March 28, 2024, 03:22:08 PM

News:

"Welcome to WiseWomenUnite.com -- When adult children marry and leave home, life can sometimes get more complex instead of simpler.  Being a mother-in-law or daughter-in-law can be tough.  How do we extend love and support to our mothers-in-law, adult children, daughters-in-law, sons-in-law, and grandchildren without interfering?  What do we do when there are communication problems?  How can we ask for help when we need it without being a burden?  And how do our family members feel about these issues?  We invite you to join our free forum, read some posts... and when you're ready...share your challenges and wisdom."


Anyone heard of this?

Started by tryingmybest, November 14, 2011, 04:06:38 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Pen

Thanks for the review. Boy, you never know, do you?
Respect ... is appreciation of the separateness of the other person, of the ways in which he or she is unique.
-- Annie Gottlieb

tryingmybest


tryingmybest

My curiosity got the better of me. I ordered it off Amazon, I had a gift card  ;), after I read it, I'll post a review strictly from the MIL perspective.

brandynd

My MIL lives by this book.  Not being snarky, it's just a fact.  She keeps it conveniently displayed on her coffee table every time I come over...coincidence?  Lol

tryingmybest

Ouch she must be a piece of work to deal with.  ::)

herbalescapes

 My apologies, but can't resist.  I love beating a dead horse, and this is right up my alley.  Just because I post doesn't mean you have to read it.  Just ignore this and the next fifty or so posts I make about this book.  I shamefacedly admit I couldn't find the book at the library, so I shelled out the 12 bucks to purchase online.  I have more than gotten my money's worth by discussing this with friends. And now the fun continues.  Hey, I've got a cold and nothing else to do.  At least, nothing I want to do.

I read the review tryingmybest posted about and obviously I disagree.  I don't doubt the author is feeling much pain.  And I reiterate that she could be totally right: her DIL may be a controlling monster who set out to rip DS away from his family.  I just don't think the author has in any way proven her case and in some instances weakened her premise. 

I cry BS on any claim that the author tried to maintain her DS and DIL's privacy by "hiding" their identities with false first names.  If this had been written before the internet age, I might give her a pass.  But this was published in 2010.  Anyone who googled the author's name or her husband's would quickly find an interview of her husband talking about being alienated from their son and giving his first name.  The author didn't even bother to change some details like where they lived, family size, occupations.  Taken on its own, this book comes across to me as the author definitely not forgiving her son and deliberately putting their identities out there to punish them.  Did she consider what her grandchildren would think if they read it?  Never mind the teasing they might get from classmates who read the book (Does your mom really control your dad through sex?), but I can't imagine them wanting anything to do with a grandmother who aired her grievances so publicly and without giving DS and DIL a chance to refute the accusations.  Any hope of a reconciliation or forming a relationship with the grandkids went out the window when this went to press. 

I don't see the author taking any responsibility for her own contributions to the alienation.  I mean, I consider myself the one exception to the rule that no one's totally innocent in these matters, so she can't be.  Boycotting your son's wedding isn't a little matter.  It's not that the author and her husband were uninvited.  Purportedly, DS and DIL asked DH to perform the wedding (he's a clergyman), so he wrote a service and sent it to them. After no reaction, DH asked for their thoughts.  DH received a letter from DS saying the service was too impersonal and they would find someone less biased to do the service and DH would be relieved so he could be with his wife during the ceremony.  You may think DS was out of line for "firing" his dad, but he did provide a face-saving way for the author and DH to attend and explain why DH wasn't doing the ceremony.  (I also wonder why an experienced clergyman would write out a whole wedding service without consulting the bride and groom on what type of service they wanted.  If DH had been a renowned tailor and whipped up a wedding gown for DIL that she didn't like, would we criticize her for finding a different dress?)

