@pippa I hope you are calmer now. I deliberately left the conversation because you seem very triggered. As someone who survived an abusive relationship, and went on to help a lot of people, I understand how very triggering these things can be. I hope time and space has helped you calm down.

I am so sorry you went through that. From one DV survivor to another, it's not easy.

I am not lecturing you, nor am I twisting your words. I'm repeating your words, and asking you about them. You, not me, brought up how there's "two sides". I pointed out the flaw in your logic. I said it was cruel and dismissive, and pointed out how if I said the same, it would be cruel and dismissive. 

Overall, maybe you should consider that if the article is about abuse, having a flippant comment is not the best choice, especially if you don't articulate your point well. If you've been in an abusive relationship, then you should know very well - like many commenters have pointed out - that this is a place for trauma. It's not the place to really bring up how unfair it is that mother-in-laws have been represented. It also doesn't make an awful lot of sense in this context, because, again, the OP references the father-in-law a lot, demonstrating that this is, again, not an article about mother-in-laws. It's an article about abusive parents. I'm very aware that you referenced two articles, I'm still unaware how "parental abuse" connects with "bad MILs".

As this article is in response to a mother-in-law writing about how awful her daughter-in-law is, I think you might have missed the articles you're talking about. There's plenty of them, and the comment section on the article the OP replied to is riddled with people stating the very opposite.

Perhaps consider that maybe you haven't seen all the articles. Perhaps consider that there might be reasons why there's overwhelmingly negative MIL articles. Perhaps consider there's sometimes influxes of both. Perhaps consider that if you're going to make a flippant comment on an article about parental abuse - not mother-in-laws being toxic, PARENTAL abuse - that you're going to be tapping into a LOT of people's trauma.

I am certain you don't like to be triggered or reminded of your past, and with your work, I'm sure you've experienced it. I have never met nor worked with any victim-survivor that does. I can certainly attest to my own personal experience that it's overwhelming and terrifying. If someone dismissed your experience because they were "sick of hearing stories of male violence", I'm certain that would have an impact on you, and I'm certain you'd feel like the other person was being dismissive and cruel, while making a statement that has nothing to do with abuse, your situation, or the problem with male violence epidemic. You'd be annoyed someone was derailing the conversation, like most victim-survivors are.

Why is it difficult for you to see that focusing solely on "mothers of men" in a story of parental abuse is dismissive, and your comments are doing the same thing that you would hate? That you would have likely witnessed? Then, when it's pointed out you also respond with "there's two sides two every pancake", and not actually realise that you're miscommunicating here, and are reacting to my response to your words? I didn't say there were two sides in this situation, you did. How can you not see that, at best, you're being insensitive and completely unaware? How can you not see that stating "there's two sides to every story" at the end of your statement is not just implying this, but you outright stating it? How can you not see how that would land if I'd responded with you, stating that right out of the gate, after you've just mentioned you had an abusive relationship?

I would imagine if anyone ever made a comment regarding abuse about how there's "two sides" you'd be extremely unhappy. If that is in any way true, you should really consider what you've said, why you've said, why you've felt the need to say it, and why you feel the need to bring up these statements in, and why you're unable to see why they'd be inflammatory.

@pippa I'm not the only one who was confused by your point. Secondly, I never said that. I asked what bearing your in-laws had on the story, because you didn't write a point to it. I'm not the only person who's said your comment didn't make sense.

Thirdly, I mentioned that there's a SIL in the article, so, you know, a mother-in-law of a daughter, just like you're talking about, though don't seem to realise.

Other than that, this is an article about abuse and violence. Domestic violence, in fact, because it's parents - two parents, as this article doesn't just discuss the mother-in-law, but the father-in-law as well as also abuses the son, his wife, and his wife's family - but you're only focusing on the mother-in-law because it suits you and your view.

It feels like you're missing the point of the article. Or the point of the replies saying you have made no point doesn't just lie with me; I'm not the only one who's said the same.

I'm pointing out that what you're saying currently has very little bearing on an article about extreme child and animal abuse. The author - and myself - have never said it's only words. In fact, the OP makes it clear that words are a significant problem, and highlights a lot of verbal abuse and harassment.

I don't know what your son suffers. No one does, you didn't say. You just said she wouldn't stop "interfering", which is very different from abuse of any kind, including verbal. Even now, you're only referring to it as "turmoil", and you're not even mentioning verbal abuse. Now, you could be, and this could be it.

But it also could be that your son's MIL is toxic, which is not necessarily (though can be) abusive. You, not me, are light on details trying to make your point. But a MIL you don't like, again, is not the same as someone who is abusive, stalks and harasses people.

Now, instead of realising that maybe your comment wasn't as clear as it could have been, or realising that maybe without making yourself clear, it just looks like you're being INCREDIBLY dismissive and callous about literal domestic violence, you're ... annoyed? That more than once person didn't realise the point you were trying to make? (And, quite frankly, still unsure of the point you're making. It's not very clear.)

And now, worst of all, you're trying to say there's ... two sides to abuse? Two sides to animal cruelty? Two sides ... to stalking and harassment? What does "two sides" have to do with anything when it comes to abuse? With that logic, I'm sorry, but I guess I "don't believe you" because there's "two sides" to the story of your son's MIL. See how that's not really a nice message to send? Because, for that to work the way you want to, that includes you, and it includes your son. (For the record, this is why I'm saying you're making a terrible argument - it sounds like your son's MIL is making his and his wife's life difficult. It doesn't sound healthy, and it sounds toxic. However, dismissing it because maybe you don't know the truth, because maybe you want to protect your son because he's your baby boy, because XYZ, is again, just dismissive. How would I know? I have to make a lot of assinine assumptions to get there.)

I think you need to take a deep breath. I think you need to edit your comment if you're talking about verbal abuse. I think you need to realise that there are not two sides to abuse, and you're doing damage by pretending there is. It's a weird comment to make, especially in a country that suffers from an epidemic of domestic violence. Again, this article isn't about annoying in-laws. It's not about people who you wouldn't want to be around.

It's about domestic violence. It's about two people who were abused from infancy. This isn't pineapple on pizza or your pancakes. It's abuse. There's no two sides here. There are two people - not one, it's not just the MIL, though for some reason that seems to be the only person you wish to focus on - who were abusive. An abusive mother and an abusive father. Perhaps re-read the article.

@pippa Firstly, describing a mother who beat her children and broke the necks of their pets in front of them as just "poisonous parenting" is dismissive and does a disservice to children who come from abused homes. This is beyond "poisonous". The words you mean to describe this woman is "abusive" and "is okay with animal cruelty and killing pets as a punishment".

I'm really not sure what your son's MIL has to do with anything here. Is your son's MIL abusive? Does your son's MIL break the necks of his wife's pets? Or is she in a different league?

If the author of this post wrote more about his sister, who she says received the same abuse, would that be different? Because she is, in fact, a mother of a daughter, and the daughter has the same experience, which just leaves you reply being a bit callous, at best.

This isn't a post about "annoying in-laws". This isn't a post about "parents that could do better". 

This is a post about abusive parents, and it's a little weird you're trying to make it not about that.