Recently
Lopsided Open Marriage
Dear Annie: My husband and I have been happily married for 15 years and recently decided to try an open-marriage lifestyle. We are doing this with full honesty and respect for each other.
The main problem is that the dating success is not equal. I …Read more.
Who's Not Following Up on Child Abuse Reports?
Dear Annie: I am a single mom of a 4-year-old boy who is being abused by my ex-husband and his wife. After a visit, he comes home bruised and scratched with black eyes. He has had scabies more than a dozen times. The worst thing is that my son was …Read more.
Happy Mother's Day
Dear Readers: Happy Mother's Day. Please phone your mother, grandmother, mother-in-law, stepmother or foster mother and wish them the best. And our special good wishes to all the new mommies who are celebrating their very first Mother's Day. Also, …Read more.
Thank You, Mom and Dad
Dear Annie: I am writing a long overdue thank-you note to my parents. They are faithful readers of your column. Mom and Dad, I am thankful that:
You stood your ground and did not give in to me, even when I threw fits and demanded my way.
You …Read more.
more articles
|
Grandmother Wants More Time With Grandkids
Dear Annie: My daughter just gave birth to our first grandson. The problem is, she and her husband plan to take the baby to his parents' house for babysitting, even though I offered. We both live nearby. I'd love to watch him at least one or two days a week.
I find my son-in-law to be arrogant and rather disrespectful. I get the impression that he is encouraging our daughter to have a negative attitude toward us. Before they were married, we were close to her, but now there is a huge rift. I am hurt by her actions. They are stealing my joy of having a grandchild. I am lucky if I get to see the baby twice a week for an hour at a time. I have offered to help with dishes and laundry, and occasionally, they let me do those things. My husband and I are generous and give them lots of baby gear and food. It's as if I need to bring a gift in order to hold my grandson.
Life has not been easy the past five years. My only parent died, and my siblings are squabbling over the estate, creating an estrangement. Three years ago, I was diagnosed with cancer. Due to all of this stress, I have had two shingles outbreaks in the past two months. I always thought that when my only daughter became a mother, we would become closer, and she would be more sympathetic toward me.
This hurts so much that I have trouble sleeping. When I talk to my daughter about more time with the baby, she says, "We'll see," and that she needs to talk to her husband about it. And nothing changes. How do I fix this? — Sad Grandma
Dear Sad: We know many grandparents would consider an hour twice a week to be a blessing, so we caution you not to be overly focused on the downside of your relationship. There may be myriad reasons why your daughter prefers her in-laws to babysit. Some of it may be that you seem depressed and stressed, partly due to your medical problems and sibling issues. You may come across as needy and demanding, rather than loving and generous. Talk to your daughter gently. Tell her you love her and her family, and ask how you can improve things between you.
Dear Annie: We have a family funeral coming up. Like the rest of the country, we are plagued with many upper respiratory viruses. How do we politely refuse handshakes, hugs and kisses? I thought of holding our hands behind our backs, but that seems standoffish. Should we post a sign by a guest book? What should it say?
I am a health care professional and am aware of how viruses spread. I want to be discreet and keep everyone healthy. — Don't Know What To Do in Connecticut
Dear Don't: When people approach you, it is OK to say, "I hope you don't mind, but with all the illness floating around, we are trying to limit physical contact to protect everyone." Of course, some people will hug you anyway, so be sure to wash your hands thoroughly afterward.
Dear Annie: If "Kidless in the Caribbean" is so anxious to take his children abroad, and his ex-wife really is afraid for them to fly, why not take them on a cruise? If she refuses to allow that, it's not a fear of flying that is motivating her. And I agree with your suggestion to take her along. That should take care of any separation anxiety. — St. Maarten
Dear St. Maarten: Several readers suggested a cruise, although the father had more extensive travel in mind. Nonetheless, we think this is about the ex-wife not wanting her children to travel out of the country. We hope they can reach some sort of compromise.
Annie's Mailbox is written by Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar, longtime editors of the Ann Landers column. Please email your questions to anniesmailbox@comcast.net, or write to: Annie's Mailbox, c/o Creators Syndicate, 737 3rd Street, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. To find out more about Annie's Mailbox and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM 
|
 |
Comments
|
132 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
* * * * PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT * * * *
LW3 refers to the first letter on 5 January 2013.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Miss Pasko
Sun Mar 3, 2013 12:32 AM
|
|
|
|
Re LW1: Children are usually vaccinated for the varicella zoster virus (chickenpox/shingles) at 12-15 months of age. If your grandson is a newborn and you're having a shingles outbreak, he is at risk of contracting the virus if he has ANY contact with you. Your daughter might believe that she's protecting her son by limiting contact until she's sure that you're no longer contagious, but even limited contact could be putting the baby at risk. Talk to your doctor to confirm whether it's safe for you to handle an unvaccinated infant, and you might find the information useful in furthering your relationship with your grandson.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Bear
Sun Mar 3, 2013 12:54 AM
|
|
|
|
LW1: A couple of things:
* It seems you need extensive counseling. I realize much of what you describe is not your fault, but due to the circumstances regarding your family, it may help you deal with them.
(As far as your family's estrangement over the estate and such, either they need to consult the will and respect it or go to arbitration and then a good family counseling session.)
* As far as you not getting to see your grandchild and the void this has left ... hmmm, the only way I'd see it is get a surrogate grandchild or volunteer at a local preschool. They are often in need of volunteers, and it sounds like someone who loves children as you do would make a great volunteer.
* As far as the babysitting arrangements -- it's time to get more than a "we'll see," but a firm answer that will stick. If she says no thanks, then she needs to justify herself with a valid explanation, not excuses.
Bear: Maybe with the illnesses, but it sounds too like the son-in-law's family has something to do with this as well. I'm taking her at her word that she was a good parent to her daughter and wants what's best, so I don't see -- even with a "there's more to this story" line that some of the BTL'ers sometimes claim there is -- what the problem is. They come off as unsympathetic and want to paint themselves as high and mighty.
For now, the only solution is either counseling or to volunteer at a preschool or Sunday school. There's a void that needs to be filled, and her disappointment that she isn't getting to be more in her grandchild's life -- along with everytthing else she describes -- is concerning to me.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Bobaloo
Sun Mar 3, 2013 2:15 AM
|
|
|
|
LW2: If you're asking whether you should place a sign by the guest book asking people to please refrain from shaking hands, etc., due to the threat of spreading illnesses, I'd say that's a good idea. Most will respect your wishes; the ones who don't need just a simple reminder as they extend their hands, etc.
LW3: So what is it again about traveling out of the country that unnerves the wife in the original letter?
The only thing I've got to say about that is, if it is what I'm going to suspect it is – terrorism threat – then there's not much that can be done. Except you can't squirrel up in a hole waiting for people who hate us to go away.
Whatever it is, there's something that's unnerving her.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Bobaloo
Sun Mar 3, 2013 2:41 AM
|
|
|
|
Uh, Bobaloo, a mother doesn't have to justify her decision about her infant's babysitting arrangements to anyone but the father of the infant, frankly. Grandparents don't outrank parents in this way.
But regarding LW1, it's entirely possible that because of all the other situations she's dealing with, her daughter doesn't think it would be good for LW1 OR the baby to be a primary caretaker.
It's also possible that LW1 is simply coming on too strong, coming off as too needy, and the daughter and son-in-law are trying to set clear boundaries for everyone's sake.
It's also quite possible that the LW's negative attitude towards the son-in-law has been obvious for a while -- and dissing your daughter's husband, over and over again, has *consequences* -- of which limited grandchild interaction is an obvious one.
My advice would be to "have what you have" for a while. Enjoy the time you do have with your grandchild and stop complaining to your daughter so much. And stop, stop, STOP the negativity towards your son-in-law and try to find a way to see his good qualities and even find a way to make him an ally rather than an enemy.
Once you prove yourself not to be so intense and so negative, it's likely the time you get to spend with your daughter's family will increase.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Mike H
Sun Mar 3, 2013 2:48 AM
|
|
|
|
LW2, I recommend a face mask -- it's very, very common in Asia for someone who is ill to go out in public with a paper face mask, and I also know that many hospitals in the US are engaging in the practice as well. Since coughs and sneezes can spread the virus, the face mask helps cut down that spread.
You could also wear gloves as well. I know to many Westerners the mask seems awkward, but in cases where you really should stay home (because you are sick and don't want to spread the flu), the mask really does seem like the best alternative.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Mike H
Sun Mar 3, 2013 3:01 AM
|
|
|
|
Who, LW1! BACK OFF GRANNY!
You say your daughter "just" gave birth to your first grandson. When I was a new mother, I craved time alone with my little family to bond. It sounds like your daughter may be working too, so she's got her hands full. And then here comes Mom begging and pleading to spend time with the baby, the one even SHE doesn't get to spend enough time with.
You have to give your daughter some space. We don't know much about your SIL but likely he's sick of you hanging around and hovering over his wife and now his son. Lighten up. Frankly, just READING your letter made me sympathize with them, I can't imagine living with someone so clingy near by!
LW2: I say if you are THAT afraid of germs that you don't want to hug people at the funeral, that you STAY HOME. Funerals are a place to give people comfort. Can you imagine seeing the immediate family of the deceased, deep in mourning, and refusing to hug them because they are afraid of germs? You may be a "health care professional" but you seem to be missing a vital organ - the heart.
LW3: I can understand the original letter writer's ex wife's fear of having the children leave the country, and I think the original LW needs to back off until the kids are 18. It's not that he's likely to "steal" the kids, there are just too many things that can happen overseas (or even in a country like Mexico or Canada) where they have different laws etc. and things have been known to happen.
I think the kids in the original letter were in their teens, so it's not that long to wait. It seems pretty insensitive of the LW not to respect his ex's request.
Comment: #7
Posted by: nanchan
Sun Mar 3, 2013 3:13 AM
|
|
|
|
OK look here.
This is nothing personal, Mike H, and no personal experience of mine, but I'm going to be blunt.
The son-in-law's attitude is mean, cruel, selfish and worthy of sending him to Hell with no chance of getting paroled. (And folks, that's based on what the LW wrote – I won't speculate further about what may or may not be true about him ... except I think he may not be the person the LW and her husband wanted their daughter to marry.) Sorry, but that's my attitude, personally. I saw ZERO wrongdoing on the LW's part – she's looking for some support and I'm going to give it to her.
Anyone who would side with the son-in-law is siding with a bastard, IMO.
Sorry, but I just had to say it. (And no, he's not a bastard; I just had to get that off my chest.) But there's always something unnerving about these letters about grandparents and their rights to see their grandchildren and enjoy their company and live through them and have renewed purpose and vitality.
I think the daughter OWES IT TO HER OWN MOTHER to explain why. If it indeed is her coming on too strong, as Mike H suggests (possible) then she needs to gently explain things – and herself, because it's clear the LW doesn't get along with the son-in-law, so limited contact is best.
But I see nothing that suggests that the LW is negative or intense. I do think she's lonely and has had a few bad breaks in recent years, hence why I think counseling may be best, and perhaps volunteering at a school or youth group or preschool or somewhere where she can be with children, so she can get over whatever "empty nest" syndrome there may be.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Bobaloo
Sun Mar 3, 2013 3:31 AM
|
|
|
|
Addendum to LW2:
I reread the letter and it seems like the LW MAY be the immediate family of the deceased, which changes my answer.
1. If you ARE the immediate family and you are a part of the receiving line, then I would think a polite sign by the guest registry is ok. You may want to also enlist a family friend to act as the "Hug Police", gently holding people back from physical contact.
2. If you are NOT the immediate family, call in sick.
re: Masks. I lived in Asia for many years, and yes those masks are very common, especially in the winter. They are also pretty creepy, because mostly they weren't used to protect OTHER PEOPLE from air born diseases, they were used to protect the WEARER. I never saw someone who was sick wearing one, only "healthy" people. When people are sick in Japan, they (gasp!) STAY HOME or go to the hospital. The average hospital stay in Japan is MUCH longer than it is here in the US. For example, when I gave birth to CC in Japan, I stayed in the hospital for a full week (standard there). In the US, they let you go often the day after you have the baby. My hospital was considered progressive because they only insisted on a week. A case of the flu (if it is severe enough to see a doctor) can result in a hospital stay of at least a week. My husband's uncle was in the hospital for flu for 2 weeks. As for staying home when you are sick, the Japanese companies I worked with and around actually encouraged people to stay home if sick. At the school I taught at, it was not uncommon for a teacher to be out for 2 weeks with a cold (imagine trying to do that here in the US!). The point is, if you are SICK, you need to stay home, even if it is a funeral.
Comment: #9
Posted by: nanchan
Sun Mar 3, 2013 3:32 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Bear
Interesting point.
Comment: #10
Posted by: nanchan
Sun Mar 3, 2013 4:06 AM
|
|
|
|
@ Bobaloo
It's the ex-wife, not the wife. She may be afraid that the father's wish to travel with his children is a setup for a non-custodial parental kidnapping. Or she may simply be afraid of flying.
Comment: #11
Posted by: Kimiko
Sun Mar 3, 2013 4:16 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Kimiko (#11)
I do stand corrected on the wife/ex-wife thing.
That said, while the issue of possible kidnapping is certainly possible, I'm going to defer to the father that he wants to spend a week or so with his kids and that he and his ex-wife otherwise get along, and that fear of flying is not the only issue here.
Comment: #12
Posted by: Bobaloo
Sun Mar 3, 2013 4:30 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Kimiko (#11)
I do stand corrected on the wife/ex-wife thing.
That said, while the issue of possible kidnapping is certainly possible, I'm going to defer to the father that he wants to spend a week or so with his kids and that he and his ex-wife otherwise get along, and that fear of flying is not the only issue here.
Comment: #13
Posted by: Bobaloo
Sun Mar 3, 2013 4:30 AM
|
|
|
|
@Bobaloo, your comments take extremes that are often bizarre. Nothing personal, but sometimes I really wonder about your comments.
You have NO IDEA what the son-in-law's side of the story is. You have NO IDEA if the LW is leaving out important details that would shed light onto the situation.
The LW isn't being totally barred from seeing her granddaughter, she's just complaining that she wants more. That ISN'T a right -- it's the PARENTS who get to determine who takes care of their child, and how often.
For you to be so ridiculously extreme in your condemnation of the son-in-law with so little information and an entire side of the story missing is ludicrous. Actually, TWO entire sides to the story -- the daughter's and the son-in-law's.
And for you to insist that a mother has to bend over backwards to explain and justify her decisions about HER choice regarding who takes care of HER child is also utterly, utterly wrong.
You seem to be thinking that the grandmother has more rights than either parent. An interesting position to take, but not one that most parents would agree with, I think.
You've invented another scenario and decided the son-in-law is a bastard based on the description of a mother-in-law who DOES NOT LIKE HIM. Hunh, do you think maybe perhaps she's being a tad biased in her descriptions at all?
Where is the perspective in your comments, Bobaloo? Where is the sense of proportion?
Barring further information, I'll absolutely stand by the parents of the child over the grandparent, especially when there doesn't seem to be any evidence of abuse and the grandparent isn't being completely barred from seeing the grandchild -- in fact, LW sees the infant more often than many new grandparents do. LW is just not getting her way *enough* to satisfy her -- but you know what, sometimes we don't always get every single thing we want in this life. And maybe she's asking for too much. And maybe all the things that are happening in her life have made her a real negative nancy.
Why *isn't* she satisfied with the time she sees her grandchild. A few hours every week is NOT negligible.
There are plenty of good, reasonable, honest reasons that her daughter may want to limit LW's time with her grandchild. Note that I didn't say eliminate her time, just limit her time.
Your comments often seem to be all emotion and no critical thinking, Bobaloo. It certainly makes for feisty exchanges, but it also makes for rather fantastical... even unbelievable... positions that you so firmly and fervently espouse.
Try remembering that the LWs usually paint themselves in the best possible light, leave out details that might undermine their case, and that the other people in the letter aren't able to provide us their side of the story.
