WWYD - Other People's Kids

[Kickapoo Joie Juice]

We are both making assumptions. You are assuming that Cathy or her husband never spoke to MIL. I assume that they did.

You also appear to be taking the position that MIL's motivations for her bad behavior matter. I submit that they do not.

I would think that if she had spoken with her MIL, she would have mentioned it, it seems a salient point. I "assume" that she did not speak to her because there's no evidence to the contrary, either in her original post or any follow-ups. Should contrary evidence present itself then I would change my original assertion.

The motivations for the bad behavior only matter if you're interested in repairing the situation. Understanding why the bad behavior (bad, from your point of view), occurs is the first step to dismantling it.

If you don't *care* why the MIL behaves the way she does, you'll never be able to understand it, and therefore stop it and better the relationship. If you understand the motivation, you will be able to understand how to talk to her without shaming or angering her.

The idea here isn't to "win" against the "bad" mother in law, people, it's merely to be able to communicate from a position of strength and understanding while still validating the opponent.

 

[sbell111]

This is exactly the way it was at our house when I was growing up!

Me, too, but there are very good theories as to why this isn't a good idea.

 

[sbell111]

I would think that if she had spoken with her MIL, she would have mentioned it, it seems a salient point. I "assume" that she did not speak to her because there's no evidence to the contrary, either in her original post or any follow-ups. Should contrary evidence present itself then I would change my original assertion.

I realize that this was why you made the assumption, but that doesn't change the fact that it is just an assumption.

The motivations for the bad behavior only matter if you're interested in repairing the situation. Understanding why the bad behavior (bad, from your point of view), occurs is the first step to dismantling it.

If you don't *care* why the MIL behaves the way she does, you'll never be able to understand it, and therefore stop it and better the relationship. If you understand the motivation, you will be able to understand how to talk to her without shaming or angering her.

At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is that the behavior was not acceptable.

The idea here isn't to "win" against the "bad" mother in law, people, it's merely to be able to communicate from a position of strength and understanding while still validating the opponent.

Actually, the idea is to protect the child from bad behavior.

 

[luvmy3]

There is a third option, one which, given the tone of your previous posts, you clearly do not choose to employ.

It is to communicate calmly and supportively with the MIL about your feelings on the subject and how you would like your child to be treated, without being confrontational or shaming the mother in law.

The mother in law's beliefs and opinions are valid *to her*. The problem lies not in the mother in law, but in the disconnect between her beliefs and yours.
If the PP wants to have a good relationship with the MIL and her daughter, then she needs to do work with the MIL to rebuild a relationship where she, the daughter, and the MIL all feel validated and supported.

It's too easy to just label people bullies and monsters and throw them away.

No the problem is the MIL and her belief that she has any right to force a child that isn't her own to abide by her beliefs and opinions.

 

[MrsPete]

Wow.

I only read the first page of replies but wow...

How many of us were forced to eat stuff we didn't like as kids? I sure was. And dessert was withheld if you didn't eat your veggies. It was just how it was.

Kids are coddled way too much today, IMO. If you tried to tell my mom or any of my friends moms that kids should get dessert even if they don't eat their real food, they would laugh out loud at the idea.

Unless there is a certified food allergy, the kid should eat the healthy food.

My feelings exactly. I'm one of five kids, and this is how we were raised; today none of us has any food issues. My two daughters (and all their cousins) have been raised this way, and none of them has any food issues. Sure, we all have preferences, but we'll all eat whatever's put in front of us.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Kickapoo....
You are very wrong.
I made no assumption.
I read, and even copied, the posters comments, which stated...
"The last time my MIL...."

I made an educated determination that this was not a "mistake" as you tried to call it, this was not the first or ONLY time, but an ongoing behavior. (behavior which clearly is wrong) I would see NO reason to assume that this poster never discussed it with the MIL. In fact, I think that the assumption that this poster might never have tried to mention this to the MIL is like ridiculous.

