Would You Expect Your DH to Say Something?

[Murphy101]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

This wasn’t about changed circumstances. It was about deliberate exclusion and not extending an offer.

 

No it isn't.  Because it's already been stated that it is okay for mil to have a different relationship with her other dil.  Because grown people aren't little kids.

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Murphy101 said:

 

No it isn't.  Because it's already been stated that it is okay for mil to have a different relationship with her other dil.  Because grown people aren't little kids.

 

It’s really ok to agree to disagree. I don’t care whether they have different relationships. I do find it rude, callous, and uncouth, to a) be blatant and public about your exclusion and b) blame your choices on racist New Yorkers rather than your own personal hang ups.

[Murphy101]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

 

It’s really ok to agree to disagree. I don’t care whether they have different relationships. I do find it rude, callous, and uncouth, to a) be blatant and public about your exclusion and b) blame your choices on racist New Yorkers rather than your own personal hang ups.

 

Oh sure I think it was just stupid to blame it on NYers.

But if she prefers traveling with other dil, whatever.  That wouldn't bother me. I'd enjoy hearing about the trip and seeing the pictures.  Are you telling me that when you get together with close friends and family, no one ever discusses their vacations or hobbies or house hunting or kitchen makeovers or the whatever they found on sale or anything at all like that?  I mean, I can believe it because the only acceptable polite convo between dh and his parents is basicly golf and weather, but I've always thought that was because they aren't close in general.  And why I just sit somewhere with my knitting and the kids until he says it's time to go.

[catz]

There are plenty of things to talk about other than future plans that aren't inclusive with the group present.

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Murphy101 said:

Are you telling me that when you get together with close friends and family, no one ever discusses their vacations or hobbies or house hunting or kitchen makeovers or the whatever they found on sale or anything at all like that?

 

The above is not what happened here so the situations are not analogous.

[Murphy101]

12 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

There are plenty of things to talk about other than future plans that aren't inclusive with the group present.

 

So only discuss things that everyone in the group is, has or will be doing? I have never been in a group setting like that in my entire life, family or otherwise.

 

[bolt.]

9 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

So only discuss things that everyone in the group is, has or will be doing? I have never been in a group setting like that in my entire life, family or otherwise.

 

I think most people would avoid chatting plans that were a potential “sore spot” — such as an obvious exclusion of someone who would have a natural reason or status to expect to be your included (or at least thought of).

Things more like “going on vacation this year” when not everyone can afford to or other indications that not everyone is doing as well as others... those just general inequalities are pretty fair game.

[Murphy101]

15 minutes ago, bolt. said:

I think most people would avoid chatting plans that were a potential “sore spot” — such as an obvious exclusion of someone who would have a natural reason or status to expect to be your included (or at least thought of).

Things more like “going on vacation this year” when not everyone can afford to or other indications that not everyone is doing as well as others... those just general inequalities are pretty fair game.

 

Why would anyone have a natural expectation to go on a trip with someone else? Especially when they have known for years that they weren't particuliarly close to that someone?  Do we know that mil knew this was a Soren spot?  Was this trip discussion a sore spot for Mexican dil?

Don't get me wrong - I don't agree with this mil's attitude towards her family, regardless of the race issue.

But I don't agree that conversation within the nuclear family or close friends should be restricted as you describe.  If dil wants to be included with other or both of them or if she wants to go to NY - then she should have a conversation about that.  If she doesn't, it seems petty to me to complain about their talking about it.

Edited December 27, 2018 by Murphy101

[Murphy101]

 I think we can agree to disagree - I'm just somewhat sure I'm not the only one in the world who isn't so... formal? .. or inclined toward envy??... or idk what with close family/friends as some here are presuming.

[catz]

Ok:

MIL to everyone: Do you want to see a slide show of my trip to Jamaica?

MIL to everyone: <waxes poetic about her garden>

MIL to everyone: Did I tell you all about my golf trip with  my friend Gertrude?

 

Not ok:

MIL in front of everyone to 1 favorite DIL while other DIL is present: Hey Jane, let me pull up my travel web sites so we can plan our next adventure.   We should get matching manis and pedis before we go.  

 

That's the kid equivalent of letting your kid drone on about their birthday party in front of a large playgroup when only a few kids there will be invited.  I've seen moms do this in front of other moms as the excluded party.  It's just plain rude.  Make all the private exclusive plans you want.  In private.   That doesn't mean she never finds out about them.  But to make exclusive plans while intentionally excluding someone present while you're making those plans is just plain mean.   That just seems like basic manners to me.

Honestly, I think this is reason enough for the other DIL to just say no to being part of these family gatherings.  

 

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, SereneHome said:

I am not sure I understand - it's not about pretense of any sort, it's about who should or should not be saying anything in this type of situation.

But.... as a matter of fact, they told me that my ideas from my old country are stupid and crazy, in America "we do things differently" and they can't welcome me into the family if I don't do what they think I should be doing.

Does it count??

 

It counts to me but I think leave and cleave is important and that boundaries between couples and extended families are necessary and good. I'd be be super upset if DH insisted on going in the circumstance you described, even if he was OK with me staying behind, and I absolutely would not allow my children to go. That's so disrespectful.

[MaBelle]

MIL sounds like a nasty piece of work.  Husband should have said something in his wife's defense.   

[Farrar]

If I was the Mexican friend in this situation, I'd be willing to extend my dh grace if he basically said he was too stunned to really figure out how to respond in the moment and he then made good by responding after the fact. I get that some people aren't able to process things in the moment. I've been in that situation where I was surprised and a thing happened and later I looked back and was like, whoa, that was bad, why didn't I say anything, that wasn't okay. When it's distant cousins or randos at a party, you move on. When it's your parents saying this about your spouse, you revisit or it's really on you.