LW would do far better to learn to appreciate what she has rather than continue to complain about not getting more -- and perhaps even lose the connection she has by continuing to make an enemy of the father of her grandchild.
Comment: #14
Posted by: Mike H
Sun Mar 3, 2013 5:43 AM
|
|
|
|
LW2 - If you have to stand in the receiving line, wear latex gloves and long sleeves. You can explain to people that you're in the health care profession and you want to be careful not to communicate anything to the patients. Or you can go ahead and shake bare hands but step out of the line at intervals and excuse yourself to go to the bathroom and wash your hands thoroughly. If someone wants to hug you, draw back and say "Better watch out! I'm getting over a cold and I don't want to give you anything." I would think you could use the same strategy if you're not in the receiving line.
Comment: #15
Posted by: Rozelle
Sun Mar 3, 2013 5:54 AM
|
|
|
|
LW1 - Go hang out with the other grandma. And go to the doctor and get some happy pills. Your daughter is probably afraid that having the responsibility of caring for the baby will be too much for you.
Comment: #16
Posted by: Rozelle
Sun Mar 3, 2013 5:56 AM
|
|
|
|
I can't imagine what it is that Nanchan believes about Canada that makes it a place where bad things can happen that wouldn't happen in the US! I've lived here for 57 years and while there are criminals everywhere, the ones in Canada are pretty much run-of-the-mill.
Comment: #17
Posted by: melinda
Sun Mar 3, 2013 6:07 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Melinda
The point is, Melinda, that any time you leave your HOME country, you are at the mercy of the laws of the country you are IN.
That's it. It's a fact.
Comment: #18
Posted by: nanchan
Sun Mar 3, 2013 6:16 AM
|
|
|
|
I agree with those that say LW1 may be coming on too strong. This was what happened between my mother & I after the birth of my son. She always wanted me to bring him to her, even though I was exhausted from lack of sleep and recovering from a c-section in those early days. When we did bring the baby over (which has always been at least once a week), she'd never let him nap even when he was clearly exhausted (or even already sleeping) because she wanted to play with him. She thought she was doing us a favour of tiring him out past the point of exhaustion, but we just ended up having to deal with a super cranky baby when we got home. If LW1 is anything like this, then I'm impressed she gets to see baby as often as she does. Throw in the illnesses she's dealt with, possible depression, and an obvious distaste for her son in law, then her daughter is a saint for going over at least twice a week!
It's also possible her daughter has explained why the in-laws get more time with the baby and LW1 just doesn't accept the answer.
Comment: #19
Posted by: Elbee
Sun Mar 3, 2013 6:23 AM
|
|
|
|
Agree totally with Mike H. on 14.
Comment: #20
Posted by: nanchan
Sun Mar 3, 2013 6:31 AM
|
|
|
|
LW1--As I read your letter, which by the way, quickly segued from 'I want to see my grandson' to 'poor me, I'm such a victim.' Me, me, me, me, me... is all that your letter seemed to be about. Look hon, it's pretty obvious to me and probably blindingly so to your daughter and son-in-law that you're a black hole of attention who sucks the life out of everyone trapped in your orbit. You have a lot going on in your life that has little to do with not having access to your grandson and I suspect your daughter and her husband have borne the brunt. Start with counseling to figure out how to deal with the death of your parent and handle your siblings. Next tackle making an attitude adjustment with regards to your son-in-law to being mending the rift with your daughter. My guess is once you've become a calmer, more centered person you'll have plenty of opportunities to spend with your grandson.
LW2--Let's be grateful that stupid isn't an virus that spreads by handshakes and hugs. Just in case, I think you should quarantine yourself at home and make no contact whatsoever with the outside world. If anyone asks why you missed the funeral, you had a cold.
LW3--Um, there was a lot more going on in that family beyond a simple fear of flying. Learn to read between the lines.
Comment: #21
Posted by: Chris
Sun Mar 3, 2013 6:50 AM
|
|
|
|
Mike H. is absolutely right, and Bobaloo, step back and read this statement: "The son-in-law's attitude is mean, cruel, selfish and worthy of sending him to Hell with no chance of getting paroled. (And folks, that's based on what the LW wrote – I won't speculate further about what may or may not be true about him ."
WHAT??? You don't KNOW what the sil's attitude is - all we know is that this whining grandmother says she "finds him arrogant and rather disrepectful." Based on what? We have no idea - and neither do you, but you go off, half-cocked as usual, and damn him to hell without parole. And all you do is speculate.
I, too, found granny to sound incredibly needy and whiney - she certainly has plenty to complain to the Annie's about that really has nothing to do with the problem itself. And yes, she's lucky she gets a couple of hours a week at this point. Daughter owes her nothing by way of explanation, but it would be nice if she could be direct and tell her the real reasons they don't want her around more. It took me 30 seconds to read her letter, and I wouldn't want her around.
I have two sons-in-law, as different as night and day. One is affectionate and loving to me, the other more dutiful and moody. You know what? I love them both. My attitude is - a son-in-law's job is to be a good husband to my daughter and a good father to my grandchild. That's it. As long as he does that, I'll love him and be as supportive as I can. And it's paid off.
Grandma needs to learn that the sil is here to stay and she'd better find a way to start appreciating his role in her daughter's life. If she doesn't, this is only the beginning.
Comment: #22
Posted by: Maggie Lawrence
Sun Mar 3, 2013 7:22 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Nanchan – Whoa! Canada? Mexico? I've been to both places plenty of times! No weird laws to worry about, they both are pretty cool places to visit! I'd worry more about the laws in Texas! (Just joking, my dad's family is from Texas.) Lighten up!
Re: LW2 - During the funeral, don't touch your hands your face. Put some hand sanitizer in your pocket and use it liberally after the funeral is over, and go home immediately and wash your clothes and take a shower. Also, lighten up.
Comment: #23
Posted by: Cyn
Sun Mar 3, 2013 7:30 AM
|
|
|
|
I think Elbee nailed it. My mother was the same way when my first son was born. She was so jealous of any time we took the baby over to my husband's family's house even though I tried like heck to make it even. At family functions, she would even count the minutes that my husband's aunt held the baby vs. the minutes she got to hold him and then call me up the next day and complain about it! One winter, we had a lot of snow, and I didn't make it over to her house for a while because it was so cold and I didn't want to take the baby out and the roads were bad. The first time I walked in the door after that she greeted with "do you know it's been 28 days since I have seen my grandson?" She was critical of my husband and judgemental and critical of everything I did and always said unkind things about my husband's family to me behind his back whereas my husband's family welcomed me with open arms and were about the least judgemental people I have ever met. I would advise this granny who wrote to the Annies to focus on what is good in her life vs. dwelling on what she feels is missing, and start focusing on being less self-pitying and more positive, but I know it won't do any good, I've been there with my own mother, and these kind of people would rather complain about how terrible their life is and blame their families for their misery, rather than try to look at what is positive.
Comment: #24
Posted by: kaydee
Sun Mar 3, 2013 7:40 AM
|
|
|
|
Re LW#1---
I have a mental image here of the LW and her son-in-law each hanging onto one of the daughter's arms and having a massive tug-of-war with her, and the LW is slowly losing her grip. She obviously doesn't like her SIL, and he may indeed BE 'arrogant and rather disrespectful'--------but you can bet he is picking up on the fact that she thinks that, and he probably WILL try to discourage the relationship between her and her daughter accordingly. I'm pretty sure that I would not encourage my spouse to be close to someone who obviously didn't like me.
.
LW, you say your life is full of stress and sadness and that you are counting on your daughter to become closer to you now that she has a child, to fill the void. But probably the opposite will happen, as it should--------she will not necessarily cut you out of her life, but she WILL develop a new nucleus of herself, her husband, and their child. You are on the outer edge, like it or not, and that is how it should be. You need to find other means of filling any void in your life than leeching onto your grown, married child.
.
Stop pressuring them with gifts of things for the baby that have strings attached---------and stop asking to babysit more often. She is quite aware that you want to, and is probably getting really tired of the constant badgering her to change her mind. All you will really accomplish with this pressure, and with your obvious dislike of her chosen mate, is to drive her away, when you want the opposite. I suggest being grateful for the time you do get with the baby and letting everything else go, and maybe working on a better relationship with your SIL. He may or not be trying to separate the two of you, but the way you're responding, you're playing right into his hands.
Comment: #25
Posted by: jennylee
Sun Mar 3, 2013 7:44 AM
|
|
|
|
LW1 - the LW comes across as so needy that all my mom alarms are tripping. This letter is all about what she needs and she wants and how stressful her life has been, and there is nothing in there that hints at a concern about is best for the baby or even for the new family unit. As a mom, my first choice for day care isn't someone this stressed and needy, because as a mom, my most important concern is the baby. It can be very demanding to care for an infant for a whole day! Parents can't make day care arrangements with people they don't believe are up to the responsibility. Someone with this many crises - health crises, crises over the estate & her siblings - crises that keep her awake at night stressing about them, is not a good choice to entrust an infant to, certainly not for a whole day, and maybe not even for a few hours. It's hard to tell exactly why the daughter isn't as sympathetic as the LW would like. It sounds like there was some kind of rift after the marriage, and it's not helped by the LW badgering a new mom about access to the baby. When I was a new mom, I was pretty focused on my baby & getting adequate sleep. I would not have appreciated someone nagging at me about something I clearly didn't want to do. LW should accept that "we'll see" means "no", and enjoy the time she has with the kid.
Comment: #26
Posted by: kai archie
Sun Mar 3, 2013 8:05 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: melinda
I remember just last week on the subway in Toronto we had a gang jumping tourists and force feeding them maple syrup.
Lawless place, this is.
Comment: #27
Posted by: Jpp
Sun Mar 3, 2013 8:05 AM
|
|
|
|
Cyn:
YOU lighten up! I was making a point, now you want to make it a battle.
I spent every summer of my life in Mexico until I was 18 and the rules there are different. If the LW's wife has discomfort FOR ANY REASON, with the LW taking the kids out of the country than that's her RIGHT as the mother of these children.
And yes, again, AGAIN. Laws change from country to country. Again. Different country, different laws.
Comment: #28
Posted by: nanchan
Sun Mar 3, 2013 8:07 AM
|
|
|
|
LW1: It sounds as if your daughter isn't back to work yet, if she "just gave birth" and they "plan" to have his mom watch the baby.
I'm saying this to you as another grandma: You need to dial it way, way back, because at the rate you are going, there is a very real danger that you're going to step in it big time, and end ALL access to your grandson for years to come. Your entitlement and neediness are coming loud and strong, so much so that I'm surprised you get the visitation you do. "They are stealing my joy at having a grandchild" and "but nothing changes" indeed!
You've made it clear that you don't like your son-in-law -- the baby's father. People tend to know when someone dislikes them, and it's very likely that your daughter is hurt by your dislike of her choice, too. So it's quite possible he hasn't bad-mouthed you at all -- that you've made your own bed here by being less accepting and welcoming to him than his mom has been toward your daughter.
Smart grandparents know that you cannot just tolerate the parents, as a unit, to get to the REAL prize, the baby. It's interesting that you believe now that your daughter has been a mom for all of what, 10 minutes? that you expect SHE would be more sympathetic to YOU? Sorry, hon -- she has no idea what it's like to have her only parent die or siblings squabbling over an estate or cancer. At the moment, she is wrapped up in trying to navigate the post-baby hormones, nights of regularly interrupted sleep, the fears of whether she'll be a good mom, worries that her baby isn't rolling over or smiling when the experts says he should, or how she's going to manage to go back to work and miss milestones.
You've been there. She hasn't been where you are, and you've made her into one of the Bad Guys.
Also consider that it is NOT a competition between you and your daughters' MIL, and framing it that way is a path to perpetual unhappiness (yours).
If you want something to change in this situation, YOU be the change. Change your attitude (you have a healthy grandson who lives with two parents who love him dearly and who live in the same town you do! And who aren't estranged from you!).
Changing your attitude MIGHT also help in the estrangement of your siblings, if you've been acting as entitled with them as you have been toward your grandson.
Comment: #29
Posted by: hedgehog
Sun Mar 3, 2013 8:11 AM
|
|
|
|
I agree with the folks who said this granny is coming on too strong. I had the same experience myself when my first son was born. My mother perceived any time spent with my in-laws as a slight against her. (even though I bent over backwards to make sure we spent the same time visiting each side of the family). She wouldn't drive to my house because I "lived too far away" (a 20 minute drive) so I always had to take the baby to see her. Once, at a family gathering, she counted the minutes that my husband's aunt held the baby vs. the minutes she held him and then called me up later on that day to complain about it! Another time, we had a particularly bad winter, and I didn't take my son out at all for nearly a month due to cold weather and slippery roads, and the first visit to her house after that, as we walked in the door, she greeted me with "do you know it's been 28 days since I saw my grandson?" She was always judgmental and critical of everything I did and said unkind things about my husband and his family any time he wasn't around. She was a widow who had alienated her few remaining friends and preferred to feel sorry for herself and focus solely on how her family (meaning me and my sister and her sister) were making her life miserable. On the other hand, my husband's family welcomed me with open arms and were the least judgmental group of people I ever met. I would advise this granny to back off and concentrate on what's positive in her life, but with people like this, it's always about me, me, me, so I doubt if my advice would be heeded.
Comment: #30
Posted by: kaydee
Sun Mar 3, 2013 8:13 AM
|
|
|
|
I think the daughter OWES IT TO HER OWN MOTHER to explain why.
************
Oh, Bobaloo! Seriously???? Why?
Parents have the say in how their children are raised. But they don't have a say in how their ADULT children raise THEIR children. They don't have to explain why they are choosing to raise the kid in a different religion, as a vegan, in cloth diapers or justify their choice of day care provider.
But let's forget that for a moment and say you are correct: the daughter is somehow being derelict in not saying to her mother the reasons why she doesn't want Mom to babysit. (Reasons that, by the way, could be very hurtful to LW.)
LW cannot force her daughter to change, only her own attitude and reaction to the situation. By insisting (in upper case, yet!) that her daughter owes her this, you feed LW's already substantial indignation and lead her to the ultimatum: SHE is right, DAUGHTER is wrong -- the only hope is to either show daughter how WRONG she is or CUT OFF ALL CONTACT until daughter sees the light!
This baby is probably less than 3 months old. Do you really believe LW should escalate this by telling herself she is right and daughter wrong? Is that likely to get her what she wants most?
Your response and suggestion that she volunteer to work with small children is far more appropriate for grandparents who have been entirely cut off (for years!) from their grandchildren. They are certainly INappropriate for a family where all members are still adjusting to what it means to be a mom, a dad, a grandma,a grandpa AND where grandma and grandpa are seeing the newborn weekly, despite grandma's recent shingles outbreaks.).
Comment: #31
Posted by: hedgehog
Sun Mar 3, 2013 8:40 AM
|
|
|
|
As others have mentioned, the grandmother in the first letter comes across as needy and whiny. Aside from that, however, young parents have to consider exposing someone with shingles to a newborn. When my son was an infant, a relative of ours had shingles, and our pediatrician was adamant that we not visit her while she had an active outbreak. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if they have been advised to limit contact for that reason.
As for the traveling dad - I do hope they work this out. My parents never travel, but my in-laws are globetrotters. Marriage to my husband brought the world of travel into my life, and it really opened my eyes to how much I missed out on as a child. I hope this dad and his ex can come up with a compromise so the kids don't miss out on wonderful experiences. I also fail to understand why mom's opinion is more important than dad's on this issue. My husband and I are equals when it comes to parenting. When we don't agree, we compromise, like grown-ups should do.
Comment: #32
Posted by: HeatherSunny
Sun Mar 3, 2013 8:41 AM
|
|
|
|
I don't have grandkids as yet, but I sure do wonder at how some grandparents are so possessive; I haven't seen MY grandson blah blah blah, MY granddaughter blah blah blah.
