Anonymous wrote: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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Trying to argue w people again?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
So me questioning why some people seem to be saying that one spouse should never deal with the inlaws translates into me saying that I believe the woman in the relationship should always be the one to handle everything with the inlaws?
It is misogynistic, for example, for me to talk directly to my MIL when she has done or said something regarding my kids?
Is this Op again? Still trying to argue with people, whilst speaking in extremes again?
Your original question has been fully answered, and quite consistently.
If your MiL does something you don’t like or approve of, with your kids, you AND you husband need to speak up. First whomever is around right then and there, second by the bloodkin. United front. Consistent. He knows his mother. All the stuff posters already explained to you.
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.
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.
Anonymous wrote: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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
So me questioning why some people seem to be saying that one spouse should never deal with the inlaws translates into me saying that I believe the woman in the relationship should always be the one to handle everything with the inlaws?
It is misogynistic, for example, for me to talk directly to my MIL when she has done or said something regarding my kids?
Anonymous wrote: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.
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.
Anonymous wrote: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.