I understand author and DH being upset, angry, hurt, but, I don't think the insult was so great to warrant a boycott.  Then, DS sends them a letter saying they'd always be welcome to come to the wedding.  A friend told author and husband to go to the wedding or they'd always regret it.  They were warned, but  author and husband stuck to their guns because they didn't feel welcome.  Hmmmm, if not being comfortable around your ILs is a valid reason for not coming to family events, the author has just justified every DIL who spends holidays with her FOO instead of ILs.  Live by the sword, die by the sword, so's to speak. 

One thing to note in this, we never hear the DILs side.  Even when the author reports on what DS said DIL felt or said, it's hearsay.  For all we know, DIL was fine with the ceremony FIL put together and it was DS alone who found the service not to his liking.  It wouldn't be the first time a DS let his wife take the blame for his own jabs at his family. 

More to come.  I promise.  Or threaten.  Take your pick.

Pooh

Aren't all books like that though?  Written from the Author's perspective I mean.  Even an autobiography is from your own perspectives?  I could write a book right now about my marriage and divorce, and although I could tell you things I did wrong, it would mostly be about the transgressions my Ex did.  If he wrote a book about our marriage and divorce, it would be totally different and his side, probably harping on all my transgressions to him.

I bet the DIL in this book could write her own, and it would be totally different, because it would be her perspective.

This is no way, shape or form saying the author in this book isn't the worst MIL ever, just my take on books in general.
We must let go of the life we have planned, so as to accept the one that is waiting for us. -
Joseph Campbell

Pen

Full disclosure: I haven't read the book and have no immediate plans to.

My perspective is that of a mom who has experienced shunning by DIL and the gradual morphing of DS into DIL's FOO at the expense of ours. DIL admits I've done nothing wrong, she just doesn't like us or deem us worthy.

Yes, it happens. There are DILs with agendas, just as there are MILs with agendas. The difference is that as DILs we can choose to jump in or not. As MILs we have to deal with whomever DS chooses. Why my DIL still wanted to marry a man whose FOO was so unacceptable to her she felt shunning was justified is beyond me, unless she had an agenda to separate him from us from the beginning.

How the author chose to handle her pain may be the issue with the book, but I have a feeling most customers don't realize, or don't want to admit, this kind of treatment by DILs is impossible. Oh, it's very real in my case.
Respect ... is appreciation of the separateness of the other person, of the ways in which he or she is unique.
-- Annie Gottlieb

Kate123

Great Title! Maybe we should write "A MIL Is A MIL Until You Push Her Off a Cliff!" Just kidding...LOL!


Just read this Louise- gave me a good laugh for the day!

pam1

A little off topic of the book but similar premise -- I sometimes wonder what the other sides perspective is.  I know my MILs, heard it enough the past couple years ;)  But it would be interesting to get a peek into the other party's perspective sometimes.  Just my random thought of the day
People throw rocks at things that shine - Taylor Swift

mysterygirl

We have this book, our marriage therapist suggested that we read it to understand how my MIL feels/thinks since we've cut her off. When I read it, I laughed because this MIL is absolutely out of her mind in every way imaginable. When my husband read it, he was horrified and disgusted.

This author and her family (her DH and non-estranged son) bring the words enmeshment & co-dependent to a whole new level thats never been reached before, no wonder why this one son got out when he did! I would have too.

At one point in the book she compared her sons estrangement to "divorce". Moms/sons dont "divorce" MARRIED COUPLES DO, that was a red flag for me. The way she described her relationship with her son (prior to estrangement) was not healthy, it was quite creepy actually.

Also she mentioned BRIBING the adult child and his/her spouse with money, gifts, trips etc. to GAIN TIME WITH THE GKs if need be. Thats another red flag.

This book was so jam packed with guilt trips & maniplulation tactics, we thought we were reading a "how to" book.

At NO time in this book did SHE take any blame for the off the wall stunts she pulled. She placed all of that right at her DILs feet. I have to say if your a DIL who has ever had problems (major or minor) with your MIL you'll pick up real quick on all of her "offenses" that helped her get cut off. They almost pop off the page while reading. One thing is for sure, she did not like boundaries.