Well, fine and dandy, he's your grandson and she's your granddaughter, but you don't get to call the shots. I have a big problem with those who try to take over, essentially. The parents call the shots, as the grandparents called the shots when their kids were small. It's simply a matter of respect for boundaries.
I think it would be fine to post a note about not shaking hands at the funeral; my mom died a few weeks ago and two of my sons got sick with the exact same thing the next day.
Comment: #33
Posted by: jar8818
Sun Mar 3, 2013 8:50 AM
|
|
|
|
LW1 - You said your daughter just gave birth. I'm assuming you mean less than 3 months ago. You've mentioned 2 shingles outbreaks within the past 2 months. You should not be around a baby when you have shingles. They are not vaccinated for that until 12 months or so. Your daughter sees that you've been having shingles outbreaks and she probably doesn't want to expose her baby to that. Do you blame her? You also said you have cancer. I know it's not contagious but I assume you're going through treatments. People going through treatments are often very tired. And you mentioned the many other problems going on in your life. Perhaps your daughter doesn't feel you can adaquatly care for an infant in your condition. Maybe her in-laws are much healthier and don't have a lot of drama going on.
You also sound VERY pushy. Twice a week is NOT a small amount of time. Are you the type where no amount of time spent will be enough? Maybe all the food, gifts and baby gear is too much. Not everyone likes to be showered with gifts. You need to back off. Don't bring gifts, don't ask for more visits, don't whine that the in-laws get to babysit, etc. That may be a big turn off to them. Enjoy your twice a week visits and maybe things will change in the future.
LW2 - I like the idea mentioned above about placing a sign by the guest book.
Comment: #34
Posted by: Michelle
Sun Mar 3, 2013 9:05 AM
|
|
|
|
Actually, @Michelle, some cancers are contagious, although little is known about the mechanism of spreading and why they only cause cancer in some carriers. Many forms of T-cell leukemia, lymphoma, cervical cancer, carcinoma and sarcoma have been shown to be caused by viruses.
Comment: #35
Posted by: Carla
Sun Mar 3, 2013 9:27 AM
|
|
|
|
nanchan - I answered your question about how many businesses I own in yesterday's comment section, and you might want to read what other people wrote there today, too. Or on second thought, you probably don't.
Comment: #36
Posted by: C Meier
Sun Mar 3, 2013 9:49 AM
|
|
|
|
I'm betting Grandma doesn't listen to her daughter. My Mom undermines my rules about the kids. She doesn't respect that I might feel differently than she does on a matter and just assumes anything she wants to do is okay. She never THINKS before she does. All the other family members are much more cautious because they know the rule "not my kid, ask first." Because of this I am called "overprotective" by my mom. I won't let her take them overnight or on vacation. I even turned down Disneyland, which is big for us.
Also, while she says they prefer the husband's family for babysitting, she does not mention how much babysitting is needed. I need very little and hate being away from my baby for any extended time the first year.
As for the shingles, I had it two years ago. My doctor said it is only a danger of the sores are open. As long as she does not have any of the blisters and they have all healed over she shouldn't be a danger. However, to a new fist time Mommy, the fear of germs might overcome any reasonable.
Grandma shouldn't be counting on her grandson to cure ALL her blues. He's just a baby. Don't put the weight of the world on him. Your happiness is your responsibility and yours alone. Your daughter and her family cannot bend over backwards to make you happy.
Comment: #37
Posted by: MT
Sun Mar 3, 2013 9:51 AM
|
|
|
|
OK, I'll take a step back here. I admit I was a bit emotional – reasons not connected to the situation in this letter – when I typed my earlier remarks.
However, this much I stand by: I sense there is, in the very least, no love lost between the mother and son-in-law, given her remarks.
I MOST CERTAINLY DID NOT invent any scenarios there about what he might be doing – the only one I am going with is what the LW actually states: arrogance and "rather disrespectful" attitude. Why that is, or if her perception is just that I've no idea. To be fair to SIL, it could be she just disagrees with him so strongly (on this issue or perhaps others) that anything he says, no matter how mild-mannered, comes off as "arrogant" and "disrespectful."
As far as the comments along the lines of "the daughter owes no explanation," does anyone really expect the LW to have an epiphany about her limited contact with the grandchild (and what is sure to remain limited) absent an explanation? With the LW in the mental state she's in (family issues, perceived or actual imbalance in whom the grandchild sees) ... not likely.
I think it would help the LW, quite frankly ... and it comes from someone who cares about the situation, not some paid shrink who is more concerned about his $bottom line$ and who could give a rat's ass about the situation (and yes, I did recommend counseling, although for the other situation involving her family).
And it'll give her peace of mind, because she's gone half-crazy it seems fretting about the situation. Not just about how often she gets to visit her grandchild, but that with the family fighting over the estate and who gets what – I sure hope there was a will – her vision of the family is no longer the Waltons or the Bradys (where everybody gets along and fights are only temporary).
Any way it's put, the LW needs to get control of her emotions, or it's going to lead to something bad – and by that, I mean her health, which we see is already suffering, or a suicide (no joy left in her life).
Can we all agree on that and move on?
Comment: #38
Posted by: Bobaloo
Sun Mar 3, 2013 10:02 AM
|
|
|
|
No, C. I won't read yesterday's thread, because I am more focused on TODAY'S and also on my companies.
When I incorporated, it was a BIG DEAL. Not only for me, but for the partners I have who have stuck with me through thick and thin. And I don't need you, or anyone else (including my family) to pooh pooh a major achievement for me and my team. We recently sold one of our companies and are about ready to launch the other. We do that by NOT listening to people like you.
I wish you the best in your life.
Comment: #39
Posted by: nanchan
Sun Mar 3, 2013 10:13 AM
|
|
|
|
BTW, in post #35, I didn't mean to imply that people should avoid cancer sufferers for such a ridiculous reason. They obviously aren't as easily transmitted as the common cold, and sensible precautions should be enough for anyone who isn't coughing, sneezing, or oozing.
I am the fun one.
Comment: #40
Posted by: Carla
Sun Mar 3, 2013 10:19 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: hedgehog (#31)
"But let's forget that for a moment and say you are correct: the daughter is somehow being derelict in not saying to her mother the reasons why she doesn't want Mom to babysit. (Reasons that, by the way, could be very hurtful to LW.)"
So what I'll say here is that if the LW asks for an explanation, then the daughter should give one. Because you may be right – the reasons may (fair or not, accurate or not) be very hurtful.
MT (#37)
Whoa – the baby is only a few months old, not 3 or 4. So we know that letting the kid play a violent video game, to watch a TV show he/she shouldn't be watching, play in the street, eat too much sweets or stay up until 1 a.m. isn't at issue here. The only thing that's in play here is grandma wants to see her grandchild – to hold and love and caress it and experience that joy.
And perhaps that's what's rubbing me wrong – not getting access to that joy and having that one ray of sunshine (by watching the baby live and in person). That and the other things going wrong in her life (illness, family strife), it seems there's this feeling or perception that her judgement is forthcoming and that she is a bad person.
But then, surely none of us know if the grandma is or/will be an "act first, damn the consequences" type (this is her first grandchild). She could be exactly like the other siblings you describe (the "not my child, I'll ask first" type). She just wants to have that love and joy.
So then, how else do you get that love and joy and good feeling, aside from counseling and getting meds (to "cure" depression) that will only screw up your brain? Particularly if volunteering isn't an appropriate solution.
All – Ashamed to admit, but I've never known about shingles, so is it contagious or could otherwise seriously compromise her ability to watch the baby?
Comment: #41
Posted by: Bobaloo
Sun Mar 3, 2013 10:22 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: hedgehog (#29)
Also – I see nothing where SHE is acting entitled about her share of the estate that her other siblings are fighting over. As I interpreted her comments about this aspect of her life, she could be on the sidelines and just watching (and crying as her family is coming apart at the seams).
(Why I always say, GET A WILL and explicitly spell out who gets what, and what percentages each will get. Or if others need to get the money, or whatever. Other than that, that's a separate issue.)
Comment: #42
Posted by: Bobaloo
Sun Mar 3, 2013 10:27 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: hedgehog (#31)
"They don't have to explain why they are choosing to raise the kid in a different religion, as a vegan, in cloth diapers ... ."
Those things I'm not going for. I never sensed that religion, diet, wearing cloth diapers ... any of that ... are in play here. The only issue is how often she gets to see the baby, her one ray of sunshine she may have left.
All: Look, I admit that her being a new grandmother is something to get used to, and everyone's trying. The daughter and SIL are too, I'd bet. Perhaps some patience is needed, I don't know.
Comment: #43
Posted by: Bobaloo
Sun Mar 3, 2013 10:33 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Bobaloo
But LW1 *is* getting to see the baby -- twice a week! She sounds like she wants to see the baby much more often than that, and really, twice a week is a lot. If the baby really is just born and only a few weeks/months old, then mom is likely still trying to get into a routine. Once a baby is added in the mix, getting out of the house suddenly takes a lot longer. By the time you get baby ready, get yourself ready, then baby needs a nap, or a feed, or a change, or all three. Then mom gets spit up on at some point and needs to change her shirt. And repeat. So twice a week is pretty generous. And it sounds like LW1 expects baby to come to her, not the other way around. The baby may be her 'one ray of sunshine' but as someone above said, that's a lot of pressure to put on a young baby.
Comment: #44
Posted by: Elbee
Sun Mar 3, 2013 10:49 AM
|
|
|
|
1) I'm so glad my exH and I agreed to let one another take the kids anywhere in the world. I can't imagine not letting him, but I also trust him implicitly and know he'd never keep them from me. Sadly, I know women and men both who won't let their exes do that, not because they actually think he will kidnap them but because they just "don't feel comfortable" (read: don't have control). I can't imagine making my kids missing out on the amazing experiences they had for so little purpose.
2) Bobaloo, let's assume the SIL is isolating her and is a rat bastard. Granny throwing a fit is not going to make it any better. It will just give the son more ammo. The way to solve that problem is to be a loving supportive open book to her daughter and not put her in a position where she has to fight with her husband, if indeed he is the problem.
She may not want to tell her mom because I know if my husband told HIS mom why his other parents get to babysit our kids more, she'd be really hurt and upset, it would cause more drama, and change exactly nothing. The truth is when his mom babysits it's a BIG deal for her. I don't mean "happy" big deal. I mean she frets over every detail. She examines every stool to make sure it's exactly perfect. If either kid has so much as a sniffle she freaks out and sends them home or won't accept them when they arrive. She also says she's available a lot, but she tires very easily at nearly 70. My husband's other parents are in their early 50s and have a LOT more energy. We don't want to tire his mom out because she will need a good week to recover and will call each day and whine about her back.
If we tell her this she will argue about either how we are wrong, or she is right. And the situation won't change at ALL but it will be a big stupid riff in the family. In our case, we just don't mention when the little ones go to the other grandparents for a few days. Sadly LW's daughter cannot do this.
Consider another thing: SIL may just be willing to be the scapegoat. I've told my husband (who is severely conflict avoidant) to make me the asshole any time he needs to because I don't mind one bit. Tell his parents I threw a fit insisted demanded on this or that, I so do not care. For all we know, the LW's daughter is relieved to not have to deal with her needy demanding mother, loves her and doesn't want to cut her off, says "HELL NO my child is NOT being watched by my mother!" and is relieved granny is blaming it on SIL. You'd be surprised how many very elderly people in fragile health (particularly the owmen I notice) INSIST on being full time care providers for their grandchildren, freaking their daughters and sons out. And when confronted they cry and insist they are PERFECTLY FINE. It's one reason our very youngest hasn't gone to my MILs for more than an hour or two without us being there as well, because I know my MIL can't pick him up very often, but she'll never admit it.
Comment: #45
Posted by: wkh
Sun Mar 3, 2013 11:13 AM
|
|
|
|
LW 1 The LW sound unhealthy physically and emotionally. I would not leave a newborn baby with a person like that. The baby is completely helpless and the LW sounds too unstable for such a large responsibility. Babies are a lot of work even for young people. I think the parents are rightly concerned for the welfare of thier infant.
Comment: #46
Posted by: locake
Sun Mar 3, 2013 11:16 AM
|
|
|
|
LW 1 The LW sound unhealthy physically and emotionally. I would not leave a newborn baby with a person like that. The baby is completely helpless and the LW sounds too unstable for such a large responsibility. Babies are a lot of work even for young people. I think the parents are rightly concerned for the welfare of thier infant.
Comment: #47
Posted by: locake
Sun Mar 3, 2013 11:17 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Elbee (#44)
I'll be honest – she wants to see the baby 24/7/365.
OK, being facetious ... maybe not quite *that* often – perhaps a full day of baby-sitting (e.g., eight hours, plus travel time for one of the two working parents) if only ONCE a week, plus other "fill in" times and splitting with the SIL's folks. I don't know what the other set of parents are set up like, so I don't know if that's a fair balance.
No pressure on the "one ray of sunshine." Just looking at him in person is enough. Certainly, it's filling a void of happiness that, from how I read the letter, does not appear to exist elsewhere in her life (i.e., the lack of love seen a la "The Waltons" or "The Brady Bunch.")
BTW – My mother got to start babysitting each of my nephews when they were only a few weeks old and my sister went back to work. (My brother-in-law was always working.) A different situation, I admit, but there, it's divided equally between the two sides – once a week for my mom and once a week for his grandmother (his folks both still work) – with day care picking up the rest of the week.
Maybe that's a little bit of a hint of where I'm coming from.
Comment: #48
Posted by: Bobaloo
Sun Mar 3, 2013 11:17 AM
|
|
|
|
LW 2 Why would they write to an advice column about a funeral coming up soon? Unless the person is still living and has a few weeks to live, they won't get the answer in time for this funeral. If you don't want to hug or shake hands cough and tell people you have a cold. They will back away from you and not have hurt feelings.
Comment: #49
Posted by: locake
Sun Mar 3, 2013 11:24 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: locake (#49)
Except that some people are clods and sometimes either *will* be offended by not having that opportunity to shake hands (or take advantage of this opportunity and sneak in a hug or kiss), or will do those things anyway. It's just how it is, I'm afraid.
Like I said, put up a notice at the guest book or somewhere and those that don't want to abide can simply leave their memorial and leave.
Comment: #50
Posted by: Bobaloo
Sun Mar 3, 2013 11:47 AM
|
|
|
|
You have a highly contagious disease which can cause severe infections or even death.I have had shingles and WOULD NEVER EXPOSE A NEWBORN TO IT. You have had health issues but there is no excuse for stupidity. Skype with mom and baby but please don't insist on visits unless you are gowned gloved and masked.This disease is also contagious BEFORE the outbreak with coughing and sneezing.If your doctor didn't tell you this you have an idiot for a doctor.Since you have had 2 outbreaks everyone should err on the side of caution as I'm sure your "arrogant" INTELLIGENT.son in law is doing.
Comment: #51
Posted by: retired
Sun Mar 3, 2013 12:04 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: retired (#51)
Going back to an earlier remark about explaining things to the LW, IF it's only about the shingles, then what's so hurtful about telling the LW, "Hey, you've got a contagious disease and we don't want to expose him to a sickness that could make him seriously ill"?
As for the SIL's "arrogance," it's not that kind of arrogance. There's other issues, and whatever they are I don't care.
I can't speak for the daughter or SIL, but yes, I do consider myself reasonably intelligent. I didn't know about shingles.
Comment: #52
Posted by: Bobaloo
Sun Mar 3, 2013 12:22 PM
|
|
|
|
Also, LW1 never mentioned what kind of cancer she's been diagnosed with. It could be lung cancer from years of smoking and her house reeks of stale smoke? Maybe grandPA doesn't want to be burdened with watching/seeing the baby all the time? I know my father, even though he loves playing with my son does get bored after about 20 minutes and disappears somewhere else in the house. He'd love to take my mom more places during the week, but she'd rather stay home on the off chance I bring the baby by. Maybe the other set of grandparents live closer to where the daughter/SIL work so having them watch the baby is more convenient. Maybe they have a bigger/more baby friendly house?
