I am an independent person, not just a conduit to my kids - rant

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can definitely see how this is annoying, but I'm not with you on the waiting a month to see a newborn first grandchild. They should be told of the impending birth when labor starts, just like your mom. Then they can get there as quickly as possible with a little help for logistics from your husband and meet the baby at the first feasible opportunity. Denying them access while your mother stays and helps 24-7 is just cruel.

Plus, you just never know what help you will need. I had a very colicky baby, and even though my mom and mil are both bat-sh*t crazy, they we both there with me, taking 15 minute shifts walking around with a screaming baby all night.

To those new moms, it takes a village.

Agree that no one should have to wait a month to meet a grand baby. Even if you don't want them staying at first, a month is not reasonable.

Many people wait much longer than a month to see their grandchild, and somehow they survive.

Let's not hijack the thread with this topic. OP isn't talking about the initial baby visit.

I think the husband is a workaholic because he doesn't want to or can't deal with all of this. You won't solve the in law problem until you solve the husband problem.

It’s not OP’s “problem” to “solve.” If DH wants to see the parents and take his kids, or make arrangements for his parents to visit when he can actively host, he can do so. It’s a problem for OP’s ILs, not for OP. If they want to solve it, they can pick up the phone and call the son they raised.

OP does have a problem if this issue causes her to come here to rant. She's not dealing with this problem very well, apparently.

…that’s why she labeled it as a “rant,” Love. See how that works? Someone ELSE called it a problem, and that’s why I used quotation marks when responding to that other person. I hope you are all caught up now.

To spend the time to type that out, all those words and paragraphs, and then pretend like its not a problem? Ok. OP would be better off just going for a walk to cope with hee “problems”. Get it?

Here you are on a different day on page 6. If the rant was so long, why did you read it? If this thread is so beneath you, why are you here?

Get it?

Nobody read all of that mess. Just a bunch of blah blah. Doesn't look like OP has been back so probably the usual troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can definitely see how this is annoying, but I'm not with you on the waiting a month to see a newborn first grandchild. They should be told of the impending birth when labor starts, just like your mom. Then they can get there as quickly as possible with a little help for logistics from your husband and meet the baby at the first feasible opportunity. Denying them access while your mother stays and helps 24-7 is just cruel.

Plus, you just never know what help you will need. I had a very colicky baby, and even though my mom and mil are both bat-sh*t crazy, they we both there with me, taking 15 minute shifts walking around with a screaming baby all night.

To those new moms, it takes a village.

Agree that no one should have to wait a month to meet a grand baby. Even if you don't want them staying at first, a month is not reasonable.

Many people wait much longer than a month to see their grandchild, and somehow they survive.

Let's not hijack the thread with this topic. OP isn't talking about the initial baby visit.

I think the husband is a workaholic because he doesn't want to or can't deal with all of this. You won't solve the in law problem until you solve the husband problem.

It’s not OP’s “problem” to “solve.” If DH wants to see the parents and take his kids, or make arrangements for his parents to visit when he can actively host, he can do so. It’s a problem for OP’s ILs, not for OP. If they want to solve it, they can pick up the phone and call the son they raised.

OP does have a problem if this issue causes her to come here to rant. She's not dealing with this problem very well, apparently.

…that’s why she labeled it as a “rant,” Love. See how that works? Someone ELSE called it a problem, and that’s why I used quotation marks when responding to that other person. I hope you are all caught up now.

To spend the time to type that out, all those words and paragraphs, and then pretend like its not a problem? Ok. OP would be better off just going for a walk to cope with hee “problems”. Get it?

Here you are on a different day on page 6. If the rant was so long, why did you read it? If this thread is so beneath you, why are you here?

Get it?

Nobody read all of that mess. Just a bunch of blah blah. Doesn't look like OP has been back so probably the usual troll.

Why would the OP be back? She herself said this was a “rant.” A rant is not a request for advice. Get it? My, you really are both thick and obsessed.

[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:I can definitely see how this is annoying, but I'm not with you on the waiting a month to see a newborn first grandchild. They should be told of the impending birth when labor starts, just like your mom. Then they can get there as quickly as possible with a little help for logistics from your husband and meet the baby at the first feasible opportunity. Denying them access while your mother stays and helps 24-7 is just cruel.

