"Your spouse should handle the ILs" Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you expect your husband to negotiate plans and tell your family when you will and will not visit. And your husband also plans food to make and gifts to buy for your family while you just sit back and chill? .

OP here. Not sure what you are trying to say, but.....no. Never said anything like that.

Then get out of the dark ages.

What do you mean?

Np.
I assume all the PPs saying the flipped examples are highlighting your misogynistic gender-first approach and to communicating with Inlaws. Where mommy and wifey do everything for everyone. And barely get a thank you.

So me questioning why some people seem to be saying that one spouse should never deal with the inlaws translates into me saying that I believe the woman in the relationship should always be the one to handle everything with the inlaws?

It is misogynistic, for example, for me to talk directly to my MIL when she has done or said something regarding my kids?

[Anonymous]

I assume it's because once somebody has gotten to the point where they are failing in their efforts to deal with their in laws, it's time to call in reinforcements and the actual child of the in-law and presumably the person who loves you most in the world is a really good person to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree OP- I am perfectly fine addressing anything on my own. We have a great relationship.But then again, we are all adults and everyone acts like an adult which doesn’t seem to be the case in many of these disputes.

Well, we're all terribly impressed with how adult you are. Smug much? The fact is, there is a spectrum of "dealing with" and there are different dysfunctions in families. So what works for you may not work for everyone. I'm sure you know that, though, and are just feeling superior.

[Anonymous]

I have delightful in-laws and I enjoy being around them. For me, transitioning to having my DH “handle” the ILs is because I was bearing so much of the mental load already. This was an easy thing to take off my plate. Doesn’t mean I don’t like them - just means our plates feel more even when it comes to coordinating grandparent visits/ logistics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, take 30 seconds to think this through.

I highly doubt you’ve ever seen a thread that—out of nowhere—instructs everyone not to deal with their ILs. If there is a thread doing that, please link to it. That’s something I’d like to see.

Nope, that’s not what happens. What happens is a poster writes about a specific problem or dynamic that she or he is having with her specific ILs. Posters then, circumstantially, advise the poster to let the spouse deal with his or her parents.

Key word: circumstantial.

Do you get it?

Q (in its entirety): "How do you set boundaries with your inlaws, particularly if you and spouse are the oldest/first to get married/have kids..."
A: "Have your spouse run point on communications and logistics with them."

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1155665.page

The very premise of this thread is that boundaries are needed, but you tried.

So clearly there was never going to be a post that starts with somebody just saying "Never interact with your ILs."

The poster I was responding to asserted this: " What happens is a poster writes about a specific problem or dynamic that she or he is having with her specific ILs." And asked for an example where that did not occur. I gave one.

New poster here. This was a loaded question, implying trouble with the in-laws (or at least someone assuming trouble in the future, hence the need for boundaries). I almost posted something like "I have no need for setting boundaries because my relationship with my MIL is great." But then I thought that that would be rude and boastful, given the subject. But even I would agree that if there's a need to set boundaries, this is a good answer: "Have your spouse run point on communications and logistics with them."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you expect your husband to negotiate plans and tell your family when you will and will not visit. And your husband also plans food to make and gifts to buy for your family while you just sit back and chill? .

OP here. Not sure what you are trying to say, but.....no. Never said anything like that.

Then get out of the dark ages.

What do you mean?

Np.
I assume all the PPs saying the flipped examples are highlighting your misogynistic gender-first approach and to communicating with Inlaws. Where mommy and wifey do everything for everyone. And barely get a thank you.

So me questioning why some people seem to be saying that one spouse should never deal with the inlaws translates into me saying that I believe the woman in the relationship should always be the one to handle everything with the inlaws?

It is misogynistic, for example, for me to talk directly to my MIL when she has done or said something regarding my kids?

Is this Op again? Still trying to argue with people, whilst speaking in extremes again?

Your original question has been fully answered, and quite consistently.

If your MiL does something you don’t like or approve of, with your kids, you AND you husband need to speak up. First whomever is around right then and there, second by the bloodkin. United front. Consistent. He knows his mother. All the stuff posters already explained to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, take 30 seconds to think this through.

I highly doubt you’ve ever seen a thread that—out of nowhere—instructs everyone not to deal with their ILs. If there is a thread doing that, please link to it. That’s something I’d like to see.

Nope, that’s not what happens. What happens is a poster writes about a specific problem or dynamic that she or he is having with her specific ILs. Posters then, circumstantially, advise the poster to let the spouse deal with his or her parents.

Key word: circumstantial.

Do you get it?

Q (in its entirety): "How do you set boundaries with your inlaws, particularly if you and spouse are the oldest/first to get married/have kids..."
A: "Have your spouse run point on communications and logistics with them."

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1155665.page

The very premise of this thread is that boundaries are needed, but you tried.

So clearly there was never going to be a post that starts with somebody just saying "Never interact with your ILs."