But just re-reading the letter, LW1 does seem to bring on the drama queenery and that'd be reason enough to limit visits to a couple hours a week.
Comment: #53
Posted by: Elbee
Sun Mar 3, 2013 12:38 PM
|
|
|
|
LW1: You say you were close with her prior to her marriage but then later you state that you thought once she had a child of her own you two would get closer - so which is it? I'm thinking you were never close and your daughter got married to get away from you. Stop pushing - you aren't owed anything. You chose to breed so she owes you nothing. You need therapy.
LW2: You're a health care professional? Bah ha ha ha.
Comment: #54
Posted by: Diana
Sun Mar 3, 2013 12:41 PM
|
|
|
|
LW1: It looks at this point that your daughter believes that with your troubles and informities it just seems at this point that your in-laws are in a better positon to provide day-to-day care for the grandson you both share. The worst thing you can do is complain about it - - many of the posters have weighed in with the same opinion. As grandparents, we need to realize that 1) The parents, and not us, are the ones who determine who cares for the children and how, and 2) Your daughter's first loyalty is to her husband, and not to you. Realize too that even if you did nothing wrong, things could be a lot worse. Hang back and limit your contact with your daughter to once every couple of weeks or less. Sounds difficult, but you've gotten yourself on very thin ice here and you need to tread carefully.
You say that your SIL is arrogant and disrespectful toward you. I say that it depends on what you mean by respect and what conduct would be required by him to meet your standard. A lot of people confuse "lack of respect" for outright disrespect. If you're not 100 percent sure, you need to give your SIL the benefit of the doubt here. Unless he has been actively disrespectful to you and/or your husband, you need to write it off to experience. Make every reasonable effort to get into (or back) into his good graces.
LW2: Funerals are difficult, but you should be as accomodating as you can toward those who took the time to attend. My parents are in their late eighties and they won't live forever. I intend to suck it up and come what may when it happens. There have been some good suggestions offered here so maybe I won't come down with something.
LW3: Sounds like the ex-wife is afraid of a non-custodial parent kidnapping. Not knowing the situation, that's as far as I'm going on this one.
Comment: #55
Posted by: JustWinBaby
Sun Mar 3, 2013 1:17 PM
|
|
|
|
@Bobaloo, why on earth would a grandparent *expect* to be spending 8 hours at a time with their new grandchild on a *weekly basis*?!? That's NOT the norm at all.
LW is already getting VERY reasonable amounts of time with the new grandchild, and more than many grandparents get.
By her OWN ADMISSION, she's also battling loss, health issues, estrangement from other family members, and most likely depression... what sane parent would want to leave their child alone for long stretches of time with a person struggling with those emotional and health issues?
The most likely scenario is that LW is being unrealistic and selfish and demanding, and is in such a poor emotional state that she isn't capable of realizing how unreasonable she's being. While we can feel sympathy for her plight, we should NOT be encouraging her or giving advice that enables her to continue being in what is a very negative emotional space -- along with not appreciating what she already has.
Look, her life sucks right now. Maybe some of that could be her own fault (squabbling siblings and estrangement, her attitude towards her SIL), others are clearly not (cancer, loss of parents). But that doesn't mean she get to use "being a grandmother" as a panacea to make her feel better. The birth of this child wasn't for her benefit, and yet she's acting like a child who didn't get the toy she wanted for Christmas.
It's the attitude that many of us are finding problematic, Bobaloo, even if we have sympathy for her other life problems.
But instead of dealing with those problems, she's glomming onto her new grandchild as it if will magically compensate for all the other stuff. She'd be better served by getting counseling to deal with that other stuff, and then just simply appreciate whatever time she can spend with her daughter, son-in-law, and grandchild.
And she should *ask* how she can help, in a mild, respectful way. And not complain or put pressure on her daughter or go full-court-press on the guilt trip ("They are stealing my joy of having a grandchild.").
And she should *definitely* back off on her attitude towards her SIL. As others have also pointed out, this could have been poisoning her relationship with her daughter even before the grandchild was born. Her daughter IS going to choose her husband and her own child over the LW *every single time*, and that's *as it should be*.
So, for HER sake, she needs to back off, learn how to appreciate what she already has, and let her daughter take the lead in how that daughter sets up her own family life and who takes care of *her* child. LW needs to stop trying to control the situation, make demands, or be competitive with the other grandmother -- because if LW DOES continue on this path, she'll get frozen out more and more often, not less, Bobaloo.
A happy, undemanding, helpful-when-asked, non-envious grandmother who doesn't give a hint that she has negative feelings about her grandchild's father will find herself welcomed more and more often. A whiny, negative, depressed, demanding, jealous grandmother who makes it obvious she doesn't like the man her daughter married isn't going to be greeted warmly into her daughter's home.
Comment: #56
Posted by: Mike H
Sun Mar 3, 2013 1:26 PM
|
|
|
|
LW1 I'm guessing that this needy, whiny grandma left something out- otherwise her daughter would not be so hesitant to leave the baby with her. And lets face it, after ranting about how much she dislikes her SIL to the Annies, I imagine that she just oozes dislike whenever she is around him. She also has so many physical and emotional complaints, why does she think that they would want to impose the demands of a baby on her? If she needs a 'ray of sunshine' in her life, maybe she should get a dog- they are always glad to see you, and they are around 24/7. Also, the shingles thing is serious. I caught it from my grandma when I was little, because she had to watch me a lot. I was about 5 though, so it didn't devestate me, but I wouldn't take that risk with an infant.
LW2 If you are a health professional, then you are probably around sick people all the time and have some level of immunity. If you keep your hands away from your face, can't you just shake hands and then go wipe your hands on wipeys every hour or so? I just can't imagine not getting hugged by the people who love me when I am at the wake of my loved ones. I found the hugs to be comforting, even though I catch everything; I needed the hugs more than I needed to avoid a cold or flu. Actually, I think hugs help immunity.
Comment: #57
Posted by: Patty Bear
Sun Mar 3, 2013 1:52 PM
|
|
|
|
nanchan - You are the one that asked ME a question, and now you are to scared to read it. Apparently you're not the confident woman you claim you are.
Comment: #58
Posted by: C Meier
Sun Mar 3, 2013 2:29 PM
|
|
|
|
OMG! I just realized that nanchan said her family pooh poohed her achievements!! No wonder she is so insecure and had to live vicariously through them.
And nanchan, if your reading this, I incorporated, built and sold a company too. Happens every day.
(So I "lied" when I said I wouldn't reply to nanchan's posts. I can't help it that I like to argue everything with everybody. It amuses me.)
Comment: #59
Posted by: C Meier
Sun Mar 3, 2013 2:36 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Mike H (#56)
Two things bother me about your post – not the ultimate summary, just:
• "While we can feel sympathy for her plight, we should NOT be encouraging her or giving advice that enables her to continue being in what is a very negative emotional space." With this letter and many others like it, I so often see very little from BTL. They are always the "back off, grandma" in a tone that, no matter how mildly or even-tempered it may be, always comes off as the equivalent of shouting.
Yeah, I know, there's a world free of constructive criticism. Maybe that's what the LW wants, who knows?
• "Maybe some of that could be her own fault (squabbling siblings and estrangement, her attitude towards her SIL)." While the relationship with the SIL is certainly up for debate as to who is to "blame," ... where do we see that the LW is an active participant in this feud? Where?
All I see is "my siblings are squabbling over the estate, creating an estrangement." Not "my siblings AND I (emphasis mine) are squabbling over the estate, creating an estrangement." Unless I flunked basic reading class, those are two different statements. Which leads ME to believe that the LW, for whatever reason, is sitting on the sidelines watching through tears as her siblings tear each other apart and destroy what may or may not have once been a close-knit family.
As for the eight-hour day – that's the arrangement my sister and brother-in-law have set up. It works for them. And no, there was no "expectation" in my family or my brother-in-law's about what resulted in this arrangement.
That all said, I'll go back to the very first statement I said in this thread, way back at #3:
"It seems you need extensive counseling. I realize much of what you describe is not your fault, but due to the circumstances regarding your family, it may help you deal with them." Which you agree to in #56, which I'm glad we see eye-to-eye on.
This may be well the only solution (counseling) and then the counselor can recommend a course of action. Do we agree there?
Comment: #60
Posted by: Bobaloo
Sun Mar 3, 2013 3:27 PM
|
|
|
|
@Bobaloo, for your first point, you might want to consider that BTL isn't being overly harsh or yelling -- you may just be reading more into people's comments than is there. (And it's pretty standard protocol that people will use all-caps if they are shouting. So if there aren't all-caps and not a lot of harsh or vulgar insults, it's likely you are reading the comments as harsher than they are really intended. That might also explain why you butt heads with so many people so often -- you're taking an extreme opposite stance to what you perceive is an extreme BTL response that isn't really as extreme as you're interpreting it as.)
As for the LW wanting a world free of constructive criticism, well, sure, that would be lovely; but it wouldn't actually help her at all now, would it? In fact, people who live in their own little bubble, always blaming everyone else... they're the ones who can never get better or never improve a situation.
Onto the second point... you parse the LW's comment so carefully, but you seem to have missed parsing my statement, in which I said "MAYBE some of that COULD be her fault... " (all-caps added to emphasize the point you seem to have missed.) We don't know one way or the other if she's involved in the squabbles or if she is estranged from her siblings... if she's not involved with the estrangement, she probably wouldn't have mentioned it, so odds are good that she's involved in this conflict to some degree.
Yes, I'll agree that counseling would help the LW. Especially if she does it in the context of recognizing how her own tendencies may be sabotaging her relationship with her daughter, SIL, and grandchild.
Bobaloo, one of the recurring themes that I frequently see in the LWs is people who always want other people to change to suit them; people who blame all the ills of their life on others; and people who express frustration at how a situation is turning out but fail to change their own behaviors. In this life we very rarely have any say or control over what other people do or how other people act; so to solve a problem or change an unpleasant situation, the right answer is almost always *within ourselves*.
Getting the courage to leave a bad marriage or a bad job. Speaking up. Clearly communicating your desires. Changing how you react to someone. Learning to treat another person differently. Letting go of past resentments. Ignoring online trolls.
So, often the best answer, the best advice, is to remind people of what they *can* control. To remind them that if they want a different result, *they* need to actually do something differently, change the way the react or behave.
And that's not unkind... in fact, in can be far kinder (and more productive) than simply trying to give them that "world free of constructive criticism" and simply reinforcing their subjective (and often self-centered or self-involved) view of their situations.
Comment: #61
Posted by: Mike H
Sun Mar 3, 2013 4:13 PM
|
|
|
|
LW1: I'm surprised no one has brought up the possibility that even outside the issues with the LW, there might be other perfectly legit reasons for the other grandparents to be the babysitters. Maybe they have a larger house/easier to babyproof. Maybe grandma used to work with children and/or is trained in First Aid, or maybe they're on the parents' way to work and LW isn't (even if she still lives nearby). Hell, maybe they just asked first.
At any rate, I'm on the "get a grip, LW" train as well. Twice a week is nothing to complain about. My (separated) parents probably see my nephew and niece about once a month. My mother lives about 45 minutes away, my dad about 20 minutes away, but they're both OUT of the way, everyone's busy, etc etc and I haven't known anyone to complain about not seeing each other enough. And at least as far as the length of the visits, a lot of infants can't handle more than an hour of "visiting" at a time, and he probably isn't being left with anyone yet.
So LW, maybe find a few other ways to fill your time. You're seeing your grandchild plenty, and others want to spend time with him too. Get some volunteer work going, start a book club, develop a few other things to keep you going, so you're not just living for those two days a week and stewing the rest of the time.
Comment: #62
Posted by: Jers
Sun Mar 3, 2013 4:17 PM
|
|
|
|
Oh, and I'll also say I can agree with Bobaloo's suggestion about volunteering with children in some way. Not so much in a "you poor deprived soul" context as a "scratch the itch" context, another reason to get up in the morning, and more little people around her to light up her life, if that's what she's looking for. It could be a good outlet for her.
(and if her recent issues DO make her unsuitable for childcare, that might be revealed in the process).
Comment: #63
Posted by: Jers
Sun Mar 3, 2013 4:29 PM
|
|
|
|
Re LW1: We've read a spate of letters in the past year in this and other columns about parents reluctant to leave their children with grandparents who smoke and refuse to smoke outdoors, hit the bottle at noon and drive drunk, are just plain toxic and/or engage in otherwise unsavoury behaviour. It's entirely possible one of those factors is at work here. The suggestion that maybe GrandPA is not as thrilled with frequent or long visits is also a good one. Maybe the daughter senses that and doesn't want to burden her father further.
Comment: #64
Posted by: WinehouseFan
Sun Mar 3, 2013 4:34 PM
|
|
|
|
LW1- you have a contagious illness and a young grandchild who hasn't been vaccinated yet and you don't understand why your daughter doesn't want you providing daycare? Really? Is quality time with your grandchild more important than his health? Unbelievable....
LW2- as a heath care pro. I would think that you would know the best way to avoid getting sick is to wash your hands often, eat healthy, exercise regularly and get a full nights sleep. It's not perfect but there are no guarantees in life. And at least this way you don't offend people in their time of need looking for a little human contact for comfort.
Comment: #65
Posted by: Keebler
Sun Mar 3, 2013 5:00 PM
|
|
|
|
LW1 -
You find your SIL "to be arrogant and rather disrespectful"? And I find you seem to view your grandon like he's a bag of candy you don't want to share.
Your daughter went through pregnancy and labour because she wanted to be a mother, not because she wanted to supply you with a grandkid. This baby is not a living doll for you two grannies to fight over, and you are not owed equal time.
A death in the family, the estate in dispute, estrangement from relatives, a cancer diagnosis and a couple of bouts with shingles? Seems to me you have your plate quite full already, and you should start with taking care of yourself before you get to care for others. And has it not occurred to you that you could possibly be contagious? Or do you even give a damn? This baby is ALSO not a divertimento to serve you as your feel good therapy. He has his own needs, and they're highly demanding. What the Annies said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Bobaloo #3 & 8
"If she says no thanks, then she needs to justify herself with a valid explanation, not excuses."
Why? Grandma is already spending time with the baby more than once a week. This is not a possession the LW has a constitution-guaranteed right to access. And, frankly... she comes across to me as incredibly demanding and entitled. It's like the baby is a brand new shiny toy and she's demanding her share of it.
"The son-in-law's attitude is mean, cruel, selfish and worthy of sending him to Hell with no chance of getting paroled. (And folks, that's based on what the LW wrote"
And that would be? WHAT attitude? All she said was, "I find my son-in-law to be arrogant and rather disrespectful. I get the impression that he is encouraging our daughter to have a negative attitude toward us". I see nothing but "finds" and "impressions" in there, zero examples of bad behaviour and no hard facts whatsoever, as to what he allegedly has done that is so cruel, selfish etc. You're reading a LOT more than she said... except when you should. You see "ZERO wrongdoing on the LW's part"? Well, I see plenty, and I'm not the only one!
The LW's daughter doesn't owe her an explanation, valid or not, about ANYTHING. She is an adult, not a child anymore. And I'm sure the LW herself didn't run to her own mother every three seconds to "explain" why she did whatever she did.
@nanchan #7
To put Canada and Mexico on an even footing when it comes to "laws" is pretty insulting. Especialy when I think of stuff like school shootings and serial killers in the US compared to Canada... Makes me wonder whether you are xenophobic to the boiling point or dismally ignorant.
@Melinda #17
I think nanchan is confusing Canada with Columbia. I'm told Americans can be pretty bad with geography. Well, at least SOME Americans (no offense meant, guys, facetious font off...). ;-D
Comment: #66
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Sun Mar 3, 2013 5:09 PM
|
|
|
|
Mike H (#61)
"We don't know one way or the other if she's involved in the squabbles or if she is estranged from her siblings... if she's not involved with the estrangement, she probably wouldn't have mentioned it, so odds are good that she's involved in this conflict to some degree."
