do, even for me.

I have no idea what the actual scenario is, and Scarlett doesn't owe us the actual scenario - no-one is obliged to post in this thread if they don't like that. But if it was that son and dil held wedding in a place they knew (or did not check) that Scarlett could not go - not because she is 'right' - after all, she's not picketing the venue, making sure no-one else can get in either - but because she found it lay so heavy on her conscience that she could not - well, what have they got to be surprised or angry about ? 

I bet that I share very few of Scarlett's religious boundaries, if any.

It's still not difficult to see the sense in what you assert here. 

And it IS difficult for me to see ds and DIL not responding to 'oh, Mum can't come to that venue' with 'let's find somewhere else'. 

As in my comparison above...dd can't come to my sausage factory 50th 'cos morals ? Ok, no big deal...change the freaking venue and now she can come. Magic!

 

 

 

  • Like 14
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

It would be as if I decided to have my 50th birthday in the - I cannot believe this is a thing - sausage factory restaurant and cafe the next suburb over, and invited vegan dd2, and said 'Hey honey, it really matters to me that you can make it!'

Well firstly, that would be a major jerk move, because I would have failed abjectly to consider my daughter and her values as a person, placing my own need for her attendance before anything else. But secondly, I could hardly be surprised or angry if she said 'I'm really sorry Mum, but you know that I'm vegan, and it's an ethical choice for me, and I can't support the cafe with my presence or money.'

She's not telling me, in that hypothetical, that she is right - she is telling me that there are some things she ethically cannot do, even for me.

I have no idea what the actual scenario is, and Scarlett doesn't owe us the actual scenario - no-one is obliged to post in this thread if they don't like that. But if it was that son and dil held wedding in a place they knew (or did not check) that Scarlett could not go - not because she is 'right' - after all, she's not picketing the venue, making sure no-one else can get in either - but because she found it lay so heavy on her conscience that she could not - well, what have they got to be surprised or angry about ? 

I bet that I share very few of Scarlett's religious boundaries, if any.

It's still not difficult to see the sense in what you assert here. 

And it IS difficult for me to see ds and DIL not responding to 'oh, Mum can't come to that venue' with 'let's find somewhere else'. 

As in my comparison above...dd can't come to my sausage factory 50th 'cos morals ? Ok, no big deal...change the freaking venue and now she can come. Magic!

 

 

 

This assumes that there is no moral or compelling reason for them choosing the venue. I mean, if the ONLY place she would attend is a JW Kingdom Hall, not anywhere else, and they are no longer practicing that religion, then well, they can't just pick another place. 

Or if it doesn't matter where they got married, just that they say, left the church and have been disfellowshipped, then really, that is her saying "believe what I believe or I won't have anything to do with you". Which yikes. Not sure what can be expected to happen there other than what did happen. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ktgrok said:

This assumes that there is no moral or compelling reason for them choosing the venue. I mean, if the ONLY place she would attend is a JW Kingdom Hall, not anywhere else, and they are no longer practicing that religion, then well, they can't just pick another place. 

Or if it doesn't matter where they got married, just that they say, left the church and have been disfellowshipped, then really, that is her saying "believe what I believe or I won't have anything to do with you". Which yikes. Not sure what can be expected to happen there other than what did happen. 

 

If it's a clash of moral stances, then they ought to be even more accepting of mom having a moral stance. If something is morally important to them, surely they can understand that something else is morally important to mom.

If it's to do with being disfellowshipped or whatever, then what I said in a post way back still stands. It's OK for Scarlett to live by her values. It's OK for the son to have feelings about that. It's Scarlett's responsibility to deal with her feelings. It's ds' responsibility to deal with his. The relationship may heal or it may not. OK. In a relationship between two adults, both adults have a role to play in that eventual outcome.

I feel that this board disproportionately acts out a sort of collective trauma from their own young adult years, in weighting the rights and experiences of young adult far more than they do the rights and experiences of mothers. I feel this board is disproportionately fetishising of youth, and has insufficient respect for age. You may disagree entirely with my feelings, and that is fine, but I do see this group dynamic play out over and over again. It's my opinion that a man old enough to marry, and take on the responsibilities of family, is old enough to effectively manage his own emotions, without needing his mother to violate her conscience, however inexplicable he may see that line in the sand. Other people's mileage may vary.