Plus, you just never know what help you will need. I had a very colicky baby, and even though my mom and mil are both bat-sh*t crazy, they we both there with me, taking 15 minute shifts walking around with a screaming baby all night.

To those new moms, it takes a village.

Agree that no one should have to wait a month to meet a grand baby. Even if you don't want them staying at first, a month is not reasonable.

Many people wait much longer than a month to see their grandchild, and somehow they survive.

Let's not hijack the thread with this topic. OP isn't talking about the initial baby visit.

I think the husband is a workaholic because he doesn't want to or can't deal with all of this. You won't solve the in law problem until you solve the husband problem.

It’s not OP’s “problem” to “solve.” If DH wants to see the parents and take his kids, or make arrangements for his parents to visit when he can actively host, he can do so. It’s a problem for OP’s ILs, not for OP. If they want to solve it, they can pick up the phone and call the son they raised.

OP does have a problem if this issue causes her to come here to rant. She's not dealing with this problem very well, apparently.

…that’s why she labeled it as a “rant,” Love. See how that works? Someone ELSE called it a problem, and that’s why I used quotation marks when responding to that other person. I hope you are all caught up now.

To spend the time to type that out, all those words and paragraphs, and then pretend like its not a problem? Ok. OP would be better off just going for a walk to cope with hee “problems”. Get it?

Here you are on a different day on page 6. If the rant was so long, why did you read it? If this thread is so beneath you, why are you here?

Get it?

Nobody read all of that mess. Just a bunch of blah blah. Doesn't look like OP has been back so probably the usual troll.

Why would the OP be back? She herself said this was a “rant.” A rant is not a request for advice. Get it? My, you really are both thick and obsessed.

Why are you here? You seem quite obsessed sitting here arguing with everyone because they don't respond in a way that pleases you. How sad for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think you're being evasive here and choosing words carefully like "in-laws visit less" meaning you travel to your parents much more often. And the time spent around births is irrelevant to what's happening today. Face it, you put much more emphasis on seeing your parents and making it happen whereas the burden on getting together is on your in-laws and at their expense.

Also, your in-laws probably wouldn't visit you without the kids. Of course you're a conduit. Would you bother to have much of a relationship with them if you weren't married to their son? This relationship is about the kids. You're likely not that interesting to them otherwise, the same way you wouldn't seek them out if you weren't connected by marriage.

+1 The rant became more layered as OP continued to post.

I’m gathering OP is a SAHM. As a long time SAHM myself you know you are able to do what you do because he does what he does - and what he does takes the bulk of his waking hours. You and the kids are a little unit and you are the most direct conduit to them, and that’s likely a choice you and your DH made for your family. If that is the case, you stay home because your DH values your role as a full time parent to your kids, you craft their days, schedule their activities, plan their trips. It’s a little disingenuous to then throw up your hands when it comes to his parents. Assuming you love your husband you need to help him a little bit here. IMO it’s part of the juggling we assume as the SAHP. Otherwise we can go to work too and then it can be every in-law for themselves when it comes to scheduling our limited vacation time. Your world would look very, very different.

To be clear, I’m not advocating the working parent assumes no responsibility for managing the relationship with their parents, but if OP is traveling multiple weeks a year - b/c her DH works to make that happen for her - the least she could do is throw him a bone and suck up a visit with his parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be petty and stop bringing the kids to my in-laws. DH can take them if he feels that relationship is important. They already feel you favor your family, so might as well do that all the way.

That's the point... she expects her in-laws to visit them, while she takes her kids to visit her parents. They are expressing frustration that they never get to host the kids. But I do agree that passive aggressive comments to the kids is not the smart way to address that.

Why can't her husband take the kids to see his parents? Why is it on her?

Because he's working his a$$ off to support her staying home with three kids. OP has no trouble spending the money of course.

The above is your problem, OP.

You and your DH have decided that the money he brings in is more valuable than everything you do. So you are always feeling like you don't do enough.

And his comments about this issue with his parents confirm that this is how he feels too.

You made your bed, you lie on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you're being evasive here and choosing words carefully like "in-laws visit less" meaning you travel to your parents much more often. And the time spent around births is irrelevant to what's happening today. Face it, you put much more emphasis on seeing your parents and making it happen whereas the burden on getting together is on your in-laws and at their expense.