If you need a good laugh, this is a good book. If your looking for a "how-to" get cut off from my child & spouse for life book, this is it!

pam1

Welcome mysterygirl :)

Please read the Forum Agreement and WWU History (first two threads highlighted in pink) in the category Open Me First.  We ask all new members to do this, nothing wrong with your post.

Thanks for your perspective on the book.  This book is getting to be quite the topic on the board, now I'm about to order it LOL.
People throw rocks at things that shine - Taylor Swift

herbalescapes

Just when you thought it was safe to read this thread...

If you had a child with autism, would you blame them for not being affectionate?  Would you deem them uncaring and selfish because they didn't talk to you?  Of course not.  It may be frustrating and painful, but the situation is out of the child's control.  What would you think of a DIL who complained about a MIL being rude, hateful, a liar, manipulating, etc., but it turned out the MIL had Alzheimer's or dementia or some other mental illness responsible for the hurtful behavior?  You'd want to slap that DIL and tell her to grow up, right?  Well, I wish this author would show as much compassion for mentally ill DILs.

I can understand the pain and frustration of dealing with a DIL with mental illness and the worry and concern you'd have for your son and gc's living with her.  You might even have to distance or entirely remove yourself from the situation for your own mental health.  However, I think the mental illness would preclude the DIL, no matter how outrageous and hurtful the behavior, from being categorized as a Toxic DIL.

The author relays the story of Paulo and Maggie.  Maggie is from a dysfunctional home and Paulo and his folks initially wanted to rescue Maggie yet they soon realized she was "a complex, anguished, mentally ill person who would never escape from the way of her parents."  Maggie is controlling, abusive, runs up debt.  I'm not arguing that her behavior was anything else.  Paulo becomes cutoff from his parents.  Sometimes the dad wants to "threaten them both with dismemberment {with an axe} for their heinous crimes against the family."  Ok, probably a little bit of hyperbole employed to show how frustrated and hurt the parents were, so I'll excuse the dismemberment imagery, but Maggie is admittedly mentally ill!  She cannot be guilty of "heinous crimes" – heinous behavior, maybe, but not crimes.  And doing what you need to to help your mentally ill spouse, shouldn't be characterized as a crime!  (unless, of course it is an actual crime – I don't justify stealing, murder, vandalism, etc. to help out your ill spouse, but cutting out your relatives, if that's what it takes for some reason, then so be it.)

"On top of all this, Maggie would occasionally overdose on pills in what appeared to be a fake suicide attempt."  I thought we had gotten past, in 2010, characterizing suicide attempts as ploys for attention.  Every suicide attempt should be thought of as serious.  Paulo does divorce Maggie but they stay entangled to a degree.  "Then, a few months after the divorce, Paulo received the most stunning news he had ever had.  Maggie had been found dead in her apartment [OD]."  Since the poor woman eventually succeeded in ending her life, I think we can safely assume her earlier attempts were not fake.  I can't say that with absolute certainty, of course, but I say give the dead woman the benefit of the doubt not to mention a little pity and compassion. 

Then there's Jeff and Katie.  "A psychiatrist told Jeff that Katie has something called Borderline Personality Disorder...people who never bonded with their mothers...learn to fabricate new personalities... very artful liars...often homosexuals [WHY was this tidbit included or relevant?  Way to insult the homosexual community!!!].. and alcoholics and drug addicts...frequent and inappropriate displays of anger."  I do feel sorry for a spouse and ILs on the receiving end of a BPD's behavior, but isn't the BPD person herself the bigger victim?  She can't get away from herself.  But no, "Jeff had got himself into a terrible situation, and by getting himself into it, he had got his folks into it, too."  Nice job marginalizing the mentally ill, because they aren't marginalized enough in our society.

I do find it ironic that elsewhere in the book the author speculates that her son and DIL might be BPD themselves.  Accepting the unscientific cause of the illness above (never bonded with mom), this means the author is admitting she may not have bonded with her son.  So just maybe some of the alienation can be laid at her feet? 

