Anonymous wrote:MILs don’t want to face the fact that they and their spouses raised inconsiderate, disconnected sons. Sisters don’t want to face the fact that they have disinterested brothers.

It’s easiest to nag and blame the wife, unfortunately, for some women. I personally think the dynamic is disgusting.

This. My ils went crazy when we had our children and became abusive particularly towards me. Dh shared with me some horrible stuff that happened when he was a child and he wanted to back away from the relationship with them. They tell everyone that I won't let him talk to them even though for years I encouraged him to contact them.

Anonymous wrote:Also DCUM

Get upset at MIL and DH communicating with each other regularly think it's inappropriate.

Want MIL to communicate with them more consider them like daughters

Want MIL to be interested in DCUM.
But become irrationally angry that they then have to be the primary source of communication

Reason 5006 the women of DCUM are largely emotionally immature and personality disordered..

You get that your talking about different people as though they are one, single monolith DCUM poster, right?

I mean this kindly: log off.

Also DCUM

Get upset at MIL and DH communicating with each other regularly think it's inappropriate.

Want MIL to communicate with them more consider them like daughters

Want MIL to be interested in DCUM.
But become irrationally angry that they then have to be the primary source of communication

Reason 5006 the women of DCUM are largely emotionally immature and personality disordered..

So you are the primary one to send pictures etc, but then get upset when she asks you about Facetime. ... sounds about DCUM

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MILs don’t want to face the fact that they and their spouses raised inconsiderate, disconnected sons. Sisters don’t want to face the fact that they have disinterested brothers.

It’s easiest to nag and blame the wife, unfortunately, for some women. I personally think the dynamic is disgusting.

My son was not disinterested or disconnected until he married that nasty woman and after he divorced her he returned to his interested, connected self, thank goodness. So who was it, him or her?

Oh honey
.
.

It was always, always him. This is obvious to everyone except you.

+1

And divorced men don’t suddenly come out from under a spell. They refocus on their parents/siblings because without a spouse they want mommy to take care of them again. It’s not that your evil DIL changed his personality. It’s that his personality has always been “makes no effort unless he wants something.” You’re back in his good graces because he needs you again.

I’m sure your former DIL is relieved to be done with the lot of you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you in 90% of cases but sometimes it is the DIL/SIL who is actively trying to reduce contact or family vacation time. Like the son/brother will be on the phone and she’ll pull him away for something trivial (which is okay if it’s occasional, but not if it’s constant). Or the son/brother wants to visit, but she’s “in charge” of the social and vacation calendar and there’s no room to see the ILs. Again this is not common but it is true for some families.

This is still a son or brother problem. The fact that he puts up with it or is ok with this is HIS PROBLEM to solve with his family and her. Not HER problem to solve. He may not see anything wrong w it. Which means it’s the family who needs to get over it.

Or, he does have a problem with it, but she is nasty to him when he tries to make a change and see his family more, threatens divorce, gives other ultimatums. So, while he is at fault for not divorcing her, she is at fault for being… herself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MILs don’t want to face the fact that they and their spouses raised inconsiderate, disconnected sons. Sisters don’t want to face the fact that they have disinterested brothers.

It’s easiest to nag and blame the wife, unfortunately, for some women. I personally think the dynamic is disgusting.

My son was not disinterested or disconnected until he married that nasty woman and after he divorced her he returned to his interested, connected self, thank goodness. So who was it, him or her?

Oh honey
.
.

It was always, always him. This is obvious to everyone except you.

So much this. Thank you, OP.

My DH is 100% the reason we don’t see his family as much, and that our DC doesn’t have a close relationship. I will suggest visiting them more often, but my DH doesn’t want to go. He doesn’t enjoy visiting. They stress him out and depress him. I don’t live it either but have empathy for everyone involved (MIL is a widow with mental health issues, BIL has a lot of problems). They are not my family so they don’t stress me out as much. But he’s miserable there.

I don’t blame him. Whenever we visit, there is always some drama about something or other. All these recriminations. It’s very draining.

