Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s not rude to neither host nor travel.
It is rude if the deal was alternating and OP’s family is still welcome on their years.
Alternating holidays is not a blood pact— it works if (and only if) it works for all the parties involved. OP is not required to travel, or to host, in the name of good manners if it doesn’t work for her. She SHOULD tell people soon so they can make alternative plans.
But it’s not faaaaaaair. Wah wah wah. If one side of the family is difficult to deal with, they aren’t going to be treated the same. This belief that you have to treat all the extended family the same is childish.
Convenient excuse if you just don’t like them.
This doesn’t make any sense. If you don’t like your in-laws, and you’re seeing them *at all* then you’re putting in the effort and deserve thanks and appreciation.
Lots of women on this board dislike their in-laws for no actual reason.
So? They don’t like them. The reason is irrelevant. If they’re spending time—any time— with people they don’t like in the interest of making their spouses happy, and forging a relationship between children and grandchildren, they deserve thanks and appreciation.
No, their husbands deserve a wife who is not actively trying to sabotage the relationship with his family.
Why aren't the husbands manning up and saying they will do all the hosting for their family? If they aren't doing this, THEY are the ones sabotaging their own relationships with their family.
It doesn’t seem fair of OP to say she will only see her in-laws if they play cook/nanny/maid like her parents do. Maybe OP’s parents know OP’s particular crazy and it’s the only way to see the grandkids.
For one year, while they’ve got a toddler? Seems totally fine. Forever? That would need a wider discussion and potential compromise.
Oh the drama. Order the $100 dinner from Wegmans. It’s not that hard. We’ve all done it.
Anonymous wrote:Extended family supporters what culture are you from? Spefics.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s not rude to neither host nor travel.
It is rude if the deal was alternating and OP’s family is still welcome on their years.
Alternating holidays is not a blood pact— it works if (and only if) it works for all the parties involved. OP is not required to travel, or to host, in the name of good manners if it doesn’t work for her. She SHOULD tell people soon so they can make alternative plans.
But it’s not faaaaaaair. Wah wah wah. If one side of the family is difficult to deal with, they aren’t going to be treated the same. This belief that you have to treat all the extended family the same is childish.
Convenient excuse if you just don’t like them.
This doesn’t make any sense. If you don’t like your in-laws, and you’re seeing them *at all* then you’re putting in the effort and deserve thanks and appreciation.
Lots of women on this board dislike their in-laws for no actual reason.
So? They don’t like them. The reason is irrelevant. If they’re spending time—any time— with people they don’t like in the interest of making their spouses happy, and forging a relationship between children and grandchildren, they deserve thanks and appreciation.
No, their husbands deserve a wife who is not actively trying to sabotage the relationship with his family.
Why aren't the husbands manning up and saying they will do all the hosting for their family? If they aren't doing this, THEY are the ones sabotaging their own relationships with their family.
It doesn’t seem fair of OP to say she will only see her in-laws if they play cook/nanny/maid like her parents do. Maybe OP’s parents know OP’s particular crazy and it’s the only way to see the grandkids.
For one year, while they’ve got a toddler? Seems totally fine. Forever? That would need a wider discussion and potential compromise.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s not rude to neither host nor travel.
It is rude if the deal was alternating and OP’s family is still welcome on their years.
Alternating holidays is not a blood pact— it works if (and only if) it works for all the parties involved. OP is not required to travel, or to host, in the name of good manners if it doesn’t work for her. She SHOULD tell people soon so they can make alternative plans.
But it’s not faaaaaaair. Wah wah wah. If one side of the family is difficult to deal with, they aren’t going to be treated the same. This belief that you have to treat all the extended family the same is childish.
Convenient excuse if you just don’t like them.
This doesn’t make any sense. If you don’t like your in-laws, and you’re seeing them *at all* then you’re putting in the effort and deserve thanks and appreciation.
Lots of women on this board dislike their in-laws for no actual reason.
So? They don’t like them. The reason is irrelevant. If they’re spending time—any time— with people they don’t like in the interest of making their spouses happy, and forging a relationship between children and grandchildren, they deserve thanks and appreciation.
No, their husbands deserve a wife who is not actively trying to sabotage the relationship with his family.
Why aren't the husbands manning up and saying they will do all the hosting for their family? If they aren't doing this, THEY are the ones sabotaging their own relationships with their family.
It doesn’t seem fair of OP to say she will only see her in-laws if they play cook/nanny/maid like her parents do. Maybe OP’s parents know OP’s particular crazy and it’s the only way to see the grandkids.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s not rude to neither host nor travel.
It is rude if the deal was alternating and OP’s family is still welcome on their years.
