Bitter sister in law

poet123

I think that at the Christmas dinner table of the family concerned the Sil should have been polite and pleasant and kept her views to herself. She was a guest in their home, they were celebrating, if she could not share the sentiment she should have kept quiet and justraised her glass without repeating the toast. No one would have noticed and her principles would have been satisfied, and family harmony would have been maintained. It is called manners.

coolcait

poet123 wrote: »

I think that at the Christmas dinner table of the family concerned the Sil should have been polite and pleasant and kept her views to herself. She was a guest in their home, they were celebrating, if she could not share the sentiment she should have kept quiet and justraised her glass without repeating the toast. No one would have noticed and her principles would have been satisfied, and family harmony would have been maintained. It is called manners.

I hadn't noticed that the OP telling us that the toast took place at the dinner table. Is that a fact which has been posted on the thread, something which the OP has shared with you by PM, or just the way you imagined it happening?

I have to say that - not having seen any specific details posted on the thread, and not having had any PM contact with the OP - I had imagined the toast being made before or after dinner, which would have allowed for the possibility of making the toast at a time when the SIL wasn't present.

If it was, in fact, a toast over dinner, then that really limited the SIL's options as to whether she could be absent for the toast, but still share a special time with her family (or not). Not to mention limiting her options for having the opportunity to eat.

Under those circumstances, why was the host not polite and pleasant, keeping his views to himself, rather than proposing a toast which he knew did not accord with the beliefs of everyone present?

That is also called manners. And family harmony would also have been maintained if everyone present had just kept quiet about the absence of a toast.

I'm still not sure why the burden of social acceptability, manners, keeping quiet, keeping quiet about your views etc should have been placed entirely on the SIL - especially when others were toasting their own views.

Also, raising your glass to a toast - even if you say nothing - counts as accepting/joining in with the celebration. So it would really be abandoning your principles if you raised your glass. It's fair enough to say that the SIL could have abandoned her principles nevertheless, for the sake of manners - but why not also say that the toastmaster (and those who joined in with the toast) could also have abandoned their principles for the sake of manners. As they could have done.

I do find it extraordinary that - having been the type who always chirrups 'congratulations!!' on being told that someone is pregnant (as long as they look happy about it, even if I barely know them); who contributes to the 'lift' for every pregnant colleague; who coos over every newborn presented to her; and who still has occasional moments of cluckiness, quickly over-ruled by commonsense - I am questioning the idea that the only acceptable reaction to the announcement of a pregnancy can be 'Congratulations!'

But, I don't get it at all. Why is that the only acceptable reaction?

If it doesn't come naturally, why are people expected to fake it? Why is it socially acceptable to put people in a position where they have to fake joy/pretend happiness/disguise their total indifference/disgust over someone else's pregnancy?

If the woman who's pregnant is happy about it, that's really all that matters. At least, that's the attitude that often comes across when a pregnant woman announces her pregnancy, but adds that the father would prefer that the pregnancy didn't continue. I've always taken that view at face value. Is it really just another 'socially acceptable' lie?

If so, then that's really not fair on the mother. How can people lie (in a socially acceptable way, of course) about something so important?

So, if someone announces that she's pregnant, and the father is happy about it, and married to her, and with her for the duration; and the grandparents are delighted about it, why should it matter if one person (who the mum-to-be isn't particularly close to) doesn't agree? And says so very bluntly.

You can't expect the whole world to agree with everything you do. You shouldn't expect the whole world to congratulate you on everything you do.

Why should that change just because the thing that you have done is create a baby?

Which - in a different discussion - would not be called a 'baby' at this stage. It would be an 'embryo' or a 'foetus' - I wonder how that might affect the arguments put forward in this thread?

BigBlackcat

coolcait wrote: »

I hadn't noticed that the OP telling us that the toast took place at the dinner table. Is that a fact which has been posted on the thread, something which the OP has shared with you by PM, or just the way you imagined it happening?

I have to say that - not having seen any specific details posted on the thread, and not having had any PM contact with the OP - I had imagined the toast being made before or after dinner, which would have allowed for the possibility of making the toast at a time when the SIL wasn't present.

If it was, in fact, a toast over dinner, then that really limited the SIL's options as to whether she could be absent for the toast, but still share a special time with her family (or not). Not to mention limiting her options for having the opportunity to eat.

Under those circumstances, why was the host not polite and pleasant, keeping his views to himself, rather than proposing a toast which he knew did not accord with the beliefs of everyone present?