If her dh needs schooling on why he needs to respond, then I feel sad for their relationship. They've been married for years and one would hope that the white partner of a POC would have gotten to the point of understanding the ways in which they need to support their spouse as a POC. This would definitely be one of those ways.

[Farrar]

To add... I think it's quite possible that MIL is not cognizant of the fact that she's excluding this DIL because of race. In fact, I doubt she thinks to herself as she plans her vacations with white DIL, "Gee, I'm glad I have a white DIL! Sure don't want that brown DIL on this trip!" Perhaps she really thinks it's about "personality" or that this white DIL is just more in tune with her. Perhaps there are financial or logistical reasons that she thinks are the reason she travels with or spends more time with the white DIL. But the fact that she blurted out a racist remark when called on her very different relationships says it all. Bias that we don't see within ourselves can so easily underlie those squishy "she just clicks with me more" sorts of feelings. It takes effort to overcome our gut instincts about race. Maybe MIL would have eventually clicked with the Mexican DIL... or maybe not. But her comment and continued exclusion when called on it says it all. She didn't try to do that work and nor is she interested in doing it.

[gardenmom5]

3 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

 

That is so sad. If there were a financial change, my aunt would still go in order. She would not skip them. She has two DILs and 13 grands. They all went. When family trips are planned, all are*invited* on the same terms. Folks may choose not to go, but the hand of friendship is extended. This attitude is so sad to me. Lotta dysfunction out there.

we have very different definitions of "financial change".

3 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

 

This wasn’t about changed circumstances. It was about deliberate exclusion and not extending an offer.

this.

3 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

 

It’s really ok to agree to disagree. I don’t care whether they have different relationships. I do find it rude, callous, and uncouth, to a) be blatant and public about your exclusion and b) blame your choices on racist New Yorkers rather than your own personal hang ups.

well . . how is someone supposed to know they've  been excluded if they don't talk about it in front of them?  smh.  (which I reckon is one reason mil went off on her nasty comments when called on it while "pretending" to be "gracious" by stating why Mdil wouldn't have a good time on the trip - as opposed to utterly clueless individual who would have changed the subject.)

that smacks of personality disorder mind games.

 

2 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

 

So only discuss things that everyone in the group is, has or will be doing? I have never been in a group setting like that in my entire life, family or otherwise.

 

it sounds like it's a frequent thing.   that mil and wdil are always doing things, and never ever invite/include mdil.   and that mil doesn't care she has no relationship with her mdil - even though she is the mother of some of her grandchildren.

but with her comments she has sent the message it's becasue she objects to her race, as opposed to "just" a different personality type in what they enjoy doing.

[MaBelle]

3 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

 

So only discuss things that everyone in the group is, has or will be doing? I have never been in a group setting like that in my entire life, family or otherwise.

 

Hey, MIL was being nasty.  Of course there will be some circumstances that some/all can discuss that some/all have done.  This ain't one of them.

[gardenmom5]

10 minutes ago, MaBelle said:

MIL sounds like a nasty piece of work.  Husband should have said something in his wife's defense.   

I'd really like to know if mil treats the grandchildren the same  - or does she play favorites?

 

I really wonder if husband grew up being treated 2nd class by mumsey and so it stopped registering as wrong.  (that's a defense mechanism in children.)

that relationship is screaming for BOUNDARIES!  and I would be erecting and enforcing them.

when dh's sister would start pulling this crap (I think of the time she *invited us over*, and also invited her friends over.  she set up a game to play with her friends - but there weren't enough spots for us to play too.  --- when that sort of stuff happens, or the mil starts making vacation plans with other dil and excluding - the response is the same.
Oh - don't let me keep you from what you were doing.  we will be going now. see you, bye. 

9 minutes ago, Farrar said:

If I was the Mexican friend in this situation, I'd be willing to extend my dh grace if he basically said he was too stunned to really figure out how to respond in the moment and he then made good by responding after the fact. I get that some people aren't able to process things in the moment. I've been in that situation where I was surprised and a thing happened and later I looked back and was like, whoa, that was bad, why didn't I say anything, that wasn't okay. When it's distant cousins or randos at a party, you move on. When it's your parents saying this about your spouse, you revisit or it's really on you.

If her dh needs schooling on why he needs to respond, then I feel sad for their relationship. They've been married for years and one would hope that the white partner of a POC would have gotten to the point of understanding the ways in which they need to support their spouse as a POC. This would definitely be one of those ways.

if he was raised like this - he probably doens't know any different.  and if he did know different - I would have expected him to say "wait a minute" and defend his wife -  . . whereas if he'd been raised like this, with overt and incessant favoritism and he wasn't the favorite - I wouldn't expect him to object.

I had to school my dh that his sister was WAY OUT OF LINE in the way she would treat me, and that I expected him to back me up.  it just never registered to him, and he never, ever saw it.  it was "normal" for their family.  (mil is nuts.)  he had to come around to, and learn, a healthier idea of how people relate.  I have had many comments from him over the years he is so appreciative of how I've mothered our children vs how his mother raised hers.

tbh - I'm surprised sil has as many friends as she does as I watch some of the things she's done to her own children.  but she does love to be the center of attention and can entertain her audience.  (at her dd's bridal shower - she made sure all attention was on her while her own dd was opening her gifts.  she *tried* to do the same thing with another dd at her baby shower.  someone grabbed her and pulled her out of the room and kept her out the whole time.  apparently - she also asked my own dsil why he couldn't have married one of her daughters . . . .dsil told me about this, and how he assured her he wouldn't tell "insert her favorite son-in-law's name" she said that.) 