  • Like 13
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, moonflower said:

And it is true that on the whole I really don't belong here, and I guess this thread has me feeling it.  I was happy to talk with people about the different ways we've had trouble with kids growing up and rejecting us, or becoming independent, and reflecting on ways we did the same thing to our parents; it's given me some perspective for (very mild) issues we're going through now in my family.

But if I were explicit about the issues, I would absolutely not be able to talk to much of anyone about it, because the overwhelming response to me would be "you don't have the right to feel that way as your moral beliefs are backward and evil."  

I've gotten great book recs here before, listing the more mild of my criteria (which I still have to JAWM and still get blowback about); if I said what my actual criteria were there would be no recs, no discussion, just condemnation.

 

 

You have the right to feel as you feel, and believe as you believe.

I may or may not find your moral beliefs backward and evil - I suspect some I don't, and some I do - but I would only be concerned with evil moral beliefs (imo) where they became behaviours, and those behaviours I could judge to be having an ill effect on another person/people. So, if you believed that severe corporal punishment is the best way to shape a child's character, yes I would find that a backwards belief - but if you didn't actually hit your children, because it was against the law or something, or teach others to hit their children, in the face of all available evidence on the lack of positive effect - then it remains just that, a belief.

Once we get into the arena of trying to govern people's beliefs then we are in a very authoritarian mess indeed.

 

Edited by StellaM
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

I feel that this board disproportionately acts out a sort of collective trauma from their own young adult years, in weighting the rights and experiences of young adult far more than they do the rights and experiences of mothers. I feel this board is disproportionately fetishising of youth, and has insufficient respect for age. You may disagree entirely with my feelings, and that is fine, but I do see this group dynamic play out over and over again. It's my opinion that a man old enough to marry, and take on the responsibilities of family, is old enough to effectively manage his own emotions, without needing his mother to violate her conscience, however inexplicable he may see that line in the sand. Other people's mileage may vary.

I actually don't agree with this.  I think this board tends to side and sympathize with whoever is presenting the story.  Which is normal human nature.   The OP got plenty of sympathy in this thread. I actually think in plenty of situational posts where a poster is posting as upset by a situation, it would be fascinating to hear the story as presented the other side.  It is highly likely that is not nearly as clear cut as many people would like to present.   I've been involved in mediation situations in real life and rarely are things as clear as one side would present.  

This is an extremely diverse board.  I think everyone is an insider and an outsider in some way.  I am not Christian and have certainly felt piled on at times and  have quietly stepped away during certain threads.  If someone does not want a diverse opinion set, maybe this isn't the board for them.  I have been here on and off for many many years and I have seen minds open and hearts change by intelligent but respectful discussion and an open mind.   There are other boards - faith based, etc that might be more appropriate.  

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

This assumes that there is no moral or compelling reason for them choosing the venue. I mean, if the ONLY place she would attend is a JW Kingdom Hall, not anywhere else, and they are no longer practicing that religion, then well, they can't just pick another place. 

Or if it doesn't matter where they got married, just that they say, left the church and have been disfellowshipped, then really, that is her saying "believe what I believe or I won't have anything to do with you". Which yikes. Not sure what can be expected to happen there other than what did happen. 

The point of Stella's analogy is that the specifics don't matter if you're going to answer the questions in the OP. They really don't.

All we know is her son asked her to do something her conscience would not allow her to do, some place she would not go, or whatever it was. There are a lot of people in this thread who keep saying they can't understand why she wouldn't give up her morals for her son for whatever it was. There are a lot of people saying they would never hold to any kind of morality that would keep them from doing something or going somewhere for their kid. 1) I find this very difficult to believe because everyone has a line they won't cross, even for their own kids. They may just find that other lines that other people hold to are silly; and 2) It is not fair in any sense for someone to say, "If you don't violate your conscience in this way it means you don't really love me and I'm going to be angry at you indefinitely." That isn't okay, no matter if it's painting pink polka dots on a t-shirt or eating pork or attending a wedding or hopping on one foot. It isn't fair to ask someone you know has a strongly held belief to violate it for you or else. It isn't mature. It's manipulative.

