I don’t want to travel OR host for the holidays

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not rude to neither host nor travel.

It is rude if the deal was alternating and OP’s family is still welcome on their years.

Alternating holidays is not a blood pact— it works if (and only if) it works for all the parties involved. OP is not required to travel, or to host, in the name of good manners if it doesn’t work for her. She SHOULD tell people soon so they can make alternative plans.

But it’s not faaaaaaair. Wah wah wah. If one side of the family is difficult to deal with, they aren’t going to be treated the same. This belief that you have to treat all the extended family the same is childish.

Convenient excuse if you just don’t like them.

This doesn’t make any sense. If you don’t like your in-laws, and you’re seeing them *at all* then you’re putting in the effort and deserve thanks and appreciation.

Lots of women on this board dislike their in-laws for no actual reason.

So? They don’t like them. The reason is irrelevant. If they’re spending time—any time— with people they don’t like in the interest of making their spouses happy, and forging a relationship between children and grandchildren, they deserve thanks and appreciation.

No, their husbands deserve a wife who is not actively trying to sabotage the relationship with his family.

You need to pick one. Is she seeing the in-laws. Then obviously she’s not “sabotaging” anything and, in fact, deserves appreciation and thanks.

I wonder how many of the bitter MIL crowd has ever sincerely thanked their DIL for anything, or show appreciation for things like hosting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I will say is be careful of favoring one set of parents over the other, particularly when the issues are minor and not about abuse. Your kids are watching you and you're teaching them how to value extended family - which you will someday be.

Sigh. You post this every time there is a discussion about extended family. So useless and dumb.

I actually don't, so there is at least one other person on DCUM who is mindful of the model they provide for their children. Everything we do conveys a message to our kids - how we structure our family, how we deal with stress, how we treat our spouses/partners, how we navigate conflict, how we spend our money - everything is a model about our values, etc. Kids 1000% are more likely to do as you do, than do as you say, and that's because your actions teach them more than your words. If that's a useless and dumb consideration to you, godspeed, or maybe go to therapy and learn how your family of origin influenced who you are and your world view. It can be quite enlightening.

Modeling self-care is important too so I'm not suggesting anyone martyr themselves, but maybe there's a middle ground were one can carve out time for self-care AND be some sort of a host to grandparents over the holidays.

I’m the poster who says she remembers how exhausted her mother was at every holiday. I just want you to know that is a bad memory for me. I desperately wish my mother had said “no” to her in-laws more.

There is a reason that on an airplane you are told to put your own mask on first— you cannot do for others without taking care of yourself **first**.

So self care, even at the holidays, should not take second/third/afterthought place. It should be the primary consideration. What can I, the individual, reasonably manage. After that you prioritize your children’s needs if they’re young, then your spouses needs, and then your extended families desires.

Which means, you sometimes say no to hosting your in laws *because* you are doing the best job of modeling for your children.

[Anonymous]

Extended family supporters what culture are you from? Spefics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I will say is be careful of favoring one set of parents over the other, particularly when the issues are minor and not about abuse. Your kids are watching you and you're teaching them how to value extended family - which you will someday be.

Sigh. You post this every time there is a discussion about extended family. So useless and dumb.

NP. I haven’t seen that post on here before, and I actually thought it was a helpful perspective.

Uh huh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Extended family supporters what culture are you from? Spefics.

I’m one. I’m a white American in my 40’s with teens. My husbands family is huge and very very close. My family is small and not close and nobody puts forth any effort to get together. When I first met him, it seemed strange to me how much effort the extended family put in to see each other but I quickly learned it doesn’t feel like effort to them. They have so much fun all together that they want to do it. But in order to “want” to do it, you have to have that closeness in the first place. The amount of joy this brings my teens is hard to describe. If I told them they had to choose between Europe, Hawaii or a trip to see their first and second cousins, they’d choose the costumes without hesitation. It is such a blessing to our family and it was a completely strange and foreign concept to me when I met DH.

