Originally Posted by zinemama
I don't understand what you are objecting to. The woman who gave the toy is, in fact, the OP's MIL. To the OP, she's her in-law. Not a relative to her.
|Is it the term "in-law" in general that you find annoying? You believe we should all refer to our ILs as "my child's grandparents?" Or what?
No. The term in-law is fine/good. It's the blanket statement of "in-laws are weird" that I found annoying.
The issue here isn't about a MIL who blatantly went against her DIL's rules and gifted a toy in order to get in her face. If that was the case, then yeah, that would be an in-law issue.
But this child has two
parents who agree on these *rules*, one of them being her own son, and she apparently didn't gift the toy to spite them, so it's just an innocent issue of a grandmother buying a toy for her grandchild that both her DIL and SON didn't wish him to have.
Making a blanket statement that "Eh. In-laws are weird" isn't fair.
If would be similar to this: My hypothetical step son knows my DH's and my rules of not giving treats to the kids before dinner, but he did it anyway. That wouldn't be a "step kids are weird" issue. It would be a "kids can be disobedient/disrespectful" issue. Does that make sense?
|And for the record, I stand by my original statement. In-laws can be annoying.
You actually said they are weird. And I agree that they can