Bitter sister in law

bunty109

I do agree that maybe the SIL needs speaking to, but I don't think the OP should do it: I think her OH should. Whatever has happened has obviously upset the OP and (having been through this) stress in pregnancy isn't nice. I don't think she should put herself back in a position where she could be upset again when she's pregnant.

BigBlackcat

coolcait wrote: »

OP has done NOTHING wrong. She has no explaining to do. Nothing to discuss. Is SIL feels that she owes OP an apology, then that's a different story.

Your views are different from mine. Each of us has a right to those views, each of us believes that our views are valid. The same goes for every genuine poster on this thread, and everyone in the real world who holds a view on anything.

Just like the scenario set out by the OP:

The SIL's views are different from those of her brother, her family and the OP. All of them have a right to their views, and all of them believe their views are valid. Agreed!

The OP and her husband based their decision to have a third child on reasons which are personal to them, which are valid to them, and don't have to be shared with anyone or approved by anyone else. Because their views are so much more part of the social 'norm', they wouldn't really have to explain why they took that decision anyway - most people will 'fill in the blanks' based on their own experiences, or the experiences of family and friends!

Because the SIL's views aren't part of the social 'norm' it's harder for people to 'filling the blanks' based on their own experiences. It's not really SIL's views that I find offensive, just her inability to conduct herself in a manner fitting to the occasion.

Her views don't appear to have been recognised or respected by her family. They certainly haven't been given equal importance as those of her brother and his wife. None of that excuses her behaviour, but it does, in my view, mean that it's not totally clear-cut that her actions are simply due to her being 'bitter' or 'attention seeking' or any of the other descriptions which have been used. I described her as attention seeking, and I will stand by that claim. She knew an announcement/toast would be made, but she chose to stick around..

The SIL's views on people having more than two children appear to be based on opinions which she has formed through learning about theories around overpopulation, and the impact which that can/will have on the environment, and the long-term effects on all of us.

Given that her beliefs aren't 'just' based on moral or ethical gounds - but also have a practical level in terms of seeing that overpopulation has an impact on mankind in general, and therefore on her as an individual - I can appreciate that she would see it as 'irresponsible' for people to have more than two children. So, when has it become socially acceptable to shove your opinions down others throats? I must have missed that one..

So I can see why it would be more difficult for her to simply 'smile politely and say nothing' against that background. It reinforces my view that it was, at best, naive and tactless of the family to have that toast in her presence. No. SIL was the tactless one.

At worst, it showed a shocking lack of empathy and understanding for her position, and a total disregard for her views. It could come acros as effectively saying "We don't care about your views, we don't care about your beliefs, we don't care about your feelings". In addition, it could also have sent the message that "your brother is more important to us than you are". You are totally over thinking this. She KNEW how well her reaction would go down, and she systemetically applied it..

Then, of course, her behaviour effectively said right back to them: "I don't care about your views, I don't care about your beliefs, I don't care about your feelings". And "I'm more important than my brother is".

I find it a very sad situation all round. There are two very different world views in the family, which doesn't make it easy to deal with these situations.

As for what to do next, having thought about it a bit further, and tried to put myself into the SIL's position a bit more, I've changed my mind about the advice I would give.

I would suggest that the OP and her husband do speak to the SIL sooner rather than later. Have a discussion about what happened at the toast, and allow both sides to express their feelings of hurt, disappointment etc (if they both feel ready to do the emotional side of it).

But definitely address the practical issue which has arisen in terms of the SIL stating that she won't be buying presents for the third child.

Part of the original problem, IMO, came from the fact that no one in the family seem to demonstrate any respect for the SIL and her views. There doesn't seem to have been any recognition of the fact that she was in a difficult position. This more subtle disrespect has gone unnoticed in the face of the SIL's overtly disrespectful behaviour. SIL's views are obviously not shared with the rest of the family. Again, she knew that she would be placed in this position. If I were to find myself confronted with something I find abhorrent and unacceptable, then I would AVOID that predicament. Not use it as an opportunity to get on my soapbox..The occasion wasn't a protest over global overpopulation after all.

Maybe the OP/her husband should at least tell the SIL that they recognise that this must be a difficult position for her, and will respect her choices in the way she deals with it. If that's true. If it's not true, and they can't bring themselves to say any of this, then that may help them gain some more insight into the way the SIL might have felt. Oh, No no no. If SIL cannot conduct herself in a polite and considerate manner, the why the Hell should OP have to explain herself?

