In Laws issue.

minimacka

fluffnutter wrote: »

Utter bollocks. I adore my MIL. My sympathies still lie with the OP's wife though.

You're reducing this situation to merely whether people like their inlaws or not, which is facile and irrelevant. It's about expectations and the fact that the wife wasn't listened to by her husband, not who likes whom.

If you read back through these posts then many of them who do not get on with their inlaws are in favour of the wife being the victim, whereas its the opposite if they say they like there mil, i was just basing my assumptions on this thread and the opinions on the posts.

Sorry if you think I talk utter !!!!!!!! though my husband thinks I do too sometimes Maybe i should keep my opinions to myself and let everyone on here who agrees with the wife have there say.

fluffnutter

minimacka wrote: »

Most posters assume they know whats going on, no-one knows for sure other than the op and his wife !!!!!

Hmm, it's about comprehension. When you're presented with a scenario, you interpret it and try to draw out the 'truth'. We all do this, with varying degrees of success. Part of that will include making assumptions.

Haven't you 'assumed you know what's going on'? According to you, the wife just doesn't like her MIL and the differing opinions on this thread are down to nothing more than whether you get on with your inlaws or not.

At the end of the day, we all make assumptions (what else can we do? It's an internet forum fgs). Some are more likely to be correct than others... and my money ain't on your interpretation.

paddy's_mum

minimacka wrote: »

I just think that violence is not the answer.

In most cases, I would completely agree with you.

However, where has talking and asking nicely got the OP's wife?

I once heard a very wise expression - when your wife won't talk to you, maybe she's trying to tell you something!

OP's wife is determined to be heard or else!

minimacka

londonsurrey wrote: »

This chatboard and others like it are pointless and should be made defunct as the general population are incapable of deriving solutions and trying to help others.

that is probably why the op has not reposted on here, but its passed a few hours of my time on here and its also given me the opportunity to understand different perspectives on life, like i said before we are all different and have very different opinions.

minimacka

fluffnutter wrote: »

Some are more likely to be correct than others... and my money ain't on your interpretation.

and that is absolutly fine im not a betting woman

minimacka

paddy's_mum wrote: »

In most cases, I would completely agree with you.

However, where has talking and asking nicely got the OP's wife?

I once heard a very wise expression - when your wife won't talk to you, maybe she's trying to tell you something!

OP's wife is determined to be heard or else!

Now this i agree with you :T

londonsurrey

minimacka wrote: »

that is probably why the op has not reposted on here, but its passed a few hours of my time on here and its also given me the opportunity to understand different perspectives on life, like i said before we are all different and have very different opinions.

It's nice for you that you were entertained for a while.
I read these as the problems of real people, asking for help with real problems and am actually trying to help.

As you said, very different perspectives.

FatVonD

minimacka wrote: »

I dont think its the time to be polite really, not wanting your inlaws to see your child really needs sorting out and reasons given dont you think? If you were the grandparents wanting desparately to see your new grandchild but not being able to would you not want to know why? and as the father of the child do you not think he deserves a justified answer?

Just my interpretation but I imagine this answer was given after a lot of 'but why?'s. 'I don't want your parents coming round so often'. 'But why?' 'Because I don't want to be spending so much time with my MIL', 'But why?' 'Because I don't want her being so involved in my everyday routines with the baby' 'But why?' ... 'It's just a woman thing'.

FatVonD

minimacka wrote: »

I think that the 2 different perspectives on here are the people who do not get on with there inlaws and the people who do get on with there inlaws.

I like my inlaws and one of the reasons I like them is because they don't overstep boundaries

faerie~spangles

paddy's_mum wrote: »

Look - it's quite simple, really.

By virtue of the fact that she was able to give informed consent to marry, I think it can safely be assumed that the DIL is a normal, rational, reasonable and healthy adult.

She expressed entirely logical misgivings over the in laws situation. Her wishes, doubts, fears, objections (call it what you will) have been completely trampled underfoot. She is in what amounts to almost a siege situation.

In short, with the PIL contacting her in one form or another "every couple of days" and FIL "has a habit of popping up to see us" the DIL's rights to decide who, what, where and when have been UTTERLY ERODED. What visiting policy others have is totally irrelevent. This woman, in her own home, is being subjugated to the (no doubt lovingly intended) wishes of others.

Where is the morality or natural justice in that?

In her shoes, I'd be smacking a few gobs :mad:

I couldn't have put it better myself.

I imagine the Op's wife can't even have a chat/moan with a neighbour without fear of it getting back to the in-laws.

No matter how well intended the in-laws are they have overstepped the boundaries by moving so close.

I understand completely the OP's wife saying no to them having the baby for the afternoon. I don't imagine the family 'mum, op and baby' get to spend many afternoons together apart from weekends.

If the op doesn't do something about the situation his wife is in, he and his parents living in the street without mum and the baby!