So, hypothetically, if you wanted to have your wedding a venue you know that your mother cannot go to, that is absolutely fine. It is your choice. However, it is not fair to hang that over your mother's head and be angry that she wouldn't do what you wanted knowing that she couldn't go there. It isn't fair to say, "She could have gone if she really loved me," or, "She could have gone if she really wanted to." That's manipulation. Even if they had a super good reason for holding the wedding somewhere Scarlett couldn't go, that's okay! But it means she can't go there and part of being a mature adult is recognizing that in a mature way, which doesn't include being angry and holding a lifelong grudge. It might be a super sad situation where everyone is grieved that things didn't work out and mom couldn't be at the wedding. But it's not okay for either party to hold the other person in contempt and be angry for not violating their consciences, especially if that was a known quantity long before any of this ever came up. I would say the same if Scarlett were the one getting angry and holding a grudge at her son for having his wedding somewhere she couldn't go. He gets to have his wedding where he wants. People (even mothers!) can choose to attend or not based on their own boundaries. The relationship needs to be mended on the idea that it is okay for people (even mothers!) to have lines they will not cross, even for their kiddos. I guarantee everyone has one or several, even if you (general) think Scarlett's are silly or unreasonable based off of what you know of her religion.

Edited by EmseB
  • Like 11
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

I actually don't agree with this.  I think this board tends to side and sympathize with whoever is presenting the story.  Which is normal human nature.   The OP got plenty of sympathy in this thread. I actually think in plenty of situational posts where a poster is posting as upset by a situation, it would be fascinating to hear the story as presented the other side.  It is highly likely that is not nearly as clear cut as many people would like to present.   I've been involved in mediation situations in real life and rarely are things as clear as one side would present.  

This is an extremely diverse board.  I think everyone is an insider and an outsider in some way.  I am not Christian and have certainly felt piled on at times and  have quietly stepped away during certain threads.  If someone does not want a diverse opinion set, maybe this isn't the board for them.  I have been here on and off for many many years and I have seen minds open and hearts change by intelligent but respectful discussion and an open mind.   There are other boards - faith based, etc that might be more appropriate.  

 

As I said, others are free to disagree with my perspective. It's just my own perspective, and matters no more than yours.

I - an atheist, progressive, unmarried, interracial family with gay kids - am more than happy to have Scarlett here, and have her share as much or as little of her story as she wants. I don't feel the need to shunt her off to a JW board or somesuch. I am OK to have Scarlett and moonflower here, just as I am OK the other way round, with posters who are politically and secularly allied to my positions, but some of whose beliefs I also find extreme.

I personally have found great personal growth in an ability to listen to, and consider someone like maize, who disagrees with me on some close moral issues, and is still a good, intelligent, and kind person, but other's mileage, as I said above, may vary. It's all good. 

Edited by StellaM
  • Like 14
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

As I said, others are free to disagree with my perspective. It's just my own perspective, and matters no more than yours.

I - an atheist, progressive, unmarried, interracial family with gay kids - am more than happy to have Scarlett here, and have her share as much or as little of her story as she wants. I don't feel the need to shunt her off to a JW board or somesuch. I am OK to have Scarlett and moonflower here, just as I am OK the other way round, morally and politically. 

I personally have found greater growth in an ability to listen to, and consider someone like maize, who disagrees with me on some close moral issues, and is still a good, intelligent, and kind person, but other's mileage, as I said above, may vary. It's all good. 

I don't disagree.  I like the diversity of this board.  It's why I return and I think everyone is welcome. 

But I really don't think anyone choosing to be here is a "victim" of the board.  Pretty much everyone is the minority view at some point.    

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My DH always says, “do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?” When we are fussing at each other or over our kids. Rarely can you be both at the same time when a major conflict occurs. If you prefer to be ‘right’ that’s fine. You just need to find another way to be happy because it’s not going to come from the opposing party. 

I don’t think age necessarily gives anyone any special wisdom. My mom has been making some of the same mistakes in her personal and professional life for decades because she never learned to do things differently. This she admitted to me just last month as part of the very first apology/acknowledgment I’ve ever received from her.

In this as in most things, time will tell.