That is also called manners. And family harmony would also have been maintained if everyone present had just kept quiet about the absence of a toast.

I'm still not sure why the burden of social acceptability, manners, keeping quiet, keeping quiet about your views etc should have been placed entirely on the SIL - especially when others were toasting their own views.

Also, raising your glass to a toast - even if you say nothing - counts as accepting/joining in with the celebration. So it would really be abandoning your principles if you raised your glass. It's fair enough to say that the SIL could have abandoned her principles nevertheless, for the sake of manners - but why not also say that the toastmaster (and those who joined in with the toast) could also have abandoned their principles for the sake of manners. As they could have done.

I do find it extraordinary that - having been the type who always chirrups 'congratulations!!' on being told that someone is pregnant (as long as they look happy about it, even if I barely know them); who contributes to the 'lift' for every pregnant colleague; who coos over every newborn presented to her; and who still has occasional moments of cluckiness, quickly over-ruled by commonsense - I am questioning the idea that the only acceptable reaction to the announcement of a pregnancy can be 'Congratulations!'

But, I don't get it at all. Why is that the only acceptable reaction?

If it doesn't come naturally, why are people expected to fake it? Why is it socially acceptable to put people in a position where they have to fake joy/pretend happiness/disguise their total indifference/disgust over someone else's pregnancy?

If the woman who's pregnant is happy about it, that's really all that matters. At least, that's the attitude that often comes across when a pregnant woman announces her pregnancy, but adds that the father would prefer that the pregnancy didn't continue. I've always taken that view at face value. Is it really just another 'socially acceptable' lie?

If so, then that's really not fair on the mother. How can people lie (in a socially acceptable way, of course) about something so important?

So, if someone announces that she's pregnant, and the father is happy about it, and married to her, and with her for the duration; and the grandparents are delighted about it, why should it matter if one person (who the mum-to-be isn't particularly close to) doesn't agree? And says so very bluntly.

You can't expect the whole world to agree with everything you do. You shouldn't expect the whole world to congratulate you on everything you do.

Why should that change just because the thing that you have done is create a baby?

Which - in a different discussion - would not be called a 'baby' at this stage. It would be an 'embryo' or a 'foetus' - I wonder how that might affect the arguments put forward in this thread?

You don't half over analyse things Coolcait!:rotfl:

coolcait

BigBlackcat wrote: »

You don't half over analyse things Coolcait!:rotfl:

Do I?

I suppose I could turn that around to suggesting that "you don't analyse things enough, Big Blackcat [rofl icon]"

Whichever point of view we espouse, I suppose it still brings us back to the point that our views are different, but valid, and we probably have to agree to disagree on the issues raised in this thread.

coolcait

At the risk of being accused of 'overthinking'

I've been googling the concept, but can't find any references to people toasting a newly announced pregnancy (other than ideas for 'cute' and 'unusual' ways for the parents to announce the pregnancy in the first place - to family and friends. Or even the father ).

This kind of toast is not something I've ever experienced as a member of a large (and fecund) extended family - although we are admittedly superstitious on that front.

It's not something that I have seen friends do when pregnancies have been announced. Alcohol may have been consumed, but not in a "let's toast this pregnancy" kind of way.

So, although I fully took on board the idea that this was something which was 'normal', I'm not sure how widespread the custom of celebrating early pregnancies actually is.

Having a large extended family, we know (as much as you can 'know' when it's not happening to you) what it's like to have difficulty conceiving, and how much you have to go through to get to stage of conception. And how it doesn't always work the first time. Or many other times after that.

We know that pregnancy isn't always easy; that it can involve spending a lot of time in hospital. We know that a baby can be born long before the 40-week mark and still survive. We know that babies don't always survive under those circumstances.

So, even though we may have been rejoicing inside when a family pregnancy was announced - especially after years of trying - there were no toasts. (Tempting fate)

There were no toasts at family occasions while a very premature babe was still in hospital. (Tempting fate)

There were hearty but subdued, fingers-crossed-behind your-back, toasts when the babe got out of hospital. (You guessed it ...)

But, for most people, the first time they really dared toast the erstwhile 'bump' was on the first birthday. And I think that some members of the family still can't quite dare to make a toast.

And, although I see friends and workmates who are different (less superstitious) than my family, when it comes to buying clothes, nursery items etc before baby is born - and hear about those differences - I have never seen or heard about any of them toasting a newly announced pregnancy.