 

[Shoeless]

I am not sure I would expect DH to say something to his mother in front of everyone, but I would damn well expect DH to offer some sort of apology/empathetic words to me later in private.  Like, "Hey, what my mom said was really awful and I'm sorry you had to hear that", and give me a pass on ever hanging out with her again. 

My MIL has bipolar disorder and sometimes says or does things that are...incredible, IMO.  Telling her to stop will not work, and if it does happen work, it comes with an expensive price tag.  I am learning to ignore her and refer all of her nonsense to DH.  If I was the Mexican friend, I'd think about what I wanted for an outcome and whether or not MIL was capable of delivering on the outcome.  Does your friend want MIL to change her behaviors or does she want her DH to acknowledge the behavior is garbage?         

Edited December 27, 2018 by MissLemon

[SKL]

It is possible DH wasn't really following the conversation. 

People don't become racist all of a sudden.  I am sure it is no surprise to DH that his mom is racist, and DH has no ability to change her, especially as she gets older and her filter gets worn out.  What can he do?  Sounds like they've been married a long time and this was the wife's first clue how her MIL felt about her racial/ethnic background, so I guess that means MIL usually behaves herself around them, and maybe that's the best they can hope for.  (Even this time she wasn't trying to offend and tried to fix it once she realized what she did - though without success.)  And wife & MIL haven't ever really been cozy together, and that's not gonna change either.  (And my guess is that race isn't the only / main reason for that, since most people look past race pretty quickly once they get to know each other as individuals.)

If DH was following the conversation in the moment, he should have pointed out that New York is majority non-white and race / ethnicity do not play into whether it's a good idea to visit.  I would not have gotten into "you must be racist" or whatever - it wouldn't do any good.

I also think it was inappropriate for BIL to suggest who should be MIL's travel partner in front of her.  Any idiot knows that this is awkward.  MIL doesn't want to travel with her DIL, who knows why.  I have relatives I wouldn't want to travel with, and I wouldn't want anyone suggesting it in front of those people so I'd have to make up some lame excuse.

[SKL]

I'm wondering if the OP's friend actually wants to travel with MIL and if so, whether she has ever suggested it to MIL.

Do we know it wasn't the other DIL who initiated the traveling together etc. ... I mean there are lots of reasons MIL might consider it reasonable to travel with one DIL without inviting the other DIL.  We all have different relationships with all our family members, don't we?  For example, I have let my one sister babysit my kids hundreds of times, my other sister 2x, and my brothers (and sisters-in-law) never.  They all know this; I make no attempt to hide it or avoid the topic.  My reasons are various, a mix of personality and convenience and how much the other party initiates / makes an effort.  If one of my siblings wants more time with my kids, they should bring it up to me (preferably not in front of others in case I have reservations they wouldn't want aired in public).  And if they start from a view of "it's not fair," it's gonna be a non-starter.

[RootAnn]

8 minutes ago, SKL said:

I'm wondering if the OP's friend actually wants to travel with MIL and if so, whether she has ever suggested it to MIL.

Do we know it wasn't the other DIL who initiated the traveling together etc. ... I mean there are lots of reasons MIL might consider it reasonable to travel with one DIL without inviting the other DIL.

Then wouldn't she have said that? "Why, MDIL said just the other day that she never had any interest in seeing NY."

I don't think this is about traveling; it is about excluding MDIL and rubbing it in by planning that excursion and obvious favoritism right in front of her.

I don't think traveling is quite the same as "letting" someone babysit your kids. Not in the slightest. Maybe similar to letting someone drive your car if you have a really nice or unique one.

[Teaching3bears]

Racism and racist comments are never okay. If we don't address racism we perpetuate it. The MIL's comment was really wrong and should not have been allowed to slide by any of the adults at the table. This is 2018. I expect much better from people. Your poor friend.

[goldberry]

14 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

 

So only discuss things that everyone in the group is, has or will be doing? I have never been in a group setting like that in my entire life, family or otherwise.

 

 

13 hours ago, FuzzyCatz said:

Ok:

MIL to everyone: Do you want to see a slide show of my trip to Jamaica?

MIL to everyone: <waxes poetic about her garden>

MIL to everyone: Did I tell you all about my golf trip with  my friend Gertrude?

 

Not ok:

MIL in front of everyone to 1 favorite DIL while other DIL is present: Hey Jane, let me pull up my travel web sites so we can plan our next adventure.   We should get matching manis and pedis before we go.  

 

That's the kid equivalent of letting your kid drone on about their birthday party in front of a large playgroup when only a few kids there will be invited.  I've seen moms do this in front of other moms as the excluded party.  It's just plain rude.  Make all the private exclusive plans you want.  In private.   That doesn't mean she never finds out about them.  But to make exclusive plans while intentionally excluding someone present while you're making those plans is just plain mean.   That just seems like basic manners to me.

 

Yes, I think the distinctions are not that hard to figure out. I also taught this to DD when she was very young. It's rude.  It is not good manners.

[SKL]

The actual comment itself wasn't exactly racist though.  She was ignorantly calling white New Yorkers racist.  Which is why it's hard to say what the response should have been.

 

[Teaching3bears]

I know the comment wasn't exactly racist but it was weird. She was excluding her DIL on the basis of her race, not giving DIL a chance to decide for herself if New Yorkers are too racist to visit. It sounds like she never invited her in the end. I have never heard of New York being particularly racist. There is racism everywhere but New York is pretty multicultural so where did that comment come from? And from the description of the silence at the table it sounds like everyone knew it was the wrong thing to say and that it would have hurt DIL. I hope someone in that family steps up and says something.

[GoodGrief]

17 hours ago, TechWife said:

This makes no sense. Racist comments are about race, full stop. 

