Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Based on what I've read, I'm on your side, original poster. I think the sister-in-law is being a selfish jerk.
Let me address a few points I have read.
"They don't owe you an explanation" or "take a hint." Bologney. To people who like to do hints, I say this--open your mouth already. Spell it out. I actually will deliberately not take a hint even when I understand it because to me there is this principle of simply SPELLING IT OUT ALREADY. I don't do "hints," they're for people who are too lazy and silly to simply open their mouth and use the tongue God gave them and the English language they were supposed to learn in grade school.
I'm doing that right now in fact with a similar issue. My daughter has befriended someone in her school, they just adore each other, and her friend is always talking about "I'd love to have you over sometime" and my daughter says the same time. I'd love to accommodate them, but her mother doesn't seem to share the same interest, always whining about being "too busy" or flat-out ignoring my text messages (which simply say, about every 2-3 weeks, "anytime OK for you that our 2 daughters can have some play time?") I continue to text this person and unless a restraining order develops or she flat-out spells it out I will continue to text this person and at some point I might even text "if you don't want me texting you anymore you can just say so, it's not hard to do and I'd totally comply if that's what you want."
To me (1) she's being lazy in not spelling out what her issues is and I am under no obligation to "take a hint" none whatsoever and (2) she's being selfish in letting herself be so "busy" that she can't make room for her daughter and our daughter to be able to enjoy each other (by the way, I've also said that her daughter is welcome at our house, so as to be fair, it's not like I'm expecting her to always take on our child in her home). I have never accepted the "busy" excuse, I've found that we tend to have plenty of time for what we value, we're never too "busy" for that.
Second, I totally agree with you about the "extended family" ideals you have. I totally understand that a parent is the main person in a child's life, and I totally agree about others not undermining a parent's authority in terms of how a child is raised, disciplined etc. HOWEVER, and I say this as a person who has a 7 and 9 year old and hates anyone undermining me, I ALSO understand that I and my wife their mother are not EVERYTHING, and to try and be such is in fact unhealthy. Kids make friends at school. They have a grandparent who does special things for them, an aunt who shares an interest with the child that the parents don't, and a given amount of time with such people, so long as those people don't forget that they're not the actual parents and take things too far, is a good thing.
I remember well growing up the cousins and uncles and friends who meant so much to me, and how much I wanted to be around them when I could be. My mother has spoken of times that maybe she didn't feel like going to XYZ's house or going through the hassle of dropping me off and picking me up again later but she did so, she sacrificed vs being seflish and all about herself, because she realized how much it meant to me. (Hint, hint, person who is too "busy" to make arrangements for our 2 daughters to play together because you're too "busy," you're being selfish.)
So here's my thing--your sister in law (I take the "spell it out" edict so seriously I refuse to use that ridiculous acronym, I mean I'm not a 15 year old texting my "BFF" here), based on what I have read, she is being selfish. She is caring more about her own feelings of whatever (insecurity, control) or her personal convenience of not wanting to deal with the aggravations of transportation etc than how her children could have their lives enriched by exposure to other members of the family, and frankly I'd be all in favor of someone flat-out telling her so.
You know what else? Your sister-in-law will in some way want some favor or act of help from you, since you know you're part of the family, and I would fully support you if you said "well since I'm apparently not really part of the family, based on your current distrust of me with respect to your children, I'm afraid I won't be able to help you." I mean, it's only fair, if you're not trusted enough or family enough to be a mentor to her children (one who doesn't undermine her otherwise, I understand), well why should it be any different with anything where it benefits your sister-in-law?
Original poster, I completely agree with your. Your sister-in-law is a selfish jerk.
Its called being polite. It would be considered rude to say "no, you can't keep my kids because you smoke and your house is a mess" or "no, because I don't trust you."
I try not to personally insult people. Most people can take hints and social cues so it isn't necessary to be outright rude.