However, they can be quite firm about the fact that, as parents, they will treat all of their children equally, and expect that others will do the same. They can also let the SIL know that they would never expect her to buy presents for any of their children, and are always delighed and grateful if she does buy them something. But, they couldn't accept that two of the children would get a gift while the other one doesn't. What if SIL's attitude goes beyond mere gift giving. Chances are if she doesn't *approve* of this third child, she will make her feelings clear in other ways..

Some way further up the thread, someone made the suggestion that - if the SIL did want to continue giving presents - she could opt for giving the children, or the family, a "virtual gift". That strikes me as an excellent idea, and may be a way to find a compromise between two very different points of view within the family.[/QUOTE]

You are obviously a very idealistic poster Coolcait. But to me there are no grey areas in this argument at all. It all comes down to social etiquette and the ability to bite your tongue over issues you may not agree with. Which as rational adults, we all have to do from time to time.

If SIL cannot accept OP's decision to have a third child, then OP has every right to cut off said SIL for the sake of family harmony.

RadoJo

Social etiquette and social change do not go hand in hand - people with strongly held convictions are those who change the world (usually for the better in my opinion). If the OP's SIL really believes in her cause then she may feel duty bound to speak up for her beliefs regardless of the situation, and it seems as though she has made it quite clear that she will do so regardless of whether that makes other people uncomfortable.

Her family, knowing this, have chosen to carry on inviting her to events and gatherings, perhaps doing what could be described as 'walking on eggshells' around her, but that's their choice. Knowing that she feels strongly about this issue, they chose to involve her in a celebration. From what the OP says, her SIL's reaction wasn't exactly unexpected, albeit possibly a little more forceful than anticipated, but it seems that SIL was acting as she always has.

The toast may have been an ill-advised effort to effect a change in this dynamic, but if the family wants to change the way they respond to SIL, then they will need to keep at it and prepare themselves for more awkward situations in the future, or cut their losses and stop inviting her to occasions which will end like this. By continuing to include her in these events, they are accepting her behaviour, however much they complain about it afterwards, whereas she suffers no repercussions from her actions, so has no incentive to change.

Concerning ourselves with her motives or possible reasons for making such comments is ultimately unhelpful - if her behaviour isn't acceptable to you then you have to choose whether
a) you will put up with it for the sake of the family
b) you want to confront her and thrash it out until you reach some point where you can at least reach an agreement on how to handle situations like this (maybe you won't - if you both hold opposing views equally as strongly, then it might be that you keep butting heads over this issue)
c) you demonstrate your disapproval of her beliefs by cutting her out of your lives

I think the comment about presents is probably best ignored either way - it seems intended to provoke a reaction and probably an attempt to demonstrate the depth of her feeling on the matter than a genuine threat, but only time will tell.

Realistically, she has a point and you have a point - she is willing to defend hers even if it makes her unpopular, and you can choose to handle that however suits you best.

DVardysShadow

Alittlesad wrote: »

...
I understand in a way why a couple of people believe my FIL was insensitive, though describing him as cruel is too much.
As I have said, my SIL has been tiptoed around (particularly by her parents) for many years and they have borne the brunt of her behaviour.
I have not been party to any discussion my FIL and MIL have had prior to the toast at Christmas but they are so pleased about the pregnancy that I can imagine they did decide that enough was enough. My FIL is a straightforward man and I imagine he spoke to my SIL about the toast beforehand.

Alittlesad wrote: »

My husband has confirmed that she knew about the toast in advance so I'm afraid that theory doesn't stand up.

Then I have to say that FiL made something of a horrible tactical blunder - probably in a way which only a straightforward person could do.

A toast is an inherently divisive ceremony, because it invites and even coerces unanimous agreement with some proposition. I don't read etiquette books, but I would think it would have to be a really good book to recognise that toasts are potentially divisive - because when toasts are made, the circumstances are usually such that there is already agreement.

I was abroad once in a country where multiple toasts are proposed and at an informal function with a Welshman - he and I were the only foreigners. He made a toast in Welsh and translated it - which revealed that it was derogatory towards the English. Our hosts were horribly embarrassed and as I remember it, all the toast making came to an abrupt halt.