[Anonymous]

Cousins, not costumes. Lol.

[Anonymous]

I am someone who thinks she can take a year off every now and then and still be supportive of extended family, and I’m generic wasp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You need to be a better host for this sold holiday. Buck up. We have to do stuff we don’t like to give good memories to our kids. It’s one holiday. Just order out a lot. Quit being a cry baby.

You need to address this to the husband, not OP. He can step up if it's important to him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not rude to neither host nor travel.

It is rude if the deal was alternating and OP’s family is still welcome on their years.

Alternating holidays is not a blood pact— it works if (and only if) it works for all the parties involved. OP is not required to travel, or to host, in the name of good manners if it doesn’t work for her. She SHOULD tell people soon so they can make alternative plans.

But it’s not faaaaaaair. Wah wah wah. If one side of the family is difficult to deal with, they aren’t going to be treated the same. This belief that you have to treat all the extended family the same is childish.

Convenient excuse if you just don’t like them.

This doesn’t make any sense. If you don’t like your in-laws, and you’re seeing them *at all* then you’re putting in the effort and deserve thanks and appreciation.

Lots of women on this board dislike their in-laws for no actual reason.

So? They don’t like them. The reason is irrelevant. If they’re spending time—any time— with people they don’t like in the interest of making their spouses happy, and forging a relationship between children and grandchildren, they deserve thanks and appreciation.

No, their husbands deserve a wife who is not actively trying to sabotage the relationship with his family.

Why aren't the husbands manning up and saying they will do all the hosting for their family? If they aren't doing this, THEY are the ones sabotaging their own relationships with their family.

[Anonymous]

Are you young or just immature?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not rude to neither host nor travel.

It is rude if the deal was alternating and OP’s family is still welcome on their years.

Alternating holidays is not a blood pact— it works if (and only if) it works for all the parties involved. OP is not required to travel, or to host, in the name of good manners if it doesn’t work for her. She SHOULD tell people soon so they can make alternative plans.

But it’s not faaaaaaair. Wah wah wah. If one side of the family is difficult to deal with, they aren’t going to be treated the same. This belief that you have to treat all the extended family the same is childish.

Convenient excuse if you just don’t like them.

This doesn’t make any sense. If you don’t like your in-laws, and you’re seeing them *at all* then you’re putting in the effort and deserve thanks and appreciation.

Lots of women on this board dislike their in-laws for no actual reason.

So? They don’t like them. The reason is irrelevant. If they’re spending time—any time— with people they don’t like in the interest of making their spouses happy, and forging a relationship between children and grandchildren, they deserve thanks and appreciation.

No, their husbands deserve a wife who is not actively trying to sabotage the relationship with his family.

Why aren't the husbands manning up and saying they will do all the hosting for their family? If they aren't doing this, THEY are the ones sabotaging their own relationships with their family.

It doesn’t seem fair of OP to say she will only see her in-laws if they play cook/nanny/maid like her parents do. Maybe OP’s parents know OP’s particular crazy and it’s the only way to see the grandkids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not rude to neither host nor travel.

It is rude if the deal was alternating and OP’s family is still welcome on their years.

Alternating holidays is not a blood pact— it works if (and only if) it works for all the parties involved. OP is not required to travel, or to host, in the name of good manners if it doesn’t work for her. She SHOULD tell people soon so they can make alternative plans.

But it’s not faaaaaaair. Wah wah wah. If one side of the family is difficult to deal with, they aren’t going to be treated the same. This belief that you have to treat all the extended family the same is childish.

Convenient excuse if you just don’t like them.

This doesn’t make any sense. If you don’t like your in-laws, and you’re seeing them *at all* then you’re putting in the effort and deserve thanks and appreciation.

Lots of women on this board dislike their in-laws for no actual reason.

So? They don’t like them. The reason is irrelevant. If they’re spending time—any time— with people they don’t like in the interest of making their spouses happy, and forging a relationship between children and grandchildren, they deserve thanks and appreciation.