While it could be true, the reason I think she mentions it is because she's distressed over the situation, not because she is necessarily a participant (no matter how active it may be).
Lise (#66)
Funny, I didn't see it that way – that the baby is some possession. She just wants her share of the time with the baby. (And I did take back my comment immediately in #8 – "Sorry, but I just had to say it. (And no, he's not a bastard; I just had to get that off my chest.)"). However, I will say that if she wanted to – you're exactly right, she didn't detail his "bad" behavior – she could have filled an entire newspaper page. Whether she would have been right or wrong or indifferent, I don't know.
But given that the Annie's edit these letters (we don't know), we don't know for sure if some of those details were suppressed.
"The LW's daughter doesn't owe her an explanation, valid or not, about ANYTHING. She is an adult, not a child anymore. And I'm sure the LW herself didn't run to her own mother every three seconds to "explain" why she did whatever she did."
She does IF she wants to help her mother explain things. Otherwise, the LW likely will never "figure it out," and we'll never see that "Gee, my bad behavior might be affecting my relationships. I need to change." As we've seen so often in these columns, people with these types of problems such as the one talked about with LW1's letter rarely "figure it out for themselves" and sometimes they need to be told in big, bold letters. Sad, but true. (Even sadder, sometimes even then they don't "get it.")
"A death in the family, the estate in dispute, estrangement from relatives, a cancer diagnosis and a couple of bouts with shingles? Seems to me you have your plate quite full already, and you should start with taking care of yourself before you get to care for others."
While I agree she does have "a lot on her plate," just something rubs me wrong about that statement. I don't know what it is, and maybe I'm reading too much into it. Again, I admit I don't know a lot about shingles – never read about it, shockingly – or how contagious it is, so someone needs to enlighten me.
(Of course, if she's contagious, then just say that to the LW – of course we don't want baby getting sick.)
Comment: #67
Posted by: Bobaloo
Sun Mar 3, 2013 6:13 PM
|
|
|
|
Children should never be used as therapy. Heck, I wouldn't trust LW1 with a pet right now. She needs to get help instead of demanding that her grandchild be handed over NOW so she can feel better.
Comment: #68
Posted by: JMM
Sun Mar 3, 2013 6:32 PM
|
|
|
|
@Bobaloo,
I'll jump in on this last comment. Bear in mind I'm asking mostly out of curiosity here, but what do you consider "her fair share?" I think this is the nub of why so many disagree with LW on this. She's already seeing quite a bit of the grandchild, so it seems rather disingenuous to complain she doesn't see enough of him. What is "fair" here, and what is she expecting? It doesn't sound like the childcare arrangements have started yet, and most newborns get really fussy/difficult after an hour of visiting (having seen this with my niece and nephew, whom, FWIW, my parents see about once a month). I think there are many people on this board who don't see relatives/grandchildren as often as this LW sees hers, and that's where people are getting the "entitled" interpretation from.
Comment: #69
Posted by: Jers
Sun Mar 3, 2013 6:46 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: JMM (#68)
OK, I give up. Just lock the bitch in a room and throw away the key, and let her cry and pout and leave her needs go in vain.
Everything's her f***in' fault, it seems. The family estrangement, the dispute over the estate and now this family strife. The illnesses and limited time with the grandson are God's punishment and His way of calling the chickens home to roost, after her lifetime of being spoiled and plundering and getting her way over the needs of the others.
HAPPY EVERYONE????!!!????
Well, that seems to be the attitude of this whole BTL today. Can't anyone have any sense of decency here?
HAVE SOME SYMPATHY FOR THE WOMAN AND BE DONE WITH IT!!! THAT'S WHY SHE'S WRITING IN – FOR SYMPATHY!!!!!!!!
SYMPATHY!!!!!!!! SYMPATHY!!!!!!!! S-Y-M-P-A-T-H-Y!
Is that such a foreign concept to you people?
OK, now that that's off my chest – what WOULD be good therapy, aside from some pill that's going to warp her brain even more?
Comment: #70
Posted by: Bobaloo
Sun Mar 3, 2013 6:49 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Bobaloo
There are no details whatsoever of whatever real grievances she may have, only what she "finds" and "impressions". That's pretty vague. You want to extrapolate a newspaper page's worth of them, fine, but I can also extrapolate that she may have been told many times why they preferred the SIL's parents babysitting, and it just doesn't sink in. I remember Mister Trinidad, and how many times I told him why I was breaking up with him, and how many times I told him why I broke up with him after that... and STILL he doesn't get it, STILL he's convinced I left him for another man. Some people unfortunately believe what they want to believe, and there is no telling them otherwise, their "mind" is made up.
You don't see it as "possession"? That's odd, because just for you to use the words "her share" implies that an equal portion is owed of something that IS common property to several people.
Comment: #71
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Sun Mar 3, 2013 7:00 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Bobaloo #70
You've had your tantrum, happy now? You want more sympathy? ;-D
Bobaloo, just because she's fishing for sympathy doesn't mean she deserves any. Time with a grandchild is certainly not something she is owed as if it were givernment benefits, never mind when the grandkid is a newborn baby. Not to mention that she's already spending quite a lot of time already, more than most grandparents get, and STILL that is not enough to content her, she writes to the Annies whining and bitching about her SIL and her daughter, yadda, yadda, yadda...
Nobody here has blamed her for the family dispute or the estrangement or suggested her illness was a punishment from God, that is you being hyperbolic and drama-queeny. She, on the other hand, is certainly failing to count her blessings and blaming everybody for not having her "share" of them...
Comment: #72
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Sun Mar 3, 2013 7:08 PM
|
|
|
|
Ye gods Bobaloo, you're yet again taking things to extremes and not demonstrating any sense of proportion at all in your comments.
And she's not writing in just to get sympathy. Read her last line again and then take a chill pill, dude. And stop trying to villainize everyone who disagrees with you, it's not exactly helping your case... quite the opposite.
Comment: #73
Posted by: Mike H
Sun Mar 3, 2013 7:14 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Lise Brouillette
Well, at least she has it better than many, I'll give you that. And yes, I agree that it is possible that she "doesn't get it" as to why the SIL's parents are preferred and that she may indeed have been told previously, on several occasions.
You've already seen I get flustered with these letters, because of the ill-will and estrangement and feelings of resentment ("us vs. them," as in "you favor us vs. them") that sometimes result with grandparent/grandchildren letters. And this, even though I've suggested there is a fair balance with my own sister and "our" side of the family and the brother-in-law and his family; if there isn't, Mom sure hasn't spoken up.
I just view grandparents not as "extras," as sometimes a few BTL'ers suggest, but as real, vital people in a grandchild's life. The way I read the letter, that's what I think she wants -- to be that presence in the grandson's life, because she's waited all this time, sees the happiness her friends have with their grandchildren and the renewed purpose in life, and wants that, too. I've never seen anything suggesting that she thinks of her grandson as a mere "possession."
Sorry if you, Mike H, Maggie Lawrence, et al., see it differently, but that's how I feel.
Just thinking out loud -- I wonder if it is the perceived (real?) imbalance that has her resentful and clamoring for "more time"?
Of course -- as you've seen with my rants in the past -- when you argue your case and get nowhere and it seems the odds are mounting against you, wouldn't you start showing your frustration, too?
Comment: #74
Posted by: Bobaloo
Sun Mar 3, 2013 7:32 PM
|
|
|
|
I'VE GOT IT!
Bobaloo = LW1 ;)
Comment: #75
Posted by: Elbee
Sun Mar 3, 2013 7:37 PM
|
|
|
|
Interesting debate about grandparents' rights. I don't think grandparent's have any rights if they are not fit to be able to take care of their grandchildren when babysitting is required. LW1 does come across with vibes that would make me not trust her caring for my newborn. That said, if the daughter does not trust her mother with her baby, I think she does owe her mother an explanation in the spirit that things could be repaired, if at all possible. If smoking in the house is an issue, for example, there should be a discussion about that. I can only go by my life experiences, but my mother's parents were a godsend to me and my siblings.
The other side of the coin is, and I have seen this a few times....if daughter has to go back to work and her mother-in-law suddenly loses interest in having the baby full-time, all of a sudden, Mom won't look so bad for free or low-cost childcare.
Comment: #76
Posted by: Carly O
Sun Mar 3, 2013 8:20 PM
|
|
|
|
@Bobaloo, it's obvious you feel intensely, but that doesn't at all mean you feel *reasonably*.
The LW didn't ask for sympathy, she asked how to fix things. Your comments and your advice to her would do the opposite of fixing things... if she keeps on her course and believing, as you do, that she has some right that trumps her daughter, she'd likely be cut off from her grandchild completely within a month. And how would that be a "win" for her?
You also, constantly today, give no consideration to the greater rights and greater needs of the *parents* of this child. Even when you don't directly say so, your arguments today are predicated on the idea that the LW has some sort of "right" to demand more time with her grandchild *over and above* the decisions made by this child's parents.
She doesn't. You're misguided. Very much so.
And even more, you show no sympathy at all to the new mother. You seem very selective in how you think these things through, simply accepting everything the LW says and feels as gospel truth, and even embellishing on the fact of the letter, in order to justify your high dudgeon about this.
Bobaloo, simply being emotional and extreme in your sympathy to the LW (and no one else in this family) doesn't make your advice helpful to the LW. Bottom line is, the LW's problem isn't her SIL or her daughter, it's herself and her attitude and her inability to appreciate the gifts she already has, and to act as if her daughter should make HER wants and needs her top priority, rather than her daughter's child or her daughter's husband.
And it's not wrong or unreasonable or villainous for any of us to point this out. In reality, it's probably *more* helpful and what the LW really needs to hear and understand to make her situation better.
Comment: #77
Posted by: Mike H
Mon Mar 4, 2013 2:59 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Bobaloo #74
Of course grandparents are not just "extras", but "real, vital people in a grandchild's life". However, she is already quite a "presence in the grandson's life". Precisely because twice a week is already more than most grandparents get, for her to be so discontented with that, that she'll makes insinuations against her SIL (with no hard evidence to back them up) and complain against her daughter left and right is a clear indication that she is being unreasonable and overly-demanding.
Especially in light of what else is in her life right now, not the least of which is two bouts with shingles, a contagious disease against which the baby has not yet been vaccinated. She WILL have been told it is contagious and related to chicken-pox when she went to the doctor for diagnosis and treatment. And she doesn't give a damn.
That all makes her extremely selfish and self-centred, and yes, behaving as if the baby was a pooled winning at the loto that needs to be "fairly" aportioned. If you don't see that, it's because you don't want to. And It is precisely because of cases like hers that it's a blessings that grandparents are ONLY a "presence in the grandson's life", and are not legally owed anything in most cases. And trust me, even in states where grandparental rights exist, she wouldn't be getting more than she already has, and possibly a lot less, given how unreasonable and entitled she is currently being.
And as for you "showing your frustration", well it depends, Bobaloo. If half the board, just for the sheer joy of it, was jumping down your throat AFTER you backed down, I wouldn't blame you one bit, and in fact I'd be putting the very sharp edge of my tongue at the service of your cause.
But in the case at hand here, the reasonable thing would have been for you to concede the valid points that have been made, back down quite a bit, and to at least Google "shingles", instead of keeping insisting that you know nothing about it, as if this negated everything you've been told here about how contagious it is. JUST THAT is enough to make the grandmother dead wrong and totally insensitive to the child's needs. So much for you seeing "ZERO wrongdoing on the LW's part"!
My guess is that she is under a LOT of pressure, is beginning to lose it, and would need professional help to cope. It is entirely possible that she is not being rational, to the point where she is totally self-centred and completely deaf to the most basic common sense. A little like a letter we saw recently, where someone was being extremely unfair to the widow out of misplaced grief. I can only hope she is not like that all the time... But right now, she would deserve a hug and support because of what else she's going through right now, but not for her attitude about the baby, which is so selfish that it cancels any sympathy we might otherwise feel for her plight. The baby is not an play-doll, and he shouldn't be made to pay because granma is in sore need of a feel-good magical talisman.
For someone who is supposed to be a professional of the word, I don't understand why you are having such a hard time with this. But then, you're in sports, where a bad check is treated like it's an attempted murder by the commentators, and a foul ball at the wrong time like it's a world catastrophe... ;-D
Comment: #78
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Mon Mar 4, 2013 5:49 AM
|
|
|
|
Lise (#78)
"My guess is that she is under a LOT of pressure, is beginning to lose it, and would need professional help to cope. It is entirely possible that she is not being rational, to the point where she is totally self-centred and completely deaf to the most basic common sense. ... But right now, she would deserve a hug and support because of what else she's going through right now, but not for her attitude about the baby, which is so selfish that it cancels any sympathy we might otherwise feel for her plight. The baby is not an play-doll, and he shouldn't be made to pay because granma is in sore need of a feel-good magical talisman."
The first part I'll agree with. I've never disagreed with that (being under a lot of pressure and needing professional help to cope). However, I am not sure, and never have been, that she regards the baby as some plaything. Any grandmother who does, FWIW, is completely loony.
Thanks!
Mike (#77):
I know it may not seem like it, but I am not unsympathetic to the baby's parents. They need their time, too, to bond and be together.
The problem is that my family's situation is a bit different than the one in the LW. Plus, we don't know how much time the baby spends at the other set of grandparents. (Not stated, although I'm sure the LW would have done us a service if she would have stated as much.) Perhaps it is also "an hour a week or twice a week." I don't know; it's not stated and I don't really care at this point.
Comment: #79
Posted by: Bobaloo
Mon Mar 4, 2013 6:30 AM
|
|
|
|
@Bobaloo,
"I know it may not seem like it, but I am not unsympathetic to the baby's parents. They need their time, too, to bond and be together."
Excellent! Then I'm sure you can see how *already* accommodating two visits every week from a grandparent is *more* than flexible on their part.
"Plus, we don't know how much time the baby spends at the other set of grandparents. "
Irrelevant. It's not a contest. Over the course of time, one set of grandparents is almost always more present than the other, whether because of geography, temperament, busy lives, etc. Neither the LW, nor we BTL, should worry about that. That way lies jealousy, recriminations, and ill-will.
Comment: #80
Posted by: Mike H
Mon Mar 4, 2013 6:37 AM
|
|
|
|
For Pete's sake, Bobaloo -- several of us who have responded to LW actually ARE grandparents ourselves, and even we think LW is out of line.
I'm sorry she's going through a hard time. I think she's making it harder for herself than it has to be. I'm sorry about that, too, but I don't think continuing her tantrums (or you continuing yours) are likely to get the result you want. So indulging in her "poor me" fest isn't really helping her.
Also @42 you say:
Also – I see nothing where SHE is acting entitled about her share of the estate that her other siblings are fighting over. As I interpreted her comments about this aspect of her life, she could be on the sidelines and just watching (and crying as her family is coming apart at the seams).
**************
Which is precisely why I used all caps to emphasize the word "might" in my post @29. We don't know. But she's already demonized her son-in-law and her daughter -- gatekeepers to her beloved grandson, yet! Her overly dramatic language ("They're stealing my joy at being a grandmother" --sheesh) and litany of all she does and the hopes she had that her daughter would have more sympathy for HER -- those are all early steps in the road to estrangement from her daughter, if she's not careful. Several people have warned her of this.
The mention of another emotional situation and subsequent estrangements led me to think it's quite possible that the common denominator in both the baby drama and the sibling drama is -- the overly dramatic, entitled LW.
Possibly that situation is totally separate. But there's never any harm in examining, as dispassionately as you can, whether you can improve your attitude or behavior, whether the world really IS out to get you when you're already down, or whether you're choosing to read other peoples' behaviors and motivations in the most hurtful way possible.
