|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...is that maybe the mother sees the daughter as competition for her man's attention, and thus is more likely to leave or nag-away her husband.
The suggestions for the causes of why this may be in the article, even when referring mainly to social matters, you will note, places the responsibility for the phenomenon exclusively on men. Again, more hidden misandry and avoidance to imagine that a woman may play any role in a family's break-up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday October 03, @06:05PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
...is that maybe the mother sees the daughter as competition for her man's attention, and thus is more likely to leave or nag-away her husband.
Is it just me or does that line make absolutely NO sense? Girl competes with mom for attention of dad so drive dad away? Then again... there are some women out there for which Logic is something forced on them by the evil Patriarchy. :)
Dave K
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday October 04, @01:16PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
"'...is that maybe the mother sees the daughter as competition for her man's attention, and thus is more likely to leave or nag-away her husband.'
Is it just me or does that line make absolutely NO sense? Girl competes with mom for attention of dad so drive dad away? Then again... there are some women out there for which Logic is something forced on them by the evil Patriarchy. :)"
---
Remember the dynamics in families and the tendency for women to blame men for their feelings and insist that men fix them for them, but without tolerating the father to exert any actual power or influence, or if he does, to then reject it and/orplay the victim role. In that light, it is easy to see how a mother may drive away a father by nagging or other means, then when he leaves, he is blamed for leaving her and their daughter, who now views herself and the mother as a victim (and has this idea reinforced generally). In one on-going deft subconscious act of familia-cide, the mother drives the father away, thereby securing the exclusive affections of her offspring (the daughter) as well as making sure the daughter cannot steal the father's affections from her - since she has done that herself, therby reinforcing her subconscious desire for an image of omnipotency.
Makes perfect "sense" in the twisted illogic of emotions and subconscious motivations.
But sometimes motivations are not so subconscious, too! I mean, mother also get child support from father, too!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTW, I (mcc99) posted the above reply. For some reason, it went up as an anon post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My main theory on this "phenomen" is that, in cases of divorce, we expect (rightly) that the children will most likely end up with their mother. Not a bad thing for daughters (we think), but of course it must be awful for sons.
There's a common cliche I've noticed in movies and TV shows about divorced families where the mother has custody. Daughters are usually portrayed as exceptionally mature, "trying to help Mom, supporting her through her singleness". Sons, however, are frequently depicted as troubled, or criminal, or brooding. Sons are always depicted as wreaking havoc, rebelling against their mothers and yelling: "I want to go live with Dad! Why can't I go live with Dad?"
Buying into this cliche, fathers probably feel more obligated to stick around for their sons than they do for daughters. After all, what does a man feel like as the lone male in a household full of women? A built-in bodyguard, or repairman? Useful, yes - but hardly irreplaceable. Bring a son into the equation, and it can completely change everything.
Also, to echo one of the theories presented in the article, the presence of sons can make a family seem more like "the real deal". It's virtually impossible to envision a world without women - therefore, the presence or absence of men seems to make all the difference in everything.
Another theory is that boys are reputed as far more hit-or-miss creatures than girls. We believe that boys who grow up in good families become good men; boys who grow in bad families or broken homes grow up to be criminals or good-for-nothings. We don't worry so much about this happening to girls.
Also, regarding mothers - I think mothers expect a lifelong, emotional dependency from their sons that they probably won't get from their daughters. Daughters are expected to grow up, marry and become someone's wife (symbolized by the tradition of women taking their husbands' last names when they marry). Sons are always sons - to both mothers and fathers. Sons keep the family name, and therefore stay completely in the family.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 08, @08:16AM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I just thought of another theory. Women who have sons, especially multiple sons, accept far more readiliy the reality of the male psyche. We understand men better.The 'bad': that they do not always talk about their feelings, that they do not notice what is right in front of them if it isn't their normal job (ie socks on the floor), and that the whole toilet seat issue is just plain silly, and the 'good': they are more even tempered, brave, less whiny, and more kenetic. So these things that drive other women nuts is accepted by mothers of sons. Also, male hormones are proven to have a calming effect on women, so perhaps women in male houses are just more mellow. Jen
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