The author references a report published by the British Psychological Society's London Conference of 1999 which identifies the three most frequent reasons for DILs not liking their MILs.  Then she goes on to say, "As I have studied the subject of MILs and DILS, I have concluded that the list of reasons they don't get along better is much longer and more complicated than might be indicated by the British Psychological Society's report."  Yes, she has certainly done some very objective, large-scale, completely unbiased studies.  After all, she's been "a concert pianist, a college professor a Parisian model, and the wife of a widely known clergyman."  Her insights are simply bound to be more accurate than a bunch of British Psychologists. 

herbalescapes

I'm to blame when this book hits the NY Times bestsellers list.  But I am enjoying myself.

I don't want to say the author overreacts, but how else do you explain their Easter dinner snafu?  Author, DH, DS and DIL had plans to have Easter dinner together around noon.  (This was before the wedding and before author and DH excused themselves from such.)  A few days before Easter, DS emails to ask if they could push dinner to 4 PM because DIL wanted to do brunch with her brother.  Didn't say he demanded or told them it was 4 or nothing.  Just that they'd like to make that change.  Now, if the author had said no and then DS and DIL canx'd on them, I'd side with the author.  You shouldn't cancel plans just because something better (to you) comes along.  But they didn't get that chance.  The author emails back that they should just have dinner another time because obviously DS and DIL were very busy that day.  Huh?
I don't find anything rude about DS asking to change the time.  If DIL already had plans with her family and DS wanted to squeeze in his family, wouldn't we have thought DIL was being a snotty snot if she wouldn't even TRY to include both families?  I really can't blame DIL down the line spending all holidays with her family if this was the reaction to a mere request to alter times.  (Again, if DS had said they weren't coming unless the time changed or after receiving a No to his request cancelled, I'd side with the author.)  It's a once-bitten-twice-shy situation. 

And then there's the rehearsal dinner slideshow.  DIL tells them her brother is putting together a slideshow of her family pictures to show at the rehearsal dinner.  The author characterizes this as "being mugged by experts."  Again, huh?  Maybe she mentioned the slideshow as an indirect way of telling them to send their family photos to her brother so DS's family would be included.  Maybe DS had nixed including his family photos in slideshows. Not everyone likes their baby pics et al on public display.  Maybe DIL mentioned her brother's slideshow as a hint for someone in DS's family to step up and do the same.  Or just maybe, DS had given photos of his family to be included and DIL assumed the author and DH knew this, so she was just mentioning the pictures they were unfamiliar with.  If the author wanted her side included, she could have just made up a slideshow herself – or delegated the job – since she (author) was the hostess of the rehearsal dinner.  For someone who had been to hundreds of weddings, she seemed somewhat ignorant of a common rehearsal dinner entertainment.  Since author and DH boycotted the rehearsal dinner with the wedding, we'll never know what pictures were included.

And then there's the "plaintive words" her husband wrote to her son – before the wedding but after it was decided they wouldn't be there:

We rarely seem to have an hour that isn't shadowed by thoughts of what has happened.  We'll probably always wonder why you decided to push the wagon over the cliff and not look down to see if anybody was hurt.

Who pushed what?  The author and husband CHOSE not to go to the wedding.  Their DS followed their decision up with a note – maybe formal, but still there – telling them they were still welcome.  The author decided to CANCELL Easter dinner instead of trying to accommodate the time change (she didn't give a reason why the time couldn't change except her husband had never had Easter dinner at 4 PM and wouldn't want to start now) or just decline their request and see what had happened.  This just reinforces my incredulity about how blinded the author is to her own active role in the estrangement.

Begonia

Wow, I am trying to be open minded about this thread but it seems to me this is why DIL and MIL have problems: They both are "right fighters" like Dr. Phil refers to them.  I love most of the threads here and learn a lot but this really seems like a lot of flaming to me and not much healing...and over a book?  I have to smile.  When women get riled up we are like hornets!!   ::)
Yesterday is history, Tomorrow is a mystery, Today is a gift (Eleanor Roosevelt)