Comment: #81
Posted by: hedgehog
Mon Mar 4, 2013 6:52 AM
|
|
|
|
Her question was, How do I fix this? Fix WHAT? Nothing is broken. A better question would be, How do I make life easier for my D and SIL? Trying to put an unreasonable request on them for your enjoyment is not the way to make anyone except yourself happy and that obviously isn't wotking. Perhaps you were an overly involved parent. You were given a child to raise and you have done it. Now let the kids do the same. The babysitting with the in-laws has not even happened yet and still you are angry over what may happen in the future. I'm with the majority- leave it alone and let the parents do what they think is best. Bobaloo, you never cease to amaze me. I think you have missed your calling as a writer- I think fiction would be more appropriate.
Comment: #82
Posted by: Penny
Mon Mar 4, 2013 9:29 AM
|
|
|
|
What is with this idea grandparents must have precisely equal time? Christ. Hinestly Bobaloo, I fear for any future child in laws of yours.
Sometimes, sympathy isn't appropriate.
Comment: #83
Posted by: wkh
Mon Mar 4, 2013 10:43 AM
|
|
|
|
My MIL asked to keep my hyper 2 yr old son for the day. She assumed that I didn't trust her. She was in declining health, but I gave in. At the end of the day, she was at wit's end. But she got what she asked for - a day with her grandson.
LW1, your daughter and her husband have their hands full in trying to figure out this thing called parenting. It's not about you, so lighten up. PLUS what if Bear is right about the shingles virus thing? Parents are paranoid, and this is normal.
Comment: #84
Posted by: Danielle
Mon Mar 4, 2013 10:47 AM
|
|
|
|
Danielle, what you just wrote reminded me of a family story: My mother had left 3YO me in my father's care, and deliberately NOT his mother's, while she helped my distraught grandmother and aunt make funeral arrangements for my grandfather. My father took me over to his widowed mother's house -- she apparently begged him to let her babysit.
Upshot was, my mom got a call at the funeral home, from the ER, where I was having my stomach pumped. My father's mother had decided to take a bath, and left me unsupervised. With the many bottles of her medications around on coffee tables, end tables, kitchen table. -- no childproof caps back then. She had no idea what I'd taken or how much.
My father's mom never babysat me (or eventually, my sibs) after that...
Comment: #85
Posted by: hedgehog
Mon Mar 4, 2013 11:27 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: hedgehog
"My father's mother had decided to take a bath, and left me unsupervised."
What an idiot. Did she do stuff like that with her own children?
Comment: #86
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Mon Mar 4, 2013 2:50 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Mike H (#80)
"Irrelevant. It's not a contest. Over the course of time, one set of grandparents is almost always more present than the other, whether because of geography, temperament, busy lives, etc. Neither the LW, nor we BTL, should worry about that. That way lies jealousy, recriminations, and ill-will."
Look, nobody ever said this was a contest, nor should it be a "contest." While I agree that one set of grandparents or the other invariably will be more involved in a child's life, with a woman like this, she is likely to take it personally. Especially if she gets wind of how often the SIL's parents get to see the grandson, which will lead to her feeling jealous, envious, resentful, full of ill-will and so forth.
Penny (#83)
"Bobaloo, you never cease to amaze me. I think you have missed your calling as a writer- I think fiction would be more appropriate."
Was this comment really appropriate? I mean, really. It's just rubbing salt in the wound. This is giving advice and commenting on what advice you would have given if asked, not writing non-fiction (i.e., newspapering). Two different things.
hedgehog (#85)
The situation you describe IS a reason to not allow unsupervised visits anymore. Unlike LW, where precisely nothing of the sort has happened, even in the short time they do have. (And yes, I'm glad you were OK. You were damn lucky, it sounds like.)
Lise (#86)
It may be a one-time momentary lapse ... but even a mistake on this scale can lead to lifelong mistrust. Heck, I'd be wary myself for a long, long time (at the very least).
Comment: #87
Posted by: Bobaloo
Mon Mar 4, 2013 3:57 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Bobaloo
Momentary lapse, schmomentary lapse, it only takes a second of heedless, idiotically irresponsible behaviour to kill a child. Hedgehod is lucky she made it out unscathed, and I wouldn't have trusted that one with a potted plant after an incident like that, especially since she herself had children, she should have known better.
And, you know what, Bobaloo? It's no worse than some idiot who sees nothing wrong with being around an unvaccinated infant when she has shingles!
Comment: #88
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Mon Mar 4, 2013 4:22 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Lise Brouillette (#88)
"Momentary lapse, schmomentary lapse, it only takes a second of heedless, idiotically irresponsible behaviour to kill a child."
Wha ... you don't think I believe that?
Hell yeah, I think she is lucky she made it out unscathed. Really! And you don't think I believe that? See my response above my reply to you in #87 – "The situation you describe IS a reason to not allow unsupervised visits anymore. Unlike LW, where precisely nothing of the sort has happened, even in the short time they do have. (And yes, I'm glad you were OK. You were damn lucky, it sounds like.)" Apparently you missed that.
What the hell AM I supposed to say?
Comment: #89
Posted by: Bobaloo
Mon Mar 4, 2013 4:51 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Bobaloo
Well, you could acknowledge the parallel between one idiot allowing an unsupervised toddler near a ton of medication, and another idiot wanting to allow an unvaccinated infant near someone infected with a contagious disease... ;-D
Comment: #90
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Mon Mar 4, 2013 5:36 PM
|
|
|
|
I'm very lucky to have made it, no question. I have no idea what she could have been thinking.
But really, the most interesting thing to me is that my mom never trusted my dad's mother to watch me even before that incident, even though Grandma cajoled and teased and probably felt it was very unfair that my mom's parents (doctor and RN) sometimes got to babysit.
Decades later, Mom STILL get angry thinking about how my dad took me there, (probably thinking, "hey, my mom raised two kids to adulthood just fine and what my wife doesn't know won't hurt her." He obviously wanted his mom off his back and figured my mom was silly.
That kind of backfired on him.
Comment: #91
Posted by: hedgehog
Mon Mar 4, 2013 5:39 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: hedgehog
Well, she wasn't. The reason your mom didn't trust her MIL even before events proved her right beyond the shadow of a doubt, is very likely because she had seen plenty of warning clues, of the kind that makes nicey-nice-nice-nice, terminally uber-"positive" people say, "oh, but I'm sure you're exaggerating, don't be so NEgative, it's not that ba-a-a-ad..." These people are generally the first ones to jump down your throat with a "But couldn't you see it coming?" when something DOES indeed happen. Bleah.
And frankly, the more you say about her, and the more I see parallels between her and the LW.
Comment: #92
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Mon Mar 4, 2013 6:26 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Lise Brouillette
Well, OK then.
It's hard for me, however, to acknowledge a disease I still haven't taken the time to research nor personally understand how serious it is. I've only heard the term a few times -- and for what it's worth, I thought it was shivering and shaking uncontrollably but otherwise no real serious effects on others, i.e., a non-communicable illness, not anything connected to measles/chicken pox that could be deadly to a baby. (Don't ask how I came to the shivering and shaking conclusion.)
As you can tell, in my newspaper career, I've written relatively few stories about physical illnesses. (I've written plenty on mental health issues.)
If that's what this whole rift is about between the LW and her daughter, then again, the daughter owes it to her to explain that in simple, easy-for-her-to-understand-while-not-demeaning-her-intelligence terms. The LW might be disappointed in the short-term, but I'm sure that will be tempered someday years from now by being allowed to liberally bake cookies, play "Go fish," he sit on her lap at Christmas to unwrap presents, go to the zoo, watch him play soccer and T-ball, go out for tacos at the local restaurant-bar on Tuesday nights (many bar-restaurants have family seating sections cordoned off from the main bar) ... all those fond memories.
See, explain things. That's what I'm talking about. Not leave it to the LW to be enlightened and think to herself, "Hmmm, I must be doing something wrong -- ah, I'm overbearing, that's it." No. If someone like the LW, who has been virtually characterized as having emotional and/or other mental issues, is indeed that way, they rarely are enlightened by themselves and need someone to tell them. (And yes, I do remember it was pointed out the daughter probably has told her mother many times -- nicely and not so nicely -- whatever issues there may be.)
Hedgehog (#91):
Well again, I am glad you're OK. Incidentally, what was it that raised all this distrust in the first place?
The only thing I think she could have been "thinking" (in trying to portray herself as a fit babysitter) is exactly what you say your father might have been thinking: "I raised two kids to adulthood and they both turned out OK."
I just wonder what would have happened had nothing happened (i.e., you didn't get into those pills and nothing else of any consequence happened) ... but your mother would have found out anyway that you had gone to your grandmother's house? I guess there would have been hell to pay there, too.
I recall reading the first post -- you say she had decided to take a bath. Knowing you were in childhood (probably) 50 years ago, had you not said "bath," I would have guessed activities that didn't include computers or the Internet -- e.g. reading "True Story" (or some other women's "Gee, I can't believe these contrived stories are REALLY TRUE" rags), watching soap operas on live TV, talking on the telephone ... the list is endless.
Comment: #93
Posted by: Bobaloo
Mon Mar 4, 2013 6:43 PM
|
|
|
|
@Bobaloo: "Look, nobody ever said this was a contest, nor should it be a "contest." While I agree that one set of grandparents or the other invariably will be more involved in a child's life, with a woman like this, she is likely to take it personally. Especially if she gets wind of how often the SIL's parents get to see the grandson, which will lead to her feeling jealous, envious, resentful, full of ill-will and so forth."
So you acknowledge that she's likely someone who is overly sensitive and unreasonable and overreacts, but you think appeasement is the best strategy, is that it?
Bobaloo, you're articulating the beginnings of the right answer now: she is likely to take it personally (which is wrong to do so far better for her to learn how not to take this personally and try to see it from her daughter's point of view).
See, we can have sympathy for her plight and still recognize that she herself is likely sabotaging the situation. So that what she claims she wants desperately she'll actually be unlikely to get if she keeps doing what she's been doing. It's only through self-reflection and change of behavior that she'll get what she seeks, if she can calm down and relax and appreciate what she already has.
Comment: #94
Posted by: Mike H
Mon Mar 4, 2013 6:44 PM
|
|
|
|
@Bobaloo, you should also remember that just because the LW claims she doesn't know why, doesn't mean that she hasn't been told why and just ignores it. Especially if it was something she didn't want to hear -- some people are quite good at "not hearing" messages that contradict what they want to hear.
But no, I still disagree that the daughter "owes" her mother an explanation. Sometimes adults have to simply take "no" for an answer, Bobaloo. It's part of *being* an adult.
Comment: #95
Posted by: Mike H
Mon Mar 4, 2013 6:46 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Mike H (#94 and 95)
Yes, sometimes appeasement is the answer. But then again, learning how not to take this personally and try to see it from her daughter's point of view is something that may likely NEVER be something the LW learns ON HER OWN. The answer is apparently not "within herself." She needs someone to help her realize this. Some people SIMPLY LACK THE ABILITY TO DO SELF-REFLECTION. I think we all know that from all the letters that are printed on here. They need someone to hit them over the head with the right approach.
(An aside -- Gee, I wish there were some function that would allow us to boldface and/or italicize what we want to stress.)
"Sometimes adults have to simply take 'no' for an answer."
Yes, I agree with that. That said, we are NOT talking sex, where ignoring someone's "no" can and will land you in jail and (depending on the state and the age of the victim, on the Sex Offender Registry). Definitely there, I unequivocally agree no explanation is required -- "no" means exactly that.
Or even something less drastic as, lets say, not wanting to talk on the phone (where you can get by with a simple, "I'm in the middle of something ... " and then you do actually back your words,
We're talking a relationship between a grandmother and her grandson, something so precious, where things can be negotiated.
Comment: #96
Posted by: Bobaloo
Mon Mar 4, 2013 7:56 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Bobaloo #93
Try this:
http: / / answers.webmd.com / answers / 1173647 / is-shingles-contagious
http: / / www.mayoclinic.com / health/shingles / DS00098/DSECTION=causes
http: / / en.wikipedia.org / wiki/Herpes_zoster
The usual routine, take out the spaces. The Mayo Clinic article in particular specifically warns against contact with newborns.
And frankly, about "explaining things", we have no indication that it wasn't done many times, with it going in one ear and out the other. When you see the pictures, you will agree (I hope) that, even without being told, even the most dense person will feel this looks damn contagious. Anyone who would want to start touching an infant while sporting these oozing pustules is as clueless and insane as Hedgehog's grandmother with her bottles of pills.
Comment: #97
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Mon Mar 4, 2013 7:59 PM
|
|
|
|
I strongly suspect Grandma was told about the shingles issue and is choosing to pretend she didn`t hear or is ignoring it.
My husband broke out in shingles when I was pregnant with our last, and #3 was 2.5. Preschooler went to grandma's for several days until the infection dissipated, and there was much discussion among various care providers to decide if I should stay or go as well. In the end since I had a raging case of chicken pox at age 14 I was allowed to stay and nothing happened, but there was major debate.
Comment: #98
Posted by: wkh
Mon Mar 4, 2013 9:55 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: wkh
OMG, chicken pox at 14, you must have been sick as a dog. I had whooping cough at 15 and I ended up in the hospital.
Comment: #99
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Mon Mar 4, 2013 10:12 PM
|
|
|
|
Hey - just wanted to enlighten everyone- the grandson is in NO danger of chickenpox as he is getting immunity from his mother's milk and shingles outbreaks were mild for her. I know this grandma!! Also, she is a quiet person who has suffered in silence too long and I encouraged her to write to Annie.
Comment: #100
Posted by: old grandma
Tue Mar 5, 2013 12:01 AM
|
|
|
|
@Bobaloo, it's *already* been negotiated, though -- that's the point you keep missing, here. One party -- the most important party in the child's life, the mother -- has already negotiated this, and the LW gets to spend up to twice a week with her grandchild -- more than many grandparents get.
The right answer is not to continue to push, pressure, or guilt-trip the daughter because the LW greedily, selfishly wants more than she's already been given, which really is plenty.
@old grandma, if it's true that you know this LW, I very very much hope you can encourage her to back off a bit, because most of us agree she is likely to increase the alienation with her daughter and grandchild, not increase it. And her obvious negative feelings for her son-in-law are almost certainly part of the problem.
The happiest extended families are those that don't pressure each other. Your friend has a lot of unfortunate issues in her life and seems to have fixated on her grandchild as some sort of magical charm to balance out all that's negative in her life -- but that's not what a grandchild is. She should cherish the time she has and not speak negatively about not getting enough time, and not pressure her daughter for more time. She should instead ask if there are other ways to help, and then simply be satisfied with the amount of time she can spend -- and that may increase over time, if her daughter sees she is more relaxed and less pushy.
I really also encourage you to suggest your friend find other ways to deal with the other problems in her life -- it's an awful lot for one person to handle, and it's clear she could use support or counseling. Maybe once she has a better handle on the other stressful situations in her life, she'll be able to forge a more positive relationship with her daughter, son-in-law, and grandchild.
If the LW is your friend, then obviously you care about her and would naturally be her ally and see her side of things. But I hope you can see, even the Annies agree that most grandparents would see the time she already has with her grandchild a blessing.
I hope things get better for her.
Comment: #101
Posted by: Mike H
Tue Mar 5, 2013 3:25 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: old grandma (#100)
Assuming you know the LW, I know this is going to sound crazy coming from me, given the back and forth between Mike H. (and others) and myself, Mike H is right in several respects. "The happiest extended families are those that don't pressure each other" is the biggest one, and this doesn't just mean the babysitting issue, but many others that arise with extended families.
And especially that she recognizes that a good counselor -- not one that will give her "the answers she wants to hear," but sound advice -- will help her through her other problems with her family, both the SIL and the siblings, right or wrong on their part. If there are other issues (mental health-wise and otherwise, and certainly it's possible on their part) that are present, the counselor will be able to identify them and help work her through those.
I know a major debate raged here over the past few days, but I agree with the rest for your friend: A hope that things do get better.
