A sons a son....

[curious33]

'A sons a son until he finds a wife but a daughters a daughter for all of your life'

Curious to know peoples experiences of this in real life... heard the phrase for the first time yesterday. AIBU to not know how much truth there is in it and to be taking it a little bit to heart now as a mum of two boys?

In my family it’s generally accurate and in my circle of friends it is too. Doesn’t mean the sons aren’t involved in their parent’s lives, just that there is more focus on their wives families.

My Aunt has two boys though and one of those is very close to her.

GrizzlebumsMum what's wrong with you DH speaking to his Mum everyday? I know lots of women that speak to their Mum regularly and no-one would bat an eyelid. As you have said your not close with your parents so maybe that's you projecting your own issues. Your DH is actually modelling a caring relationship with his Mum to your Ds which is a positive thing.

It's also down to location. My brother and his wife are very close geographically and emotionally to our parents, but I live 250 miles away so that has a noticeable impact.

My husband and I live near his parents, and I think the world of them. I probably speak to them more than my parents, and they are definitely more of our day to day life.

And then there's my husband's sister, who lives just round the corner from his parents but clearly wants nothing to do with them or us...🤷‍♀️

We're much closer with my husband's family and take the kids there pretty much every weekend.

I think the issue, and I know I'm generalising, is that men focus the energy they put into relationships dependant on how useful that relationship is to them. Years ago I heard a scientist on a radio 4 programme refer to testosterone as 'the selfish hormone' and it's always stuck with me. If his emotional needs are being met by a partner, then he won't see a need to invest emotional energy elsewhere. I have 3 brothers and this is very much the case with them. They reappear wanting emotional support from mother and other siblings during periods of being single (NAMALT).

It's a lazy statement. The parents I've heard throw it out often want to hide the fact that they babied their own kids who later went on to get another surrogate parent in their partner, or had sons who were just as lazy before or those who have found independence or controlled. In other words there's a multitude of reasons.

In the cases i know where son isn't so close we have
1 son whose parents controlled him previously
1 son abused by his DV wife
2 lazy as fuck sons who always were held to a lower standard then their siblings
1 where mum met a new partner who was a shit to the son so he distanced from teenhood

Ugh my MIL said this (she has 2 boys) and it really annoyed me. Making out as though once men find a woman they're off, even though when I think about it my DH has more contact (phone calls/visits) than I do with my mum and we have a good relationship. I think it was a dig.

Bollocks in my experience. It’s completely dependent on the people involved, not on whether they’re a man or a woman. My husband and his brother, for example, are very close to their mum, snd see her once a week. She’s lovely and I adore her, but my relationship with my own mother is fraught to say the very least.

I talk to my mum every day, am I a mummy's girl?

I’m one of 4, 2b, 2g. We all know that b2 (second child) is DM’s absolute favourite. He’ll been her baby boy forever, even though he’s in his fifties.

I find it strange that parents expect to be very close to their adult children. Yes, of course they/we are always there if needed and we enjoy each other's company and share special occasions but we aren't in constant touch and wouldn't expect to be.

My parents have two daughters. They raised us to send us off into the world and are happy that we dont "need" them constantly. I hope to do the same with my sons.

DH's parents still expected to come first for him which (amongst other things) is the reason he has very little contact with them now. However often he called/visited it was never enough. They were the same with his sister though so it's not a son/daughter thing.

It is only "true" if people continue to reinforce gender stereotypes.

There is no biological reason why adult females are closer to their parents than adult males. However we live in a gendered world so people spout bollocks like this.

Some people have much lower expectations of their sons than they would daughters. My in laws are quite proactive at making plans with DH, I've never tried to be his social secretary so they contact him.