Also, your in-laws probably wouldn't visit you without the kids. Of course you're a conduit. Would you bother to have much of a relationship with them if you weren't married to their son? This relationship is about the kids. You're likely not that interesting to them otherwise, the same way you wouldn't seek them out if you weren't connected by marriage.

+1 The rant became more layered as OP continued to post.

I’m gathering OP is a SAHM. As a long time SAHM myself you know you are able to do what you do because he does what he does - and what he does takes the bulk of his waking hours. You and the kids are a little unit and you are the most direct conduit to them, and that’s likely a choice you and your DH made for your family. If that is the case, you stay home because your DH values your role as a full time parent to your kids, you craft their days, schedule their activities, plan their trips. It’s a little disingenuous to then throw up your hands when it comes to his parents. Assuming you love your husband you need to help him a little bit here. IMO it’s part of the juggling we assume as the SAHP. Otherwise we can go to work too and then it can be every in-law for themselves when it comes to scheduling our limited vacation time. Your world would look very, very different.

To be clear, I’m not advocating the working parent assumes no responsibility for managing the relationship with their parents, but if OP is traveling multiple weeks a year - b/c her DH works to make that happen for her - the least she could do is throw him a bone and suck up a visit with his parents.

I just threw up a little in my mouth. You sound like a pastoral counselor.

[Anonymous]

This post could have been written by my SIL. She is a SAHM and spends tons of time with her own parents with the kids but isn’t proactive about seeing my parents ever. My brother works long hours and travels for work, and SIL makes the schedules for the kids and determines how they spend their time. OP’s in laws shouldn’t always be the ones who have to travel to see their grandkids. She should prioritize her kids seeing both sets of grandparents because nurturing relationships with both sides is important for her kids. OP sounds pretty selfish, honestly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s my rant. Tell your damn husband to take your kids to visit his parents more. Problem solved. Not rocket science.

NP. I don’t want my husband to take my kids to see his parents more, but of course if he actively wanted to, I wouldn’t stand in his way. Not my business, really. If the kids wanted to see their grandparents more, they would ask. Not a problem to me, and if my ILs whined, I would tell them to go talk to the son they raised.

Their your kids? Aren’t they your DH’s kids also? If you control everyone’s access to “ your” kids then you are the problem.

What part of "I wouldn't stand in his way" don't you understand? Just because the PP not actively making visits happen does not mean she's controlling visits. She's not the cruise director.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop telling them every time you see your parents. Problem solved.

+1

How do the ILs know such details in the first place?

NP- The ILs probably ask the kids. Kids talk, too.

There is nothing that the parents can do about this, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let your DH deal with his parents' bitterness. I would not engage with them if they start to complain to you.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This post could have been written by my SIL. She is a SAHM and spends tons of time with her own parents with the kids but isn’t proactive about seeing my parents ever. My brother works long hours and travels for work, and SIL makes the schedules for the kids and determines how they spend their time. OP’s in laws shouldn’t always be the ones who have to travel to see their grandkids. She should prioritize her kids seeing both sets of grandparents because nurturing relationships with both sides is important for her kids. OP sounds pretty selfish, honestly.

No. Your family sounds nuts.

A SAHM is not a 24 hour job. Does your brother work 24 hours? No, he does not.

Traveling and staying over at in laws is work, not vacation.

There is a comfort in staying over at your parents that is absent when you stay over at in laws. There are things that OP can easily request or even demand from her parents to make her stay comfortable that she cannot ask of her in-laws.

Your brother is not too busy to take his kids to his family. Having a stay at home wife does not mean he gets to abandon his love to spend time with his family. Your parents should have raised a son who cared more about them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you're being evasive here and choosing words carefully like "in-laws visit less" meaning you travel to your parents much more often. And the time spent around births is irrelevant to what's happening today. Face it, you put much more emphasis on seeing your parents and making it happen whereas the burden on getting together is on your in-laws and at their expense.

Also, your in-laws probably wouldn't visit you without the kids. Of course you're a conduit. Would you bother to have much of a relationship with them if you weren't married to their son? This relationship is about the kids. You're likely not that interesting to them otherwise, the same way you wouldn't seek them out if you weren't connected by marriage.

+1 The rant became more layered as OP continued to post.