BTW everyone:
I'm sorry I am ignorant about shingles, and I feel damn foolish about not knowing more. I'm a newspaper editor and I don't know about shingles -- man! At least Lise, you gave me some info and I appreciate that. I'll take a look at the links in the future when I have a few moments.
FWIW -- I had the chicken pox (my younger brother called it the C.P.'s) when I was 7, and stayed home from school for a week. (There was an outbreak at the time), and my younger brother had it not long thereafter. Our sister was less than a year old at the time, but I don't remember how she fared.
Look, naturally I'm not gong to want to go around a baby if I'm sick. I worry about my mother babysitting my nephews when THEY'RE sick because they pass it on to her. (She's stayed away when she's been obviously sick with a cold). Ignorance of shingles and other illnesses (e.g., pink eye) aside, I do know that babies are far more susceptible to illness than an older child, so you'e got to be careful.
As far as the LW's perception of her shingles illness and how it would affect her grandson while contagious, unless we interview her we just don't know. If it is true that she is still contagious and has been told this, then I (grudgingly) agree that the LW should swallow her pride and be patient.
Back to old grandma -- Suffering in silence, eh? FWIW -- I would have referred her straight to a counselor, because I think she could use one. And then found a good one. It is like Mike H says, in that you do want to be her ally, but I do hope you see the other side of things, and I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and sense that you do and are helping her understand the counter argument.
Comment: #102
Posted by: Bobaloo
Tue Mar 5, 2013 5:19 AM
|
|
|
|
Look, naturally I'm not gong to want to go around a baby if I'm sick.
*******
This is a logical and responsible position. It's one that any thoughtful adult would take for ANY baby, I'd hope, even one you're not related to.
LW and "old grandma" are putting an awful lot of faith in the immunizing properties of mother's milk -- too much, I think. When my 5 YO came down with chicken pox the day I brought our 2nd child home from the hospital, we kept the baby well away from her, even though I was nursing the baby.
Even though he still had my immunities (newborns have them) and was getting them reinforced through my milk.
You can't say there is NO risk of chickenpox, because that's not how the immunities work. All they can do is reduce the risk of infection, not preclude it entirely. And the fact that Grandma had "mild" outbreaks doesn't really reduce the contagion.
Also, if the baby receives any supplemental formula (and the parents may not share that info with the grandparents), it reduces the immunizing benefits.
Comment: #103
Posted by: hedgehog
Tue Mar 5, 2013 10:16 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: old grandma
You mean, YOU are the LW but are too chicken to admit it. Sorry, but I don't buy it, neither the pretense nor the rationalisations. Considering chicken pox can be lethal to a newborn, methinks you are putting a LOT of godly trust in the immunity provided by the mother's milk. And whether or not your shingles outbreaks were "mild" is totally irrelevant - it doesn't make you any less contagious. Not to mention that you had two outbreaks, which is already unusual enough, from what I read most people only have one. Your case is not so mild, lady, you're rationalising and minimising because you wanna what you wanna and you don't give a damn about anything else.
Look. This is a living baby, not just a doll for you to play with. If you can't even PRETEND to understand this and behave accordingly, you'll end up losing whatever visiting privileges you already have. So kwitcherbeefin' and get with it.
@Bobaloo
"I'll take a look at the links in the future when I have a few moments."
Not while you're eating. ;-D
Comment: #104
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Tue Mar 5, 2013 10:38 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Bobaloo
And btw... post #100 is proof positive that many of us were right: She does KNOW about the shingles thing. She just doesn't care.
Comment: #105
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Tue Mar 5, 2013 11:16 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Lise Brouillette (#104 and 105)
"I know this grandma!! Also, she is a quiet person who has suffered in silence too long and I encouraged her to write to Annie."
Uh, I think she was saying she KNOWS the LW. She is NOT the LW. (If you go back and re-read #100.) Two different things.
Either that, or the poster is a troll.
To be fair to you and others, I'm not quite sure about the thing about the immunity provided by mother's milk in human beings. I did a little quick research on this one, however, and found that breastfeeding provides greater (not total) immunity from illnesses. Two quick sources I found:
Van de Perre P., "Transfer of antibody via mother's milk," Laboratory of Bacteriology and Virology, University Hospital A. de Villeneuve and Mixed Research Unit 145 (UMR 145), Institute for Research and Development (IRD) and University of Montpellier 1, Montpellier, France. http: // www . ncbi . nlm . nih . gov / pubmed / 12850343?dopt = Abstract (just eliminate the spaces when you put it in your browser)
Kelly M. Jackson, PhD; Andrea M. Nazar, DO, "Breastfeeding, the Immune Response, and Long-term Health," Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, – http: // www . jaoa . org / content / 106 / 4 / 203 . full (ditto about the spaces)
And there's others.
Point being – breastfeeding CAN help provide SOME immunity, but it DOES NOT PROVIDE TOTAL IMMUNITY. (And a word of caution – I suspect that it might not provide any immunity to certain illnesses.)
Comment: #106
Posted by: Bobaloo
Tue Mar 5, 2013 1:42 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Bobaloo
Oh, she knows this grandma awright, she knows her very well indeed!
I believe post #100 is from the LW, she's just too chicken to be upfront and direct about it, because she can see the board is not going in her direction. So she writes in pretending to be a "friend" (hey - oldest trick in the book), to try and illicit sympathy for herself, and see if she can't turn things around a bit.
Except that what she added only made it worse - whoever she really is doesn't even really matter. It only confirmed that the LW, whether she be poster #100 or not, knew perfectly well about the connection between shingles and chicken pox, she just doesn't give a damn.
And btw, "old grandma", don't blame your SIL for "encouraging your daughter to have a negative attitude about you". You are so sickeningly self-centred that any good mother would feel plenty negative about you without needing to be prompted by anyone. Yrrrrch.
Comment: #107
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Tue Mar 5, 2013 2:56 PM
|
|
|
|
Bobaloo, I'm leaning toward Lise's interpretation here: that "old grandma" really is LW.
I don't believe it's very likely that a friend or even a sister would read the column, recognize LW's situation and read through all the comments and then ride to her friend's defense to "enlighten everyone." As Bobaloo showed us, it's not difficult to determined that there is indeed SOME risk of chicken pox for even a breastfed infant who is exposed to shingles -- and yet, "old grandma" assures us there is "no risk."
I think it's much MORE likely that LW herself is indignant at the lack of sympathy and chose to try to get more by posing as a friend, claiming that poor LW has "suffered in silence too long".
That's the kind of melodramatic phrase LW uses, right? I mean, exactly HOW long could LW have been suffering? The baby is almost certainly less than 6 months old! And she's seeing the baby up to 2 hours every week! Talk to the grandparents who have been cut off entirely for YEARS from their grandchildren if you want to talk "suffering."
I very much hope that "old grandma"/LW reread the comments and take to heart those advising LW to dial back her indignation and entitlement and working to get along more with the baby's father. Counseling could be very worthwhile.
Because ultimately, the only legal access LW has to that baby is through his parents (as it should be). Continuing to accuse the parents of "stealing your joy" and other inflammatory rhetoric is going to escalate your anger...and greatly increases the risk that you are going to reduce -- and maybe even end -- the contact you have with your grandson.
And if that happens, sadly, you will have yourself to blame. The stakes are that high. Think about it.
Comment: #108
Posted by: hedgehog
Tue Mar 5, 2013 3:54 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: hedgehog
Either that, or it's just a good ol' fashioned troll. I realize that some LW's read the board and comment on occasion, so sure it's possible this is the LW trying to get sympathy for herself when most of the BTL has weighed against her, but I just sense that it's a troll trying to stir up more trouble.
Even if the LW read this column and all our comments online, I don't think she's savvy enough to reply ... I'd think she'd write another letter and "try harder" to state her case and sway the opinion of BTL. More likely, she doesn't care about what we (meaning all of us, regardless of stance) think – she only cares what her family/daughter and SIL think and hope they are the ones who recognize the situation in the letter.
However, if "old grandma" is indeed the LW, she's a con artist and sure would fooled me. And besides, it's been suggested that she has (at least partial) blame in the family estrangement ... so if she has any sisters, I doubt that she'd be sympathetic to her and recommend writing in to try to drum up support if things are as bad as she makes them out to be – unless it were as an "I told you so" type of exercise.
But c'mon, I know I stuck up for "old grandma," or tried to – but even I've suggested counseling for this woman (way back at #3, the first one to do so) to help her through her problems, whether real and self-inflicted and that she sees no harm in her actions whatever they might be, or if she truly is blameless and the world is really against her for no good reason.
Counseling, counseling, counseling ... how hard is that to see, folks?
Comment: #109
Posted by: Bobaloo
Tue Mar 5, 2013 4:33 PM
|
|
|
|
(#109)
"But c'mon, I know I stuck up for "old grandma," or tried to – but even I've suggested counseling for this woman (way back at #3, the first one to do so) to help her through her problems ... ."
OK, OK, I know you're going to think – well, which is it, ol' Bobaloo – is "old gradma" a troll or is she indeed the LW using an alias.
I meant to say:
"But c'mon, I know I stuck up for the LW or tried to – but even I've suggested counseling for this woman (way back at #3, the first one to do so) to help her through her problems ... ." (Meaning, I still think "old grandma" is a troll, and by giving this yokel some attention, we're encouraging probably an ignorant college student who thinks it's funny.)
I sure wish there was an edit button for some of these posts, once you've hit post. My bad!
Comment: #110
Posted by: Bobaloo
Tue Mar 5, 2013 4:37 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Bobaloo
Bobaloo, how can anyone not caring whether or not she knowingly infects a newborn with a potentially deadly disease be blameless? You keep discounting that. I thought for a minute that you had gotten the point, but now you're back to square one again and it's really annoying.
This woman is totally narcissistic. Unfortunately, counselling is useless against that. I feel sorry for whoever is around her, because everything is always about her. The minute she doesn't get her way, she is being "robbed of her joy" and she "quietly suffers in silence", sob. Bring out the gooey violins.
If that is a college-aged troll, he's got a major talent at pastiche, because #100 sounds exactly like LW. I highly doubt it's not her.
Comment: #111
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Tue Mar 5, 2013 5:10 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Lise Brouillette (#111)
Really. Do you think she really cares about what WE think? Hell no she don't.
"But ... but even I've suggested counseling for this woman (way back at #3, the first one to do so) to help her through her problems, whether real and self-inflicted and that she sees no harm in her actions whatever they might be, OR if she truly is blameless and the world is really against her for no good reason."
Note the "or" (with my emphasis). I'm sure you did, but did you really consider that? Because you come back with your comment, "I thought for a minute that you had gotten the point, but now you're back to square one again and it's really annoying."
Maybe you and I just simply disagree with whether the woman deserves sympathy. Let's go back to the comment of mine way back where I threw up my arms and said, in essence, "OK, let's just call her a complete nut job -- she's been spoiled and pampered and the siblings all met to and decided unanimously and without hesitation to alienate her because they've finally had it with her, and now she's at risk of losing the rest of her family because she's exhibiting the same behavior that caused her to lose the family."
Yes, you never go around a baby when you're sick. I get that. How do I need to say that and get you to earnestly and honestly believe this? If you don't think that, then I don't know what to think. I don't want to lose respect for you, because I thought I had yours, but I'm starting to wonder ... and I know or at least hope you don't want that.
Face it -- "old grandma" is a troll. The real LW does not, does not, DOES NOT care what we think! She probably hasn't even read this column or even knows we exist. Plain and simple. If she did and is, she's more nuts than anybody thought.
Comment: #112
Posted by: Bobaloo
Tue Mar 5, 2013 5:45 PM
|
|
|
|
One last thing with my latest comment ... I bet a lot of you out there hope this old biddy dies old and alone, and has a lonely damn funeral with NO ONE in attendance, not even the pastor, and that she gets buried in a potter's field with a wooden marker, not the funeral she probably envisions (everyone who's everyone is there and there are many testimonials and eulogies about what a great person she was, a huge gospel choir singing the final amen, and everything that goes with a grand funeral).
Comment: #113
Posted by: Bobaloo
Tue Mar 5, 2013 5:49 PM
|
|
|
|
Yikes, Bobaloo, I haven't read anything today that suggests anyone "hopes this old biddy dies old and alone... "
Most of us are pointing out things she can do to *improve* her relationship with her child and grandchild, not make it worse. We'd hardly make those suggestions if we wanted her to die *alone*!
Comment: #114
Posted by: Mike H
Tue Mar 5, 2013 6:39 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Mike H (#114)
Alright then, I didn't think so.
I'm about ready to concede defeat here guys, geez! I think for me, this has gotten beyond trying to argue what I thought was a valid point ... but about winning. And I know what Lise is going to say to that. "You can't win, so don't even try." (And she'll say to that probably, "That's the first right thing you've said all day!")
Comment: #115
Posted by: Bobaloo
Tue Mar 5, 2013 6:52 PM
|
|
|
|
Geez, Bobaloo. It really isn't a case of "if you don't offer sympathy for LW, you wish her ill.".
I am sorry (as I said much, much earlier) that she's going through a rough time. I think there are ways she could make her life more enjoyable, if she changes her thinking. Changing her thinking will definitely make her life more pleasant, and it very well could bring her family closer to her, which in turn makes her life even more pleasant.
And that's what most of BTL has been trying to tell her.
OTOH, if we "oh, poor, poor, LW -- your mean old daughter and son-in-law are heartless and deserve to burn in hell" -- it might make LW feel better temporarily. But it's also likely to reinforce her moral outrage, so that the next time she talks with them, she has the courage to "take a stand": "You must tell me right now why I don't get to see the baby as much as the other grandma!" And that very same outrage is likely to fuel even more outrage if she is denied an answer, because this is how ultimatums get issued. Ultimatums that the giver often wishes she could take back, but won't out of 1) pride and 2) feeling that the OTHER party must be the one to back down because THEY are wrong.
It's like cutting your nose off to spite your face.
Sometimes, the kindest thing someone can do for you is to tell you that you are going down a wrong path.
Comment: #116
Posted by: hedgehog
Tue Mar 5, 2013 7:21 PM
|
|
|
|
"Geez, Bobaloo. It really isn't a case of "if you don't offer sympathy for LW, you wish her ill."
It's just how sometimes some of you come across without meaning to. I've done that too, I've got to admit – don't know about here, but certainly in my mind I have thought, "You've buttered your bed, now lie in it" to others when I've heard or read about someone who had been a complete asshole.
"Sometimes, the kindest thing someone can do for you is to tell you that you are going down a wrong path. "
Well, of course I agree with that. I just wonder if even if you're being kind and even-tempered and you say, "You're headed down the wrong path," they take great offense. Seems like this may be the situation the LW is dealing with – an inability to deal with constructive criticism. (All, we've covered that one before.)
I don't know – it's jut it seems she's dealing with a whole lot and counseling is the best way.
Comment: #117
Posted by: Bobaloo
Wed Mar 6, 2013 6:01 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Bobaloo
"Really. Do you think she really cares about what WE think? Hell no she don't."
Actually, yes, she does. She wants someone to side with her. Otherwise she wouldn't have written to the Annies in the first place, and she wouldn't be BTL posing as a "friend" trying to state her case further.
And frankly, it doesn't even matter if post #100 was written by the LW or truly by a "friend". The added information only makes it worse.
And actually, you know, she SHOULDN'T care about what the Annies or we think. What she should care about is her grandson's welfare. And she doesn't, not one little bit. If he were to come down with chicken pox and die because of her, she'd figure out a way to claim it wasn't her fault. Everything is about her, she only feels sorry for her precious self, about anyone else the woman has no heart.
"But did you really consider that?", you say? What am I supposed to "consider", Bobaloo, that she could possibly be blameless even though she thinks nothing of being around an unvaccinated newborn with a contagious disease? This is the one thing that makes all the difference, and you keep discounting it. Why don't you go check the links I gave you and see what doctors say about it - I do believe the Mayo clinic's info is reliable and not Internet drivel.
