Bitter sister in law

coolcait

treliac wrote: »

On the other hand, toasting the parents to be and their good news is an entirely normal thing to do. Why should the whole family feed into the dysfunctional behaviour of one member?

Well, leaving aside the discussions about principles, manners, whether or not to set aside principles in favour of society's accepted 'entirely normal things to do' (also described as manners'), the nature of dyfunctionality and the influence of families, and possible diagnoses of Aspergers Syndrome...

This whole scenario clearly had the potential to be explosive.

The OP has told us from the beginning that her SIL's beliefs include a view that it is bad, for environmental reasons, to have more than two children. SIL has stated these views on a number of occasions to her family, including letting them know how she would feel if the OP and her husband chose to have another child. Whether you, I, or her family agree with these views is immaterial. Her family know that she holds them firmly and vociferously.

Her family also know that "She has been prickly, difficult, insulting and overly opinionated to her family for many years. She has caused upset on a great many occasions and acted in a very spoiled way if people disagree with her or get attention for what she considers to be the "right" reasons".

So, it does seem to me that the FIL's actions in proposing a toast in the SIL's presence was incendiary. The SIL doesn't seem to be particularly valued or loved by her family, going by the way the OP describes their interactions. I'm not sure what would have been gained in emotional or family terms by not having her present at the toast.

However, a great deal has been lost in family and emotional terms - for everyone, including the SIL.

To turn your question around - why should she have to feed into the behaviour of the other members of the family? They have numerical superiority; their views also appear to be in the majority of society (assuming that this thread is representative of society).

They are actually better placed in terms of being able to maintain their own beliefs, sharing them with each other, without forcing her to take part in a celebration she's uncomfortable about.

Strapped

Alittlesad wrote: »

I'm looking for some advice please.:o

My husband and I delightedly announced at Christmas that I am pregnant with our third child.:j
Unfortunately my husband's sister has been unbelievable in her response.
She is a single (never married) woman in her fifties who has never had children and claims to find anyone with more than 2 children to be irresponsible.
She always said that she would have a problem with us having another child and has said now that she is very disappointed in us and won't be buying presents for this child as it is just adding to the overpopulation of this country.
I do feel a bit sad for her though as she does come across as very bitter that she is alone.
I have always found her odd to be honest but I am really shocked at this and don't know how to react.

Any help would be welcome.

Tell her you're just making up for the fact she didn't have any. It will drive her mad.

Strapped

jcr16 wrote: »

hermoine, we got asked that alot with our 3rd, was the pregnancy planned.

well tbh i don't see that it matter's either way. were in a strong relationship, nice home ,hubby works , i sahm. we will love all our children weather planned or not. i don't see why peeps need to ask. will they view the child any different?

I was asked that when I miscarried! :eek:

BigBlackcat

coolcait wrote: »

As I said in post 199:

"I simply do not understand why - in a family which knows about the SIL's views, and has often described her among themeselves as 'bitter', and is well aware that she is 'outspoken' at best, but more often described as 'rude' - her own father would put her, his son, his pregnant daughter-in-law and the rest of the family in this situation.

He could have made the toast when she wasn't present. Avoiding the awkward situation.



Your SIL did not behave well. I don't believe anyone on this thread has said otherwise - even those who take the view that she was put in a difficult situation.

However, everyone present was put in a difficult situation the minute your FIL decided to propose that toast in her company. There was no need for him to choose that occasion to 'stand up to her', as you put it. The rest of you could have shared your joy, and toasted your happiness, when she wasnt' present.

So basically you are saying that everyone has to walk on eggshells around SIL, to avoid upsetting her?

No one should have to pander to the ridiculous needs of this woman at the expense of other's.

She sucked all the joy out of a joyous occasion. Shame on her.

princesstippytoes

This is an interesting thread that made me think. IMHO the SIL was wrong. Whatever she felt she was out of order to express her opinion at the time a toast was being made to what most sane people would consider a happy event. A baby who according to the op will be wanted and born into a stable family who can afford to pay for the child without benefits. How posters here castigate the FIL being for raising his glass to his sons unborn child shocks me!

IMHO the SIL sounds like a very immature person who has never grown up and has spent years wallowing in misery and resentment to the point that she is cant express happiness for anybody even her own brother and his family. If she was my relative I'd humour her to a point but once she passed that point I'd tell her frankly how I felt

Op hope it works out for you and you find an equilibrium that you can live with. I dont know if I could forgive her but your probably a better person than me.