I would say that before proposing a toast, you need to be confident of unanimous approval for the proposition. I would also say that by prewarning SiL of the toast, he made the toast itself 100 times more offensive, in that it could not be brushed aside as a spur of the moment gaffe.

As I said, a toast is inherently divisive. The fruits of this particular toast are that SiL, not being able to agree to the toast has found herself forced in the position of disagreeing with the proposition - because you either accept a toast or very unusually, you reject it. Unfortunately, SiL's views are now crystallized and I think that you will be living in the shadow of this particular episode for years. The toast unfortunately put her in the position of feeling she had to express her views forcefully in order not to be seen to assent to the toast proposition.

Of course FiL is, at base, right to want a toast. He should have taken much more care to ensure that everyone present was freely able to agree to the toast proposition - perhaps before hand he did give SiL the option to be excused the toast and do her own thing, in which case SiL has made her own bed. But if he did not provide SiL with a clear get out, he has at best been exceedingly insensitive. But that is out of being straightforward rather than any malign motive.

This all suggest to me that a possible way forward is to speak to SiL and just say that while you disagree with her position, you are sorry that she was put in the position of being coerced into a toast she did not agree with.

ceridwen

DVardysShadow speaking with his/her usual sound commonsense there:T

That is a very good thought that toasts are usually to something that it is known everyone present will agree with and join in with in good conscience (having said that...I have been in situations where toasts were proposed to the Queen and suchlike - and have had to clamp my mouth shut and look down VERY fast and just fiddle with my glass, but not raise it - as I hadnt realised JUST how formal an occasion I was at...whoops!!!!). So - I have been in situations myself before now where I honestly couldnt join in the toast - and felt very embarrassed/awkward at having been put in that position...

But - as you say DVardy - it IS the case normally that toasts are only raised on occasions where the feeling will be shared by all. The vast majority of the times when I have been present for a "toast" it has been someone saying "Havent we all (ie the group concerned) done well - and I propose a toast to us for what we've done to date". At which point - there was much hearty joining-in:)

mumps

I can think of several occasions when I have seen people who had to "grin and bear it" when a toast was proposed. At a wedding when the two families didn't get on, at a wedding when the bride's friends disliked the groom, several times in work situations when a toast was proposed to someone, usually someone who was getting promoted, and several other people were very unhappy. I have never seen a reaction like the SIL.

onlyroz

Being expected to join in with a toast to something you disagree with is probably similar to being asked to join in with a prayer when you're agnostic/atheist. In such circumstances I've generally kept my chin up, my mouth shut and my hands firmly clamped to the knees. Seems like sound advice for all such scenarios - no need to go against your beliefs *or* cause a scene.

coolcait

BigBlackcat wrote: »

[I have edited your original post, for reasons of length only. the comments in red are your responses to my earlier post. The comments in black are my replies]


She [SIL] knew an announcement/toast would be made, but she chose to stick around..

We don't yet know for sure what exactly was said in the run-up to the toast or during the toast, as the OP hasn't come back to tell us any more.

I accept that she may have been in touch with you by PM or email, so you might know more about the situation than the rest of us.

However, based only on what has been posted on the board at the moment, we are aware that the OP has second or third hand knowledge that the SIL had been informed that there would be a toast. We don't know the details of what was said when she was told that, or what was said during the toast (or who was present at the toast, for that matter).

So, when has it become socially acceptable to shove your opinions down others throats? I must have missed that one..

Or you haven't seen that the toast might be viewed as a socially acceptable way to shove your opinions down others’ throats…?

No. SIL was the tactless one.

The SIL was indeed tactless. But she wasn't the only one. Those involved in the toast could also be seen as tactless. They had the weight of 6 (?) against 1 on their side on the night, plus the weight of "social acceptability". However, that really only works if you believe that the majority is always right (I don't). They certainly didn’t need to have the SIL present to make up numbers in order to go ahead with the toast.

She KNEW how well her reaction would go down, and she systemetically applied it..

Equally, those proposing and involved in the toast KNEW how well their actions would go down, and they systematically went ahead with it...
　
SIL's views are obviously not shared with the rest of the family.
Again, she knew that she would be placed in this position.

Arguably, a position where her family might be seen as 'shoving their opinions down her throat'.

If I were to find myself confronted with something I find abhorrent and unacceptable, then I would AVOID that predicament.