No, their husbands deserve a wife who is not actively trying to sabotage the relationship with his family.

Why aren't the husbands manning up and saying they will do all the hosting for their family? If they aren't doing this, THEY are the ones sabotaging their own relationships with their family.

It doesn’t seem fair of OP to say she will only see her in-laws if they play cook/nanny/maid like her parents do. Maybe OP’s parents know OP’s particular crazy and it’s the only way to see the grandkids.

For one year, while they’ve got a toddler? Seems totally fine. Forever? That would need a wider discussion and potential compromise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not rude to neither host nor travel.

It is rude if the deal was alternating and OP’s family is still welcome on their years.

Alternating holidays is not a blood pact— it works if (and only if) it works for all the parties involved. OP is not required to travel, or to host, in the name of good manners if it doesn’t work for her. She SHOULD tell people soon so they can make alternative plans.

But it’s not faaaaaaair. Wah wah wah. If one side of the family is difficult to deal with, they aren’t going to be treated the same. This belief that you have to treat all the extended family the same is childish.

Convenient excuse if you just don’t like them.

This doesn’t make any sense. If you don’t like your in-laws, and you’re seeing them *at all* then you’re putting in the effort and deserve thanks and appreciation.

Lots of women on this board dislike their in-laws for no actual reason.

So? They don’t like them. The reason is irrelevant. If they’re spending time—any time— with people they don’t like in the interest of making their spouses happy, and forging a relationship between children and grandchildren, they deserve thanks and appreciation.

No, their husbands deserve a wife who is not actively trying to sabotage the relationship with his family.

Why aren't the husbands manning up and saying they will do all the hosting for their family? If they aren't doing this, THEY are the ones sabotaging their own relationships with their family.

It doesn’t seem fair of OP to say she will only see her in-laws if they play cook/nanny/maid like her parents do. Maybe OP’s parents know OP’s particular crazy and it’s the only way to see the grandkids.

For one year, while they’ve got a toddler? Seems totally fine. Forever? That would need a wider discussion and potential compromise.

Oh the drama. Order the $100 dinner from Wegmans. It’s not that hard. We’ve all done it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Extended family supporters what culture are you from? Spefics.

Southern -- Virginia, Kentucky, Georgia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not rude to neither host nor travel.

It is rude if the deal was alternating and OP’s family is still welcome on their years.

Alternating holidays is not a blood pact— it works if (and only if) it works for all the parties involved. OP is not required to travel, or to host, in the name of good manners if it doesn’t work for her. She SHOULD tell people soon so they can make alternative plans.

But it’s not faaaaaaair. Wah wah wah. If one side of the family is difficult to deal with, they aren’t going to be treated the same. This belief that you have to treat all the extended family the same is childish.

Convenient excuse if you just don’t like them.

This doesn’t make any sense. If you don’t like your in-laws, and you’re seeing them *at all* then you’re putting in the effort and deserve thanks and appreciation.

Lots of women on this board dislike their in-laws for no actual reason.

So? They don’t like them. The reason is irrelevant. If they’re spending time—any time— with people they don’t like in the interest of making their spouses happy, and forging a relationship between children and grandchildren, they deserve thanks and appreciation.

No, their husbands deserve a wife who is not actively trying to sabotage the relationship with his family.

Why aren't the husbands manning up and saying they will do all the hosting for their family? If they aren't doing this, THEY are the ones sabotaging their own relationships with their family.

It doesn’t seem fair of OP to say she will only see her in-laws if they play cook/nanny/maid like her parents do. Maybe OP’s parents know OP’s particular crazy and it’s the only way to see the grandkids.

For one year, while they’ve got a toddler? Seems totally fine. Forever? That would need a wider discussion and potential compromise.

Oh the drama. Order the $100 dinner from Wegmans. It’s not that hard. We’ve all done it.

Or? Don’t invite the high-effort relatives this year. Many of us have done that too.