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FuzzyCatz said:

I don't disagree.  I like the diversity of this board.  It's why I return and I think everyone is welcome. 

But I really don't think anyone choosing to be here is a "victim" of the board.  Pretty much everyone is the minority view at some point.    

 

I don't think I said anyone was a victim of the board. No-one is forced to post here. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

My DH always says, “do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?” When we are fussing at each other or over our kids. Rarely can you be both at the same time when a major conflict occurs. If you prefer to be ‘right’ that’s fine. You just need to find another way to be happy because it’s not going to come from the opposing party. 

I don’t think age necessarily gives anyone any special wisdom. My mom has been making some of the same mistakes in her personal and professional life for decades because she never learned to do things differently. This she admitted to me just last month as part of the very first apology/acknowledgment I’ve ever received from her.

In this as in most things, time will tell.

 

 

Exactly the same thing could be said to the son. 

Age doesn't bestow wisdom; it does bestow life experience, and frequently, people do mature in the light of that.

Being older doesn't automatically disqualify your point of view, that's all. And there is no 'young adult wisdom', available only to post-millenials, which negates the combined wisdom of every other generation currently on existence on this planet.

Dealing with our experiences of our own mothers is a good thing to deal with in therapy; I think it's less effective when we use our own personal experience of mothers to extrapolate to other mothers here on this board. That my mum made some grievous mistakes in her raising of me doesn't mean Scarlett is any more likely to be making the same or other mistakes. I think I would be wrong to take my own experience of being mothered, and project that onto Scarlett's situation, without a vast degree more information.

In general (not just on this board) I think mothers are incredibly devalued, and often act as community scapegoats, so it wouldn't be surprising to see that echoed in any environment, even one composed of mothers.

Anyway, like I said. Just my opinion. No-one needs to agree with it (but there's no point arguing about it with me either :))

Edited by StellaM
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to Scarlett's situation, I don't know. However, I have found it a bit ironic that on a board where we are always talking about boundaries, and the Boundaries book is often recommended, it doesn't seem to apply if it is one's child rather than someone else. I love my kids with all I am, but if I had one who was trying to manipulate me to do something I felt I couldn't (thankfully, that hasn't arisen thus far), I would have to put a boundary there, The speculations have been interesting, and sometimes entertaining, but I must not have read as carefully as others, because I keep seeing people insisting that Scarlett said things that I don't recall reading that she said. If this really had to do with her son's wedding, it seems as though things must have moved really quickly, and talking things through to a compromise might not could happen as quickly as the wedding did. Hugs to you, Scarlett. I hope you and your son are able to find a healthy, loving way forward, with mutual respect for each other and your points of view.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Exactly the same thing could be said to the son. 

Age doesn't bestow wisdom; it does bestow life experience, and frequently, people do mature in the light of that.

Being older doesn't automatically disqualify your point of view, that's all. And there is no 'young adult wisdom', available only to post-millenials, which negates the combined wisdom of every other generation currently on existence on this planet.

Dealing with our experiences of our own mothers is a good thing to deal with in therapy; I think it's less effective when we use our own personal experience of mothers to extrapolate to other mothers here on this board. That my mum made some grievous mistakes in her raising of me doesn't mean Scarlett is any more likely to be making the same or other mistakes. I think I would be wrong to take my own experience of being mothered, and project that onto Scarlett's situation, without a vast degree more information.

In general (not just on this board) I think mothers are incredibly devalued, and often act as community scapegoats, so it wouldn't be surprising to see that echoed in any environment, even one composed of mothers.

 

To the bolded, of course, no one said otherwise. Therapy is always beneficial. My mother only apologized to me after a year of it. I’m glad it helped her. My experiences weren’t extrapolated to Scarlett except to say that she cant control her son’s response and has to find a way to live with/find peace with where things are. That’s it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Exactly the same thing could be said to the son. 

Age doesn't bestow wisdom; it does bestow life experience, and frequently, people do mature in the light of that.

Being older doesn't automatically disqualify your point of view, that's all. And there is no 'young adult wisdom', available only to post-millenials, which negates the combined wisdom of every other generation currently on existence on this planet.

