or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Update on Hawaii Trip
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Update on Hawaii Trip - Page 8

post #141 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by mahrphkjh View Post
Last year when the youngest was 6 and was interupting adults at the party MSIL finally told CSIL that the children were no longer allowed to come and go and must stay upstairs at their own party. At this point CSIL left the party NOT TO BE WITH HER CHILDREN but to hide out in her room while her children attended the children's party by themselves. THIS is an adult's temper tantrum....
I guess. Perhaps she was embarrassed?

I don't see how leaving a party is a tantrum.

She didn't yell at anyone or throw stuff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mahrphkjh View Post
In addition, Maya did say that CSIL did not have bed times for her children which was why MSIL made the rule that all children must be in their room at a certain time at night (see previous thread).
Not being in bed at 10:00 is not the same as "running the house" at 10:00.

What if they were reading quietly in the corner?

We don't know these details. Just filling stuff in that you *think* happened and discussing from there makes it difficult. If you want to share why you are drawing certain conclusions (like why I think the pbj thing isn't a manners thing, it's a parenting thing for MSIL--based on the eye rolling, the comments to Maya, etc.), then that's one thing, you know?

But stating that someone "threw a tantrum" or kids were "running the house" as if it were a fact, when it's an opinion makes discussion difficult. That's all I mean. I'm not upset and I hope you're not either.
post #142 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey's mom View Post
I guess. Perhaps she was embarrassed?

I don't see how leaving a party is a tantrum.

She didn't yell at anyone or throw stuff.



Not being in bed at 10:00 is not the same as "running the house" at 10:00.

What if they were reading quietly in the corner?

We don't know these details. Just filling stuff in that you *think* happened and discussing from there makes it difficult. If you want to share why you are drawing certain conclusions (like why I think the pbj thing isn't a manners thing, it's a parenting thing for MSIL--based on the eye rolling, the comments to Maya, etc.), then that's one thing, you know?

But stating that someone "threw a tantrum" or kids were "running the house" as if it were a fact, when it's an opinion makes discussion difficult. That's all I mean. I'm not upset and I hope you're not either.

No, not upset. I got the "idea" of the night time schedule from Maya saying, or maybe it was "us projecting" that all the adults got together at the end of the day after the kids were in bed to sit and talk and that CSIL's children came and went on these sessions as well. Even if they were sitting quietly in a corner they were still a disruption to adult topics and how the other children would view the inequalities of rules. What kids doesn't want to be party to adult conversations late at night?

The Party - However, whether or not she yelled or threw things does not make it less of a temper tantrum. But a temper tantrum is how MSIL interpeted it. Yes, she may have been embarassed but I get the feeling that MSIL didn't see it that way. Remember all this has been happening for years. This was the only thing that happened differently. Which is why I see it as the catalyst for why MSIL wrote the letter she did. She accepted with slightly ill-grace everything up until this one point every year. But when she requested that this one rule not be broken CSIL left in what she obviously saw as a huff.
post #143 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by mahrphkjh View Post
Yes, in certain areas I do believe her behavior is purposefully antagonistic. Telling your children in front of their aunt that they don't have to listen to her and clean up IN HER HOME is either completely OBSTUSE in etiquette or undermining to the hostess to prove that your parenting style is better and more important that her wishes.
But CSIL doesn't think that the kids should have to do set up and clearing for meals--or any chores.

As far as etiquette, I mean it's nice to help out and all, but children aren't our slaves. If a hostess has too much work to do, then it's fine to ask your guests to pitch in, but what if they say, "no?" At some point it's not really asking, it's ordering them around. And if you think that people shouldn't be ordered around, then you'd do what CSIL did in years past--tell the kids they didn't have to do MSIL's assigned chores.

I think CSIL is trying to stand up for the autonomy of her kids--that she thinks *that* is more important than MSIL's wishes. Not that her parenting style is more important, you know?

I don't think that has anything to do with MSIL at all. I think CSIL would do that anywhere.

I dunno....I'm just not seeing an attempt to *deliberately* annoy. I certainly think CSIL's approaches DO annoy MSIL, but I think that's about MSIL.
post #144 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey's mom View Post
But CSIL doesn't think that the kids should have to do set up and clearing for meals--or any chores.