I'm just speaking about my personal experience with my MIL. I could see her scrambling for an excuse to exclude the non-preferred DIL, and coming up with something bizarre like "They are all racist in NY, so...", without actually having a problem with the woman's race. She has said some inappropriate things through the years when put on the spot.

 

[GoodGrief]

15 hours ago, FuzzyCatz said:

Ok:

MIL to everyone: Do you want to see a slide show of my trip to Jamaica?

MIL to everyone: <waxes poetic about her garden>

MIL to everyone: Did I tell you all about my golf trip with  my friend Gertrude?

 

Not ok:

MIL in front of everyone to 1 favorite DIL while other DIL is present: Hey Jane, let me pull up my travel web sites so we can plan our next adventure.   We should get matching manis and pedis before we go.  

 

That's the kid equivalent of letting your kid drone on about their birthday party in front of a large playgroup when only a few kids there will be invited.  I've seen moms do this in front of other moms as the excluded party.  It's just plain rude.  Make all the private exclusive plans you want.  In private.   That doesn't mean she never finds out about them.  But to make exclusive plans while intentionally excluding someone present while you're making those plans is just plain mean.   That just seems like basic manners to me.

Honestly, I think this is reason enough for the other DIL to just say no to being part of these family gatherings.  

 

 

Agreed. And as to the original question about whether the husband should say something: ideally, yes, he should, in private with his mother, so that it does not embarrass his wife. But if he does not, she is perfectly within her rights to set her own boundary with this woman, whatever form that takes. Sometimes/often, one just cannot count on the defense by others, even loved ones.

[Jean in Newcastle]

My husband is the non-white person in our marriage.  You can bet your sweet bippy that I would say something.  I don't care what the reason is, inappropriate things are inappropriate and need to be called out.  That doesn't mean that you have to go nuclear.  Just speak up and don't let it go. 

[unsinkable]

There are some New Yorkers who are very prejudiced against black people. Just for your FYI.

But sounds like everyone thinks what the MIL means is "I'm not taking you to NY with me bc I don't want to be seen with a non-White person."

[gardenmom5]

36 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

My husband is the non-white person in our marriage.  You can bet your sweet bippy that I would say something.  I don't care what the reason is, inappropriate things are inappropriate and need to be called out.  That doesn't mean that you have to go nuclear.  Just speak up and don't let it go. 

I'm thinking this is a contributing factor in why my brother's newest wife didn't come to the dinner I had for my siblings and spouses before christmas.  he told me they went to his son's friend's for thanksgiving - and multiple  people were making racist comments. (no idea of specific comments or context) when I asked if he'd said anything (to defend his wife) -   he said "it's not his place" to correct them.  (insert huge eyeroll).   as I understand  it - no one should correct anyone because we're all "traveling a path". 

many of us are just waiting to see how long this marriage lasts . . . .

[TechWife]

1 hour ago, GoodGrief1 said:

I'm just speaking about my personal experience with my MIL. I could see her scrambling for an excuse to exclude the non-preferred DIL, and coming up with something bizarre like "They are all racist in NY, so...", without actually having a problem with the woman's race. She has said some inappropriate things through the years when put on the spot.

 

I understand. It’s my experience that people don’t make racist comments out of the blue. Using racism as an excuse comes from a mindset where racism is a plausible reason to exclude someone. 

[GoodGrief]

1 hour ago, TechWife said:

I understand. It’s my experience that people don’t make racist comments out of the blue. Using racism as an excuse comes from a mindset where racism is a plausible reason to exclude someone. 

Out of the blue, no, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that race is not a primary factor with this MIL. There are people that do not want to take responsibility for their own choices. If MIL is a borderline personality, she also may be trying to separate/alienate, and bizarrely thinks that labeling the NY family as racists makes her look somehow superior in the midst of this bad behavior. In MIL's case (possibly), her choice is wanting to travel with the other DIL and then committing a major etiquette faux pas by rudely planning in front of the less favored DIL. So she scrambles with the "You wouldn't want to go anyway, they are all racist."

Hey, I'm not saying this behavior is logical, just saying I have seen it in action more times than I care to count in my extended family dynamics. Not saying MIL isn't racist, because none of us know her and none of us heard the conversation in person. One can label it however one likes though.

Regardless, my answer to the original question remains unchanged.

[Jean in Newcastle]

So "black people" is code for anyone not white?  Since the DIL is Mexican. . .  That lack of understanding that all non-white people aren't the same culture or ethnicity is racist.  The lack of understanding that people come in all shades and it isn't White vs. the rest of the world is racist.  And of course, going along with someone's racism against African Americans by trying to cater to their all-white wishes is racist.  I think in this day and age there is absolutely no excuse for ignorance as some kind of excuse for racism. 

[goldberry]

3 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

So "black people" is code for anyone not white?  Since the DIL is Mexican. . .  That lack of understanding that all non-white people aren't the same culture or ethnicity is racist.  The lack of understanding that people come in all shades and it isn't White vs. the rest of the world is racist.  And of course, going along with someone's racism against African Americans by trying to cater to their all-white wishes is racist.  I think in this day and age there is absolutely no excuse for ignorance as some kind of excuse for racism. 

You know, I've been mulling that over, how it transitioned so quickly into black people and how that applied.  But what you say makes sense, that she really meant "non-white".  How else would that even relate to Mexican?  She just didn't want to say Mexican.

@Unsinkable... what part of this do you consider virtue signalling?  Her comment helped me figure out something I was wondering about.

(I don't think I know how to tag someone...?)

@unsinkable

Ha!

Edited December 28, 2018 by goldberry

[unsinkable]

29 minutes ago, goldberry said:

You know, I've been mulling that over, how it transitioned so quickly into black people and how that applied.  But what you say makes sense, that she really meant "non-white".  How else would that even relate to Mexican?  She just didn't want to say Mexican.

