Anonymous wrote:I have been dealing with my mom for 43 years so I know how to handle her. I know when to push back and I know when it's not worth it and it's a waste of my time..... I would never expect my dear husband to have to jump through a million hoops or play mind games with her just to figure out when Christmas is and what we are eating.
Does that mean he never talks to her? No, but it means that logistics and some things are just better dealt with the family you grew up with.
I get along well with my mother-in-law but my husband can cut the crap and get right to the point with her.... I can ask her the same question 12 times and she will him and her and give me a different answer each time.... Yet when he says Mom I need to know now she suddenly comes up with an affirmative answer.

It works for us. If that doesn't work for you, don't do it.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What do you mean?

Np.
I assume all the PPs saying the flipped examples are highlighting your misogynistic gender-first approach and to communicating with Inlaws. Where mommy and wifey do everything for everyone. And barely get a thank you.

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?

This is true. In healthy families they are able to accept and enjoy the spouse and boundaries that are set are accepted and respected. It's usually takes drama for people to have to decide "you deal with your crazy family."

There are some people where the daughter in law says "I'm so sorry, that weekend doesn't work for us. Could you do x, y or z weekend for a visit instead" and the MIL says "sure, how about y" and nobody gives it a second thought and life goes on. Then there are the inlaws where such a request turns into endless back and forth by text, angry calls, family gossip and suddenly DIL is a selfish B ruining the family. That's the case where to protect your spouse from abuse, you deal with your own family and make it clear these dramatics are not welcome.

"you handle your mom" generally applies to conflict resolution. In law relationships can be fraught, on both sides. The blood relative needs to make clear that 1)s/he and spouse are a team and 2) what the boundaries are and enforce them. Otherwise the in law often continues to push, test and violate boundaries.

Having one designated person to maintain these boundaries reduces triangulation, divide and conquer, and overall conflict. It's better for everyone.

Because if my SIL ever says anything to my mom, she'll immediately start whining to all the relatives how it's really her (SIL's) idea, and her poor boy has to deal with that.

If my brother talks to my mom, that nips it in the bud, right there.

I can say anything, tell my parents no, explain our reasoning, enforce boundaries and my parents will still love me. DH is a great guy, but they'll never love him the same way they love me. I think most families work like that, which is why it's better for the child to set the boundaries with their own parents.

I easily still talk with my MIL about fun stuff, set dates with her, send info/pics of kids, but anything remotely difficult should come from DH.

I have been dealing with my mom for 43 years so I know how to handle her. I know when to push back and I know when it's not worth it and it's a waste of my time..... I would never expect my dear husband to have to jump through a million hoops or play mind games with her just to figure out when Christmas is and what we are eating.
Does that mean he never talks to her? No, but it means that logistics and some things are just better dealt with the family you grew up with.
I get along well with my mother-in-law but my husband can cut the crap and get right to the point with her.... I can ask her the same question 12 times and she will him and her and give me a different answer each time.... Yet when he says Mom I need to know now she suddenly comes up with an affirmative answer.

It works for us. If that doesn't work for you, don't do it.

You understand it's just advice on here that has worked for people. You don't have to take it if you don't think it will work for you...
My gosh why is this so hard?

Anonymous wrote:

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

The very premise of this thread is that boundaries are needed, but you tried.

So clearly there was never going to be a post that starts with somebody just saying "Never interact with your ILs."

The poster I was responding to asserted this: " What happens is a poster writes about a specific problem or dynamic that she or he is having with her specific ILs." And asked for an example where that did not occur. I gave one.

I'm 100% for a setting things up in a new marriage where you each take care of your own side of the family...... Then later you can start blending in if that's what that dynamics allow for but to go in with a default that I'm going to be family manager for three families, his mine and ours.....Hell no.

That may have worked when women stayed home all day and had maids and housekeepers, but I certainly don't have time to deal with some of his family shenanigans.

Depends on the in-laws as well. Some are very easy to deal with in communicate with and others are not. Sister-in-law and I are great. We can plan something in 5 minutes flat but you bring my mother-in-law into it and it takes weeks. I don't have time for back and forth about what type of potatoes someone should bring. If my husband wants to get involved in that conversation, he is more than happy to do so.

Anonymous wrote:The default seems to be always that the woman is in charge of all family dynamics on all sides of the family, and it doesn't need to be that way. Many wives are expected to coordinate holiday meals and gifts, etc.; how often does anybody expect husbands to do that?

NP. Me. I expected that even before DH and I got serious dating. If he wasn't doing any of that stuff and seemed to expect me to do it, I wouldn't have married him.

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

The very premise of this thread is that boundaries are needed, but you tried.

The default seems to be always that the woman is in charge of all family dynamics on all sides of the family, and it doesn't need to be that way. Many wives are expected to coordinate holiday meals and gifts, etc.; how often does anybody expect husbands to do that?

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks for these responses. I see three general reasons:

1. Distribution of labor (always)- split interactions with parents on logistics things as a way to even out the work between the couple
2. No relationships (always)- somebody has already decided they don't like/enjoy interacting with the IL, so they don't.
3. Protecting Relationships (sometimes)- if it is a particularly sticky or sensitive issue, the ILs child having the conversation is less likely to damage relationships in the long term

Helpful.

Love that you summarized, OP! I’d like to work with you.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What do you mean?