I'm not surprised you don't understand that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by convextech
His behavior is likely why the other parent doesn't want anything to do with him. I feel sorry for the kids also.
Its called being polite. It would be considered rude to say "no, you can't keep my kids because you smoke and your house is a mess" or "no, because I don't trust you."
I try not to personally insult people. Most people can take hints and social cues so it isn't necessary to be outright rude.
I'm not surprised you don't understand that.
It's not that I've never heard of that "logic" before, I'll well aware of its unfortunate existence. I just regard it as unethical, to the degree that if 90 million people said otherwise I'd absolutely be of the frame of mind that I alone am right and all 90 million of them are totally in the wrong.
I can "take a hint," but I absolutely outright refuse to because I consider it sub-par communication for the lazy. It puts the onus on the person you're communicating to to have to do extra work to figure out what you mean when the onus should be on YOU that you communicate clearly so that there is no misunderstanding what you mean. You don't have to be "rude," just say "I don't want to hurt your feelings but I'm not interested in going out with you/our kids playing together/my kids being watched by someone else in the family [or whatever] at this time." It's the same to me as how people are now too lazy to type their words out and use all of this "BRB" nonsense and such and can't learn how to spell (the dog did not wag IT'S tail that would be ITS tail), to me that's ridiculous, and I've said--and I meant it--that if my kids as teens ever sent me a text saying "em brk dwn i ned a ryd 2 schol" (I'm broke down, I need a ride to school) I would text back "Spell your words out and use grammar better than that of your average first grader or you can walk your {glass} home." and I absolutely am serious that I would do exactly that.
Stop this stupid aggravating and immature nonsense of expecting someone to "read between the lines" or 'take a hint" or "social cues." Those are nothing more than tools for people to be lazy with respect to communicating CLEARLY. People should not have to perform the extra mental work of figuring out what you mean. Just be straight with people, it's not hard.
Heck, just moments ago, I texted the person and told her that if she wanted me to stop contacting her that was fine but to just SAY SO and I would honor it, I was only doing so because our respecting daughters adore each other and want to play. She FINALLY responded, her response was "I'm too busy with my work and I don't trust you yet with my daughter going to your house" and my reply was "thank you for your honesty, I won't bother you again, if this changes feel free to contact me yourself otherwise I wish you well and I won't bother you again and good luck," and in fact, unless down the road her daughter herself says that it's OK if I try again then I MIGHT in some other way if there is one, but otherwise I will not ever contact this person again ever.
Now that I have my answer, I will absolutely honor their request (which wasn't that harsh), but I don't do hints.
At the same time, I still feel in my case--and in the original poster's case--that the parents are being selfish, although I did not say that to the mother in my case (again I just said "thanks for your honesty, I'll leave you alone henceforth, if your situation changes let me know otherwise good luck"). If the kids want to play, you MAKE IT HAPPEN. Being "busy" or "tired" all the time--TOUGH LUCK. You should be willing to surrender some of that, some of that not all of that but some of that, for the sake of your kids to be able to enjoy each other outside of school. I think the original poster's sister-in-law is being selfish, and I think the mother of my daughter's friend is being selfish. I can't tell you how many times on the weekend after work I just wanted to rest, but my kids at that time really enjoyed their cousins, and so I let it happen and even "played host" to a degree vs selfishly only caring about my "busy life." I got my rest eventually, I sure get plenty of it now.
It's not that I've never heard of that "logic" before, I'll well aware of its unfortunate existence. I just regard it as unethical, to the degree that if 90 million people said otherwise I'd absolutely be of the frame of mind that I alone am right and all 90 million of them are totally in the wrong.
