Grandparents undermining the parent's authority.

[cjbeach]

I think that maybe the Grandparents did not know what else to do with the kids and it is not necessary a blatant disregard of the parents rules. My MIL is always telling my kids to go sit down and watch tv because the yelling and running around overwhelms her too much. She prefers the kids to sit down and be quiet. In fact, many times I wonder why she even comes because she never plays with any of the kids.

 

It also sounds like the mom doesn't want to deal with whining from the 4 year old for TV. If they are exposed to it so little, why are they asking for it already?

:iagree:Were they like that when she was a child? My dh was raised ON T.V. The TV took up much of the square footage of my ILs tiny living room for years.

My ILs are *very* much the "...let me put a show on for you" grandparents. And my kids are NOT into tv so it's a waste.:D Fine, go ahead, put it on........ the attraction will last about ummm, 5minutes 40seconds.

[simka2]

Gosh, to me the movie isn't the issue. The fact that the grandparents show her total disrespect by doing exactly what she asked them not to do would be enough for me to at least limit contact.

 

 

Lisa

 

I have to agree. If she was clear about what was okay and what wasn't, and if they agreed, and then did the opposite...I would begin to limit contact.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

But......on the other hand, if Jane and Jane's dh knew that the IL's are so into TV that they have 7 televisions in their home and that it is a big part of their lives, why were they watching the kid in the first place? If it was SUCH a big deal to Jane and Co. then they wouldn't have 'gone there' at all.

 

IMO, you don't see how someone lives their lives, realize that it differs greatly from yours and THEN decide that yes, they can watch your kids, but only if they do things YOUR way. It was discussed. The grandparents disagreed and even argued about it. Jane knew what she was getting into. She could have just said,"No, not a good idea".

[Rosy]

But......on the other hand, if Jane and Jane's dh knew that the IL's are so into TV that they have 7 televisions in their home and that it is a big part of their lives, why were they watching the kid in the first place? If it was SUCH a big deal to Jane and Co. then they wouldn't have 'gone there' at all.

 

IMO, you don't see how someone lives their lives, realize that it differs greatly from yours and THEN decide that yes, they can watch your kids, but only if they do things YOUR way. It was discussed. The grandparents disagreed and even argued about it. Jane knew what she was getting into. She could have just said,"No, not a good idea".

 

Totally.

 

I think that maybe the Grandparents did not know what else to do with the kids and it is not necessary a blatant disregard of the parents rules. My MIL is always telling my kids to go sit down and watch tv because the yelling and running around overwhelms her too much. She prefers the kids to sit down and be quiet. In fact, many times I wonder why she even comes because she never plays with any of the kids.

 

Mine are like that too, on both sides. Especially when the kids were little. It took me a long time to realize that just because I had 4 kids doesn't mine my parents or in-laws volunteered to babysit 4 kids at a time. :) You can substitute the "4 kids" with "toddlers", "boys", "loud children"--whatever descriptor fits best.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Rosy

[helena]

Well, honestly, I'm not sure if it's them being unreasonable or me being unreasonable. :confused:

 

On one hand, all of the parenting issues they had with our choices so far they have always voiced only to me and my husband and only when children were not present - so I have to admit that they are very fair with regards to that. We also agree on nearly all of the basic values and principles.

 

On the other hand, they insist that their family members and extended-period guests (meaning anyone they host for a night or more - so we're twice included) abide to the rules of their lifestyle fully, with no room for flexibility. For example, it is forbidden to bring into the house any food or drink that they themselves would not consume and that would not normally be found in the house - and if in doubt, you're expected to call in advance to check if they approve of your choice! :001_huh: Otherwise it must either be consumed outside of the house, either thrown away - as a matter of fact, once my MIL literally made my niece finish an ice-cream outside for that reason. If they crave a candy, well they'll have to go out and buy it off their own money and finish outside, because all candies are on the "black list" as well.