@Unsinkable... what part of this do you consider virtue signalling?  Her comment helped me figure out something I was wondering about.

(I don't think I know how to tag someone...?)

@unsinkable

Ha!

I think you misread what Jean wrote. Look at the question mark after the first sentence. 

I h ad written hours before Jean:

"There are some New Yorkers who are very prejudiced against black people. Just for your FYI.

But sounds like everyone thinks what the MIL means is "I'm not taking you to NY with me bc I don't want to be seen with a non-White person."

And then she wrote her response. So that question mark to me meant she was questioning my interpretation of what I thought most posters were saying ( even if they weren't directly saying jt).

The virtue signaling is the tone of: *anyone who doesn't think this MIL is racist are they themselves racist.*

[Katy]

Wow.  I'd find it so offensive I'd refuse to have anything to do with any of DH's family except the BIL ever again.  And I'm generally in the assume the best of people camp.  That was blatant racism and I'd keep me and the grandchildren away from the inlaws unless and until DH got his mother to apologize and she managed to make me believe she meant it. Life is too short to waste on people like that.  And frankly I'd make it clear to DH that I wasn't too happy with the way he handled that either.

[goldberry]

3 hours ago, unsinkable said:

I think you misread what Jean wrote. Look at the question mark after the first sentence. 

I h ad written hours before Jean:

"There are some New Yorkers who are very prejudiced against black people. Just for your FYI.

But sounds like everyone thinks what the MIL means is "I'm not taking you to NY with me bc I don't want to be seen with a non-White person."

And then she wrote her response. So that question mark to me meant she was questioning my interpretation of what I thought most posters were saying ( even if they weren't directly saying jt).

The virtue signaling is the tone of: *anyone who doesn't think this MIL is racist are they themselves racist.*

Her comment about black people had no context otherwise, if it was not meant to be related to Mexicans.  

I don't see another way to interpret it that makes any sense. Also, I'm sure there are plenty of racist people in New York, just like anywhere. But it's not exactly a stereotype that New York is more known for racism than other states.  That says to me either her relatives are racist and she doesn't want to have to stand up for DIL, or she herself is not comfortable traveling with a Mexican. Neither one of those seems very good. 

Re: virtue signalling... as tired as some people are of "hearing about racism all the time" other people are equally tired of the amount of excuses made why people who say racist things "really aren't racist".  That's what I hear in Jean's comment, not virtue signalling.  

[unsinkable]

7 hours ago, goldberry said:

Her comment about black people had no context otherwise, if it was not meant to be related to Mexicans.  

I don't see another way to interpret it that makes any sense. Also, I'm sure there are plenty of racist people in New York, just like anywhere. But it's not exactly a stereotype that New York is more known for racism than other states.  That says to me either her relatives are racist and she doesn't want to have to stand up for DIL, or she herself is not comfortable traveling with a Mexican. Neither one of those seems very good. 

Re: virtue signalling... as tired as some people are of "hearing about racism all the time" other people are equally tired of the amount of excuses made why people who say racist things "really aren't racist".  That's what I hear in Jean's comment, not virtue signalling.  

Re your first sentence: "Her" is referring to the MIL, correct? Not Jean? 

I think what the MIL said was odd and strangely out of context. But considering you said the DIL had never racist comments from her before, I wouldn't jump to that conclusion (that she is racist and doesn't like the DIL bc she is Mexican). I'd certainly be wary.

I'm not complaining about hearing racism all the time. I think it is vital to address instances as they arise. Someone could have said, "Hey, mom/MIL, what do you mean by that?" to get clarification. 

And that is not me making excuses for a racist comment, either. If no one knows what she meant and why she said it and why she thinks that way, how can the root of the issue be addressed? 

Posts like Jean's shut down the conversation. That's what virtue signaling does. No one wants to say anything contradictory to a speech about how horribly racist the MIL is. So if you don't agree, you're a racist. And if you don't understand (ignorance) you're a racist. If you didn't immediately see how MIL's comment meant that blacks =non-White, and that is why she won't take the DIL to NY, you're a racist.

 

 

[Mimm]

My MIL treats everyone exactly equally and if she did something for one of her DILs, she would absolutely do it for her other DIL. I get that the racist MIL is closer to one DIL than the other, but that's no excuse for favoritism. Sorry.

And yeah, I'd expect my husband to speak up, if not then, then later when he'd had a chance to gather his thoughts and deal with it calmly. There would be some major distance from the family or racist MIL would be making amends.

[marbel]

33 minutes ago, unsinkable said:

<snip> 

Someone could have said, "Hey, mom/MIL, what do you mean by that?" to get clarification. 

And that is not me making excuses for a racist comment, either. If no one knows what she meant and why she said it and why she thinks that way, how can the root of the issue be addressed? 

<snip

This is what I keep thinking as I read this thread.  A simple request for clarification in the moment, or privately afterword, was called for here.  Without that, all that's left is speculation, and nothing is ever resolved. 

Sounds like my husband's family. People make weird comments, no one asks what they mean, everyone's awkward, feelings are hurt, and no one directly addresses the issue by saying "what do you mean by that?"

[unsinkable]

23 minutes ago, marbel said:

This is what I keep thinking as I read this thread.  A simple request for clarification in the moment, or privately afterword, was called for here.  Without that, all that's left is speculation, and nothing is ever resolved. 

Sounds like my husband's family. People make weird comments, no one asks what they mean, everyone's awkward, feelings are hurt, and no one directly addresses the issue by saying "what do you mean by that?"

I'm glad you agree with me.

As hard as it might have been at the moment to do that, it probably would have been best to get at the root of what MIL meant. And since it wasn't done then, it is still not too late to have a conversation (preferably face to face).