We don't yet know exactly what was said to the SIL before the toast. Nor do we know exactly what was said during the toast.

As for her avoiding the predicament, isn't that just the other side of the coin to my suggestion that the toast could have been made when the SIL wasn't present? You said, in response:
"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." [Post 215 http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=39877154&postcount=215]

Yet, there seems to be an expectation that the SIL should 'walk on eggshells around everyone else, to avoid upsetting them' (that she should be 'socially acceptable'). And 'pander to the needs' of others.

Why the difference in expectations?

Oh, No no no. If SIL cannot conduct herself in a polite and considerate manner, the why the Hell should OP have to explain herself?

Equally, if the SIL's family cannot, politely and considerately, conduct themselves in a manner which respects her and her views, why should she have to explain herself?

What if SIL's attitude goes beyond mere gift giving. Chances are if she doesn't *approve* of this third child, she will make her feelings clear in other ways..

But she hasn't yet done so. It still makes sense for the parents to plan what they will do if it actually gets to that point. If it does.

You are obviously a very idealistic poster Coolcait. But to me there are no grey areas in this argument at all.

I'm rather tickled by the novelty of being described as idealistic! I'm more used to being described as 'harsh'(and all its synonyms), and to being reminded that 'life isn't black and white, there are shades of grey'.:rotfl:

Ironically enough, this argument is an area where I do see many shades of grey, so I'm expressing my views in those terms.

However, because I have been involved in many discussions where I have seen only black and white, I can completely empathise with where you are coming from! Even if I can't agree with the detail of your views and your arguments on this occasion.

It all comes down to social etiquette and the ability to bite your tongue over issues you may not agree with. Which as rational adults, we all have to do from time to time.

Absolutely. But, whereas I see both sides as being at fault on that point, you see it as being the fault of the SIL alone. I suspect that this is a 'we must agree to disagree' situation.

If SIL cannot accept OP's decision to have a third child, then OP has every right to cut off said SIL for the sake of family harmony.

Equally, if the OP and the SIL's family cannot accept that the SIL sees things very differently from the way they do, preferring to talk about her among themselves - from what the OP has said, (Although the OP has been very clear about the fact that she has never discussed her SIL with anyone - except this board, obviously - but other family members have told her their negative views of the SIL, which she has shared with us) then the SIL may have to think about cutting herself off from them, for the sake of her own wellbeing.

I will have an idealistic moment here, though. Before either side gets to the 'cutting off family' stage, maybe they could all try to understand each other a bit better - with the help of counselling perhaps.

coolcait

Plans_all_plans wrote: »

Yes but you are still missing the point that there are PLENTY of us who have opinions on things that we believe to affect mankind as a whole, who wouldn't dream of acting in the manner of the SIL.

.

No, I'm not missing that point at all. I may not have acknowledged all the posters who have shared their personal stories along those lines (my apologies ), but I do recognise that it is probably a more common reaction than the SIL's. And I appreciate that is is not always the easy choice to 'bite your tongue'.

How could I not recognise that fact, when I have already admitted that I have/would probably also sublimate my personal views and go for 'socially acceptable' reaction? Or that, because of my personal views on some issues, my instinctive reaction does actually fit the socially acceptable 'norm'?

I can still see why someone might choose to sublimate the 'socially acceptable', and stand up for their own, different, views. And I can appreciate how that is not always the easy choice either.

For many people - whatever their views - there are no 'easy' choices in this scenario. Or many others.

For many other people there is only one option in this scenario. And many others.

They don't always agree on the options.

Unusual though it may be, the scenario presented by the OP seems to sum up all those personal dilemmas pretty well.

coolcait

*Robin* wrote: »

You know what would have freaked me out during the occasion that upset the OP? That FIL was tempting fate by toasting Bump.

I totally agree!

Maybe I'm from a similarly superstitious background, but the idea of having a toast to the parents-to-be/pregnancy/baby when the pregnancy has only just been announced is completely alien to me.

Because it would be - as you say - 'tempting fate'. Especially if the parents-to-be haven't had an easy journey towards conception, or have had miscarriages in the past.

(Major 'wetting the baby's head' celebrations after arrival are not a problem - the womenfolk of the family didn't see why that should be an exclusively male tradition!).

It's another area where this thread addresses areas which are different from my own views and personal beliefs (and superstitions). But where it's still not that difficult for me to see why other people take a different approach from me.