Update on Hawaii Trip - Page 6 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-08-2007, 09:53 PM
 
LovemyBoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The Beautiful Rocky Mountains
Posts: 1,671
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
LovemyBoo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-08-2007, 09:58 PM
 
choli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,933
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
choli is offline  
Old 01-08-2007, 10:00 PM
 
monkey's mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
monkey's mom is offline  
Old 01-08-2007, 10:33 PM
 
Flor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: California
Posts: 5,119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?
Flor is offline  
Old 01-08-2007, 10:38 PM
 
choli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,933
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
choli is offline  
Old 01-08-2007, 11:44 PM
 
mahrphkjh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 333
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
mahrphkjh is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 12:33 AM
 
heartmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: In the bat cave with Irishmommy
Posts: 5,986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

Mother is the word for God on the hearts and lips of all little children--William Makepeace Thackeray
heartmama is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 03:00 AM
 
monkey's mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
monkey's mom is offline  
Old 01-10-2007, 04:17 PM
 
mahrphkjh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 333
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
mahrphkjh is offline  
Old 01-10-2007, 04:36 PM
 
monkey's mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?
monkey's mom is offline  
Old 01-10-2007, 05:07 PM
 
mahrphkjh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 333
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey's mom View Post
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.
mahrphkjh is offline  
Old 01-10-2007, 05:15 PM
 
Storm Bride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 25,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mahrphkjh View Post
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.

Lisa, lucky mama of Kelly (3/93) ribboncesarean.gif, Emma (5/03) ribboncesarean.gif, Evan (7/05) ribboncesarean.gif, & Jenna (6/09) ribboncesarean.gif
Loving my amazing dh, James & forever missing ribbonpb.gif Aaron Ambrose ribboncesarean.gif (11/07) ribbonpb.gif

Storm Bride is offline  
Old 01-10-2007, 05:21 PM
 
mahrphkjh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 333
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post
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.
mahrphkjh is offline  
Old 01-10-2007, 05:26 PM
 
monkey's mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mahrphkjh View Post
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. :
monkey's mom is offline  
Old 01-10-2007, 05:39 PM
 
mahrphkjh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 333
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey's mom View Post
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.
mahrphkjh is offline  
Old 01-10-2007, 07:00 PM
 
Storm Bride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 25,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mahrphkjh View Post
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.

Lisa, lucky mama of Kelly (3/93) ribboncesarean.gif, Emma (5/03) ribboncesarean.gif, Evan (7/05) ribboncesarean.gif, & Jenna (6/09) ribboncesarean.gif
Loving my amazing dh, James & forever missing ribbonpb.gif Aaron Ambrose ribboncesarean.gif (11/07) ribbonpb.gif

Storm Bride is offline  
Old 01-10-2007, 10:44 PM
 
mahrphkjh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 333
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post
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.
mahrphkjh is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off