Bitter sister in law

DogsBody

Perhaps when the SIL gives you her opinion, you should adopt a 'jolly good, I don't care/I'm not interested' type of response

ceridwen

jackieglasgow wrote: »

Ceridwen it is nothing like having a child who has become a druggie. If someone has done something you don't agree with, which is not in any way directly harming your physical or emotional wellbeing, except to upset your own sense of right and wrong, then you (not you personally, I mean you in an "everyman" sense) have no right to comment. If a person has been raised correctly and has good manners then they should know that if you cannot say anything nice, you should say nothing at all. The OP and her husband do not verbally attack their family member for her political views, or give her a hard time for not having children, which is what they believe to be the right way to live, and she should show them the same courtesy, its not about the rights and wrongs of the opinion, its about her absolute lack of manners, and actually also a complete lack of humanity, despite her protestations otherwise!

I do understand what you are saying. I am in the awkward situation where a friend has 4 children. They arent a close friend - but someone I personally like and can see has a lot of caring and good points and I really struggle with this issue there. Thankfully - they are just a friend and not a close relative. They dont raise the issue. I dont raise the issue. Nothing is said by either of us.

The thing is though - that its not "flaunted in my face". They know my views. I know theirs. There is a sort of unspoken agreement that neither of us says anything on this subject.

In this case though the SIL has been put in the awkward situation where there is simply no way she cant say SOMETHING one way or the other - ie the "toast to the 3rd child" that happened in her presence shortly after the pregnancy has been announced all round. With that - she has been put in a very very awkward situation and had no option whatsoever but to either take "the conventional route" and join in the "toast" or say why she hadnt. I cant honestly see that there was a third way in those circumstances....
So - I DO feel very sorry for SIL. What an awkward situation to be put in and the person who proposed the "toast" like that really really does NOT have any empathy whatsoever with anyone who has a different viewpoint to their own...

Alittlesad

ceridwen wrote: »

I do understand what you are saying. I am in the awkward situation where a friend has 4 children. They arent a close friend - but someone I personally like and can see has a lot of caring and good points and I really struggle with this issue there. Thankfully - they are just a friend and not a close relative. They dont raise the issue. I dont raise the issue. Nothing is said by either of us.

The thing is though - that its not "flaunted in my face". They know my views. I know theirs. There is a sort of unspoken agreement that neither of us says anything on this subject.

In this case though the SIL has been put in the awkward situation where there is simply no way she cant say SOMETHING one way or the other - ie the "toast to the 3rd child" that happened in her presence shortly after the pregnancy has been announced all round. With that - she has been put in a very very awkward situation and had no option whatsoever but to either take "the conventional route" and join in the "toast" or say why she hadnt. I cant honestly see that there was a third way in those circumstances....

I can see a third way. She could have raised her glass and said something like. "well you know my views on overpopulation but as it's an innocent child we are drinking to and because I love that child's father and grandparents, I will toast to its health."
Instead she refuses to raise her glass and announces that she won't be acknowledging the child.
I would have had much more respect for her then and cannot really believe that you think she didn't have this option.

ceridwen

To which I respond - who was it that proposed this toast and why did they do it in the circumstances?

Alittlesad

ceridwen wrote: »

To which I respond - who was it that proposed this toast and why did they do it in the circumstances?

My Father in law who is delighted at the prospect of a third grandchild and hopes his daughter was well enough brought up that she could deal with it with good grace.
I don't want to be drawn into an argument with you but while I can accept your opinions on the planet, I can't get my head round your feelings towards your own family.

flower24

She sounds like my auntie, who has hardly spoken a word to me since I had my first child. She has none. She's actually made things very difficult, no more meals out with the family/christmas/birthdays together, as she just won't look at me never mind speak to me and it's very awkward. I find it very sad and the only reason I can find for it is that she has no children herself and she's jealous/bitter.

bunty109

ceridwen wrote: »

To which I respond - who was it that proposed this toast and why did they do it in the circumstances?

Some polite soul who thought the SIL might have the good manners to be happy for her brother, regardless of her opinions? And this is really nothing like having a child who is a druggie.....