Coolcait, are you ceridwens AE?

coolcait

BigBlackcat wrote: »

So basically you are saying that everyone has to walk on eggshells around SIL, to avoid upsetting her?

No one should have to pander to the ridiculous needs of this woman at the expense of other's.

She sucked all the joy out of a joyous occasion. Shame on her.

Pointing out the fact that the SIL was out in an awkward situation, is not saying that everyone has to walk on eggshells around her, to avoid upsetting her.

I have not suggested that the family should not have made the toast. I have consistently said that the family could have made the toast when the SIL was not present.

That is neither pandering to her, not putting her in a difficult position.

Like everyone else, I can only go on the information being provided by the OP. From that information, it is clear that there was a huge risk that the SIL would not join in a toast to the parents and the expected baby.

From that information, it is also clear that there was a huge risk that, under those circumstances, the SIL would make remarks which others would find hurtful.

Who was most hurt and upset at the end of all of this? It appears to be the OP. The OP has also referred to 'five others' who were upset.

The OP has spoken of her FIL 'standing up' to his daughter on this occasion. You have said that "no one should pander to the ridiculous needs of this woman".

Personally, I think that if you are going to choose a battleground over bad behaviour, you should try to find one where only you and your opponent are going to get hurt (by words).

Don't choose a battleground where innocent bystanders - like the expectant parents - are likely to be the ones on the receiving end of the hurtful words. Especially when family history makes it almost inevitable that there will be hurtful words.

As an aside, how can any of us expect to have our own needs respected, if we dismiss the needs of others as 'ridiculous'?

seven-day-weekend

Here's an example.

I am anti-abortion unless it is literally a life or death situation.

However, many years ago, I had a friend who wanted an abortion because her husband had just left her.

Although I did advise her to think very carefully before making her decision, and pointing out that she had wanted and planned for the baby for a long time, I then went on to say that any decision must be hers and hers alone, and that I would be there for her whatever she decided.

She knew my views on abortion. But she needed a friend more than she needed someone getting on their high horse and ramming their own personal views down her throat.

(She did have the abortion, and I did support her both before and after the event).

I think the OP's sister-in-law should have just said something like 'I'm pleased for you'. This does not negate her views, she would just be acknowledging the OP's pleasure in their pregnancy.

As regards the toast, I too think the F-i-L's timing was off, that IS pushing his views down her throat, but given that he had done that, she should have either quietly not raised her glass or just sipped and not toasted. There was no need to make a song and dance about it.

And the third child should certainly be treated no differently to the others.

This is my take on the matter.

cake21

I guess I might be in a similar position to the SIL before long. I agree with the overpopulation argument and I don't want children anyway. I'm also single through choice; lots of people struggle to believe that and express sympathy assuming that I must secretly want to be coupled up and reproducing. I choose to conclude that they obviously don't know me at all and therefore there's no point in making any reply

Anyway, in the SIL's position - in the ideal world I would have sat quietly during the toast but not joined in, or said a simple "congratulations" if pushed/pressured by the others at the table. I am a doting auntie because my relationship with my niece doesn't have anything to do with whether I agree or disagree with her parents' opinions.

In the OP's position, I would wait and see if an apology from the SIL is forthcoming; and accept it with good grace if it is. If not, I would tell the SIL once in a calm manner (perhaps in a letter) that 1. I found the exchange upsetting and could we please agree to disagree and not discuss the subject; 2. however she chooses to treat the third child all the children are to be treated the same. Then forget all about it and look forward to the new arrival.

coolcait

princesstippytoes wrote: »

Coolcait, are you ceridwens AE?

No, I'm not anyone's AE :rotfl:. I manage to express myself just fine under the one ID. And stand up for principles and things I believe in.

I realise that my not being Ceridwen does rather destroy the whole 'you're the only person on this thread who thinks...' argument, but that's too bad.

Ceridwen and I are still vastly outnumbered in terms of those who have a different viewpoint - which might bother me if I felt that I could only hold - and express - my views if they were shared by the majority. That's not the case.

Of course, you have opened a huge can of worms. Are you someone else's AE? Does the OP have oodles of AE's, all backing up her position? Would that make her view the majority one or the minority one? :rotfl:

Not that it matters a jot. My views are my views, whether they're shared by one, none, or all.

cake21

Oh and to the poster(s) who are bemused by the rude posts complaining about the SIL's rudeness: I have a colleague that uses punctuation like ?! and !! in her work emails, it comes across as rude and aggressive to people who don't use them but she genuinely doesn't mean it in that way, it's just her style. Just a thought.