am i being "mardy" ?

Mimi_Arc_en_ciel

OH's sister sent DD xmas pressies - She hasnt seen DD for over a year even though she lives 10 miles away - any OH's sis gets a new partner, She is currently with a lady whom we have never met, she wanted to introduce us to her at DD's 2nd birthday party and me and OH said no, could they come before so we could meet her rather than try and talk when theres 20 odd kids running around. Anyway this caused up roar with OH's family and we was essentially disowned, called some crappy names and DD never had any of OH's family at her party. Thngs got petty - They only rang OH the day before a funeral to tell him his great aunt had died and he was expected to turn up, and other things like that. Anyway, OH's sis has introduced her girlfriend to my DD as "this is your aunty xx" which im not happy about. And no - not because its a same sex relationship before any one asks. I get annoyed when my friends say to their kids "Aunty xx is here to see you" when ive gone to visit - its the same as if an uncle remarries, I wont call his new wife as "aunty" but rather just her name. The other issue i have is that OH's sis doesnt stay in relationships very long. Mentioned to OH and he has texted his sister saying "can you not introduce people to DD as "aunty / uncle" as we dont this" and we havent had a reply. OH has stood by me but has said "do you think we are being a bit mardy?"

Are we?

DVardysShadow

I think you all need your heads banging together. It is off to insist on introducing a new partner at the child's birthday party. It is off not to pass on the fact of a death. It is off to presume that a partner is 'Aunty'. And it is off to use a text to lay down who is or is not 'Aunty'.

I think that the things you are trying to achieve are reasonable, but I think your methods might be rather ineffective. Rather than texting, you have to discuss face to face. And it is easy to appear to comprehensively reject someone if you say 'don't come to DD's birthday' rather than say 'please come to <other event>. I think OH's sister made a clumsy attempt to introduce partner making DDs birthday her choice because it appeared to offer a low key option - and has taken your no as complete rejection.

Dare I say it, it seems that both sides appear to be trying relate to each other in controlling ways, not through intent, but because they have low expectations of the response of the other side.

jamespir

mommyme wrote: »

OH's sister sent DD xmas pressies - She hasnt seen DD for over a year even though she lives 10 miles away - any OH's sis gets a new partner, She is currently with a lady whom we have never met, she wanted to introduce us to her at DD's 2nd birthday party and me and OH said no, could they come before so we could meet her rather than try and talk when theres 20 odd kids running around. Anyway this caused up roar with OH's family and we was essentially disowned, called some crappy names and DD never had any of OH's family at her party. Thngs got petty - They only rang OH the day before a funeral to tell him his great aunt had died and he was expected to turn up, and other things like that. Anyway, OH's sis has introduced her girlfriend to my DD as "this is your aunty xx" which im not happy about. And no - not because its a same sex relationship before any one asks. I get annoyed when my friends say to their kids "Aunty xx is here to see you" when ive gone to visit - its the same as if an uncle remarries, I wont call his new wife as "aunty" but rather just her name. The other issue i have is that OH's sis doesnt stay in relationships very long. Mentioned to OH and he has texted his sister saying "can you not introduce people to DD as "aunty / uncle" as we dont this" and we havent had a reply. OH has stood by me but has said "do you think we are being a bit mardy?"

Are we?

she techinically is a an aunty
and it seems to me your jealous

McKneff

Agree with the others, you need to be a bit more, in fact a lot more tolerant.

Its the kids i feel for, wonder how much of conversations they are hearing when you think they are not listening.

Well, they are.

and, reading between the lines i get the impression it is an issue that they are same sex.
you would do well to admit it to yourself.

dieselhead

I don't think that from what you have told us that you have handled the situation well. I can understand that you don't want to confuse your daughter by introducing an 'auntie' that then disappears a few months later, but I also think the situation could have been handled a bit more delicately, ie not by text messages.

Mimi_Arc_en_ciel

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I think you all need your heads banging together. It is off to insist on introducing a new partner at the child's birthday party. It is off not to pass on the fact of a death. It is off to presume that a partner is 'Aunty'. And it is off to use a text to lay down who is or is not 'Aunty'.

I think that the things you are trying to achieve are reasonable, but I think your methods might be rather ineffective. Rather than texting, you have to discuss face to face. And it is easy to appear to comprehensively reject someone if you say 'don't come to DD's birthday' rather than say 'please come to <other event>. I think OH's sister made a clumsy attempt to introduce partner making DDs birthday her choice because it appeared to offer a low key option - and has taken your no as complete rejection.

Dare I say it, it seems that both sides appear to be trying relate to each other in controlling ways, not through intent, but because they have low expectations of the response of the other side.

I didnt agree with the texting - OH didnt want me to call her because of the past arguements (things that have been said have been twisted) so it was his decision to text. I did explain when we said we would rather not be introduced at the party the reasons behind it, at the time she was fine, but the after mass suggested otherwise.

jamespir wrote: »

she techinically is a an aunty
and it seems to me your jealous

IMOP people are not "auntys/uncles" until they are married (and if uncle/aunty gets re-married the new partner doesnt replace he old one) - I have been with my OH for 7 years and never ever have i said "uncle XX" to my niece and nephew because they arent related. I do not see why this person should be classed as an aunty when, she has only met DD once, and they have only been together a few months. OH's sis has had 8 new partners this year. I just want her to be settled before introducing them to DD - I dont want DD to get attached to one of them only for OH's sis to move on and DD will never see that person again.