As far as etiquette, I mean it's nice to help out and all, but children aren't our slaves. If a hostess has too much work to do, then it's fine to ask your guests to pitch in, but what if they say, "no?" At some point it's not really asking, it's ordering them around. And if you think that people shouldn't be ordered around, then you'd do what CSIL did in years past--tell the kids they didn't have to do MSIL's assigned chores.

I think CSIL is trying to stand up for the autonomy of her kids--that she thinks *that* is more important than MSIL's wishes. Not that her parenting style is more important, you know?

I don't think that has anything to do with MSIL at all. I think CSIL would do that anywhere.

I dunno....I'm just not seeing an attempt to *deliberately* annoy. I certainly think CSIL's approaches DO annoy MSIL, but I think that's about MSIL.

Sorry, but I find it highly offensive to equate asking someone to clean up their own mess with slavery. Slavery was about people being your property in order that they do your things for you. Which is, in essence, what CSIL and her children were doing to MSIL by coming into her home and having her or even her cleaning staff, clean up THEIR mess.

And this is where CSIL's parenting philosophy is trumped by MSIL's house. When you go to someone's house you DO NOT treat it as your own. You wouldn't send your children into a store and expect or allow them to treat it as their own so why is MSIL expected to accept such behavior simply because it falls under "parenting ideaology" heading.

And given that in the end CSIL's own autonomy was trumped by MSIL's house rules it is obvious that her children need to learn from her GOOD example that that is how life works and to make the best of it.
post #145 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by mahrphkjh View Post
Sorry, but I find it highly offensive to equate asking someone to clean up their own mess with slavery. Slavery was about people being your property in order that they do your things for you. Which is, in essence, what CSIL and her children were doing to MSIL by coming into her home and having her or even her cleaning staff, clean up THEIR mess.
I'm sorry I offended you.

But, using your definition of slavery, MANY people treat children that way. Many people believe that treating children that way is important and good for the children--so they learn important lessons.

And if the answer can't be "No." then it ceases to be asking.

Where the husbands treating MSIL like a slave, then? Because they weren't told to clean up or set up.

Whether or not you think that kids should have to set the table or not, I'm just pointing out what I believe (based on Maya's descriptions of CSIL) CSIL's philosophy is. And that is, that children should not be forced or compelled to do chores against their will.

*I* don't think its an attempt to deliberately annoy her SIL or hold her parenting ideas up as better, I think she was trying to uphold her ethics and ideals re. her children's autonomy.

And, it can, obviously, be argued that that makes her a bad house guest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mahrphkjh View Post
And this is where CSIL's parenting philosophy is trumped by MSIL's house. When you go to someone's house you DO NOT treat it as your own. You wouldn't send your children into a store and expect or allow them to treat it as their own so why is MSIL expected to accept such behavior simply because it falls under "parenting ideaology" heading.
Well, that's the big discussion!

Just b/c its your house, do you have the right to to demand certain behavior or enforce parenting decisions? And, if you *have* that right, does it *make* it right to do it?
post #146 of 167
Quote:
And given that in the end CSIL's own autonomy was trumped by MSIL's house rules it is obvious that her children need to learn from her GOOD example that that is how life works and to make the best of it.
This doesn't need to be "either/or". The adults involved designed it that way.
post #147 of 167
Quote:
I think CSIL is trying to stand up for the autonomy of her kids--that she thinks *that* is more important than MSIL's wishes. Not that her parenting style is more important, you know?
It's been said before and I'll say it again. If CSIL feels that strongly about it, she NEEDS to stop accepting MSIL's hospitality.

I don't care what someone's parenting philosophies are. If the hostess makes the guidelines known ahead of time and you feel that strongly about it, you need to stay somewhere else.

If a hostess set a rule that I felt strongly against (for example, breastfeeding only in the bedroom or behind closed doors) I wouldn't go. I wouldn't say, "Okay, I"ll be there." then be a martyr when I'm made to go to my bedroom to breastfeed.