I can "take a hint," but I absolutely outright refuse to because I consider it sub-par communication for the lazy. It puts the onus on the person you're communicating to to have to do extra work to figure out what you mean when the onus should be on YOU that you communicate clearly so that there is no misunderstanding what you mean. You don't have to be "rude," just say "I don't want to hurt your feelings but I'm not interested in going out with you/our kids playing together/my kids being watched by someone else in the family [or whatever] at this time." It's the same to me as how people are now too lazy to type their words out and use all of this "BRB" nonsense and such and can't learn how to spell (the dog did not wag IT'S tail that would be ITS tail), to me that's ridiculous, and I've said--and I meant it--that if my kids as teens ever sent me a text saying "em brk dwn i ned a ryd 2 schol" (I'm broke down, I need a ride to school) I would text back "spel ur wrd owt els u can wawk ur az hom" (Spell your words out or you can walk your {glass} home.) and I absolute am serious that I would do exactly that.
Stop this stupid aggravating and immature nonsense of expecting someone to "read between the lines" or 'take a hint" or "social cues." Those are nothing more than tools of the lazy and pathetic as far as I'm concerned. Just be straight with people, it's not hard.
So you are confirming that maintaining your position is more important to you than your child's feelings and potential friendships.
After a bad divorce a few years ago, I met a really great woman who has 4 adult children of her own from a previous marriage. She really loves kids and is an excellent mother. She brings their kids presents when we visit and always makes it a point to talk to them and sit with them. She even helps get their plates ready and does so much to help out. She totally understands what it is like to have young children. Every time she asks my brothers wife when she can have their kids over to our house for either a sleep over or go to take them somewhere (like a playground, movie, etc) the excuse is she has to ask her husband and ultimately the answer is always pushed off and not really answered. At a recent family gathering she asks my sister in front of her husband (my brother) and he didn't seem to mind but she chimes in and stated that they have plans the few days that my wife suggested. She then excused himself from the table and my wife felt very offended but left it at that. The rest of the time was fine, but whenever the conversation shifts to the kids, my brothers wife gets very uncomfortable (you can see it on her face). My wife is an excellent caregiver and has so much experience with children. She just wants their children to be comfortable with her because she really misses when her kids were that age, and after all they are her nieces and nephew. Now that the holiday season is here, my wife wants to take the kids Christmas shopping at the mall and to see Santa. I am not sure the correct way for us to approach them in regards to this. I asked my brother awhile back if there was a problem between his wife and my wife and he said he didn't think so. My wife really wants to call her and point blank ask if she just doesn't trust her or what the deal is. My wife is very trustworthy and it really irks her that there is this doubt cast upon her. Any advice would be appreciated.
It is nice that your new wife is interested in her new nieces and nephews, but she should allow your sil to become comfortable with her before trying to take the children places without the parents. How long have you been married to this woman? It may be that your sil doesn't really know her yet. Is your wife a former teacher or daycare worker? How does she have so much experience with children. If it is only from her own four, she may do things differently than your sil and your sil may not be comfortable with that.
As for Christmas shopping and seeing Santa at the mall, I would bet that your sil would prefer to do those activities with her own children rather than having someone else do it. I never had my kids go see Santa without me and often my dh came as well.
You don't say how old the children in question are, but that may also play into this. We have taken care of our grandchildren since they were infants and they and their parents were very comfortable with that, but we also live within walking distance of their normal home, so if worse came to worse, we could walk to their house. Also, we are the grandparents by biology not just by marriage.
Based on what I've read, I'm on your side, original poster. I think the sister-in-law is being a selfish jerk.
Let me address a few points I have read.
"They don't owe you an explanation" or "take a hint." Bologney. To people who like to do hints, I say this--open your mouth already. Spell it out. I actually will deliberately not take a hint even when I understand it because to me there is this principle of simply SPELLING IT OUT ALREADY. I don't do "hints," they're for people who are too lazy and silly to simply open their mouth and use the tongue God gave them and the English language they were supposed to learn in grade school.