You are the one who 'Called Out' this poster, based on assumption.
If you were concerned about whether this poster tried to communicate with her MIL, then a simple question would have sufficed. You flamed this poster based on assumption, and the fact that you simply happen to disagree.

I respectfully disagree with you on every issue here.... from grandma's force feeding and treatment of the child, to respect of parents and parental rights, to the matter of just whom is making assumptions here, etc.. etc.. etc..

I completely agree with sbell, post 183, above.

 

[cathy_s]

Ok, I really have to call you out on this.

What you're telling me is that your mother in law made a mistake with your daughter over 8 years ago and that's the reason you are encouraging your daughter to not like her grandmother and call her a bully?

My MIL makes mistakes with my daughters all the time. I try really, really hard to communicate with her and to continue to foster a good relationship between her and my daughters, despite attitudes and behaviors she has that I don't agree with.

My MIL used to say "We don't get up from the table because we're members of the Clean Plate Club" to my kids. I explained to her that it's not good for them to be forced to clean their plate-that they can stop eating when they're not hungry, as long as they're clear that if they get hungry an hour later, then we pull the plate out of the fridge and let them eat that, not be short order cooks. She was willing to come to that compromise-the Maybe Eventually Clean Plate Club.

My point is here that your MIL may not understand that her attitudes hurt your child. It is YOUR obligation to bring your MIL around to parenting the way YOU want your child parented, she's doing what she thinks is right, and unless you communicate with her in a supportive and caring way, she will continue to behave the way she always has.

Your attitude towards your MIL certainly IS hurting both your child and your MIL. (and let me put a disclaimer here that I am not an MIL myself-I'm 39).



Lord, don't even freaking get me started with this issue again.

I'm not sure that you understood the point of my post. My post was in response to the OP who asked a specific question about using food to exert power and control over a child in the absence of the parents of that child. I gave her the Cliff's Notes version of what could potentially happen if food is used to manipulate.

Since you feel the need to criticize me based upon your own assumptions I think I should clear things up for you. I don't believe the original poster's question required a thorough explanation of an incident and the word for word, blow by blow resolution (or lack of resolution) of the incident. This is a message board, I simply put in the pertinent information to make my point. Nobody here wants to know or cares to know every stinking detail. I was using a personal experience as an illustration to warn OP about the problems that can arise from her behavior-she DID ask for advice.

Once again, my point is that food games and power struggles with food can and sometimes do cause irreversible damage. I ended the post with the statement that it is sad that my MIL's food games and her need to dominate and control DD caused DD to resent MIL.

Did I say that I encourage my DD to not like MIL? Did I say that I encourage DD to call MIL a bully? Did I say that neither DH or I addressed this with MIL or DD? How is it that you can assume I'm neither supportive or caring? Go back and read my original response. It appears that you have done a lot of "fill in the blank" with your own assumptions.

Thanks to those of you who were able to see my point and come to my defense in my absence. I really didn't expect to be attacked for answering a question. My original response was my first post in the CB and I promise you that this is my last. I'm going back to the friendlier areas of the DIS.

 

[Kickapoo Joie Juice]

No the problem is the MIL and her belief that she has any right to force a child that isn't her own to abide by her beliefs and opinions.

I agree, you have a problem with the MIL's behavior. You believe the MIL is wrong, she believes she's right.

We differ in our proposed solutions.

 

[kaytieeldr]

OP said the girl only likes fried chicken and did not care for the way this chicken (not fried) was prepared but ate it anyway. I can see that being to please the aunt (or get the aunt off her back--depending on how you are reading the rest of the situation)

Okay, I really have read the whole thread up to this point (and will move on to page twelve momentarily), but not for several hours so I missed where the OP stated that. In the first post she said,

This weekend, they spent the night and I made chicken drumsticks (which she eats) and sweet potatoes (which she doesn't).

 

[Wishing on a star]

Cathy,

Please do not let ONE single, completely unwarranted, attack chase you away!!!

We have come to your defense!!!

But, do be aware, that this issue of force-feeding and relatives/inlaws rights can be a hot-button issue here on the DIS..... As it has been in your personal life experience.