(Wetting the newborn baby's head - as already mentioned - is an entirely different issue!).

Maybe it's a cultural/regional/national difference? If so, are there any regions where it's more common to toast a newly announced pregnancy?

dktreesea

It sounds to me like the MIL and FIL prefer the grand child producing OP, who, when it comes right down to it, is not their blood family, to their own daughter. If I were the SIL, I would be bitter about that too. In-laws are a minefield anyway. Look at it from the SIL's point of view. She's among her family, her flesh and blood, and that includes her brother's children. The "stranger in the pack" so to speak, is the OP. Why should her own mother and father welcome the OP into the family more than they do their own daughter, just because the OP has decided to have children?

BigBlackcat

coolcait wrote: »

Do I?

I suppose I could turn that around to suggesting that "you don't analyse things enough, Big Blackcat [rofl icon]"

Whichever point of view we espouse, I suppose it still brings us back to the point that our views are different, but valid, and we probably have to agree to disagree on the issues raised in this thread.

Oh, I'm only teasing Coolcait! I happen to think you have a very balanced way of looking at things, even if I don't agree:).

ceridwen

BigBlackcat wrote: »

You don't half over analyse things Coolcait!:rotfl:

Coolcait does analyse things a lot more than most people - but then some of us do (I'll put my hand up here too on this one:D).

Some of us do believe strongly in thinking through every opinion/option on the table for ourselves. Those of us who do can find it very odd when other people DONT think each individual issue through for themselves and just accept the current majority opinion on things - I know I do personally.....

If no-one ever thought things through for themselves on a regular basis - then we would all still be living in caves.

Or - more to the point and talking recent history only - we would still be keeping slaves (talking re countries where this has been the norm)/women wouldnt have the vote/effective contraception would never have been invented etc etc. (mind you - and I mightnt be "here" now "talking to you".....<scuttles off quickly> LOL).

rachbc

ceridwen wrote: »

Coolcait does analyse things a lot more than most people - but then some of us do (I'll put my hand up here too on this one:D).

Some of us do believe strongly in thinking through every opinion/option on the table for ourselves. Those of us who do can find it very odd when other people DONT think each individual issue through for themselves and just accept the current majority opinion on things - I know I do personally.....

If no-one ever thought things through for themselves on a regular basis - then we would all still be living in caves.

Or - more to the point and talking recent history only - we would still be keeping slaves (talking re countries where this has been the norm)/women wouldnt have the vote/effective contraception would never have been invented etc etc. (mind you - and I mightnt be "here" now "talking to you".....<scuttles off quickly> LOL).

And plenty of people may well think things through just as much, consider the implications just as much and yet still come to totally different view. Just because you have a 'mainstream' view doesn't mean you haven't thought about, considered and dismissed alternatives.

On the whole 'overpopulation' issue please do correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a major issue not more babies being born but the aging population we already have and that people are now living much longer...when you consider that fertility has decreased from an average of 5 children per woman in the 50s to 2. something (depending on what you read) and yet the poulation is growing quuicker we can hardly be blaming those having kids....

Oh and btw my IL did indeed toast the pregnancy - MIL first response when we told them was (after asking if we were getting married lol) to crack open a handy bottle of something fizzy!

poet123

I assumed (maybe incorrectly) that the toast would have taken place prior to, or after dinner, at the table, as the OP said they "announced it at Christmas" I see that my assumption may be incorrect but nevertheless I still believe that if someone is giving you their news (which they are clearly delighted about) it is churlish and bad manners to be pointedly rude about it when you are a guest in their home.

You can only be respopnsible for your own actions. The SIL in question has acted according to her own beliefs and refrained from having children, she cannot expect others to live according to her principles.

She is entitled to her view, but others are also entitled not to have to have it foisted on them at a time of celebration. How far do you take this? are you gratuitously rude to umarried people who live together if you believe in marriage? do you shun gay people, black people etc etc or do you have an opinion but know when to hold your tongue?

If we all said what we thought at every opportunity rather than guaging an appropriate time to air our views then society would fall apart. Social mores dictate that if someone appears happy at the news they impart you congraulate them, unless it is illegal or immoral.

With regard to the toast, surely she could find it in her heart to toast the wellbeing of mother and child even if she has personal reservations about other issues? or if she felt compelled to say something it would have been better to have said " As you know I have reservations about having too many children, but on a personal level I wish you and the baby well" she would have had her principles satisfied and the family would not have been disrespected.