I'm doing that right now in fact with a similar issue. My daughter has befriended someone in her school, they just adore each other, and her friend is always talking about "I'd love to have you over sometime" and my daughter says the same time. I'd love to accommodate them, but her mother doesn't seem to share the same interest, always whining about being "too busy" or flat-out ignoring my text messages (which simply say, about every 2-3 weeks, "anytime OK for you that our 2 daughters can have some play time?") I continue to text this person and unless a restraining order develops or she flat-out spells it out I will continue to text this person and at some point I might even text "if you don't want me texting you anymore you can just say so, it's not hard to do and I'd totally comply if that's what you want."
To me (1) she's being lazy in not spelling out what her issues is and I am under no obligation to "take a hint" none whatsoever and (2) she's being selfish in letting herself be so "busy" that she can't make room for her daughter and our daughter to be able to enjoy each other (by the way, I've also said that her daughter is welcome at our house, so as to be fair, it's not like I'm expecting her to always take on our child in her home). I have never accepted the "busy" excuse, I've found that we tend to have plenty of time for what we value, we're never too "busy" for that.
Second, I totally agree with you about the "extended family" ideals you have. I totally understand that a parent is the main person in a child's life, and I totally agree about others not undermining a parent's authority in terms of how a child is raised, disciplined etc. HOWEVER, and I say this as a person who has a 7 and 9 year old and hates anyone undermining me, I ALSO understand that I and my wife their mother are not EVERYTHING, and to try and be such is in fact unhealthy. Kids make friends at school. They have a grandparent who does special things for them, an aunt who shares an interest with the child that the parents don't, and a given amount of time with such people, so long as those people don't forget that they're not the actual parents and take things too far, is a good thing.
I remember well growing up the cousins and uncles and friends who meant so much to me, and how much I wanted to be around them when I could be. My mother has spoken of times that maybe she didn't feel like going to XYZ's house or going through the hassle of dropping me off and picking me up again later but she did so, she sacrificed vs being seflish and all about herself, because she realized how much it meant to me. (Hint, hint, person who is too "busy" to make arrangements for our 2 daughters to play together because you're too "busy," you're being selfish.)
So here's my thing--your sister in law (I take the "spell it out" edict so seriously I refuse to use that ridiculous acronym, I mean I'm not a 15 year old texting my "BFF" here), based on what I have read, she is being selfish. She is caring more about her own feelings of whatever (insecurity, control) or her personal convenience of not wanting to deal with the aggravations of transportation etc than how her children could have their lives enriched by exposure to other members of the family, and frankly I'd be all in favor of someone flat-out telling her so.
You know what else? Your sister-in-law will in some way want some favor or act of help from you, since you know you're part of the family, and I would fully support you if you said "well since I'm apparently not really part of the family, based on your current distrust of me with respect to your children, I'm afraid I won't be able to help you." I mean, it's only fair, if you're not trusted enough or family enough to be a mentor to her children (one who doesn't undermine her otherwise, I understand), well why should it be any different with anything where it benefits your sister-in-law?
Original poster, I completely agree with your. Your sister-in-law is a selfish jerk.
Good Lord. Did you ever consider the issue is YOU? You come across as extremely pushy and downright creepy. No wonder the poor woman is afraid to say anything to your face. You may go off on her. I feel really sorry for your daughter.
It's a good thing that mothers never get together and share information about the man who won't stop harassing one of them.
Boundaries. Look into them.
No joke. No one is going to let their kid go to this house after the Mom network gets going. It's sad that his daughter will pay the price for his inability to be a reasonable human being.
It's not that I've never heard of that "logic" before, I'll well aware of its unfortunate existence. I just regard it as unethical, to the degree that if 90 million people said otherwise I'd absolutely be of the frame of mind that I alone am right and all 90 million of them are totally in the wrong.