Unbelievable as it may be, there are those who actually support these force-feeding control battle issues. Not even just with parents, but with anybody else that a child may come in contact with as well. Pretty sickening... But, that's the way it is.

Cheers!!!

 

[Wishing on a star]

I agree, you have a problem with the MIL's behavior. You believe the MIL is wrong, she believes she's right.

We differ in our proposed solutions.

Doesn't matter what the MIL 'believes'
Not teeny, tiny, iota.
Not one little flee dropping.

The parent is the parent.

End of any other proposed solution.

Jeez...

 

[Kickapoo Joie Juice]

I'm not sure that you understood the point of my post. My post was in response to the OP who asked a specific question about using food to exert power and control over a child in the absence of the parents of that child. I gave her the Cliff's Notes version of what could potentially happen if food is used to manipulate.

Since you feel the need to criticize me based upon your own assumptions I think I should clear things up for you. I don't believe the original poster's question required a thorough explanation of an incident and the word for word, blow by blow resolution (or lack of resolution) of the incident. This is a message board, I simply put in the pertinent information to make my point. Nobody here wants to know or cares to know every stinking detail. I was using a personal experience as an illustration to warn OP about the problems that can arise from her behavior-she DID ask for advice.

Once again, my point is that food games and power struggles with food can and sometimes do cause irreversible damage. I ended the post with the statement that it is sad that my MIL's food games and her need to dominate and control DD caused DD to resent MIL.

Did I say that I encourage my DD to not like MIL? Did I say that I encourage DD to call MIL a bully? Did I say that neither DH or I addressed this with MIL or DD? How is it that you can assume I'm neither supportive or caring? Go back and read my original response. It appears that you have done a lot of "fill in the blank" with your own assumptions.

Thanks to those of you who were able to see my point and come to my defense in my absence. I really didn't expect to be attacked for answering a question. My original response was my first post in the CB and I promise you that this is my last. I'm going back to the friendlier areas of the DIS.

You did not say that you encouraged your DD not to like MIL. You did tacitly encourage it by allowing it, along with letting her call MIL a bully.

You did not say you addressed the sitation with MIL. Your story, as related here, contained no statement that said "when I spoke with MIL". I still see no statements to that effect.

I made no statements saying cathy_s is "not supportive" or "not caring". You're filling in your own blanks, there.

What you, and many other people on here, don't realize, is this food issue is NOT a food issue.

It is a control issue, played out in endless permutations between (typically) women who are often locked in collateral control struggles with grandchildren, husbands, or other areas of life.

Much of the power struggle comes, I believe, from a lack of open and honest dialogue, the ignorant belief that we can know what the other person is thinking without asking them, and the desire to "win".

This is a message board, and when you make statements, be prepared to back them up or be questioned about them.

I questioned you, you reacted with anger. Instead of thinking that I'm picking on you personally, or I think that you're a "bad" person (I don't), look at the actual sitation I questioned you about it and try and take some wisdom from someone who's BEEN through battles with a MIL and has learned from it.

How many other people on here realize that this entire thread has nothing to do with food?

 

[NHdisneylover]

Okay, I really have read the whole thread up to this point (and will move on to page twelve momentarily), but not for several hours so I missed where the OP stated that. In the first post she said,

Oh, I figured you just missed it--it is a long and rather involved thread I wasn't pointing it out to criticize you (you have posted several times in several places--it is clear you ARE following thte thread, mist likely better and more closely than I), just to point out that this detail does make a difference.

 

[kaytieeldr]

This is NOT a mistake, this is an unacceptable, purposeful, cruel, toxic, controlling, disrespectful (of both the child, and the OP as the parent)

As another one of those people who have had to limit my DS one-on-one time with my MIL, I can say, without a doubt, that there is such a thing as toxic relatives/inlaws, and that what was described is the perfect classic example.

The entire incident was a mistake, i.e. the MIL made the (not a) mistake of engaging in a battle over food.