On the other hand my MIL is one of those people who believes having a penis inhibits you from remembering to buy birthday cards and arrange your social life. She's not impressed that she has to phone him to remind him of birthdays because I won't

My brother more or less ignores our parents now he has a partner. When he was single he relied on them so much but as soon as he met her he moved out and rarely speaks to them...so it's true for him.
DH on the other hand is very close to his family. Speaks on the phone once a week and visits them every week too. As a result I'm very close to them too and DS had a wonderfully close, big family. So not true for DH. I just hope DS takes after DH

@Zeusthemoose and that is what a forum post lacks, context. With this lack of context you’ve made some assumptions there about the relationship my husband has with his parents and the one I have with mine. I don’t feel the need to elaborate but you don’t know what the context or the dynamics are of those daily conversations. The saying that the OP posted is stereotypical and, in my opinion, outdated. But it may work for some. Totally depends on what kind of person one is and what they value.

Amongst my circle of friends and family, I'd say it's definitely true

This saying is true for every man I know tbh.

But in varying forms, I tend to find if the DIL gets on with the parents the son stays in their lives a bit more, however it's common for once married a couple to spend more time with the wife's family than the husbands.

My husband for example doesn't really talk to his parents but we do a lot of stuff with mine.

Agree with Allover, I have an only DC (a DS) and I fully expect him to leave home and make his own way in the world without ever feeling 'tied' to me. I honestly don't want/need to involved in every aspect of his life, certainly don't want to be 'used' for childcare which many grandparents seem to end up doing.

My own parents are the same, we were never expected to be over involved In their lives or they in ours. Reading in Mumsnet there are ( in my opinion) some very over emotionally invested parent/child relationships around.

Having said that, now my DPs are much older (late 80s) I do find as the only DD I am more involved with them than my brothers are, partly because we live nearer to each other & one of my DBs has his own elderly MIL living with him. So, by default, I do find that, yet again, many DDs fall into the 'caring' role.

In my experience that is true...I am much closer to my mum than my brothers are and I feel like she is a lot more comfortable in my house and with my husband than at my brothers’ houses and with their wives. Sorry OP!

I think women in families are often the instigator and organiser of get togethers and meet ups. It's generally easier to organize a meet up with your own family than your in laws so there's a tendency for couples and families to spend more time with the woman's family. Just my experience

I can see truth slightly in that when vulnerable I want MY mum which means my mum was around for the birth of DS more than my MIL was. When I need help I'm more likely to turn to my parents for it than his although his would have given it.

But I have a closer relationship with my mum than any of my MIL's children do and she does have a daughter. My husband sees his mum a lot more since we've been together than he ever did before as I facilitate it. They stayed with us when DS was a week old for several days and they were here for his first Christmas, we make a fuss of birthdays etc. I think we had a pretty good relationship.

Due a DD later this year and I expect my parents will provide more practical help in the early days again although we live much closer to both family's now so they don't need to stay with us anymore and hopefully both sets of grandparents will see the baby in her first day or 2!

I would hope that if they were ever in conflict my needs would be more important than his mother's needs. But I would extend that to him as well, he is more important to me than my parents and if they treated him badly it would damage my relationship with them. I can't imagine how it would happen as for the most part I think we are all reasonable people!

It didn’t apply in my case and doesn’t seem to apply in my DD and SILs case either but I think there is, in general, more than a grain or truth to the old saying especially once pregnancy and babies are involved.

I'm one of 4 children with 3 younger brothers. We are all close to my parents including my brothers. Ones never married but lives like a hippy, he visits my folks every weekend. My other two brothers have lovely wives who adore my parents, so no not necessarily true.

There are millions of threads pertaining to this old fashioned saying.

My hot take is that if you pull rank and insist of treating your adult DS as your inferior/child all his life (I'm looking at you, MIL), then he will put distance between you. 'He's still my son, you know' is something we hear quite often

If you step back and allow him space into adulthood, whilst respecting his opinions and growing maturity, and welcome DIL/SIL without judging her/him, you'll see him relatively often mine are still little but I will try to remember my own advice when the time comes.

Also,I think mothers and daughters often have more day to day activities they want to do together. My own mum is dead but my female friends are always shopping, getting their nails done etc with their mums.