I’m gathering OP is a SAHM. As a long time SAHM myself you know you are able to do what you do because he does what he does - and what he does takes the bulk of his waking hours. You and the kids are a little unit and you are the most direct conduit to them, and that’s likely a choice you and your DH made for your family. If that is the case, you stay home because your DH values your role as a full time parent to your kids, you craft their days, schedule their activities, plan their trips. It’s a little disingenuous to then throw up your hands when it comes to his parents. Assuming you love your husband you need to help him a little bit here. IMO it’s part of the juggling we assume as the SAHP. Otherwise we can go to work too and then it can be every in-law for themselves when it comes to scheduling our limited vacation time. Your world would look very, very different.

To be clear, I’m not advocating the working parent assumes no responsibility for managing the relationship with their parents, but if OP is traveling multiple weeks a year - b/c her DH works to make that happen for her - the least she could do is throw him a bone and suck up a visit with his parents.

I just threw up a little in my mouth. You sound like a pastoral counselor.

The PP is not wrong here just because you don't want to schedule time with your kids with the ILs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This post could have been written by my SIL. She is a SAHM and spends tons of time with her own parents with the kids but isn’t proactive about seeing my parents ever. My brother works long hours and travels for work, and SIL makes the schedules for the kids and determines how they spend their time. OP’s in laws shouldn’t always be the ones who have to travel to see their grandkids. She should prioritize her kids seeing both sets of grandparents because nurturing relationships with both sides is important for her kids. OP sounds pretty selfish, honestly.

No. Your family sounds nuts.

A SAHM is not a 24 hour job. Does your brother work 24 hours? No, he does not.

Traveling and staying over at in laws is work, not vacation.

There is a comfort in staying over at your parents that is absent when you stay over at in laws. There are things that OP can easily request or even demand from her parents to make her stay comfortable that she cannot ask of her in-laws.

Your brother is not too busy to take his kids to his family. Having a stay at home wife does not mean he gets to abandon his love to spend time with his family. Your parents should have raised a son who cared more about them.

You need to be honest with this. The wife will then complain husband is not spending enough time with just them at home since he is gone all day at work and the ILs are stealing her time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you're being evasive here and choosing words carefully like "in-laws visit less" meaning you travel to your parents much more often. And the time spent around births is irrelevant to what's happening today. Face it, you put much more emphasis on seeing your parents and making it happen whereas the burden on getting together is on your in-laws and at their expense.

Also, your in-laws probably wouldn't visit you without the kids. Of course you're a conduit. Would you bother to have much of a relationship with them if you weren't married to their son? This relationship is about the kids. You're likely not that interesting to them otherwise, the same way you wouldn't seek them out if you weren't connected by marriage.

+1 The rant became more layered as OP continued to post.

I’m gathering OP is a SAHM. As a long time SAHM myself you know you are able to do what you do because he does what he does - and what he does takes the bulk of his waking hours. You and the kids are a little unit and you are the most direct conduit to them, and that’s likely a choice you and your DH made for your family. If that is the case, you stay home because your DH values your role as a full time parent to your kids, you craft their days, schedule their activities, plan their trips. It’s a little disingenuous to then throw up your hands when it comes to his parents. Assuming you love your husband you need to help him a little bit here. IMO it’s part of the juggling we assume as the SAHP. Otherwise we can go to work too and then it can be every in-law for themselves when it comes to scheduling our limited vacation time. Your world would look very, very different.

To be clear, I’m not advocating the working parent assumes no responsibility for managing the relationship with their parents, but if OP is traveling multiple weeks a year - b/c her DH works to make that happen for her - the least she could do is throw him a bone and suck up a visit with his parents.

I just threw up a little in my mouth. You sound like a pastoral counselor.

The PP is not wrong here just because you don't want to schedule time with your kids with the ILs.

His family, his responsibility regardless of who works outside the home unless the spouses have come to a different arrangement. Which, according to OP, the have not.

Just because others perpetuate outdated gender roles doesn't mean it's right.

[Anonymous]

Haven't read the whole thread but my husband and I have a policy that we each handle our primary family. So this wouldn't happen this way in our house because he would have to deal w/ his parents' complaints and requests.

It doesn't work that cleanly of course, but your husband not having your back in this, and not managing more of the relationship w/ his parents, is the issue. It's a marital one - not an inlaw one.

Tell your inlaws that if your husband chose to spend time with them they'd waaaay exceed the time the kids get w/ your parents. But you're at your limit. Period. Then tell them to stop making snarky comments to your kids as though they only have one parent.

It would infuriate me.