To agree to the rules, then go and make sure everyone knows you are miserable is immature and passive-aggressive.

I don't care about the parenting philosophies involved. I really don't. In fact, I think they are irrelevant. MSIL set the rules for her household, CSIL agreed to the rules. Once that occured CSIL needs to suck it up and act like an adult. There were no surprises thrown at her. Everything that happened fell into the rules MSIL sent out.

If you feel SO strongly about household rules that violate your parenting philosophy, grow a backbone and put your foot down. This "Look at me being a martyr and being miserable over what I agreed to" crap doesn't look good on high school kids. It looks much worse on an adult.
post #148 of 167
Quote:
If you feel SO strongly about household rules that violate your parenting philosophy, grow a backbone and put your foot down. This "Look at me being a martyr and being miserable over what I agreed to" crap doesn't look good on high school kids. It looks much worse on an adult.
Well, I certainly agree with that. To be fair though, dh would never, ever pressure me to wither in silence, and that seems to be what CSIL's dh was doing.

My parents have guns in their home. If they choose not to lock them up, we choose not to stay there. I'm not going to stay and then play a martyr.

It does stink though that if CSIL refuses in the future, she will be painted the bad guy by her entire family. I don't think that is fair. People can't have it both ways. For some reason this family almost seems afraid of MSIL. I don't quite understand the underlying dynamics. I don't think any of us ever will.
post #149 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by LovemyBoo View Post
If you feel SO strongly about household rules that violate your parenting philosophy, grow a backbone and put your foot down. This "Look at me being a martyr and being miserable over what I agreed to" crap doesn't look good on high school kids. It looks much worse on an adult.
How are you perceiving martyrdom from CSIL?

I read that she came "not in a great mood" and two instances of "not looking terribly thrilled"--one of which was not in reaction to MSIL's rules--it was b/c of the sodas. Oh, and not thanking for the Sushi--but that may have been oversight? Or maybe pissed off? Don't know.

But other than that, she backed up MSIL w/ re. to the rule about pbj in the room and CBIL backed up MSIL w/ re. to the cleaning up. ANd they followed all the other rules. If she had been sullen and pissy, that's one thing, but I'm not sure if that's what Maya meant by "not in a great mood."

Up thread I was referring to the last year visit when CSIL told her kids they didn't have to help set the table.

I think it's so complicated b/c there is an almost forced element to whole setup. It's family. So, you don't want to NOT go--esp. when her husband is insistent. But, how much bending do you have to do b/c somebody else doesn't like your parenting style?

It's easy for me to say, "I would never go!" But, in it, I don't know. I certainly have eaten plenty of s---- on family functions. And one has gotten so awful that we're not going.
post #150 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by heartmama View Post
Well, I certainly agree with that. To be fair though, dh would never, ever pressure me to wither in silence, and that seems to be what CSIL's dh was doing.


It does stink though that if CSIL refuses in the future, she will be painted the bad guy by her entire family. I don't think that is fair. People can't have it both ways. For some reason this family almost seems afraid of MSIL. I don't quite understand the underlying dynamics. I don't think any of us ever will.

Yup. I said in an earlier post that the real issue was not between CSIL and MSIL, but CSIL and CBIL. My dh wouldn't guilt me into a situation like that.

And it does stink, but sometimes standing by your principles means not being liked. I know my dh would support me and it does make me wonder if CSIL doesn't get that from her dh.

I'd stay at MSIL's house in a second with those rules, though I'm not a pushover. I enjoy a challange, let her try and surprise me with new rules and I'll watch her wither.
post #151 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey's mom View Post
How are you perceiving martyrdom from CSIL?

I read that she came "not in a great mood" and two instances of "not looking terribly thrilled"--one of which was not in reaction to MSIL's rules--it was b/c of the sodas. Oh, and not thanking for the Sushi--but that may have been oversight? Or maybe pissed off? Don't know.

But other than that, she backed up MSIL w/ re. to the rule about pbj in the room and CBIL backed up MSIL w/ re. to the cleaning up. ANd they followed all the other rules. If she had been sullen and pissy, that's one thing, but I'm not sure if that's what Maya meant by "not in a great mood."