IF it is not racism or something to do with the DIL's heritage, the couple can still find out WHY the DIL is never included. What if they ask the MIL why and she says something like, "DIL says she hates to fly (or hates big cities or said she doesn't ever want to spend the night away from you).

[Donna]

On 12/26/2018 at 6:56 PM, goldberry said:

 

Saying something when someone else is being mistreated or spoken to inappropriately is not rude.  Standing up for someone is not rude.  The MIL is who was being rude.  People often act like that because everyone allows it and no one challenges them.  That's not a positive thing.

Adding: It's not about changing them or parenting them.  It's about defining what is okay in your presence and what is not.

 

I agree. The MIL was being rude. She and the other DIL could easily have spoken about planning another trip to NY at another time and not in front of the DIL being excluded. 

It is about defining what is appropriate in your presence and clearly defining boundaries within the relationship. It is fine to be closer to certain family members than others but it is not okay to be outright rude.

[goldberry]

2 hours ago, unsinkable said:

As hard as it might have been at the moment to do that, it probably would have been best to get at the root of what MIL meant. And since it wasn't done then, it is still not too late to have a conversation (preferably face to face).

IF it is not racism or something to do with the DIL's heritage, the couple can still find out WHY the DIL is never included. What if they ask the MIL why and she says something like, "DIL says she hates to fly (or hates big cities or said she doesn't ever want to spend the night away from you).

 

First, thanks for answering my questions, I really do appreciate the responses.  I'm not trying to pounce on you, I'm engaging because you seem to be willing to converse and I appreciate that.

In my mind, someone DID ask about DIL being included and the response (in the moment, before another, "better sounding" response could be concocted) was a comment about race.  It wouldn't matter to me at this point what other reasoning was offered, because I don't see a way what came out of her mouth would have come out of her mouth if race was not an issue somewhere in there.  Whether that means the feelings are hers, or the feelings are her relatives and she doesn't want to deal with it.  She was asked, and that is what came out.  

That's why some of us feel the way we do about "people making excuses".  I really believe you are not trying to make excuses, but believe that you are only giving her the benefit of the doubt.  The issue is that words are words.  The words she used had racist connotation.  The words she used suggessted that a state is prejudiced against black people, and that somehow that applies to Mexican DIL because the question was about Mexican DIL.  Not many people when asked, "wow, did you really mean that as racist as it sounded?" are going to say, "yes I did!".  They are going to come up with all kinds of reasons why they didn't really mean it that way. And they probably believe those reasons. The words and the context are out there, and are real. 

The tone I get from you and from others is that if MIL "didn't really mean it that way" then DIL and DH should be understanding and not offended over what she said.  Is that correct?  But I see it opposite, that regardless of "how she meant it", those words were awful and MIL needs to understand that.

I agree with those who say following up is a good idea.  And yes, ask her for her reasoning, so she can at least offer an explanation and maybe think about why she said what she did.  The difference is, the reasoning does not make what she said less (or not) racist.  MIL needs to understand that, and DIL has every right to feel hurt and offended by what was said. 

[Farrar]

5 minutes ago, goldberry said:

The tone I get from you and from others is that if MIL "didn't really mean it that way" then DIL and DH should be understanding and not offended over what she said.  Is that correct?  But I see it opposite, that regardless of "how she meant it", those words were awful and MIL needs to understand that.

This is what I see too in this thread. In general, we want intentions to be everything. But they're not. As white folks, I think we need to get over this assumption that if we "mean well" then it's all good and we don't have to do anything else, at least not if we want to be accepting good folks.

I think we also all have to get over being called racist. I mean, every single person in America (white and POC) is guilty at some point of doing something that ends up supporting institutional racism or unintended bias. That's just how utterly pervasive it is. Getting called on it should not shut down the conversation. It should make us all pause and think and bravely try to continue the conversation with a listening ear - it doesn't mean we have to agree. When someone says they're hurt by something, we can't say "no you're not." But we can clarify intentions and question biases or language. But this is hard. And it takes effort.

I said up thread that I doubt this MIL meant to be racist. I doubt she thinks that her relationship with Mexican DIL isn't great because of her race. I'm guessing she thinks she "just clicks" with white DIL better. And because of the ways in which white people especially (and I say this because white people are much, much less likely in studies to have friends who are non-white than POC's are to have white friends or friends from other races and cultures than their own) gravitate to other white people, then that makes total sense. Because we live in a world where racism is just this pervasive, then I don't think there's any way to know if her relationship with Mexican DIL could have been better if she had been acculturated from birth to be more accepting of Mexicans or of POC's in general. They might have never "clicked" or been friends. She might have always chafed at her personality or always felt robbed of the first kid to marry. The only thing we do know is that she isn't actively trying to overcome any bias.

[unsinkable]

6 minutes ago, goldberry said:

 

First, thanks for answering my questions, I really do appreciate the responses.  I'm not trying to pounce on you, I'm engaging because you seem to be willing to converse and I appreciate that.

In my mind, someone DID ask about DIL being included and the response (in the moment, before another, "better sounding" response could be concocted) was a comment about race.  It wouldn't matter to me at this point what other reasoning was offered, because I don't see a way what came out of her mouth would have come out of her mouth if race was not an issue somewhere in there.  Whether that means the feelings are hers, or the feelings are her relatives and she doesn't want to deal with it.  She was asked, and that is what came out.  

That's why some of us feel the way we do about "people making excuses".  I really believe you are not trying to make excuses, but believe that you are only giving her the benefit of the doubt.  The issue is that words are words.  The words she used had racist connotation.  The words she used suggessted that a state is prejudiced against black people, and that somehow that applies to Mexican DIL because the question was about Mexican DIL.  Not many people when asked, "wow, did you really mean that as racist as it sounded?" are going to say, "yes I did!".  They are going to come up with all kinds of reasons why they didn't really mean it that way. And they probably believe those reasons. The words and the context are out there, and are real. 

