Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think a lot of aggravation comes from using the word "always."

If you are spending a lot of time on the internet and find yourself thinking, "Why do people ALWAYS say/think this or that," then the answer is to step away from the internet. Life is complicated. There's nuance. Do some people refuse to ever deal with their in-laws? There are 8 billion people in the world; I'm sure we could find someone. But in general, if anyone gives you a hard and fast, black and white rule about any subject, they probably are not a deep thinker and I would take their advice with a grain of salt. If they say, "Well MILS ALWAYS blame the DIL, so I have to take this approach" or whatever, then close the laptop and slowly back away.

Thanks?

To clarify, on NEARLY every post where someone posts an issue regarding their ILs somebody posts "Let spouse handle it." This runs the spectrum of issues, which leads me to conclude that SOME people take the approach that spouses should be the one who communicates/deals with ILs.

I'm curious about that approach to a relationship, or lack of relationship, with a spouse's parents.

A lot of the times it's because the OP is inserting themselves into something that initially involved just their spouse. Like the MIL is telling the spouse they are upset the family isn't coming for the holidays, what should OP do? And the answer is, let the spouse deal with it and stay out of it.

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty simple- it's another way of saying the spouse has to be on their spouse's side to support the issue. Otherwise with really dramatic in-laws- YOU can become the bad guy with no support if they decide to triangulate and are successful. In other words- put your spouse first in your marriage, not between you and your parents.

If you have a drama free family/in-laws, it is a non-issue- but that is far from the majority- thus the reason people state the obvious a lot.

OP here. I agree with the overall point you are making, particularly the bolded.

But I don't see why that means I can't speak my own mind or talk directly to the person who is affecting me, or my children. I can do that....and also know that my spouse will back me up if it comes down to it. In fact, he will back me up in any situation, that doesn't mean he has to HANDLE every situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

NP. Agreed, which is why I feel comfortable keeping a firm boundary that my DH deals with his family.

+1 You are usually closer with your own parents, so it makes sense that you handle any sticky situations with your own parents.

This boundary has always worked out well for us and we have never experienced unfortunate IL dynamics.

How do you define "Boundary"?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think a lot of aggravation comes from using the word "always."

If you are spending a lot of time on the internet and find yourself thinking, "Why do people ALWAYS say/think this or that," then the answer is to step away from the internet. Life is complicated. There's nuance. Do some people refuse to ever deal with their in-laws? There are 8 billion people in the world; I'm sure we could find someone. But in general, if anyone gives you a hard and fast, black and white rule about any subject, they probably are not a deep thinker and I would take their advice with a grain of salt. If they say, "Well MILS ALWAYS blame the DIL, so I have to take this approach" or whatever, then close the laptop and slowly back away.

Thanks?

To clarify, on NEARLY every post where someone posts an issue regarding their ILs somebody posts "Let spouse handle it." This runs the spectrum of issues, which leads me to conclude that SOME people take the approach that spouses should be the one who communicates/deals with ILs.

I'm curious about that approach to a relationship, or lack of relationship, with a spouse's parents.

I met my in-laws when I was 18.

When I was 22, my MIL went off the deep end and left FIL for a really inappropriate person (think Jerry Springer show material). Inevitably, the new guy left her (after being abusive to her), but not before she really tried to manipulate both of us into accepting him.

For years afterwards, my MIL and her parents would tell me that *I* didn't arrange visits with them enough. They clearly viewed it as my role, as the woman, to facilitate their relationship with my spouse.

So I adopted a "they're your family; you deal with them" approach. If they were mature, functional, lovely people, I wouldn't have needed this boundary. I would have voluntarily spent time with them. Alas, they are/were not.

But later in life, I grew more confident in myself and realized that my MIL was mostly afraid of losing my approval, and I better understood the conflict avoidance my spouse developed as a coping mechanism as a child, and I don't have a problem saying my piece if I need to. Other times, deflection and punting are preferred methods because, again, we're not dealing with someone who is emotionally healthy.

These days, MIL sends spouse messages saying, "I don't see you enough, I wish we were closer, you don't make me a priority," and I am blessedly left out of these manipulations. It's always an option to just say, "Hi! I'd love to see you this week. Does a certain day work for you?" That's all that MIL says directly to me, knowing that I do not respond to guilt-trips.

Unfortunately, I predict that in a few years when my kids are legally adults, MIL will send them the same kind of messages.

It's all a balancing act of trying to maintain some kind of relationship with someone with a lot of emotional and cognitive deficits. I don't think MIL is at estrangement-level crazy. That might make things easier in a sense. But she's also not a completely safe person whose judgment we can trust; we made the decision not to leave our kids with her overnight for this reason.

Thankfully my spouse has had a lot of therapy and understands his mother's deficits. I suspect she would be diagnosed as BPD, but as she told me once, she took a semester of psychology in college, so she's an expert.

It's pretty simple- it's another way of saying the spouse has to be on their spouse's side to support the issue. Otherwise with really dramatic in-laws- YOU can become the bad guy with no support if they decide to triangulate and are successful. In other words- put your spouse first in your marriage, not between you and your parents.

If you have a drama free family/in-laws, it is a non-issue- but that is far from the majority- thus the reason people state the obvious a lot.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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

NP. Agreed, which is why I feel comfortable keeping a firm boundary that my DH deals with his family.

+1 You are usually closer with your own parents, so it makes sense that you handle any sticky situations with your own parents.

This boundary has always worked out well for us and we have never experienced unfortunate IL dynamics.

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.

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.

I think a lot of aggravation comes from using the word "always."

If you are spending a lot of time on the internet and find yourself thinking, "Why do people ALWAYS say/think this or that," then the answer is to step away from the internet. Life is complicated. There's nuance. Do some people refuse to ever deal with their in-laws? There are 8 billion people in the world; I'm sure we could find someone. But in general, if anyone gives you a hard and fast, black and white rule about any subject, they probably are not a deep thinker and I would take their advice with a grain of salt. If they say, "Well MILS ALWAYS blame the DIL, so I have to take this approach" or whatever, then close the laptop and slowly back away.

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

NP. Agreed, which is why I feel comfortable keeping a firm boundary that my DH deals with his family.

I generally assume this answer comes from people who don’t have good family relationships with anyone. Some of the MIL/DIL disputes on this board are just so ridiculously petty.

The sad thing is that eventually their kids will learn that lesson, and the cycle will continue.

I always wonder this also! It’s so bizarre. If I have an issue with my MIL, I am perfectly capable of addressing it.

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

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.