They also have a "no pants for women and girls" rule, and while my daughters wear pants at most about twice a week, even that is too much for MIL to handle. I don't want my daughters to begin carrying along a handy long skirt in their bags that they're going to put over before entering the house, and taking off the second they leave it, or to panic where to buy a last-minute one in case they left the house when grandma wasn't there so they forgot to take a skirt (yeah, it rings a bell for ME). :lol: As they're entering the age of rebelling, these situations will begin to occur rather soon if MIL keeps on presenting jeans as forbidden fruit to them.

 

They also have a whole set of crazy regulations which forbid women/fashion magazines (well, magazines of any kind more like), most of the free time teen literature (they particularly hate fantasy or supernatural in any way, shape or form), certain brands of cosmetics or other things that they "do not wish to financially support" for this or that reasons, and alike. Any friend visits need to be announced, as they don't like improvisations. TV is a big evil which they don't own, and internet is a lesser evil that they do own, but can be consumed only a little (as a matter of fact, my MIL says about that: "poison is kept in small bottles" any time that the girls whine about it :001_huh:) and only under their supervision (as in, they're "accidentally" leaning behind your back).

 

Other than that, they're actually a perfectly normal and reasonable beings that you can talk to, have great fun with and that genuinely care about our children and adore them in their own way. They openly disagree with many of our parenting choices, and even though we asked them NOT to try to "fix things" when the girls are over their place, they claim it's not "fixing" but simply requiring a certain standard at their home.

 

I really don't know who's crazy here, them with their absurd requests, or me not getting why ALL of that is so freaking important to them. :confused: I really am starting to think that it IS a form of "your ways are not good enough, and this is how kids should be raised", even if nicely camouflaged.

 

Though the details are different, I can relate. In my case, it is a matter of "your ways are not good enough, and this is how kids should be raised".

 

My mom wants everything to be uber formal. But formal in her own made up way. Before we get to her house I have to make sure everyone's hair is brushed out nicely, nails are trimmed and clean.. the girls are expected to bring their violins and to play piano and violin for them. They are very inflexible and loving at the same time if that makes any sense.

 

I wouldn't mind so much if it didn't feel like I was failing a test every time we go over there, or if they could just loosen up and get a little silly once in a while with the girls. I mean lighten up woman!! It's great if they use the correct fork, and everything is going to be okay if they don't.

 

OP sometimes there's just no winning. My mom's reaction to our vegan diet is "I don't know what to feed them with this diet of yours, they ate a box of Oreos, because there's no dairy in them.":willy_nilly: btw my mother never bought Oreos when I was growing up, nor would she now for her and her husband. She's always thought of "that type of food" as being trashy.

As far as I can tell, you've got (I've got) two choices, pull away, or deal with it. ugh..

Edited May 16, 2010 by helena

[HeidiKC]

But - when MIL got dd a stripper costume for Halloween when she was 4, I put my foot down..

 

WHAT??? Seriously? Who makes a stripper costume for 4-year-olds???

[Jean in Newcastle]

WHAT??? Seriously? Who makes a stripper costume for 4-year-olds???

 

Dd looked at it and said very loudly "That's a naughty dress!" I quietly got rid of it the next day. In my case, my MIL is a first generation immigrant and tends to think that if it is in the store that means that it is ok by "American standards". Everything is about fitting in with the culture. So for us to be weighing the culture and only choosing to subscribe to those part of the culture that fit our values, it is hard for her to understand. But if we put it in terms of their first culture (Fillipino culture) and say that it will teach them to honor their family or to work hard, then they do get it.

[EthiopianFood]

These threads always confuse me. To the people who say that the problem is "Jane's" rules, not the MIL: if you were told by your DIL that something was against her beliefs for her children and to not do that thing with them, but you disagreed, would you just do it anyway because your DIL was wrong? I mean, really, let's see things from a MIL's perspective. Imagine you are the MIL! Would you honestly feel no shame in behaving this way? :confused:

 

What about the MIL's responsibility to say, "I'm sorry, I can't abide by that rule?"

[Natalieclare]

... if it is in the store that means that it is ok by "American standards". Everything is about fitting in with the culture. So for us to be weighing the culture and only choosing to subscribe to those part of the culture that fit our values, it is hard for her to understand. .