Dealing with our experiences of our own mothers is a good thing to deal with in therapy; I think it's less effective when we use our own personal experience of mothers to extrapolate to other mothers here on this board. That my mum made some grievous mistakes in her raising of me doesn't mean Scarlett is any more likely to be making the same or other mistakes. I think I would be wrong to take my own experience of being mothered, and project that onto Scarlett's situation, without a vast degree more information.

In general (not just on this board) I think mothers are incredibly devalued, and often act as community scapegoats, so it wouldn't be surprising to see that echoed in any environment, even one composed of mothers.

That’s where I was really trying to give Scarlett the benefit of the doubt in earlier posts.  She loves her son so much, and I thought she had a close relationship with him still.  I figured it had to be some unbridgeable issue to cause her to stand against him and miss the wedding, and he would have tried to accommodate her religious ideas there, which he would know rather well.

 But the more details that got added the more it sounded like this was inflexibility on her part too, and holding a line that didn’t really need to be held for any major religious adherence.  That’s where it got increasingly difficult to see her side of it.  I’m devout too, and would put commands of scripture before my family.  But this sounds like a line she drew in the sand, not one her faith did.  And that’s a whole different kettle of fish in terms of comforting her or even giving her advice on how to repair the relationship.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Arctic Mama said:

That’s where I was really trying to give Scarlett the benefit of the doubt in earlier posts.  She loves her son so much, and I thought she had a close relationship with him still.  I figured it had to be some unbridgeable issue to cause her to stand against him and miss the wedding, and he would have tried to accommodate her religious ideas there, which he would know rather well.

 But the more details that got added the more it sounded like this was inflexibility on her part too, and holding a line that didn’t really need to be held for any major religious adherence.  That’s where it got increasingly difficult to see her side of it.  I’m devout too, and would put commands of scripture before my family.  But this sounds like a line she drew in the sand, not one her faith did.  And that’s a whole different kettle of fish in terms of comforting her or even giving her advice on how to repair the relationship.

 

Well, I guess one's conscience IS the line one draws in the sand, regardless of the stance of other authorities.

Fwiw, I thought there was some good advice about best chances for repairing the relationship. 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

To the bolded, of course, no one said otherwise. Therapy is always beneficial. My mother only apologized to me after a year of it. I’m glad it helped her. My experiences weren’t extrapolated to Scarlett except to say that she cant control her son’s response and has to find a way to live with/find peace with where things are. That’s it. 

 

Yep, I agree. 

And this is great advice for Scarlett's son and DIL also; a shame they aren't here to hear it. I hope they are hearing such moderate advice elsewhere.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Yep, I agree. 

And this is great advice for Scarlett's son and DIL also; a shame they aren't here to hear it. I hope they are hearing such moderate advice elsewhere.

 

 I do too. I just think that, ultimately, you have to be prepared (on both sides) for the fact that their peace may not include you (or in a very altered way) going forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe it’s just me, lol, but it’s a bit freaky reading this last page of posts, and seeing that Scarlett is online right now, clicking thank you to those ‘defending’ her, all the while not bothering to explain anything. 

Its almost as if she’s getting off on it, or perhaps she knows she’s partly to blame and is trying to make herself feel better?  Either way, I think I’ve had enough of the circus antics. This seems to be much more than a religious drama.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

 I do too. I just think that, ultimately, you have to be prepared (on both sides) for the fact that their peace may not include you (or in a very altered way) going forward.

 

Yes, that does happen. 

And to give Scarlett credit, I think she is prepared for that to happen, though hoping it won't, and feeling desperately sad about how things are right now. 

Relationships do heal sometimes though.

And sometimes that's because a parent's views shift, and sometimes it's because an adult child's views shift.

And sometimes (ideally) it's both.

I don't think she need despair right now.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

maybe it’s just me, lol, but it’s a bit freaky reading this last page of posts, and seeing that Scarlett is online right now, clicking thank you to those ‘defending’ her, all the while not bothering to explain anything. 

Its almost as if she’s getting off on it, or perhaps she knows she’s partly to blame and is trying to make herself feel better?  Either way, I think I’ve had enough of the circus antics. This seems to be much more than a religious drama.

 

I would thank someone who was defending my right to act in accordance to my conscience also. Why is that freaky ?