Recently I told my DH that maybe we should buy a bigger home further out, with space for his mom to stay with us for longer periods, because as it is she never visits because she doesn’t feel comfortable traveling alone. I figure if she could come for longer times, we could figure out a way to get her here. He just looked exhausted when I said it. He knows there’s something to it, but it feels like giving up his happiness to spend so much time with them.

They all blame me. In a way I’m fine with it— I’m impervious at this point. But if they actually focused on my DH instead of just blaming me, they might repair those broken relationships. But no one wants to try. And I’m not going to step in. I have my own family issues. Plus I’d rather focus my energy on the dynamic between my DH and I, and with our DC. I don’t want this to happen to us when she’s grown.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the only reason DH ever calls his mom. I’m the one who remembers her birthday, Mother’s Day and sends her a Christmas gift. I spent years trying to keep her connected to our kids - sending her photos and having the kids send her art and letters. I’ve stopped trying so hard because she never seemed to warm to me. She’s polite to me but doesn’t show any interest in a real relationship with me or the kids. She just has an interest in DH. I’m positive she thinks I keep him away.

Are you me? If not for me, she would never get a Christmas gift ever. I do everything because I feel sorry for her. But she is only occasionally interested in the kids and never in me. She’s obsessed with her baby boy, who is not a big fan of hers.

So stop.

I don’t buy my in-laws gifts. It’s not that I don’t love them, it’s just not my place.

My family doesn’t exchange gifts with adults. If my husband wants to buy his mother something, then she gets a gift. If his siblings go in on a gift for her, it’s on them to coordinate and Venmo money or whatever.

There is no ill will and no drama.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MILs don’t want to face the fact that they and their spouses raised inconsiderate, disconnected sons. Sisters don’t want to face the fact that they have disinterested brothers.

It’s easiest to nag and blame the wife, unfortunately, for some women. I personally think the dynamic is disgusting.

My son was not disinterested or disconnected until he married that nasty woman and after he divorced her he returned to his interested, connected self, thank goodness. So who was it, him or her?

It was him for choosing to kowtow to her. No man with a spine does that. Sorry you and your spouse raised a spineless twit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not always the same dynamic. My brother's wife definitely prevents my parents from having much of a relationship with their kids. They live 20 minutes apart and see each other maybe 4 times a year. And there's no way to prove this online, but my parents are easy and pleasant to be around. I routinely call them to fly across the country to babysit for me for weeks and they do it, including dishes, yard work, etc. My SIL just doesn't want to facilitate a relationship for reasons unknown and my brother is passive and conflict-averse to the point of being practically dead. Obviously that's on him, but if he were steering the ship my parents would definitely get their wish to babysit now and then or get together more than once a quarter.

I'll repeat again that's ultimately still a son/brother problem because he is the one choosing not to speak up and say anything to change the situation. Him being a passive person doesn't give you guys a pass to push the blame off to the DIL/SIL he is an adult with his own agency and he is choosing to be passive and not speak up. That shows if he really wanted a relationship with you guys he would make it happen. He is not a child who has to listen to mom and dad. You guys with these responses are completely missing the OP's point.

His responsibility for his passivity does not absolve her of the responsibility for her agency and actions. The two things can coexist. And my parents tried for a long time to facilitate a relationship through my brother (which is what people are supposed to do! go through their own relative) and she acted like they were trying to go behind her back or usurp her ability to control her family calendar. This isn't my direct problem - we don't bother trying to have a relationship since it's such a one way street and are cordial but have no meaningful connection. But I feel bad for my parents, who would like to have a relationship with their grandkids who live in the same city and barely know them through no fault of their own. I'm generally pro-DIL, but to pretend that the dynamic is always such that they are above reproach is absurd.

She is above reproach because if your brother wanted to truly have a relationship with you guys he is a grown man and wouldn't allow his wife to stop that. It isn't her responsibility to be loyal to you guys or to ensure that the family relationship is continued. Also you never know even if wife wasn't around who is to say your brother would choose to have a relationship with you guys? There could be other factors going on in his mind that you don't know about.