 

That is very interesting to me. I think there are many many people with this same attitude

[5LittleMonkeys]

The whole thing about the 4 year old whining about wanting to watch tv at home sounds like an attempt to show a tangible reason why tv is bad because she can't prove that the dc's cognitive abilities have been affected. As interesting as this is to me, it ultimately is a non-issue . It is a behavioral issue that she needs to just deal with. Her reasons behind not wanting the dc to be exposed to tv are not even the issue. They are her beliefs and if they are important to her she shouldn't be made to feel silly for wanting to enforce them. Her parental authority being usurped is the only issue she needs to be dealing with. Not that I expect an answer but I would be curious to know if this is the only issue Jane has with the in-laws. Have there been other power plays between them? If so, I would say she needs to stop beating around the bush and make a plan for dealing with this NOW in its entirety instead of continually fighting these little skirmishes over and over. These little nit-picky arguments are exhausting for everyone and confusing to the children. She and dh need to sit down with the in-laws and have an adult heart to heart with them. Don't point fingers, don't lay blame. Jane and dh need to express their beliefs regarding their parental authority being ignored and in-laws need to be given a chance to express why they feel they should be given certain liberties regarding the dc. Once everyone has had a chance to argue their perspective they can then begin to adjust boundaries and make exceptions...or not. Jane is perfectly within her rights as the parent to say it has to be my way or the highway but then she needs to accept all of the ramifications that that may bring. (can you put two thats together?) If in-laws won't sit and have this discussion either because they are too closed minded or because the family relationship isn't important enough then I would say I wouldn't want my dc around them anyway so the whole issue is moot.

 

Jane needs to stop being re-active and start being pro-active. As my dear, sweet, wise father would say..."Either p*** or get off the pot."

Edited May 16, 2010 by 5LittleMonkeys

[TravelingChris]

First of all, I have to say that both dh and I had older parents and mine were deceased before any of our children were born. But thinking back on my in-laws and how they were with our children when they were young was they could cope with a walk or something minor but hours babysitting, no. Now, thinking ahead to my future. We are in our mid-40's and no grandchildren. I expect that it will probably be that we will be in our mid-50's by the time we have grandchildren. Since I don't volunteer now at church nursery because of health issues and while I do babysit at soccer, I only deal with the somewhat older children and do things like read a book or walk one to the restroom. Taking care of little children is exhausting which is why so many have little ones when they are in their 20s and 30s rather than then 50s or later. Yes, I plan to communicate my expectations and realities to grandchildren's parents but I am a straightforward person and not scared of asserting myself.

[TeenagerMom]

This is just my opinion, but I think, unless it is a safety or health issue, that it is completely and utterly disrespectful to tell other adults what they are allowed to do in their own home.

 

Of course, my parents & In laws do EVERYTHING differently than what I do with my children. They raised myself & DH to be respectful, upstanding individuals, so they obviously did a decent job & didn't scar us for life. My children adore their grandparents and I could not ever imagine taking those experiences away from them. My mother allows my kids to drink soda like it's no tomorrow at her house. I don't allow my kids to drink soda at all at home. They know the difference. They don't whine because they face disciplinary action. A 4 year old can easily learn that tv at Grandma's is okay, but we won't be doing it at home.

 

If this were Jane's mother & not her MIL, I wonder if she would feel differently. I do feel mother's generally take more offense at what their MILs do rather than their own Mom.

 

If I were Jane, I would just discuss appropriate children's programming (Sprout, PBS, Noggin) rather than harp on the fact that they were allowed to watch television. Young children can be extremely overwhelming to older adults. My almost 60 year old mother is exhausted after babysitting even WITH a television and she was SUPERMOM when I was a kid.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

These threads always confuse me. To the people who say that the problem is "Jane's" rules, not the MIL: if you were told by your DIL that something was against her beliefs for her children and to not do that thing with them, but you disagreed, would you just do it anyway because your DIL was wrong? I mean, really, let's see things from a MIL's perspective. Imagine you are the MIL! Would you honestly feel no shame in behaving this way? :confused:

 

What about the MIL's responsibility to say, "I'm sorry, I can't abide by that rule?"