Up thread I was referring to the last year visit when CSIL told her kids they didn't have to help set the table.

I think it's so complicated b/c there is an almost forced element to whole setup. It's family. So, you don't want to NOT go--esp. when her husband is insistent. But, how much bending do you have to do b/c somebody else doesn't like your parenting style?

It's easy for me to say, "I would never go!" But, in it, I don't know. I certainly have eaten plenty of s---- on family functions. And one has gotten so awful that we're not going.
I don't have time now to go back and reread Maya's post, but Maya seemed left with the impression that CSIL was not happy and did not have a good time due to MSIL's rules.

The bottom line is, you agree to the rules, you do it with grace. CSIL followed the rules, but grace was lacking. Maybe she needs to put her big girl panties on and have a chat with CBIL. If MSIL makes her that unhappy, her dh needs to support her and find another arrangement. Otherwise, like I said before, keeping the peace can come with a price. CSIL didn't seem to want to pay.
post #152 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by heartmama View Post
Well, I certainly agree with that. To be fair though, dh would never, ever pressure me to wither in silence, and that seems to be what CSIL's dh was doing.

My parents have guns in their home. If they choose not to lock them up, we choose not to stay there. I'm not going to stay and then play a martyr.

It does stink though that if CSIL refuses in the future, she will be painted the bad guy by her entire family. I don't think that is fair. People can't have it both ways. For some reason this family almost seems afraid of MSIL. I don't quite understand the underlying dynamics. I don't think any of us ever will.
CSIL's kids had a wonderful time and want to go next year again "for sure". I think that's significant.
post #153 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by LovemyBoo View Post
I don't have time now to go back and reread Maya's post, but Maya seemed left with the impression that CSIL was not happy and did not have a good time due to MSIL's rules.

The bottom line is, you agree to the rules, you do it with grace. CSIL followed the rules, but grace was lacking. Maybe she needs to put her big girl panties on and have a chat with CBIL. If MSIL makes her that unhappy, her dh needs to support her and find another arrangement. Otherwise, like I said before, keeping the peace can come with a price. CSIL didn't seem to want to pay.
Wow. I thought she was quite gracious given the way MSIL came at her and the things she was asked to do/not do.

IF she wasn't sullen and pissy. If she was just sort of mildly annoyed at first, then yeah, way more gracious than I think you could expect.
post #154 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by choli View Post
CSIL's kids had a wonderful time and want to go next year again "for sure". I think that's significant.
I don't think it means anything. I have to suck it up and stay at the in laws because it is important to me that my kids see their out of town grandparents. Like CSIL, I cannot afford to stay elsewhere. But, it is really hard to keep up the smiley face for an entire week. I'm not off pouting, but I did go in the bedroom and have a good cry once in a while. My kids had a great time, they didn't pick up on the underlying adult issues. They can't wait to go back.

The thing that bothers me the most is declaring that all adults must attend the party. That is so bizarre to me. Just because someone's behavior annoys me doesn't mean I start legislating. I just roll my eyes in private. Why isn't CSIL's dh stepping in?
post #155 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flor View Post
I don't think it means anything. I have to suck it up and stay at the in laws because it is important to me that my kids see their out of town grandparents. Like CSIL, I cannot afford to stay elsewhere. But, it is really hard to keep up the smiley face for an entire week. I'm not off pouting, but I did go in the bedroom and have a good cry once in a while. My kids had a great time, they didn't pick up on the underlying adult issues. They can't wait to go back.

The thing that bothers me the most is declaring that all adults must attend the party. That is so bizarre to me. Just because someone's behavior annoys me doesn't mean I start legislating. I just roll my eyes in private. Why isn't CSIL's dh stepping in?

