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.
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.
You assume that the onus is on anyone. It's not. You don't need to know why.
It has absolutely nothing to do with people not texting full words. It's not laziness. It's polite. I'm not too lazy to answer you. I'm too polite to tell you I think you're creepy.
On the contrary, it is mature and adult-like to take a hint. At this point in your life, you know damn well that several ignored texts pr phone calls means they aren't interested.
Be aware that you've made yourself the weirdo who can't take a hint and doesn't know when to quit. In your mind, everyone else is lazy. In their minds, you're crazy.
No, selfish would be sending her daughter to your house (or the OP's house) for a little alone time for herself. What both mom's are doing is looking out for the welfare of their children. In the OP's case, there are no children who want to play together. Only an insistent adult.
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? {snip}
Yes! Absolutely.
Now, those issues themselves could become a thing, but that's better than pretending everything is OK when it isn't. At least no one is having to do the extra mental work of guessing.
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.
In that case, both parents were comfortable with the interaction. That's not comparable to this situation.
Don't be ridiculous. There are several people who have been at family holidays that I wouldn't send my kids alone with. They are 2 completely different situations. The SIL doesn't owe anything to the woman in the OP. Nothing. The woman has been a mom, raised her kids, and that phase is over. She doesn't get automatic access to her new husband's nieces and nephews.
Now, those issues themselves could become a thing, but that's better than pretending everything is OK when it isn't. At least no one is having to do the extra mental work of guessing.
And now there's an irreparable rift in the family. Everyone will take sides. Every holiday gathering going forward will be uncomfortable for everyone. Great solution.
And now there's an irreparable rift in the family. Everyone will take sides. Every holiday gathering going forward will be uncomfortable for everyone. Great solution.
That's better than goofing around with things. Besides, there may well be hostilities present anyway. If I were the new wife, with the way the sister in law is being I wouldn't have anything to do with her at all even during the holidays. If you're in the family, you are, if you're not you're not, all the way one way or the other, none of this halfway piddling around nonsense.
Regardless, if the sister in law doesn't like the new wife, TOUGH
Her brother fell in love and got married to someone his sister doesn't like, that's her problem. The brother's first obligation is to his wife and thus he's to marry whom he loves, not whoever his sister loves.
That's better than goofing around with things. Besides, there may well be hostilities present anyway. If I were the new wife, with the way the sister in law is being I wouldn't have anything to do with her at all even during the holidays. If you're in the family, you are, if you're not you're not, all the way one way or the other, none of this halfway piddling around nonsense.
Regardless, if the sister in law doesn't like the new wife, TOUGH
Her brother fell in love and got married to someone his sister doesn't like, that's her problem. The brother's first obligation is to his wife and thus he's to marry whom he loves, not whoever his sister loves.
Except you are not obligated to send your children off with people you don't want to.
We don't know if this story is true, if the OP's first wife was allowed that privilege, or whether the discomfort has anything to do with the new wife. Perhaps it's the OP. Doesn't matter. No one is obligated to send their kids off with anyone.
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.
The children are not related to the New Wife. Yes, there is a relationship through marriage, but they are not "blood" related. No shared DNA. Not even blood related through cousins like many married into family aunts and uncles become. Limited shared history because OP has not shared how long he has actually been married to New Wife. They may have only been married a few months.
New Wife might be invited for holidays, but only because she is married to OP. I doubt that she will ever be invited solo.
Blood is thicker than water.
shyguylh, the SIL is the one married to the OP's brother.
The children are not related to the New Wife. Yes, there is a relationship through marriage, but they are not "blood" related. No shared DNA. Not even blood related through cousins like many married into family aunts and uncles become. Limited shared history because OP has not shared how long he has actually been married to New Wife. They may have only been married a few months.
New Wife might be invited for holidays, but only because she is married to OP. I doubt that she will ever be invited solo.
Blood is thicker than water.
shyguylh, the SIL is the one married to the OP's brother.
I'm not "blood related" to my wife. Nor to her brother, nor to his wife, nor to their children. Heck, I'm not even blood related to my own kids. (They were adopted.) So does this mean that none of these people are really part of my family, and I theirs?
No offense, but you have a very narrow definition of what constitutes a family.
You assume that the onus is on anyone. It's not. You don't need to know why.
It has absolutely nothing to do with people not texting full words. It's not laziness. It's polite. I'm not too lazy to answer you. I'm too polite to tell you I think you're creepy.
On the contrary, it is mature and adult-like to take a hint. At this point in your life, you know damn well that several ignored texts pr phone calls means they aren't interested.
Be aware that you've made yourself the weirdo who can't take a hint and doesn't know when to quit. In your mind, everyone else is lazy. In their minds, you're crazy.
No, selfish would be sending her daughter to your house (or the OP's house) for a little alone time for herself. What both mom's are doing is looking out for the welfare of their children. In the OP's case, there are no children who want to play together. Only an insistent adult.
OP - I was going to respond, but the above post already says it all. You already know the other parent doesn't want to get the kids together. So STOP harassing her. Don't wait for a restraining order before you take the hint. Just because you'd like people to communicate with you in a specific way doesn't mean they have to accommodate you.
You assume that the onus is on anyone. It's not. You don't need to know why.
Ethically speaking if not legally, I think I have a RIGHT to know why, I am ENTITLED to it, and they HAVE to say why. That is especially the case here when your'e talking about family that's supposed to, well, be family. Anything else is unethical and such people should have their phones forcefully taken away from them. I'm absolutely serious. If my kids as teens EVER do a thing like that, I will take their phones from them and if I ever catch them getting other phones they'll end up grounded or even kicked out of the house. I will not tolerate this type of rude behavior from them when they get of that age, not to me and not to other people I know even if I don't know them myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibbiekat
It has absolutely nothing to do with people not texting full words. It's not laziness. It's polite. I'm not too lazy to answer you. I'm too polite to tell you I think you're creepy.
It's lazy. Period. Polite is finding the best words to say what you mean, communicating the idea in a way that's not harsh but also not lazy and not leaving matters up to interpretation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibbiekat
On the contrary, it is mature and adult-like to take a hint. At this point in your life, you know damn well that several ignored texts or phone calls means they aren't interested.
Until you say it (as they finally did in my case), it doesn't count. As the one lady said in the movie "I will not be ignored Dan." Her psycho-isms aside, that concept is absolutely right, people have no right to just ignore somebody, no moral right whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibbiekat
Be aware that you've made yourself the weirdo who can't take a hint and doesn't know when to quit. In your mind, everyone else is lazy. In their minds, you're crazy.
Again, I'm right and they're all wrong.
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.