 

 

I agree with you that *I* wouldn't do what Jane's MIL did, but that isn't what this thread is about.

 

Also, MIL DID say, "I can't abide by that rule" in the way she argued with Jane about it.

 

Each person had a choice here. Jane had the choice to attempt to impose her rules at someone else's home and the MIL had the choice of saying no.

 

I agree with a pp, if it is not a matter of health of safety it should be dropped. If it is that big of a deal then MIL shouldn't be watching the kiddos.

 

ETA: And honestly, if a family member was saying to me, "you can't wear pants, you can't eat ice cream, you can't use this brand of cosmetics" I would bail on that relationship and have as little contact with them as possible. I would CERTAINLY not go to their home!! Too much stress and drama for me and my kids!!!

[myfunnybunch]

Also, MIL DID say, "I can't abide by that rule" in the way she argued with Jane about it.

 

But we don't know that for certain because we don't know the way she argued with Jane about it, we just know this is a point of disagreement between them. Just because people disagree on an issue doesn't mean that they've clearly communicated their expectations. We could just as fairly put the shoe on the other foot and blame MIL by saying that Jane made her position clear by arguing against television watching. But we don't know that Jane was clear either.

 

I can't for the life of me imagine being an MIL and blatantly ignoring my son and DIL's wishes regarding their children, no matter how much I disagree, without some kind of discussion. That's just plain bad manners. Why not say, "The kids wear me out. After I've made them cookies and done crafts with them and taken them to the park, I just don't know what to do with littles. I think I'll show the Beetlejuice. No? Well, how about I turn on PBS Sprout instead? It would sure help me. Well, would you mind coming back after an hour then, I think we'll be done with all of our activities and I won't need to turn on the tv." Problem solved. (Same goes for Jane, shoe on the other foot and all of that...a similar clear expectation along the lines of, "Call me when they've worn you out and I'll take them home so that you can rest and watch tv.")

 

Just because it's MIL's house doesn't mean she gets to do whatever she wants, because they are still Jane's children no matter whose house they're in. Then you get into a "My kids" vs. "My house" argument, which is almost certain to turn into a disaster.

 

 

MIL did not choose to say "No" nor did she give Jane a chance to say "NO thanks" to tv watching. That MIL is willing to show the children a movie without discussion or giving Jane a choice not to leave the children, knowing how her DIL feels, and made a quite inappropriate choice in viewing material IS an issue that needs to be addressed, no matter whose house it is.

 

Cat

[Jean in Wisc]

A friend of mine is going through a stressful time because her inlaws are VERY much into watching television -- they have no less than seven television sets, many of which are left on as white noise a lot of the time. Her mother-in-law even sleeps with the television on. Naturally, they think my friend and her husband are nutters for being so uptight about TV (they don't allow their young children to watch any television or movies). The inlaws have even gone so far as to insist that the kids will "miss out" by not watching it, and recently my friend found out that her mother-in-law had her child watch a full-length movie in her absence.

 

She's very close to saying, "That's it. We asked you to respect our beliefs, but since you aren't interested in deferring to our parenting decisions, you can't be trusted to be alone with our children anymore." What would you do? How do you handle grandparents who refuse to take your convictions seriously and impose their own parenting notions on your children?

 

I don't think she has to say anything. If it is important enough to them, then one of the parents needs to go with the kids when they visit. Otherwise they are "busy".

 

Jean

Edited May 18, 2010 by Jean in Wisc

[Crissy]

What would you do? How do you handle grandparents who refuse to take your convictions seriously and impose their own parenting notions on your children?

 

We taught our boys that our rules are to be followed whether we are at home or anywhere else.

 

The issue first came up when my mother-in-law told my 5 year old son to 'go down to the barn and play.'

He'd never been around horses, and there would have been no supervision so I told her and my son that he wasn't going.

She said, "You know, my mother always said, 'My house, my rules.'"

I told her our motto is a bit different: "My children, my rules."

 

I chose not to let the boys stay with her when we weren't there until they were old enough to say (every time!), "We're not allowed to do that."