The tone I get from you and from others is that if MIL "didn't really mean it that way" then DIL and DH should be understanding and not offended over what she said.  Is that correct?  But I see it opposite, that regardless of "how she meant it", those words were awful and MIL needs to understand that.

I agree with those who say following up is a good idea.  And yes, ask her for her reasoning, so she can at least offer an explanation and maybe think about why she said what she did.  The difference is, the reasoning does not make what she said less (or not) racist.  MIL needs to understand that, and DIL has every right to feel hurt and offended by what was said. 

If you really care and are sincere about engaging with me, you wouldn't have deleted half my reply. Or you would have at least acknowledged that you did delete it. 

Re: your first paragraph...a follow-up question to MIL's comment needed to be asked IMO. It is necessary to get to the root of what she meant. If you don't care why she said, that's your feeling, not mine. I want to know why she said it; I'd want her to elaborate. If her saying "they're racist in NY against blacks" means she is racist against blacks is enough for you, so be it. I already said it is an odd, out of context thing to say and would make me wary. I'D want to know more.

re: giving the MIL the benefit of the doubt. I'm NOT giving her the benefit of the doubt. I'm saying I don't know based on that one statement. Giving her the benefit of the doubt would include drawing a conclusion.

 re: what you call my tone that the MIL "really didn't mean it that way." You are wrongly interpreting that about me. I'm not sure what I wrote that led you to say that because I don't think I wrote anything like that. I don't know how she meant it. That's different from saying...she didn't mean it like that.

I actually wonder if you are reading what I wrote, instead of just what you think I must be saying ( based on the fact that you have previously written you don't usually agree with me at all but that I make you laugh). If you were reading what I wrote, you wouldn't have said, "I agree with those who say follow up is a good idea." Because I was one of the people who said that. And since you are writing to me, it would be logical and natural to say, "I agree with YOU that follow up is a good idea."

But it is telling, to me, anyway, that you didn't.

 

 

[goldberry]

2 minutes ago, unsinkable said:

If you really care and are sincere about engaging with me, you wouldn't have deleted half my reply. Or you would have at least acknowledged that you did delete it. 

Re: your first paragraph...a follow-up question to MIL's comment needed to be asked IMO. It is necessary to get to the root of what she meant. If you don't care why she said, that's your feeling, not mine. I want to know why she said it; I'd want her to elaborate. If her saying "they're racist in NY against blacks" means she is racist against blacks is enough for you, so be it. I already said it is an odd, out of context thing to say and would make me wary. I'D want to know more.

re: giving the MIL the benefit of the doubt. I'm NOT giving her the benefit of the doubt. I'm saying I don't know based on that one statement. Giving her the benefit of the doubt would include drawing a conclusion.

 re: what you call my tone that the MIL "really didn't mean it that way." You are wrongly interpreting that about me. I'm not sure what I wrote that led you to say that because I don't think I wrote anything like that. I don't know how she meant it. That's different from saying...she didn't mean it like that.

I actually wonder if you are reading what I wrote, instead of just what you think I must be saying ( based on the fact that you have previously written you don't usually agree with me at all but that I make you laugh). If you were reading what I wrote, you wouldn't have said, "I agree with those who say follow up is a good idea." Because I was one of the people who said that. And since you are writing to me, it would be logical and natural to say, "I agree with YOU that follow up is a good idea."

But it is telling, to me, anyway, that you didn't.

 

 

 

Wow, I don't understand half of anything you said here.  I only quoted part of what you said because that is what I was referencing in my response, not for any suspicious motive.  I don't think I'm the first person to do that without "acknowledgement"??  What an odd statement.  I did recognize you (and others, like Marble) were recommending followup, that is why I said "those" because it was you plus others.  Sorry I didn't mention you directly I guess?    And yes, I did read what you wrote.  I ASKED is what I thought correct, because I wanted to know.  You said,  If her saying "they're racist in NY against blacks" means she is racist against blacks is enough for you, so be it.  I never said that.  You are the one not reading and instead assuming.  I actually happen to like conversing with people who I don't normally agree with, because I like exploring other viewpoints and have had my opinions changed on occasion. I harbor no bad feelings toward those I disagree with, and make no assumptions about them.  Maybe it's telling the you do, based on a random comments from months or years ago?  I read comments and take them on their merit, not who is posting them.

You are twisting what I wrote, and reading all kinds of weirdness into my response that isn't there.  

[Arcadia]

40 minutes ago, goldberry said:

In my mind, someone DID ask about DIL being included and the response (in the moment, before another, "better sounding" response could be concocted) was a comment about race.  It wouldn't matter to me at this point what other reasoning was offered, because I don't see a way what came out of her mouth would have come out of her mouth if race was not an issue somewhere in there.  Whether that means the feelings are hers, or the feelings are her relatives and she doesn't want to deal with it.  She was asked, and that is what came out.  

 

Before the days of Uber and Lyft, my ex-colleague who is Asian Indian was in New York City for a conference and had problem hailing a taxi because the drivers think he is an African American. He only knew that because he had to call a cab for all his taxi rides and the drivers told him so. His skin tone is similar to Microsoft’s CEO Satya Nadella and he is 5’4, petite build. He told me that if I was on the trip with him, he would have ask our “stocky” colleagues to “chaperone” me because he feels that would be safer for me then walking with him around the conference center.

