AlexB

I could look through my FaceBook messages (I prefer communicating with my mother that way so that I can keep a record, it's much easier to sort through than my memories of our conversations) but I believe the context I put it in with her was "until further notice". After having read these replies however, I feel confident in communicating her behavior, how it makes me feel, as well as refining the expectation on the boundary I have set with her.

Thank you so much for sharing your experience, your thoughts and your sympathy/empathy. I began therapy with an IFS therapist via Skype but I seem to be procrastinating on continuing it in addition to it being expensive.

Thank you so much for your thoughts, I feel like I can't quite express how valuable they are me adequately through text. How she acts is very weird, and certainly not motherly. I will definitely attempt to see her behavior in the proper context but when I'm confronted with her I seem to have anxiety and then adopt some role or play out some pattern that seems to hijack the philosophical/observant parts of me.Thank you so much for your sympathy and again for your insight.

@RoseCodex, that's a good question. I can't quite remember. I assume it's likely she did but I feel like I would have automatically responded with "good". @PatrickC, she definitely didn't acknowledge any previous conversations and I really appreciate you pointing this out. I'm sorry you've had a similar situation. My mother has also done similar things (showing up to drive me somewhere with a surprise relative in the car, showing up at my home with a relative and asking if they could come in). I grew up with an alcoholic father. I sometimes think that she tries to leverage visits with relatives to prey on that instinct of showing the outside world that everything is "okay" at home.

It's been several months since I told my mother that I'd prefer not to have a communications with her for the immediate future. I told her that I feel anxiety and discomfort when I'm around her. She recently sent me a message saying how she had gone through "a very negative period this past year" and that if we had an opportunity to see each other that she would "do her very best to make sure she doesn't revert to such negative behavior". The other day I was walking home from work when she honked at me from her car and waved. Then she pulled over and got out to talk to me. Her behavior seemed to be the exact same as all of our interactions had been. She tells me about some problem she's having, I can't remember exactly what it was this time but it was to the affect of "I just had to have something fixed with the car". Then after congratulating me on a recent work promotion she moved on to telling me about one of my relatives being in town and asking me - if my relative brought it up, if they could both see me. This seems to be what she does every time we have an interaction; she offloads information about all her difficulties and then tries to get me involved in some sort of interaction with her family. I've explained to her before that I have no interest in any of my relatives so at very least it seems to be a disregard for my preferences. I'm curious to understanding this seeming ritual of hers. A part of me wants to identify it so that I can tell her what she needs help with if she plans to continue having a relationship with me. Until an ex-partner of mine pointed out the dysfunction in my relationship/interactions with my mother, I was seemingly blind to it. In the same way I seem to have difficulty identifying what it is about our interactions that give me anxiety/discomfort. If I had to label it, I would say that I constantly feel manipulated when I'm around her, but it's hard for me to come up with examples of it. Any thoughts on this would be welcome. If I need to provide more information I can.

Thanks very much, I found this really helpful.

Ah thanks so much, perhaps I'll ask there!

Hey there, A friend posted a reply to the video The Truth about Nelson Mandella and I'm terrible at disecting and articulating so I was hoping to find some help. I think he's essentially arguing for the use of violence as necessity and I don't want to reply clumsily so any suggested ways to respond are welcome. He initially just commented that it was a bizzare version of truth to which I replied: "I would encourage researching his individual points through one's own devices then. Most of them are relatively easy enough to confirm.He was a communist and approved of Castro and his methods. He was involved with terrorist activity, including bombings, and was imprisoned for it. His ex-wife approved of "necklacing", promoted it, and was proven responsible for such atrocities. Mendella is on camera singing a song about killing white people and you can find footage of other violent, racist songs that were cherished by the movement he was a part of. He nationalized private property.If any one of those things are true then it's enough for me to know that I shouldn't worship the man by default because other people do.Now, I don't approve of apartheid. I think legislative discrimination is appalling and can understand why people fought it. But just because he was fighting for a just cause does not excuse or justify the torture and murder of innocent people, or the use of violence."His reply is as follows: "I see he has already posted a correction about his claim that Mandela nationalized everything when the ANC was elected. That did not happen. I can't find anything to support his claim that the income of all Sewff Effrikens dropped by 40% in the late 90s and he does not seem to support that with anything. South Africa's economy was already well on its way downhill in the 1980s, not just after the ANC took over. Which brings me to my biggest problem with Molyneux's "truth", and certainly the media's "truth" as well. You cannot gloss over or strip away context from Mandela, apartheid and South Africa as a whole and still claim to be having a serious discussion about any of it. You can't handwave it away with "yes apartheid was bad but let's not talk about that anymore".The armed wing of the ANC (MK) was formed as a last resort after serious repression of peaceful protests and activities. Mandela very strongly believed in non-violence and the aims of the MK were sabotaging government infrastructure. The civilian casualties that Molyneux decries were overwhelmingly in the 1980s and context again is required for this. The government started to get particularly nasty (after already not being the nicest group of white dudes) in the mid 70s and into the 80s, to which MK and other groups responded in kind, although with surprising restraint. Mandela had been in prison for 20 years at this point.Despite being imprisoned for over 27 years, Mandela did not seek violent reprisals against the former apartheid governments. When he was released from prison, and in fact while he was still in prison, he worked toward reconciliation and generally trying to recover from 50 years of 80% of the country's population being treated like subhumans.If we're supposed to be reminded that his legacy includes him being a violent communist terrorist thug, I guess we should also include that he wasn't very good at being violent, a communist, a terrorist or a thug, but did do a lot of extremely positive things for a place that sorely needed (and needs) them."Thanks for any help you can offer.PS - sorry if I posted this in an incorrect section

Thank you so much!

Hey there, I've been interested in getting some therapy for quite some time and I've contacted a local therapist who is the head of family services in my community however I've noticed in my area that a lot of therapists lean towards a "finding your higher power" school of thought and I was just wondering if there are certain methods or practices of therapy that I should be looking for specifically. I'm not in the least bit religious and not in the least bit statist so I was hoping for some insight. Please let me know if I should provide more details. Thanks, Alex