I'd defend your right to act according to your conscience also.

I'm not defending Scarlett's decision, because I don't know what it is. I'm defending her right to make a decision based on her own conscience. And her son's responsibility to handle his anger, which he is also entitled to, in an adult way. That's it. Not sure why that's a problem ?

Why are we meant to be throwing someone we 'know', lots of us for quite some time, into the stocks ? Surely if you don't like Scarlett, don't like the thread, don't care  for any of it - don't read and monitor the thread ?

Edited by StellaM
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rosie_0801 said:

 

I mean Scarlett doesn't owe us satisfaction, and anyone who is irritated by that needs to, in the words of the immortal Man in Black, "get used to disappointment."*

*Princess Bride reference.

 

That seems like an odd thing to need to own feelings about, but to each his own.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a truth that is not about bashing mothers or disrespecting religious convictions, and that truth is this:

The child of a parent who has chosen their conviction over supporting their kids, might not ever actually fully forgive their parent or reconcile with them. Especially if the parent has no intention of apologizing or finding middle ground, in fact, the parent finds religious or prideful satisfaction in never backing down or softening. It doesn't matter if it happens to the child when they are 12 or 32, it is a devastating hurt. Even if the child always knew their parent was capable of that. It feels like abandonment.

I'm not going to gloss over it or blame it all on the son's immaturity. If he doesn't share his mother's conviction, and especially if he disagrees that her faith necessitated that conflict with him, the anger makes sense. It's not a good or happy situation. But it plays out for a zillion families, around the world and down through time.

The child learns to live without the support of their parent, and also has to address difficult questions about how they're going to deal with their parent's aging and death, when the time comes. They have to face the fact that their child will not be fully accepted and embraced by their grandparent, that even if there's a relationship, it's going to be just as likely that the grandchild will be left out in the cold, too. (Some of us regret letting our children even know their grandparents, because sure enough, that happened.)

The parent learns to live without a good relationship with their child. They cry a lot. They commiserate with other parents of their faith who have had the same outcome. They reassure each other that they are doing the right thing and some kids are just going to reject the faith. They worry about their belief that their children and grandchildren will be in a literal hell. After these anxiety episodes, they reassure themselves for the hundredth time that they are holy and suffering these things for the cause of Christ, and they pray that their kids will repent, and then they stiffen their chin and say, "But he made his decision. I'm not going to let this ruin my life."

Truth.

The flipside of this truth is that the parent/child bond is very strong, and if the parent would just apologize. Just soften somewhat, meet them halfway, tell them that they love and accept them...the child would probably forgive them and be so glad. Whether they were 12 or 32 or 62 when the parent came to that decision.

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 6
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Scarlett said:

.  I wondered if others had been through something similar and managed to regain the relationship.  A few people answered. (The poster who told about her sister trying to get her to watch an R rated movie and becoming angry when she refused—that was similar to my situation).  

 

I have been through something similar, though with a sibling. He was married with a three year old and it came out that he was having two affairs. When his wife decided to file for divorce and he found out he wasn’t going to get sole custody, he decided to walk away and never see the boy again.  The rest of my family stood by him, though they thought he was crazy. I did not. I told him how selfish he was to walk away from his son. In the end, he told his kid he’d never see him again, but after several years he did decide to be a parent. This was 15 years ago and my relationship with him is not healed. We were together when mom passed away and were fine around each other, but we make an effort to not be at Dad’s at the same time. It’s pretty sad, but it is what it is. 

I hope your situation will be different, and it might because a mother/son bond is stronger than a sibling bond.  Also, we have complicating factors because at the time he was getting divorced he did some pretty awful things to my parents and to dh. (Called my folks and shot his gun a few times and made them think he’d died by suicide, and told dh he was on the way to our house to burn it down)

Hang in there, Scarlett. We’ve had four kids go through young adulthood and they have all become less rigid in their thinking as they matured. I pray your relationship w your son will heal. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anger often makes sense. No-one think that son can't feel angry.

I am feeling real angry with my parents right now for things they did 30 years ago; I am, as he is, completely entitled to have my feelings.

Being angry doesn't give anyone - and especially not a young man - the right to dump it all, aggressively, on a woman, even if that woman is mom. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...