May I just generally observe, though, that these same mothers-in-law raised the spouses of the people who now limit contact? These women must have done something right. Heck, if you really want to get philosophical (no, you all have no choice - this is my post ), were it not for these mothers-in-law, the respective spouses would not exist; they would not be the people they are; you all would not have fallen in love with them; and so, your own children - these children you have - would not exist.

 

[Kickapoo Joie Juice]

Doesn't matter what the MIL 'believes'
Not teeny, tiny, iota.
Not one little flee dropping.

The parent is the parent.

End of any other proposed solution.

Jeez...

That position is fine if you don't want to have a decent relationship with the MIL.

If you DO want to have a relationship with her that's anything other than tense and ugly, then it's a poor solution.

 

[Wishing on a star]

What you, and many other people on here, don't realize, is this food issue is NOT a food issue.

How many other people on here realize that this entire thread has nothing to do with food?

Ummmmmm, I think almost everybody here realizes that...

Like nobody here, but YOU, realizes that these are toxic control battle issues and the dinner plate is just the unfortunate battleground.

How many times have the words control battle, etc.. been used.
This poster, in fact, NEVER mentioned any food issue. It was all about control issues, etc.. (note the very word 'bully')

You are still WAY off base to continue to go by your self serving assumptions!!! Keep on... Keep on with the semantics... whatever.

 

[sbell111]

You did not say that you encouraged your DD not to like MIL. You did tacitly encourage it by allowing it, along with letting her call MIL a bully.

You did not say you addressed the sitation with MIL. Your story, as related here, contained no statement that said "when I spoke with MIL". I still see no statements to that effect.

I made no statements saying cathy_s is "not supportive" or "not caring". You're filling in your own blanks, there.

What you, and many other people on here, don't realize, is this food issue is NOT a food issue.

It is a control issue, played out in endless permutations between (typically) women who are often locked in collateral control struggles with grandchildren, husbands, or other areas of life.

Much of the power struggle comes, I believe, from a lack of open and honest dialogue, the ignorant belief that we can know what the other person is thinking without asking them, and the desire to "win".

This is a message board, and when you make statements, be prepared to back them up or be questioned about them.

I questioned you, you reacted with anger. Instead of thinking that I'm picking on you personally, or I think that you're a "bad" person (I don't), look at the actual sitation I questioned you about it and try and take some wisdom from someone who's BEEN through battles with a MIL and has learned from it.

How many other people on here realize that this entire thread has nothing to do with food?

Why do you attack Cathy instead of simply admitting that your assumptions were wrong?

 

[kaytieeldr]

My feelings exactly. I'm one of five kids, and this is how we were raised; today none of us has any food issues.

Ditto! Well, my mother used to cut the crusts off my brothers' sandwiches... and I still won't eat liver. I'll eat pork, I just don't like it. But bacon? Mm-mm-mm-mm-mm!

 

[Wishing on a star]

Why do you attack Cathy instead of simply admitting that your assumptions were wrong?

Because, this poster sees only their view (assumptions and all) and simply did NOT do what she is accusing Cathy of not doing.... HAVING A RATIONAL AND CALM AND POSITIVE DIALOGUE TO SOLVE ANY MISUNDERSTANDINGS.
ironic, isn't it?

Kickapoo is obviously very intelligent, and has many strong, well thought out, viewpoints on these things in life.... BUT......

 

[sbell111]

The entire incident was a mistake, i.e. the MIL made the (not a) mistake of engaging in a battle over food.

May I just generally observe, though, that these same mothers-in-law raised the spouses of the people who now limit contact? These women must have done something right. Heck, if you really want to get philosophical (no, you all have no choice - this is my post ), were it not for these mothers-in-law, the respective spouses would not exist; they would not be the people they are; you all would not have fallen in love with them; and so, your own children - these children you have - would not exist.

Some people become terrific adults because of the way that their parents raised them. Others become terrific adults despite the way their parents raised them.

Either way, a child's parents get to make the rules for their children. Others (including inlaws, perhaps especially in-laws) need to follow those rules.