While your friend’s MIL’s reply was race bias, it’s really up to your friend and her husband to find out more if they want to because it might be more complex than just Mexican. For example my MIL has this bias about skin tone (the fairer naturally the better) and hair (the more voluminous and curly naturally the better), from a genetics standpoint. As in she thinks asian babies are lucky if they are born fair tone and have lots of hair. I think the fair tone has archaic asian cultural reasons where the fairer you are means you don’t need to toil for a living under the hot sun. For hair, I have no idea but my kids being born with lots of hair made her very happy and she brag to all her relatives. 

I know MIL ranks mainland China Chinese as lower ranked than Hong Kong Chinese in terms of social economic status. I met my husband in college and the first question my in-laws asked was my parents occupation (nurse and teacher) and commented about what good occupations those were. So it’s not just a simple race bias with my in-laws. 

[unsinkable]

1 minute ago, goldberry said:

 

Wow, I don't understand half of anything you said here.  I only quoted part of what you said because that is what I was referencing in my response, not for any suspicious motive.  I don't think I'm the first person to do that without "acknowledgement"??  What an odd statement.  I did recognize you (and others, like Marble) were recommending followup, that is why I said "those" because it was you plus others.  Sorry I didn't mention you directly I guess?    And yes, I did read what you wrote.  I ASKED is what I thought correct, because I wanted to know.  You said,  If her saying "they're racist in NY against blacks" means she is racist against blacks is enough for you, so be it.  I never said that.  You are the one not reading and instead assuming.  I actually happen to like conversing with people who I don't normally agree with, because I like exploring other viewpoints and have had my opinions changed on occasion. I harbor no bad feelings toward those I disagree with, and make no assumptions about them.  Maybe it's telling the you do, based on a random comments from months or years ago?  I read comments and take them on their merit, not who is posting them.

You are twisting what I wrote, and reading all kinds of weirdness into my response that isn't there.  

You deleted a specific question I asked you in my post. Why did you do that? If anything, it's odd that you want to ask me all sorts of questions but can't even acknowledge a yes or no question I asked you.

 "Sorry I didn't mention you directly" No need to apologize ( though that is not really an apology). It is telling that when you were talking to ME you didn't acknowledge that I had actually said that. It's like you wanted to ignore that fact I want a follow-up bc it doesn't fit your interpretation of my posts.

Regarding the bolded: your posts seemed to indicate to me that the MIL's statement (they're racist in ny against blacks) that you think the MIL is racist. That is what I meant by the bolded. Is that not true? Did I misunderstand you? Do you or do you not think the MIL is racist based on that statement that she made? (They're racist in NY against blacks)

I didn't say you harbored had feelings. I said you've previously said you usually don't agree with me at all and IMO that is causing you to not read what I am saying correctly. I think you're going into it thinking you're not going to agree with me and your responses show.

[marbel]

41 minutes ago, Farrar said:

<snip>

The only thing we do know is that she isn't actively trying to overcome any bias.

I agree with almost all of your post, particularly the bits about good intentions, except this.

We do not know this about the woman. We know nothing about her except that she does not appear to like her MDIL, and that she said something mean, hurtful, and racist in a single incident which we have heard about third-hand.  We don't even know for sure it was her own racism coming out, or fear or racist relatives, or what.  (I am not giving her the benefit of the doubt in this, because I don't know what motivated her to say what she did.) 

Wild speculation is fun but that's all this is, really. I don't fault the OP for bringing this up here, and I have appreciated the discussion. I hope it's helpful to OP and her friend.  I hope OP's friend's husband will be motivated to talk to his mother about her issues with his wife and that they reach a good conclusion.

 

[goldberry]

4 hours ago, unsinkable said:

Re your first sentence: "Her" is referring to the MIL, correct? Not Jean? 

Yes, referring to the MIL.  

3 minutes ago, unsinkable said:

 "Sorry I didn't mention you directly" No need to apologize ( though that is not really an apology). It is telling that when you were talking to ME you didn't acknowledge that I had actually said that. It's like you wanted to ignore that fact I want a follow-up bc it doesn't fit your interpretation of my posts.

Regarding the bolded: your posts seemed to indicate to me that the MIL's statement (they're racist in ny against blacks) that you think the MIL is racist. That is what I meant by the bolded. Is that not true? Did I misunderstand you? Do you or do you not think the MIL is racist based on that statement that she made? (They're racist in NY against blacks)

I didn't say you harbored had feelings. I said you've previously said you usually don't agree with me at all and IMO that is causing you to not read what I am saying correctly. I think you're going into it thinking you're not going to agree with me and your responses show.

 

I explained why I said "those" to acknowledge that you plus others were saying that.  You can choose not to believe that, but that is the reason.  

Here is what I said about the MIL's comment:

In my mind, someone DID ask about DIL being included and the response (in the moment, before another, "better sounding" response could be concocted) was a comment about race.  It wouldn't matter to me at this point what other reasoning was offered, because I don't see a way what came out of her mouth would have come out of her mouth if race was not an issue somewhere in there.  Whether that means the feelings are hers, or the feelings are her relatives and she doesn't want to deal with it.  She was asked, and that is what came out.  

That does not mean to me that MIL is racist.  I don't think that anyone who makes a racist comment, or a comment with racist connotations, is a racist. I mentioned that the issue might be her relatives or friends, and she just doesn't want to deal with it or confront it. I really don't know if MIL is racist.  I would guess she probably has some issues about race in her brain, either herself, or within the relatives.  I don't have any idea what those issues are.  Her comment was racist and inappropriate.  Suggesting that a whole state is prejudiced against black people and that somehow applies to Mexican DIL (because that is who the question was about) is racist and inappropriate.  Whether she meant it that way, doesn't feel that way at all, feels that way subconsciously, or feels that way consciously, I have no idea. 

Regarding your last comment, I will say again: I read comments on their merit regardless of who is posting them.  I don't want to discount something that might have value based on how often I previously agreed with who is posting it.