McKneff wrote: »

Agree with the others, you need to be a bit more, in fact a lot more tolerant.

Its the kids i feel for, wonder how much of conversations they are hearing when you think they are not listening.

Well, they are.

I've tried to be tolerant, cant put everything on here, firstly because it would only be one side your hearing (well reading lol) and secondly because it would take me ages to write everything lol OH's family have never liked me, they disagree with some of my beliefs (DD not being christaned (cant spell!) is one of them - DD's name is another, the area we live in - OH moved to town i grew up in but is still only 10 miles away from them, silly things like this) - when we told them we was having a baby their first response was "termination" and they have had very little to do with DD and only ever see DD if we take her over (which we now cant do as we've been banned from their house) There is only one child, and she never hears any bickering - I make sure of that. I grew up listening to it, i wont have the same for DD. If theres any arguing DD gets taken out of the house and goes to visit friends to stay out the way, or if it is on the telephone OH or me go to the bottom of the garden where DD cant hear.

Mimi_Arc_en_ciel

dieselhead wrote: »

I don't think that from what you have told us that you have handled the situation well. I can understand that you don't want to confuse your daughter by introducing an 'auntie' that then disappears a few months later, but I also think the situation could have been handled a bit more delicately, ie not by text messages.

I know it could have . . but there are reasons OH wanted to text - Mainly so we dont get into a slagging match on the phone and things getting twisted. Everyone knows how chinese whispers works. OH wanted to have the message on his "out" box on his phone so that if anything did get twisted he could say "hang on a minute . .this is what i put"

his parents dont tend to listen to both sides of the stories - Its a case of "first one to tell them gets all their support whether they are in the right or wrong" and OH said it has been like that all his life. For example - The party. We explained why we would rather meet before, but OH's sis had told her parents a lot of twisted versions of events so they stood by her rather than listening to OH's version.

DVardysShadow

mommyme wrote: »

IMOP people are not "auntys/uncles" until they are married (and if uncle/aunty gets re-married the new partner doesnt replace he old one) - I have been with my OH for 7 years and never ever have i said "uncle XX" to my niece and nephew because they arent related. I do not see why this person should be classed as an aunty when, she has only met DD once, and they have only been together a few months. OH's sis has had 8 new partners this year. I just want her to be settled before introducing them to DD - I dont want DD to get attached to one of them only for OH's sis to move on and DD will never see that person again.

I'd say you are making a pig's ear of this. SIL's partners are more accurately described as friends. Once you describe them that way, they are very easy to introduce to DD - and there is no reason not to introduce them in those terms. Of course if you introduce them as partners, you beg the slightly difficult question of what is a partner, which in a short term relationship leaves very little scope for giving an answer to a child.

I would say you are right to maintain the gateway of who is and is not uncle or aunt under your control. But it should be a matter of trust and relationship rather than strict legalities. So if you trust the adult concerned and the adult has a good relationship with the child, then it would be appropriate to describe them as Aunty or Uncle - this has the benefit of maintaining secure boundaries for the child with adults. However at a rate of 8 partners per year, SIL is not really giving anyone a chance to become Aunty.

mommyme wrote: »

... but there are reasons OH wanted to text - Mainly so we dont get into a slagging match on the phone and things getting twisted. Everyone knows how chinese whispers works. OH wanted to have the message on his "out" box on his phone so that if anything did get twisted he could say "hang on a minute . .this is what i put"

So, effectively communications are poor and everyone is acting defensively and trying to control. Which makes communications worse.

elfen

My current partner has only this Xmas been introduced as an Uncle. I don't think it's fair on my niece to allow her to get attached only for that person to buggar off (and vice versa) My sister's now wife was the same, but they're married now, so she is a full aunty

Mimi_Arc_en_ciel

bungle4x4 wrote: »

yes, mardy as a hormonal teenager

lol its veen 7 years since I was a teenager! I don't understand how there's a lot of people who are willing to introduce new people to their kids as 'famiily' members without actually knowing the person.oh's sister isn't cloe to dd, dd is 2, she's probably only seen dd 6 times at most. I haven't met the girlfriend - I don't even know her name - they've only been together 2 and a half months. she never seems to settle and keeps jumping partners - if she was introuducing them as friends I wouldn't mind but I think it is so confusing for dd to be told one month "this is aunty xx" and then the following month 'oh me and aunty xx aren't together, this is uncle xx' I know dd doesn't quite understand but she will do one daym

Curious_George_2

OP im with you about the aunty/uncle thing,
it seems weird that anyone would introuduce a new boyfriend or girlfriend as aunty or uncle just a few months into the relationship... especially if they are not known for keeping partners very long,

I dont think its got anything to do with the same sex partnership, I would still think its weird if we were taking about a hetero couple,
my OH and I were discussing what to call ourselves when i was writing our nieces and nephews christmas present tags and cards... we came to the conclusion if we have been together longer than the child has been born its ok to put aunty xxx and uncle xxx but if the child was around before we got together it seemed a little weird... for the record we have been together 5 years and plan to marry in the future, wether our minds will change about what we call ourselves when we are wed... i cant say.

oh... and i dont get how the OP sounds jealous... what of??!!