Ceridwen, I do understand and appreciate your point of view, but I think where you've taken a practical approach to overpopulation (and I admire you for that), the decision to have a child is often far from that: I had a stong desire to be a parent and it is would upset me greatly if someone chose to state that they were distancing themselves from a child of mine (who had yet been born) because they disagreed with my decision to have them. It's just manners about the whole situation: if they want to distance themselves then that's fine, but they don't need to hurt the OP's feelings by stating so just because their feelings have been hurt by someone suggesting a toast.

ceridwen

Can I point out that I would personally do the conventional "congratulations", etc on child 1 and 2 that anyone had - indeed I have done.

BUT...well howzabout I give another analogous situation then? Okay...suppose someone lived in the Southern states of America a couple of hundred years back? Now - bear in mind that at that point in history that many people in those Southern States had slaves and/or thought it was okay to have slaves.

In those circumstances - someone who was a bit "ahead of their time" and didnt agree with this would be in a very very awkward situation if someone who was a friend of theirs announced right in front of them that that is precisely what they proposed to do. You would sit there and think "They're a fine person in a lot of other respects...I want to keep a positive relationship with them in a lot of other respects BUT BUT BUT.....". So - just what do you do in those circumstances then? The choices would be:
- Tell them that was just fine END OF
- Tell them that was just fine but continue (behind their backs) to help slaves escape
- Say absolutely nothing about the subject to them at all and help the slaves escape behind their back
- Condemn them and help those slaves escape.

It really is an analogous situation to those of us who mentally put ourselves forward "into the future" and wonder how people will think/act in a future society about something.

In the analogous situation above - I would have probably chosen option 3 - ie say absolutely nothing to them and help the slaves escape behind their back.

In this particular instance though - ie the late 20th century/early 21st century dilemma of having a child no. 3 or beyond - then what is the option 3 in those circumstances?

Hence - why I think this must not be "flaunted" in front of SIL - to make it possible for her to maintain ties to the family, whilst not going against deeply-held beliefs. So - I think FIL was being "hugely insensitive" (I could phrase this a lot more strongly....) to do this to his own daughter...How could he treat his own daughter this way? To me - that smacks of trying to force her to conform to conventional opinion regardless and it would have made me very very angry indeed with him in SIL's position....

flower24

ceridwen wrote: »

Can I point out that I would personally do the conventional "congratulations", etc on child 1 and 2 that anyone had - indeed I have done.

BUT...well howzabout I give another analogous situation then? Okay...suppose someone lived in the Southern states of America a couple of hundred years back? Now - bear in mind that at that point in history that many people in those Southern States had slaves and/or thought it was okay to have slaves.

In those circumstances - someone who was a bit "ahead of their time" and didnt agree with this would be in a very very awkward situation if someone who was a friend of theirs announced right in front of them that that is precisely what they proposed to do. You would sit there and think "They're a fine person in a lot of other respects...I want to keep a positive relationship with them in a lot of other respects BUT BUT BUT.....". So - just what do you do in those circumstances then? The choices would be:
- Tell them that was just fine END OF
- Tell them that was just fine but continue (behind their backs) to help slaves escape
- Say absolutely nothing about the subject to them at all and help the slaves escape behind their back
- Condemn them and help those slaves escape.

It really is an analogous situation to those of us who mentally put ourselves forward "into the future" and wonder how people will think/act in a future society about something.

In the analogous situation above - I would have probably chosen option 3 - ie say absolutely nothing to them and help the slaves escape behind their back.

In this particular instance though - ie the late 20th century/early 21st century dilemma of having a child no. 3 or beyond - then what is the option 3 in those circumstances?

Hence - why I think this must not be "flaunted" in front of SIL - to make it possible for her to maintain ties to the family, whilst not going against deeply-held beliefs. So - I think FIL was being "hugely insensitive" (I could phrase this a lot more strongly....) to do this to his own daughter...How could he treat his own daughter this way? To me - that smacks of trying to force her to conform to conventional opinion regardless and it would have made me very very angry indeed with him in SIL's position....

I don't think it's a case of trying to make her conform to conventional opinion, just a case of trying to make her be polite!

geri1965_2

So now you are comparing having a third child with slavery? LOL.