You don't think having fun with and bonding with their cousins means anything? I think it's important and the point of the whole trip. It's just a pity that MSIL and CSIL couldn't put themselves above making it a passive aggressive power struggle.
post #156 of 167
See and I think that CSIL's bad graciousness (unhappiness) started prior to this year. It started the year that she went and acted as if her house rules superceded MSIL's house rules. When she specifically allowed her children at an adult's only party under the guise of "they are too young", when she attended the first dinner together with family and plopped the PB on the table when her child(ren) deemed the food "icky" and when she told her child(ren) that they didn't have to help clean up, when all of the other children went to bed and her children sat in/ran wild on the adults only time. There is a possibility that the very first visit she was unaware of the "rules" or just how MSIL liked to have things done. But once she became aware and did things her way regardless, that is when her bad manners started.

Parenting rules and philosophies end at your door step when superceded by government rules, store rules, public property rules or other peoples homes. I let my children play in my pantry however, I would never imagine to allow them to do so anywhere else and other people have a right to be annoyed if my children come into their home and rearrange their pantry. Lord knows, I get annoyed often enough if I forget to tightly seal the noodle box in my pantry, I don't want friends and family to be afraid of that whenever I come over.
post #157 of 167
Quote:
I'd stay at MSIL's house in a second with those rules, though I'm not a pushover. I enjoy a challange, let her try and surprise me with new rules and I'll watch her wither.
I wasn't going to say it first but...yes! MSIL would have had an...interesting...experience had I been her guest :

Quote:
You don't think having fun with and bonding with their cousins means anything? I think it's important and the point of the whole trip. It's just a pity that MSIL and CSIL couldn't put themselves above making it a passive aggressive power struggle.
It is important that the kids had fun. But there is fun and then there are people who put the "fun" in dysfunctional, and IMO this was a great example of that. I dunno, I grew up around some really dysfunctional family stuff...and I always loved seeing my cousins, and we did have fun...but there was also so much adult melodrama, which did trickle down to the kids. I think the impact of that was seen in the long term, not in our behavior during the trip

I guess we actually agree If the adults are going to behave this way (and by that I mean both sil), that is just sad.
post #158 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by mahrphkjh View Post
But once she became aware and did things her way regardless, that is when her bad manners started.
But she didn't do that.

When she became aware of MSIL's rules--sent out prior to *this* year's visit--she abided by EVERY single one of them.

In previous years, I suspect she had little idea that her parenting decisions would matter to anyone else, would be up for discussion with extended family, and certainly would not result in the email the MSIL sent out.
post #159 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey's mom View Post
But she didn't do that.

When she became aware of MSIL's rules--sent out prior to *this* year's visit--she abided by EVERY single one of them.

In previous years, I suspect she had little idea that her parenting decisions would matter to anyone else, would be up for discussion with extended family, and certainly would not result in the email the MSIL sent out.
You honestly think that CSIL believed that her parenting decision to allow children at an adult's only party every year wouldn't matter to anyone else or be up for discussion in someone else's home. Or turning the tv off on other members of the family if her children were in the room.

Given these two examples I am fully convinced that in regards to these and in almost all other aspects, children not having to clean up in someone elses home or being allowed in on adult quiet time after all the other kids were in their rooms, that she was aware of the disruptions these caused and didn't care. Her parenting philosophies took precidence.
post #160 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by mahrphkjh View Post
You honestly think that CSIL believed that her parenting decision to allow children at an adult's only party every year wouldn't matter to anyone else or be up for discussion in someone else's home. Or turning the tv off on other members of the family if her children were in the room.

Given these two examples I am fully convinced that in regards to these and in almost all other aspects, children not having to clean up in someone elses home or being allowed in on adult quiet time after all the other kids were in their rooms, that she was aware of the disruptions these caused and didn't care. Her parenting philosophies took precidence.
No, I'm saying that it was my understanding that no one ever said to CSIL, "this is an adult only party," "nighttime is for adults only," "chores are a conditional part of your visit."

Some people don't find the presence of children at parties or in the evening objectionable or automatically a "disruption." Should they automatically assume that other people do?

Once those rules were laid out (in a rather rude fashion, imo) CSIL followed them to the letter.

So, I'm not sure where your getting that she's doing all this stuff deliberately and willfully and disregarding rules (rules, which in my understanding of the situation in year's past did not exist). Or turning off the TV while people were watching it. ??? When did that happen?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Update on Hawaii Trip