Alternating holidays is not a blood pact— it works if (and only if) it works for all the parties involved. OP is not required to travel, or to host, in the name of good manners if it doesn’t work for her. She SHOULD tell people soon so they can make alternative plans.
But it’s not faaaaaaair. Wah wah wah. If one side of the family is difficult to deal with, they aren’t going to be treated the same. This belief that you have to treat all the extended family the same is childish.
Convenient excuse if you just don’t like them.
This doesn’t make any sense. If you don’t like your in-laws, and you’re seeing them *at all* then you’re putting in the effort and deserve thanks and appreciation.
Lots of women on this board dislike their in-laws for no actual reason.
So? They don’t like them. The reason is irrelevant. If they’re spending time—any time— with people they don’t like in the interest of making their spouses happy, and forging a relationship between children and grandchildren, they deserve thanks and appreciation.
No, their husbands deserve a wife who is not actively trying to sabotage the relationship with his family.
Why aren't the husbands manning up and saying they will do all the hosting for their family? If they aren't doing this, THEY are the ones sabotaging their own relationships with their family.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s not rude to neither host nor travel.
It is rude if the deal was alternating and OP’s family is still welcome on their years.
Alternating holidays is not a blood pact— it works if (and only if) it works for all the parties involved. OP is not required to travel, or to host, in the name of good manners if it doesn’t work for her. She SHOULD tell people soon so they can make alternative plans.
But it’s not faaaaaaair. Wah wah wah. If one side of the family is difficult to deal with, they aren’t going to be treated the same. This belief that you have to treat all the extended family the same is childish.
Convenient excuse if you just don’t like them.
This doesn’t make any sense. If you don’t like your in-laws, and you’re seeing them *at all* then you’re putting in the effort and deserve thanks and appreciation.
Lots of women on this board dislike their in-laws for no actual reason.
So? They don’t like them. The reason is irrelevant. If they’re spending time—any time— with people they don’t like in the interest of making their spouses happy, and forging a relationship between children and grandchildren, they deserve thanks and appreciation.
No, their husbands deserve a wife who is not actively trying to sabotage the relationship with his family.
Anonymous wrote:You need to be a better host for this sold holiday. Buck up. We have to do stuff we don’t like to give good memories to our kids. It’s one holiday. Just order out a lot. Quit being a cry baby.
Anonymous wrote:Extended family supporters what culture are you from? Spefics.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What I will say is be careful of favoring one set of parents over the other, particularly when the issues are minor and not about abuse. Your kids are watching you and you're teaching them how to value extended family - which you will someday be.
Sigh. You post this every time there is a discussion about extended family. So useless and dumb.
NP. I haven’t seen that post on here before, and I actually thought it was a helpful perspective.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What I will say is be careful of favoring one set of parents over the other, particularly when the issues are minor and not about abuse. Your kids are watching you and you're teaching them how to value extended family - which you will someday be.
Sigh. You post this every time there is a discussion about extended family. So useless and dumb.
I actually don't, so there is at least one other person on DCUM who is mindful of the model they provide for their children. Everything we do conveys a message to our kids - how we structure our family, how we deal with stress, how we treat our spouses/partners, how we navigate conflict, how we spend our money - everything is a model about our values, etc. Kids 1000% are more likely to do as you do, than do as you say, and that's because your actions teach them more than your words. If that's a useless and dumb consideration to you, godspeed, or maybe go to therapy and learn how your family of origin influenced who you are and your world view. It can be quite enlightening.
Modeling self-care is important too so I'm not suggesting anyone martyr themselves, but maybe there's a middle ground were one can carve out time for self-care AND be some sort of a host to grandparents over the holidays.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s not rude to neither host nor travel.
It is rude if the deal was alternating and OP’s family is still welcome on their years.
Alternating holidays is not a blood pact— it works if (and only if) it works for all the parties involved. OP is not required to travel, or to host, in the name of good manners if it doesn’t work for her. She SHOULD tell people soon so they can make alternative plans.
But it’s not faaaaaaair. Wah wah wah. If one side of the family is difficult to deal with, they aren’t going to be treated the same. This belief that you have to treat all the extended family the same is childish.
Convenient excuse if you just don’t like them.
This doesn’t make any sense. If you don’t like your in-laws, and you’re seeing them *at all* then you’re putting in the effort and deserve thanks and appreciation.
Lots of women on this board dislike their in-laws for no actual reason.
So? They don’t like them. The reason is irrelevant. If they’re spending time—any time— with people they don’t like in the interest of making their spouses happy, and forging a relationship between children and grandchildren, they deserve thanks and appreciation.
No, their husbands deserve a wife who is not actively trying to sabotage the relationship with his family.