It just boggles my mind that people blame the 3rd party instead of their actual relative the one who owes them the loyalty not the in law who doesn't owe them jack shit. Then again this is the same story old as time where it's easier to blame the outsider the non blood relative that you didn't grow up with then to admit it might be your family member that you grow up with that doesn't want the relationship or has the flaws.

Yeah, that's not what's happening here. Nobody thinks my brother is blameless, and as I said I don't have a meaningful relationship with either of them because it's not worth my time. We text a couple of times a year and they'll come over for an hour when we're visiting my parents. I imagine as we get older all of that will gradually cease and our kids won't know each other at all, which will have been their choice. But in this case she does, in fact, actively obstruct get togethers - that is a choice that she is making. Nobody is asking her to be responsible for the relationship between my parents and her kids, just not to go out of her way to say no to every request that comes through my brother. And of course your ILs owe you some loyalty - they are still family even if not by birth. Grandparents have no rights, nor should they, but to actively prevent a relationship between grandkids and grandparents for no reason is not normal or kind.

Ok but again your brother is ultimately the one deciding to go along with his wife's decision to not have a relationship with you guys. He isn't speaking up and saying no honey I want to see my family. A grown man should be able to speak up for himself and that's a brother problem if he can't do that not a SIL problem.

Obviously. I just don't see them as mutually exclusive. Most people don't want to argue with their spouse constantly, especially passive, conflict-averse people. I absolutely blame my brother, but my SIL is to blame too. My brother brings the kids over more when my SIL is out of town and can't act as gatekeeper. Would I tolerate a spouse who treated my family like this? No. Would I tolerate a spouse who was so weak-willed? Also no. I find plenty to censure on both sides here. I suppose he could force more time together, but at the price of angering his wife and creating household conflict.

…and?

Then there’d be conflict. And if he drew a line in the sand, that would be the last of the conflict. One firm stance, and it would be over. I am laughing imagining if I tried to control it so that my husband’s family didn’t get fairly equal time with the kids as my family. That’s a nope. And same if he tried to pull that crap with me. If your brother actually gave a shyt about your family, he’d draw a line in the sand. But he doesn’t. And that’s on him.

I'm not sure why you feel you are an expert on people you've never met. You would behave differently, as would I, because I am not a congenitally passive person. My brother would arrange things differently if he were calling the shots, but he's not and he doesn't care enough to bother trying. He'd rather float along and not make waves. I have conceded all of that. That doesn't make it any more normal or kind to go out of your way to say no to plans with your ILs and to invent reasons not to see them.

Unless your husband has either told you he doesn’t care to see them, or actively doesn’t want to because of family dynamics that don’t work for him.

Anonymous wrote:MILs don’t want to face the fact that they and their spouses raised inconsiderate, disconnected sons. Sisters don’t want to face the fact that they have disinterested brothers.

It’s easiest to nag and blame the wife, unfortunately, for some women. I personally think the dynamic is disgusting.

My son was not disinterested or disconnected until he married that nasty woman and after he divorced her he returned to his interested, connected self, thank goodness. So who was it, him or her?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not always the same dynamic. My brother's wife definitely prevents my parents from having much of a relationship with their kids. They live 20 minutes apart and see each other maybe 4 times a year. And there's no way to prove this online, but my parents are easy and pleasant to be around. I routinely call them to fly across the country to babysit for me for weeks and they do it, including dishes, yard work, etc. My SIL just doesn't want to facilitate a relationship for reasons unknown and my brother is passive and conflict-averse to the point of being practically dead. Obviously that's on him, but if he were steering the ship my parents would definitely get their wish to babysit now and then or get together more than once a quarter.

I'll repeat again that's ultimately still a son/brother problem because he is the one choosing not to speak up and say anything to change the situation. Him being a passive person doesn't give you guys a pass to push the blame off to the DIL/SIL he is an adult with his own agency and he is choosing to be passive and not speak up. That shows if he really wanted a relationship with you guys he would make it happen. He is not a child who has to listen to mom and dad. You guys with these responses are completely missing the OP's point.

