Update on Hawaii Trip - Page 9

[mahrphkjh]

Originally Posted by monkey's mom

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?

Actually, based on Maya's previous post I got the impression that it was KNOWN fact that children were not invited to the parties EVER. But that MSIL had let CSIL slide on the rules prior because the children were younger. However, most people, in someone else's home, would never assume that their children be granted an acception regardless of an age beyond infancy. Or would ask if their children could be allowed based on age and not take it upon themselves to disregard the rules.

I also understood from Maya's previous posts that the tv rule was written because CSIL insisted that the tv be turned off if her children were in the room. Now maybe she herself didn't follow the children around and turn of the tv herself but to insist that it be turned off because her children were not allowed to watch certain shows is 1. disruptive of the others in the family 2. takes away that precious autonomy of the other children that she so dearly protected by disallowing her children from chores imposed by their aunt.

I am saying that given these two incidences that seem rather obvious disregards that it is possible but not a complete forgone conclusion that the other things were also done on purpose rather than in ignorance.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by mahrphkjh

I also understood from Maya's previous posts that the tv rule was written because CSIL insisted that the tv be turned off if her children were in the room. Now maybe she herself didn't follow the children around and turn of the tv herself but to insist that it be turned off because her children were not allowed to watch certain shows is 1. disruptive of the others in the family 2. takes away that precious autonomy of the other children that she so dearly protected by disallowing her children from chores imposed by their aunt.

If I recall the original thread correctly, CSIL's child had to go into the tv room to collect one of her belongings, and CSIL asked the people watching the show to turn if off while her child did so. That carries a strong implication that it was for a very brief period of time.

Personally, I wouldn't do that (unless maybe it was adults watching porn, as I don't want to have to explain that!). But, I don't think it falls into quite the same category as expecting others to avoid tv, just because she is tv-free. I can also see it being done out of over-protectiveness, not out of a deliberate intent to annoy.

Honestly...dh and I have been almost completely tv-free since last August. I have trouble even remembering how annoying it used to be when someone interrupted my program or something like that. I wouldn't be surprised at all if CSIL just plain didn't realize it was an imposition on the watchers.

I also don't think CSIL's children are banned from "certain shows". I don't think they watch tv at all.

[mahrphkjh]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride

If I recall the original thread correctly, CSIL's child had to go into the tv room to collect one of her belongings, and CSIL asked the people watching the show to turn if off while her child did so. That carries a strong implication that it was for a very brief period of time.

Personally, I wouldn't do that (unless maybe it was adults watching porn, as I don't want to have to explain that!). But, I don't think it falls into quite the same category as expecting others to avoid tv, just because she is tv-free. I can also see it being done out of over-protectiveness, not out of a deliberate intent to annoy.

Honestly...dh and I have been almost completely tv-free since last August. I have trouble even remembering how annoying it used to be when someone interrupted my program or something like that. I wouldn't be surprised at all if CSIL just plain didn't realize it was an imposition on the watchers.

I also don't think CSIL's children are banned from "certain shows". I don't think they watch tv at all.

I get the feeling that this was just an example. Otherwise, I can't understand why she would have allowed her children any tv watching this year just because they were not allowed to turn it off when they walked in the room to get something.

but maybe she didn't realize it was in imposition but quite frankly I remember as a child being really annoyed and frustrated even missing a minute or two of a program and I haven't watch tv consistently for years, videos yes, tv no.

[monkey's mom]

Originally Posted by mahrphkjh

but given that she gives her children the option of saying no to chores but not others the option of saying no to her in turning off the tv I think it is slightly hypocritical of her.

What are even talking about?? She asked, they DID say no, and no one turned the TV off. :

[mahrphkjh]

Originally Posted by monkey's mom

What are even talking about?? She asked, they DID say no, and no one turned the TV off. :

Sorry I think I may be confused here, nevermind.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by mahrphkjh

I get the feeling that this was just an example. Otherwise, I can't understand why she would have allowed her children any tv watching this year just because they were not allowed to turn it off when they walked in the room to get something.

but maybe she didn't realize it was in imposition but quite frankly I remember as a child being really annoyed and frustrated even missing a minute or two of a program and I haven't watch tv consistently for years, videos yes, tv no.

I understand that. But, that doesn't mean that CSIL remembers feeling that way.

I'm not saying that what she did was polite - but I think that assuming that she's doing it deliberately to annoy MSIL is a bit of a stretch.

[mahrphkjh]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride

I understand that. But, that doesn't mean that CSIL remembers feeling that way.

I'm not saying that what she did was polite - but I think that assuming that she's doing it deliberately to annoy MSIL is a bit of a stretch.

I guess 'annoy' would be the wrong word. However, I think it is greatly within the realm of possibility that she did it, not out of ignorance, but out of a deliberate "my parenting rules apply everywhere regardless" mentality.

I think that we can look at the actions of both SIL and assume the best or worst out of each of them. It could be assumed that CSIL has always gone to Hawaii with a "my parenting philosophy trumps" mentality or that she honestly had no idea how her actions affected those around her. The same could be said for MSIL, that each year she bit her tongue and allowed distruptions to her home that truly did bother her and finally she wrote an email to everyone in an attempt avoid making CSIL feel singled out by writing only to her.