"Yes, you never go around a baby when you're sick. I get that. How do I need to say that and get you to earnestly and honestly believe this? "
Well, you could start by stopping to raise the possiblity that she can possibly be blameless. Anyone who not only "goes around", but DEMANDS time with an unvaccinated baby while sick with a contagious disease canNOT be blameless. Any sympathy she would have deserved because of her situation simply disappeared when she did that.
And Bobaloo, I just don't buy FOR ONE MINUTE that "Old Grandma" is a troll. Either she is really a "friend", much more likely the LW in disguise, but not a troll. So you and I will have to agree to disagree on that one.
#113
There you go being so hyperbolic again that you're not making a lick of sense.
#115
There you go being hyperbolic again... and totally wrong. Perhaps it is about "winning" to you, but to me, it never was and it never will be. If this is the way you perceive debates here, that would explain why you can so easily start to fight for the right to be wrong.
It has nothing to do with being right or wrong, Bobaloo. I will change my mind (and I have) when facts are brought in that I knew nothing about. You don't, even when the facts HAVE been brought to you, complete with the links. The woman is going throiugh a tough time, but then she expects to use her baby grandson as a feel-good pill, and she doesn't care one hoot or a holler that she is a danger to him. I can tell you that if my MIL had come around with a communicable disease while my daughter was that age, I would have scratched her eyes out (especially since I couldn't breastfeed). Any woman who does that is NOT blameless.
Comment: #118
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Wed Mar 6, 2013 8:18 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Bobaloo
"it's just it seems she's dealing with a whole lot and counseling is the best way."
Indeed it would be, if she were willing and in good faith about it. But for counselling to be effective, you have to admit you have a problem. I don't see that here. What I see is a woman who's painting a big sob story about how wronged she is.
Comment: #119
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Wed Mar 6, 2013 8:23 AM
|
|
|
|
@Bobaloo:
"It's just how sometimes some of you come across without meaning to."
Or, perhaps, it's how you are *interpreting* our words by including connotations that aren't necessarily there. You're pretty much the only one who has seen it in this thread, and many of us have essentially agreed with each other... so maybe the problem isn't what we're saying, but how you're "hearing" it.
Comment: #120
Posted by: Mike H
Wed Mar 6, 2013 9:13 AM
|
|
|
|
Bobaloo: "It's just how sometimes some of you come across without meaning to."
Mike H: Or, perhaps, it's how you are *interpreting* our words by including connotations that aren't necessarily there.
**********
Yes. This.
Comment: #121
Posted by: hedgehog
Wed Mar 6, 2013 9:54 AM
|
|
|
|
First, to everyone: I apologize that I am dragging this discussion on much longer than it needs to be. But I stlll do have a few things to say in my own defense.
Namely, anyone who thinks that I would condone someone who is sick with a contagious disease – any contagious illness, be it shingles or anything else – going around vulnerable people (including newborns) or while contagious rates a zero on my list. A zero.
Also, I trust the Mayo Clinic's word on communicable illnesses, so end of discussion there. (By the same token, the two columns I posted earlier that had to do with breastfeeding and its effect on the immune system were from scientific journals, also reliable and not Internet hearsay. I will restate that I do think "old grandma" is wrong there that breastfeeding builds COMPLETE immunity.)
Now, on to you, Lise (#118):
"'Really. Do you think she really cares about what WE think? Hell no she don't.' Actually, yes, she does. She wants someone to side with her. Otherwise she wouldn't have written to the Annies in the first place, and she wouldn't be BTL posing as a "friend" trying to state her case further."
Well, I know if I wrote a letter to the Annies to "get sympathy" and someone to side with me on any situation, and then saw that the BTL basically is taking the opposite stance, I'd write in again to "try harder" to tell my side of things. (And FWIW, the only reason I care is because I post here. If I didn't post here and would write a letter to the Annies and didn't know this board existed, then I probably wouldn't care.)
The fact that "old grandma" has not posted again ... either the poster given up on this thread or – if as you say it really is the LW in disguise – she's penning another letter to "try harder" to tell her story, to bare her soul out to tell about her life and such. And I'm surprised that, if "old grandma" is still lurking around, he/she/it hasn't posted again, giving us the riot act.
You ask: "What am I supposed to "consider", Bobaloo, that she could possibly be blameless even though she thinks nothing of being around an unvaccinated newborn with a contagious disease?"
No. Absolutely not! What you were supposed to "consider" is that – if we were to consider the OTHER situations in her life (estate dispute, pre-existing difficulty with her SIL), and NOT the fact that she's been sick and possibly still contagious – she may or may not be to blame for all that. It just seems that most of BTL have discounted the other "tough times" in her life, which she indeed may be blameless for, and basically called her out because of her insistence to see the baby while she's sick.
"But for counselling to be effective, you have to admit you have a problem. I don't see that here. What I see is a woman who's painting a big sob story about how wronged she is."
Yes, I agree. But then again, IF what you and the rest of BTL say is true about this woman's personality in general, then she's a basket case. Regardless, I think at least she can talk to someone and the therapist can recommend something.
Comment: #122
Posted by: Bobaloo
Wed Mar 6, 2013 1:28 PM
|
|
|
|
First, to everyone: I apologize that I am dragging this discussion on much longer than it needs to be. But I stlll do have a few things to say in my own defense.
Namely, anyone who thinks that I would condone someone who is sick with a contagious disease – any contagious illness, be it shingles or anything else – going around vulnerable people (including newborns) or while contagious rates a zero on my list. A zero.
Also, I trust the Mayo Clinic's word on communicable illnesses, so end of discussion there. (By the same token, the two columns I posted earlier that had to do with breastfeeding and its effect on the immune system were from scientific journals, also reliable and not Internet hearsay. I will restate that I do think "old grandma" is wrong there that breastfeeding builds COMPLETE immunity.)
Now, on to you, Lise (#118):
"'Really. Do you think she really cares about what WE think? Hell no she don't.' Actually, yes, she does. She wants someone to side with her. Otherwise she wouldn't have written to the Annies in the first place, and she wouldn't be BTL posing as a "friend" trying to state her case further."
Well, I know if I wrote a letter to the Annies to "get sympathy" and someone to side with me on any situation, and then saw that the BTL basically is taking the opposite stance, I'd write in again to "try harder" to tell my side of things. (And FWIW, the only reason I care is because I post here. If I didn't post here and would write a letter to the Annies and didn't know this board existed, then I probably wouldn't care.)
The fact that "old grandma" has not posted again ... either the poster given up on this thread or – if as you say it really is the LW in disguise – she's penning another letter to "try harder" to tell her story, to bare her soul out to tell about her life and such. And I'm surprised that, if "old grandma" is still lurking around, he/she/it hasn't posted again, giving us the riot act.
You ask: "What am I supposed to "consider", Bobaloo, that she could possibly be blameless even though she thinks nothing of being around an unvaccinated newborn with a contagious disease?"
No. Absolutely not! What you were supposed to "consider" is that – if we were to consider the OTHER situations in her life (estate dispute, pre-existing difficulty with her SIL), and NOT the fact that she's been sick and possibly still contagious – she may or may not be to blame for all that. It just seems that most of BTL have discounted the other "tough times" in her life, which she indeed may be blameless for, and basically called her out because of her insistence to see the baby while she's sick.
"But for counselling to be effective, you have to admit you have a problem. I don't see that here. What I see is a woman who's painting a big sob story about how wronged she is."
Yes, I agree. But then again, IF what you and the rest of BTL say is true about this woman's personality in general, then she's a basket case. Regardless, I think at least she can talk to someone and the therapist can recommend something.
Comment: #123
Posted by: Bobaloo
Wed Mar 6, 2013 1:28 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Bobaloo
"And I'm surprised that, if "old grandma" is still lurking around, he/she/it hasn't posted again, giving us the riot act."
Well, I'm not. She can see the tide is not going in her favour. Even the Annies, in their much-subdued wishy-washy way, did not side with her.
Nobody is blaming her for the other circumstances in her life. But, Bobaloo, time with a fragile newborn when she's contagious does NOT becomes something she is owed as compensation for her trouble! As she seems to believe.
And regardless of what else she is going through, she is exhibiting ZERO concern for the welfare of a newborn baby. No, it does not become something positive that is balanced against something negative, because what's negative is totally unacceptable.
You know, it would be like a man who is very handsome, well-educated, well-groomed, extremely interesting as a person, charming and entertaining, a maestro in the sack... AND a sadistic abuser, a totally ruthless user and a serial cheater. His qualities canNOT balance against his faults, because his faults make him dangerous and destructive. It's the same for this woman: she lost all chance for sympathy when she exhibited such callous selfishness.
"If we were to consider the OTHER situations in her life (estate dispute, pre-existing difficulty with her SIL), and NOT the fact that she's been sick and possibly still contagious", you say? But this is the problem, you see: it is not possible to NOT consider it, as the life of a baby is at risk here.
And you know what? Considering how incredibly pig-headed, narcissistic and insensitive she is being, I'd be curious to know exactly what part she herself has been playing in these other family dramas. I've seen plenty of people in my day, who are VERY GOOD at stirring shit and starting raging fires everywhere they go, all with an air of injured innocence like they're the victim and they're so-o-o-o heart-broken at what's happening...
Comment: #124
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Wed Mar 6, 2013 3:46 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Lise Brouillette
"And you know what? Considering how incredibly pig-headed, narcissistic and insensitive she is being, I'd be curious to know exactly what part she herself has been playing in these other family dramas. I've seen plenty of people in my day, who are VERY GOOD at stirring shit and starting raging fires everywhere they go, all with an air of injured innocence like they're the victim and they're so-o-o-o heart-broken at what's happening..."
Sad, but I agree that there are people out there like that. I guess without having read more from the LW or such, none of us know exactly if she's innocent in all those OTHER family dramas (the difficulty with her siblings and SIL) or if she's the instigator (or in the very least with the estate situation, just as guilty as the other siblings). Perhaps with all that's been said, maybe we'll hear from the other side soon ... . I know I would also like my curiousity satisfied, and FWIW, I'd be far less sympathetic with her on all these other issues if what some suspect is true (that she's the one stirring up the trouble).
At least your example about the handsome lover with the very dark side of his personality makes sense.
Comment: #125
Posted by: Bobaloo
Wed Mar 6, 2013 4:17 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Bobaloo
Even if she were for nothing in the other family dramas... She DOES have no scruples whatsoever being around an unvaccinated infant while suffering a communicable disease. And what's more, she's cavalierly minimising it by stating her outbreaks were "mild", as if that made her any less contagious. Plus that wishful-thinking yurunda about the immunity from the mother's milk... That's enough to sink her boat completely in my book. Me-me-me-me-me-me, nothing else. What a BITCH.
Comment: #126
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Wed Mar 6, 2013 4:52 PM
|
|
|
|
n all those OTHER family dramas (the difficulty with her siblings and SIL) or if she's the instigator (or in the very least with the estate situation, just as guilty as the other siblings).
*********
We don't, and odds are, we never will. There's really not a compelling reason for her to post again. She's given it her best shot, and certainly if she IS the instigator, she's hardly likely to come and say so.
That said, Lise makes a very good point (heh -- and one I also said upthread): it may be no coincidence that she's experiencing difficulties with multiple relatives, and that she MIGHT be the common denominator. Because sometimes, when you're having trouble with lots of people, the problem really does lie within.
It never hurts to step back and really try to examine a situation with an open mind, to actually try to see things from the other person's point of view instead of remaining so entrenched in your own.
Comment: #127
Posted by: hedgehog
Wed Mar 6, 2013 4:57 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: hedgehog (#127)
"It never hurts to step back and really try to examine a situation with an open mind, to actually try to see things from the other person's point of view instead of remaining so entrenched in your own."
And you know, I try to do that. I realize I haven't done that good of a job with this subject – and just thinking about it, other topics where extended families are the core topic are the same way. As an example, remember the one about the woman who was reluctant to host Christmas at her home? You and I, as I recall hedgehog, went back and forth for several days on that one. I don't know what it is that riles me up about these sort of subjects and always take the side of someone who might not be as sympathetic as they'd have us believe.
I think everyone will agree with me on this point, and it concerns your comment above, hedgehog:
"(I)t may be no coincidence that she's experiencing difficulties with multiple relatives, and that she MIGHT be the common denominator. Because sometimes, when you're having trouble with lots of people, the problem really does lie within."
If that is indeed the case and she's been the instigator (or in the very least active participant), then odds are likely she NEVER will realize that "the problem lies within her," even with the counseling I've recommended. In that case, it could be she's got many more medical and mental problems than just shingles ... many more, but it's unlikely we'll ever know for sure.
Which is why – and yes, I know it's highly unlikely – I just hope the LW's SIL can shed some light on this situation if he read the letter and decides to write in.
Comment: #128
Posted by: Bobaloo
Wed Mar 6, 2013 6:40 PM
|
|
|
|
Bobaloo, it's true that LW may never realize the problem lies within her. She may choose estrangement rather than looking to see whether her own attitude could be a factor in the situation.
But some people do have epiphanies, on their own or with counseling.
LW is in the position a lot of grandparents find themselves in: they are realizing how very much they want to spend time with the baby, and how very little power they have to make that happen. All the power they have, really, is in the relationship they have with the parents -- their own kid, whom they once had so much control over and no longer do, and the child's spouse,whom they may never have liked. And never bothered to disguise It, not realizing that the tables would turn once grandkids came along.
That's scary stuff. LW was most likely very surprised that the Annies didn't have some magic phrase that would make her daughter capitulate or to advise "confronting". However unlikely it may be that the LW has that epiphany, I have to think it's at least a little bit MORE likely if she reads the suggestion to look within than it would be if no one did. Particularly if some of those people suggesting it are grandparents themselves.
Comment: #129
Posted by: hedgehog
Wed Mar 6, 2013 7:35 PM
|
|
|
|
hedgehog (#129):
"All the power they have, really, is in the relationship they have with the parents -- their own kid, whom they once had so much control over and no longer do, and the child's spouse,whom they may never have liked. And never bothered to disguise It, not realizing that the tables would turn once grandkids came along."
And that's the thing -- I wonder (yes, I agree, we'll never know) if the LW ever liked or "approved of" the SIL (given her comment about him being "rude" and "disrespectful"). Right or wrong, sometimes you need to bite your tongue and accept someone for the positive qualities they have.
If the LW ever does go to counseling, at one of those sessions I think the counselor should ask, "What qualities about your son-in-law do you find positive?" and then make her give an honest answer.
"However unlikely it may be that the LW has that epiphany, I have to think it's at least a little bit MORE likely if she reads the suggestion to look within than it would be if no one did. Particularly if some of those people suggesting it are grandparents themselves."
But it's unlikely she has the ability to "look within," as we've agreed on. Either she never learned it or never bothered to try learning it ("it was 'too hard' for her") and her parents/pastor/teachers gave up on that lesson. I sure hope she realizes that it is not too late to change herself.
And be patient about her illness (another quality she may lack, who knows?). I sure hope her shingles is not permanent and that there will be a point where she is no longer contagious.
Comment: #130
Posted by: Bobaloo
Thu Mar 7, 2013 5:04 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Bobaloo
No one knows how many outbreaks she will have if she's already had two of them... But she is contagious while the sores are oozing and/or still healing. She is also contagious just before she has an outbreak, at a time when she doesn't suspect she's coming down with an outbreak.
If she had a heart (IF), she would stay away from the baby altogether until he gets vaccinated. It's not like it's a life sentence. But the problem is - she doesN'T have a heart.
Comment: #131
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Thu Mar 7, 2013 7:16 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Lise Brouillette (#131)
Incidentally, she does know that SHE, TOO, can get vaccinated against shingles? Many clinics do offer this, and one of our advertisers (a pharmacy) is offering information on getting the vaccine. Best to be prepared, methinks.
Comment: #132
Posted by: Bobaloo
Fri Mar 8, 2013 1:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