His responsibility for his passivity does not absolve her of the responsibility for her agency and actions. The two things can coexist. And my parents tried for a long time to facilitate a relationship through my brother (which is what people are supposed to do! go through their own relative) and she acted like they were trying to go behind her back or usurp her ability to control her family calendar. This isn't my direct problem - we don't bother trying to have a relationship since it's such a one way street and are cordial but have no meaningful connection. But I feel bad for my parents, who would like to have a relationship with their grandkids who live in the same city and barely know them through no fault of their own. I'm generally pro-DIL, but to pretend that the dynamic is always such that they are above reproach is absurd.

She is above reproach because if your brother wanted to truly have a relationship with you guys he is a grown man and wouldn't allow his wife to stop that. It isn't her responsibility to be loyal to you guys or to ensure that the family relationship is continued. Also you never know even if wife wasn't around who is to say your brother would choose to have a relationship with you guys? There could be other factors going on in his mind that you don't know about.

It just boggles my mind that people blame the 3rd party instead of their actual relative the one who owes them the loyalty not the in law who doesn't owe them jack shit. Then again this is the same story old as time where it's easier to blame the outsider the non blood relative that you didn't grow up with then to admit it might be your family member that you grow up with that doesn't want the relationship or has the flaws.

Yeah, that's not what's happening here. Nobody thinks my brother is blameless, and as I said I don't have a meaningful relationship with either of them because it's not worth my time. We text a couple of times a year and they'll come over for an hour when we're visiting my parents. I imagine as we get older all of that will gradually cease and our kids won't know each other at all, which will have been their choice. But in this case she does, in fact, actively obstruct get togethers - that is a choice that she is making. Nobody is asking her to be responsible for the relationship between my parents and her kids, just not to go out of her way to say no to every request that comes through my brother. And of course your ILs owe you some loyalty - they are still family even if not by birth. Grandparents have no rights, nor should they, but to actively prevent a relationship between grandkids and grandparents for no reason is not normal or kind.

Ok but again your brother is ultimately the one deciding to go along with his wife's decision to not have a relationship with you guys. He isn't speaking up and saying no honey I want to see my family. A grown man should be able to speak up for himself and that's a brother problem if he can't do that not a SIL problem.

Obviously. I just don't see them as mutually exclusive. Most people don't want to argue with their spouse constantly, especially passive, conflict-averse people. I absolutely blame my brother, but my SIL is to blame too. My brother brings the kids over more when my SIL is out of town and can't act as gatekeeper. Would I tolerate a spouse who treated my family like this? No. Would I tolerate a spouse who was so weak-willed? Also no. I find plenty to censure on both sides here. I suppose he could force more time together, but at the price of angering his wife and creating household conflict.

…and?

Then there’d be conflict. And if he drew a line in the sand, that would be the last of the conflict. One firm stance, and it would be over. I am laughing imagining if I tried to control it so that my husband’s family didn’t get fairly equal time with the kids as my family. That’s a nope. And same if he tried to pull that crap with me. If your brother actually gave a shyt about your family, he’d draw a line in the sand. But he doesn’t. And that’s on him.

I'm not sure why you feel you are an expert on people you've never met. You would behave differently, as would I, because I am not a congenitally passive person. My brother would arrange things differently if he were calling the shots, but he's not and he doesn't care enough to bother trying. He'd rather float along and not make waves. I have conceded all of that. That doesn't make it any more normal or kind to go out of your way to say no to plans with your ILs and to invent reasons not to see them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not always the same dynamic. My brother's wife definitely prevents my parents from having much of a relationship with their kids. They live 20 minutes apart and see each other maybe 4 times a year. And there's no way to prove this online, but my parents are easy and pleasant to be around. I routinely call them to fly across the country to babysit for me for weeks and they do it, including dishes, yard work, etc. My SIL just doesn't want to facilitate a relationship for reasons unknown and my brother is passive and conflict-averse to the point of being practically dead. Obviously that's on him, but if he were steering the ship my parents would definitely get their wish to babysit now and then or get together more than once a quarter.

