"Your spouse should handle the ILs" Why?

[Anonymous]

Small, mundane things, sure, either spouse can handle.

But for more serious issues, it's safer to let the spouse handle their own respective families. If my parents did something that DH and I didn't like, I'd rather that I address it with them than him. They may not like my pushback, but they'll always love me no matter what. If DH does the pushback, they'd be offended and alienated.

[Anonymous]

What I see is that on the inlaw threads somebody always says let the spouse deal with their own family, especially MIL. Usually it's because the OP has reached the end of their patience, tolerance, whatever.

So it's not a lot of people saying that, it's one or a few. Nothing to worry about.

[Anonymous]

Eh, I had DH handle something with his mom that directly was about me. It was definitely the easy way out and I sort of regret not being an adult and handling it myself, especially because in my mind at least I was completely in the right in terms of the actual conflict, so why did I chicken out? I am a little embarrassed to be around MIL now as I feel like I lost some respect, but I knew at the time that was the trade off and handed it over to DH anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Small, mundane things, sure, either spouse can handle.

But for more serious issues, it's safer to let the spouse handle their own respective families. If my parents did something that DH and I didn't like, I'd rather that I address it with them than him. They may not like my pushback, but they'll always love me no matter what. If DH does the pushback, they'd be offended and alienated.

OP here. Thanks for this answer.

[Anonymous]

The other piece of this is that for me (a woman), I handle about 80% of the day to day logistics of my family's life. My inlaws are fine, but I do not need to add managing them to my already quite full plate.

In terms of balancing household labor in my own house, it has worked much better for me to have bright lines around things that are "not mine" because it absolves me of needing to take action / take care of a particular thing. This means my MIL texts both me and her son about (whatever the issue of the day is), he will respond.

My parents would never DREAM of texting my husband (I deal with them on my own), so this means that the family organizing/obligation labor is roughly equally distributed.

[Anonymous]

For planning visits, FaceTiming with grandkids, planning around holidays etc we each communicate with our own parents because it’s an easy way to divide up these responsibilities evenly.

We haven't really dealt with any crazy IL drama but with more sensitive topics I think communications can often be better handled by the child rather than their spouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The other piece of this is that for me (a woman), I handle about 80% of the day to day logistics of my family's life. My inlaws are fine, but I do not need to add managing them to my already quite full plate.

In terms of balancing household labor in my own house, it has worked much better for me to have bright lines around things that are "not mine" because it absolves me of needing to take action / take care of a particular thing. This means my MIL texts both me and her son about (whatever the issue of the day is), he will respond.

My parents would never DREAM of texting my husband (I deal with them on my own), so this means that the family organizing/obligation labor is roughly equally distributed.

I’d never thought of this, but my interactions are the same way. We live far from both ILs and my parents and texting is the main form of communication used by all. My MIL always includes her son and me on texts about presents, mailings, plans etc. My mom would never think to include him on texts like that. Neither Dads make any of these plans. I tend to let my husband respond to his mom unless it’s a “did the package arrive” type question and I’m already home.

So letting my husband deal with his mom just evens it out as I’m dealing with mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I often see people respond to posts about IL issues with something along the lines of "Why are you involved at all? Let your spouse handle it."

Certainly, sometimes that is the right answer. I myself have on occasion said to my spouse, "You need to deal with your mother." But why is it that some people think it is ALWAYS the right answer?

My MIL is a person in my life. She is in my spouse's life and in my kids' lives. While she can be extraordinarily frustrating and intrusive, she is somebody that I have a relationship with, my own. Why should I not raise it with her directly if she has done something to offend/upset me? I do that with everyone else in my life.

Now, if I literally did not want to have any personal relationship with her at all, did not want her "in my life" it would make sense. But assuming I do...

Genuinely curious about this approach to ILs.

'

OP, you are talking like a sane person. Ask Jeff to delete this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other piece of this is that for me (a woman), I handle about 80% of the day to day logistics of my family's life. My inlaws are fine, but I do not need to add managing them to my already quite full plate.

In terms of balancing household labor in my own house, it has worked much better for me to have bright lines around things that are "not mine" because it absolves me of needing to take action / take care of a particular thing. This means my MIL texts both me and her son about (whatever the issue of the day is), he will respond.

My parents would never DREAM of texting my husband (I deal with them on my own), so this means that the family organizing/obligation labor is roughly equally distributed.

I’d never thought of this, but my interactions are the same way. We live far from both ILs and my parents and texting is the main form of communication used by all. My MIL always includes her son and me on texts about presents, mailings, plans etc. My mom would never think to include him on texts like that. Neither Dads make any of these plans. I tend to let my husband respond to his mom unless it’s a “did the package arrive” type question and I’m already home.

So letting my husband deal with his mom just evens it out as I’m dealing with mine.

Yes - both of these posts are spot on. Also, in my case, interactions with my MIL (and, to some extent, my FIL) require at least 5x more back and forth and potential for unintended offense / her to take something differently than I intended or to take offense than (I think) they should. I have a lot of other things at home that are in my "portfolio" of stuff that I manage, so generally speaking I don't take these conversations on because they are a minefield of time and emotions that my DH is just better conditioned to handle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure but I can't imagine my DH dealing with any sort of anything with either of my parents.

+1

And they get along just fine, no issues.

Total double standard regarding this, IMO.

+2

Also, if both your parents and your ILs have issues with boundaries (which is true in my family), we have found that this is a very straightforward, easy to remember boundary for them. If you have a question, concern, complaint, etc. regarding our family, please speak to the member you have known the longest and have the closest relationship to. That's never the DIL or Son in Law. It's the child you raised.

[Anonymous]

A lot of time the issue is that a MIL wants (but doesn’t really need) a more responsive person than her son (i.e., her DIL) so she can get instant gratification. So you end up being an unhealthy enabler to your spouse’s unresponsiveness and your MIL’s desire for instant responses.

[Anonymous]

If you have healthy relationships with reasonable people on all sides, then yes, any person can talk to any other person when there’s an issue or a plan to share.

When things are complicated, it makes a lot of sense for the person with the closest relationship to do the talking. They know that person’s quirks, the relative is likely more receptive to hearing news from them, etc.

[Anonymous]

OP here. Thanks for these responses. I see three general reasons:

1. Distribution of labor (always)- split interactions with parents on logistics things as a way to even out the work between the couple
2. No relationships (always)- somebody has already decided they don't like/enjoy interacting with the IL, so they don't.
3. Protecting Relationships (sometimes)- if it is a particularly sticky or sensitive issue, the ILs child having the conversation is less likely to damage relationships in the long term

Helpful.

[Anonymous]

Because nearly all of these posts are about men who would like to offload the emotional labor of their marriage to their wives. Their wives should not have to take it all on.

It would be very rare on here to see a post from a man saying he has been given too many responsibilities to his wife’s parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because nearly all of these posts are about men who would like to offload the emotional labor of their marriage to their wives. Their wives should not have to take it all on.

It would be very rare on here to see a post from a man saying he has been given too many responsibilities to his wife’s parents.

OP here. I get this. But if this is the reason, why does it not come up when people ask how to handle a teacher or a coach or their own child? It is all labor/responsibility.

What you point out seems to be a bigger issue, and not really about how this third party that requires dealing with came into someone's life. Only when it comes to inlaws does his seem relevant to folks.