The poster I was responding to asserted this: " What happens is a poster writes about a specific problem or dynamic that she or he is having with her specific ILs." And asked for an example where that did not occur. I gave one.

Trying to argue w people again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree OP- I am perfectly fine addressing anything on my own. We have a great relationship.But then again, we are all adults and everyone acts like an adult which doesn’t seem to be the case in many of these disputes.

+1 I think the making your spouse handle their parents arises when the IL-spouse relationship has already broken down or never was warm to start with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think the HUGE piece that's missing is the societal expectation that women will manage family relationships. It's not that "your spouse should handle the ILs". It's that mothers are expected to handle both their own family AND their husband's family in terms of such tasks as holidays, gift-giving, catering foods for get-togethers, and so on. There's a literature on "kin work" which is the labor required to maintain these kin ties, and how historically it's been an invisible part of the expected labor of women.

For me, this has never been about liking or disliking my in-laws. They are lovely. But I'm not automatically taking on the responsibility of writing them thank-you gifts for my kid's Christmas gifts just because I'm the female partner in my relationship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you expect your husband to negotiate plans and tell your family when you will and will not visit. And your husband also plans food to make and gifts to buy for your family while you just sit back and chill? .

OP here. Not sure what you are trying to say, but.....no. Never said anything like that.

Then get out of the dark ages.

What do you mean?

Np.
I assume all the PPs saying the flipped examples are highlighting your misogynistic gender-first approach and to communicating with Inlaws. Where mommy and wifey do everything for everyone. And barely get a thank you.

So me questioning why some people seem to be saying that one spouse should never deal with the inlaws translates into me saying that I believe the woman in the relationship should always be the one to handle everything with the inlaws?

It is misogynistic, for example, for me to talk directly to my MIL when she has done or said something regarding my kids?

Is this Op again? Still trying to argue with people, whilst speaking in extremes again?

Your original question has been fully answered, and quite consistently.

If your MiL does something you don’t like or approve of, with your kids, you AND you husband need to speak up. First whomever is around right then and there, second by the bloodkin. United front. Consistent. He knows his mother. All the stuff posters already explained to you.

No, not trying to argue, asking a question.
And what is the speaking in extreme that I am doing? Can you point it out?

What I see:
I asked a question to understand perspective.
Somebody responded assuming/asking that my own husband does everything for my family while I "sit back and chill"
I said no and didn't understand the assumption.
I was told to "get out of the dark ages"
I asked what that meant
I was told I had a "misogynistic gender-first approach and to communicating with Inlaws. Where mommy and wifey do everything for everyone"
I asked what was misogynistic about the question and offered an example of a (not at all extreme situation"

And I'm the one that is arguing? The person/persons in this exchange were the combative insulting ones, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, take 30 seconds to think this through.

I highly doubt you’ve ever seen a thread that—out of nowhere—instructs everyone not to deal with their ILs. If there is a thread doing that, please link to it. That’s something I’d like to see.

Nope, that’s not what happens. What happens is a poster writes about a specific problem or dynamic that she or he is having with her specific ILs. Posters then, circumstantially, advise the poster to let the spouse deal with his or her parents.

Key word: circumstantial.

Do you get it?

Q (in its entirety): "How do you set boundaries with your inlaws, particularly if you and spouse are the oldest/first to get married/have kids..."
A: "Have your spouse run point on communications and logistics with them."

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1155665.page

The very premise of this thread is that boundaries are needed, but you tried.

So clearly there was never going to be a post that starts with somebody just saying "Never interact with your ILs."

The poster I was responding to asserted this: " What happens is a poster writes about a specific problem or dynamic that she or he is having with her specific ILs." And asked for an example where that did not occur. I gave one.

Trying to argue w people again?

If attempting to have an exchange and provide an example along the lines of one sought is "arguing" then I guess I am? Though I prefer to look at it as having a dialogue to understand. If you read me in this whole thread you would see that I wasn't combative and in fact was appreciative for some of the explanations.

[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.

Obviously that advice isn't for you so move on.

[Anonymous]

The people who say this don’t have or care to have a relationship with their in-laws. They cure them as merely something they must endure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because if my SIL ever says anything to my mom, she'll immediately start whining to all the relatives how it's really her (SIL's) idea, and her poor boy has to deal with that.

If my brother talks to my mom, that nips it in the bud, right there.

This is DHs cousin’s wife. The family talks so negatively about her because she has no issue talking to her ILs directly and they’ve built her up to be some kind of controlling horrible person. Cousin is an only child so he can do no wrong and anything they don’t agree with is all her fault. I stand up for her every time because she is a genuine and sweet person but seeing what she goes through has pushed me towards not having any difficult convos with my ILs.

[Anonymous]

Because it's easier? Relationships, even the best ones, involve friction and negotiation. Why would i make my spouse take on this load, or take it on myself? Also, each of us knows our respective parents better and can be more assertive with them.