I can "take a hint," but I absolutely outright refuse to because I consider it sub-par communication for the lazy. It puts the onus on the person you're communicating to to have to do extra work to figure out what you mean when the onus should be on YOU that you communicate clearly so that there is no misunderstanding what you mean. You don't have to be "rude," just say "I don't want to hurt your feelings but I'm not interested in going out with you/our kids playing together/my kids being watched by someone else in the family [or whatever] at this time." It's the same to me as how people are now too lazy to type their words out and use all of this "BRB" nonsense and such and can't learn how to spell (the dog did not wag IT'S tail that would be ITS tail), to me that's ridiculous, and I've said--and I meant it--that if my kids as teens ever sent me a text saying "em brk dwn i ned a ryd 2 schol" (I'm broke down, I need a ride to school) I would text back "Spell your words out and use grammar better than that of your average first grader or you can walk your {glass} home." and I absolutely am serious that I would do exactly that.
Stop this stupid aggravating and immature nonsense of expecting someone to "read between the lines" or 'take a hint" or "social cues." Those are nothing more than tools for people to be lazy with respect to communicating CLEARLY. People should not have to perform the extra mental work of figuring out what you mean. Just be straight with people, it's not hard.
Heck, just moments ago, I texted the person and told her that if she wanted me to stop contacting her that was fine but to just SAY SO and I would honor it, I was only doing so because our respecting daughters adore each other and want to play. She FINALLY responded, her response was "I'm too busy with my work and I don't trust you yet with my daughter going to your house" and my reply was "thank you for your honesty, I won't bother you again, if this changes feel free to contact me yourself otherwise I wish you well and I won't bother you again and good luck," and in fact, unless down the road her daughter herself says that it's OK if I try again then I MIGHT in some other way if there is one, but otherwise I will not ever contact this person again ever.
Now that I have my answer, I will absolutely honor their request (which wasn't that harsh), but I don't do hints.
At the same time, I still feel in my case--and in the original poster's case--that the parents are being selfish, although I did not say that to the mother in my case (again I just said "thanks for your honesty, I'll leave you alone henceforth, if your situation changes let me know otherwise good luck"). If the kids want to play, you MAKE IT HAPPEN. Being "busy" or "tired" all the time--TOUGH LUCK. You should be willing to surrender some of that, some of that not all of that but some of that, for the sake of your kids to be able to enjoy each other outside of school. I think the original poster's sister-in-law is being selfish, and I think the mother of my daughter's friend is being selfish. I can't tell you how many times on the weekend after work I just wanted to rest, but my kids at that time really enjoyed their cousins, and so I let it happen and even "played host" to a degree vs selfishly only caring about my "busy life." I got my rest eventually, I sure get plenty of it now.
This isn't a case of children or cousins playing together, THIS IS A CASE OF A GROWN WOMAN WANTING SLEEPOVERS WITH CHILDREN THAT ARE 3, 5, & 7 AND ARE NOT RELATED TO HER.
No joke. No one is going to let their kid go to this house after the Mom network gets going. It's sad that his daughter will pay the price for his inability to be a reasonable human being.
Reasonable, as in HOW? Asking that someone SHOOT STRAIGHT and not nancy-dance around an issue that takes 5 words to solve? What are we, playing Pictionary or whatever that game is where you draw something and make body language gestures trying to communicate without words what the object is you're drawing? There is a reason I never liked playing such games, even when that's the object because it's a game I have no patience for such nor do I want any either.
It's called OPENING YOUR MOUTH like someone with more than a kindergarten education.
Compare that to someone else who approached me at my other child's school Christmas party last year, they presented the situation as in their son likes playing with my son and gave me their phone number. I didn't know this woman from Adam or Eve. I didn't make up some piddly excuse or do some stupid nonsense like give her some other "pretend" phone number or in fact give her my actual number only to then ignore any calls from her. I do this very grown-up thing it's called ANSWERING YOUR PHONE and REPLYING. Guess what, this person has facilitated several play dates with our respective sons and we're totally cool with each other. For crying out loud this woman has taken up the cause of homeschooling and she STILL answers texts in a reasonable period.