I'll repeat again that's ultimately still a son/brother problem because he is the one choosing not to speak up and say anything to change the situation. Him being a passive person doesn't give you guys a pass to push the blame off to the DIL/SIL he is an adult with his own agency and he is choosing to be passive and not speak up. That shows if he really wanted a relationship with you guys he would make it happen. He is not a child who has to listen to mom and dad. You guys with these responses are completely missing the OP's point.

His responsibility for his passivity does not absolve her of the responsibility for her agency and actions. The two things can coexist. And my parents tried for a long time to facilitate a relationship through my brother (which is what people are supposed to do! go through their own relative) and she acted like they were trying to go behind her back or usurp her ability to control her family calendar. This isn't my direct problem - we don't bother trying to have a relationship since it's such a one way street and are cordial but have no meaningful connection. But I feel bad for my parents, who would like to have a relationship with their grandkids who live in the same city and barely know them through no fault of their own. I'm generally pro-DIL, but to pretend that the dynamic is always such that they are above reproach is absurd.

She is above reproach because if your brother wanted to truly have a relationship with you guys he is a grown man and wouldn't allow his wife to stop that. It isn't her responsibility to be loyal to you guys or to ensure that the family relationship is continued. Also you never know even if wife wasn't around who is to say your brother would choose to have a relationship with you guys? There could be other factors going on in his mind that you don't know about.

It just boggles my mind that people blame the 3rd party instead of their actual relative the one who owes them the loyalty not the in law who doesn't owe them jack shit. Then again this is the same story old as time where it's easier to blame the outsider the non blood relative that you didn't grow up with then to admit it might be your family member that you grow up with that doesn't want the relationship or has the flaws.

Yeah, that's not what's happening here. Nobody thinks my brother is blameless, and as I said I don't have a meaningful relationship with either of them because it's not worth my time. We text a couple of times a year and they'll come over for an hour when we're visiting my parents. I imagine as we get older all of that will gradually cease and our kids won't know each other at all, which will have been their choice. But in this case she does, in fact, actively obstruct get togethers - that is a choice that she is making. Nobody is asking her to be responsible for the relationship between my parents and her kids, just not to go out of her way to say no to every request that comes through my brother. And of course your ILs owe you some loyalty - they are still family even if not by birth. Grandparents have no rights, nor should they, but to actively prevent a relationship between grandkids and grandparents for no reason is not normal or kind.

Ok but again your brother is ultimately the one deciding to go along with his wife's decision to not have a relationship with you guys. He isn't speaking up and saying no honey I want to see my family. A grown man should be able to speak up for himself and that's a brother problem if he can't do that not a SIL problem.

Obviously. I just don't see them as mutually exclusive. Most people don't want to argue with their spouse constantly, especially passive, conflict-averse people. I absolutely blame my brother, but my SIL is to blame too. My brother brings the kids over more when my SIL is out of town and can't act as gatekeeper. Would I tolerate a spouse who treated my family like this? No. Would I tolerate a spouse who was so weak-willed? Also no. I find plenty to censure on both sides here. I suppose he could force more time together, but at the price of angering his wife and creating household conflict.

…and?

Then there’d be conflict. And if he drew a line in the sand, that would be the last of the conflict. One firm stance, and it would be over. I am laughing imagining if I tried to control it so that my husband’s family didn’t get fairly equal time with the kids as my family. That’s a nope. And same if he tried to pull that crap with me. If your brother actually gave a shyt about your family, he’d draw a line in the sand. But he doesn’t. And that’s on him.

Anonymous wrote:I’m the only reason DH ever calls his mom. I’m the one who remembers her birthday, Mother’s Day and sends her a Christmas gift. I spent years trying to keep her connected to our kids - sending her photos and having the kids send her art and letters. I’ve stopped trying so hard because she never seemed to warm to me. She’s polite to me but doesn’t show any interest in a real relationship with me or the kids. She just has an interest in DH. I’m positive she thinks I keep him away.

Are you me? If not for me, she would never get a Christmas gift ever. I do everything because I feel sorry for her. But she is only occasionally interested in the kids and never in me. She’s obsessed with her baby boy, who is not a big fan of hers.