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.

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’m super busy managing my own family/kids, house, career & job, school, sports, holidays, health of everyone.

Plus I only know in laws since I married their son and see them once in awhile. He’s known them his ENTIRE life and lived with them 18 years. Of course he knows them better and should handle whatever arises. I’m not leading that, nor is my hired house manager. He will.

Just like I don’t ask him to call my parents or send them stuff solo. That’s be nuts.

Does your husband proactively and independently call up and chit chat with your mom and dad, ship them thoughtful packages, email them photos and updates (most men like to post things in attempts to prove they’re not working 99% or their time)?

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

That OP was literally asking about boundaries to set. This is one that works well for a lot of people, either as far as division of workload or management of personalities, as demonstrated on this thread. You can start out as a newlywed thinking you're going to be BFFs with your ILs, but if that goes sideways, this is a solution that has worked for many.

Anonymous wrote:What I see is that on the inlaw threads somebody always says let the spouse deal with their own family, especially MIL. Usually it's because the OP has reached the end of their patience, tolerance, whatever.

So it's not a lot of people saying that, it's one or a few. Nothing to worry about.

This is it. I had a good relationship with my MIL until she started staying at my house all the time even when I told her “now is not a good time; I’m really not feeling well.” And then, she ignores everything I ask her not to do. No respect for boundaries. I just decided to let DH deal with her and arranging her visits. OP you may think you have a good relationship, but maybe it’s because your MIL keeps some distance. If something changes and she basically starts living with you, it may be a different story.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. OP, your critical thinking skills are really lacking. Slow down and think this through.

The majority of the posters who are writing on DCUM have already tried, and failed, to work through the issue on their own. That means what we’re seeing on DCUM is people who are having a particularly hard time handling something directly themselves, or through their spouse.

So people aren’t “always” advising posters not to directly address problems with their ILs. What they are advising is, well, given that you’ve tried and failed to resolve the issue by direct communication, leave it for your spouse to handle. This is especially the advice with repeated behavior and repeated (by-now-expected) dynamics. And what we’re saying is, stop butting your head against this issue, drop the rope, and let your spouse deal with his or her parents.

Why did you feel the need to include your first sentence?

Most people do not consider the MIL part of their life. They don't go out with her without her H. They only see her at family events. They don't call her just because.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because nearly all of these posts are about men who would like to offload the emotional labor of their marriage to their wives. Their wives should not have to take it all on.

It would be very rare on here to see a post from a man saying he has been given too many responsibilities to his wife’s parents.

OP here. I get this. But if this is the reason, why does it not come up when people ask how to handle a teacher or a coach or their own child? It is all labor/responsibility.

What you point out seems to be a bigger issue, and not really about how this third party that requires dealing with came into someone's life. Only when it comes to inlaws does his seem relevant to folks.

You will see advice like this on other threads where people are talking about division of labor stuff. For example, I advise my mom friends to consider listing their husband’s phone number first on every school, etc form. Because if the mom’s role is to fill out all the paperwork (which it often is), then dad can get the first phone call. The division of labor might not work if dad is in a SCIF or mom stays home and it makes more sense for her to take the calls. But, sometimes women in particular fall into the trap of doing “all the things”.

I have never been the main coordinator of stuff with my husband’s family. He is very good at it. He makes the plans, coordinates the food, buys the gifts. I’m terrible at gift buying so he sometimes buys gifts for my family too. And sometimes, I do stuff like take his mom on a girls trip. So while I absolutely give advice to “let your husband handle the most stuff with his family”, im not refusing to interact with them.

Nuance seems really lost on you.

Anonymous wrote:Small, mundane things, sure, either spouse can handle.

But for more serious issues, it's safer to let the spouse handle their own respective families. If my parents did something that DH and I didn't like, I'd rather that I address it with them than him. They may not like my pushback, but they'll always love me no matter what. If DH does the pushback, they'd be offended and alienated.

Obviously, this.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. OP, your critical thinking skills are really lacking. Slow down and think this through.

The majority of the posters who are writing on DCUM have already tried, and failed, to work through the issue on their own. That means what we’re seeing on DCUM is people who are having a particularly hard time handling something directly themselves, or through their spouse.

So people aren’t “always” advising posters not to directly address problems with their ILs. What they are advising is, well, given that you’ve tried and failed to resolve the issue by direct communication, leave it for your spouse to handle. This is especially the advice with repeated behavior and repeated (by-now-expected) dynamics. And what we’re saying is, stop butting your head against this issue, drop the rope, and let your spouse deal with his or her parents.

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.

I think this is the point, though. If you DON'T have a great relationship with your in-laws, then it makes sense for your partner to be the one to handle it. If you do, then the advice isn't for you. This doesn't seem that hard to understand.

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?

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.

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? .

In dyfunctional families there is scapegoating and there is difficulty accepting another person into family system, unless it's a baby.The more dysfunctional, the more likely it is that is the person who marries in sets the boundary, that person will be scapegoated and blamed for corrupting their own. The spouse who their blood relative likely knows the level of crazy and is used to it. It's not just setting the boundary, he/she has to say "No this is not Larla telling me what to do. We BOTH want this."