That is what grown-ups do, not expect people to "take hints" like we're drawing pictures on a drawing board and gyrating playing guessing games. Just write what the object is on the paper and be done with it, games are for LeBron James and Kevin Durant and Tiger Woods or whomever. The sister-in-law would do well to do likewise.
Speaking of which:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DitsyD
This isn't a case of children or cousins playing together, THIS IS A CASE OF A GROWN WOMAN WANTING SLEEPOVERS WITH CHILDREN THAT ARE 3, 5, & 7 AND ARE NOT RELATED TO HER.
She is married to this woman's brother. They are now related, whether the sister-in-law likes it or not. Does she want to be welcome in their house for Christmas, for Thanksgiving? Will she be calling them for a ride if her car breaks down? Will they be invited to birthday parties? If the sister-in-law is consistent, she won't do any of these things either. Either the new wife is family or she isn't, all-in or all-out.
Reasonable, as in HOW? Asking that someone SHOOT STRAIGHT and not nancy-dance around an issue that takes 5 words to solve? What are we, playing Pictionary or whatever that game is where you draw something and make body language gestures trying to communicate without words what the object is you're drawing? There is a reason I never liked playing such games, even when that's the object because it's a game I have no patience for such nor do I want any either.
It's called OPENING YOUR MOUTH like someone with more than a kindergarten education.
Compare that to someone else who approached me at my other child's school Christmas party last year, they presented the situation as in their son likes playing with my son and gave me their phone number. I didn't know this woman from Adam or Eve. I didn't make up some piddly excuse or do some stupid nonsense like give her some other "pretend" phone number or in fact give her my actual number only to then ignore any calls from her. I do this very grown-up thing it's called ANSWERING YOUR PHONE and REPLYING. Guess what, this person has facilitated several play dates with our respective sons and we're totally cool with each other. For crying out loud this woman has taken up the cause of homeschooling and she STILL answers texts in a reasonable period.
That is what grown-ups do, not expect people to "take hints" like we're drawing pictures on a drawing board and gyrating playing guessing games. Just write what the object is on the paper and be done with it, games are for LeBron James and Kevin Durant and Tiger Woods or whomever. The sister-in-law would do well to do likewise.
Speaking of which:
She is married to this woman's brother. They are now related, whether the sister-in-law likes it or not. Does she want to be welcome in their house for Christmas, for Thanksgiving? Will she be calling them for a ride if her car breaks down? Will they be invited to birthday parties? If the sister-in-law is consistent, she won't do any of these things either. Either the new wife is family or she isn't, all-in or all-out.
So the sister in law should say- 'You know, I find your continual insistence on wanting my young children to have sleep overs at your house, to take them to places that their father and I should be taking them, and you trying to insinuate yourself into our lives creepy and annoying. Just stop it." While it may be true, is this going to keep the peace in the family?
Do I really have to tell you straight out that I find you annoying and I don't approve of how you raise your children so therefore I don't want my child to have play dates with yours? You didn't accept the other mothers response at face value, you continue to call her selfish because she doesn't want that sort of interaction with you and your child.
And I really don't think that OP's sister in law will be calling his wife for those sort of favors. She just may want to limit the interaction of this woman (who she may not know all that well yet) and her children.
Maybe the sister in law will change her mind once she gets to know the woman better, maybe not.
You know, I didn't read all the responses and so here's my take.
She's getting back at YOU. That divorce may have been VERY nasty. But "Maybe" your sister in law got along well with your spouse. Now that she's gone, she's upset with you and thus, using this method to "Teach you a lesson" using your spouse's offer of help to retaliate and thus, making your spouse feel bad and irritating her and thus, getting revenge...
Yeah, far fetched and all that, but have seen such before.
In fact, SIL may still get together with OP's EX.....That may be who gets to spend "Auntie" time with her lil ones.
OP...You and the "new" wife Just enjoy the kids when you are all together, and let the pushiness subside for now. It is what it is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
