When picking a potential spouse, it is the disposition of the daughter in law (what I will refer to as the "Willingness of the Wife" or WoW) that determines her success or failure at building a relationship with her in-laws?
I have recently discovered two instances in which the Willingness of the Wife (or lack thereof) to spend time with her inlaws was the cause of separation. In one case, the wife refused to bond with her mother-in-law, refused to visit even though she lived down the street. In another case, the girlfriend chose to ignore her boyfriend's family at a Thanksgiving dinner celebration, instead planting herself before AIM and chatting away her evening.
These two cases raised questions of WoW as the primary cause of antagonist behavior from the wife.
I think daughter in laws (naturally), and women generally, prefer to do what they want to do. If individuals make decisions based on their preferences, then why is there a double standard when it comes to the choices of the wife/girlfriend? Why must she always be culpable for the decisions that effect the family (in law)? She is expected to always do what is best for the family, regardless of her emotional or mental state.
It is really just a matter of cause and effect? To say for instance that the girl was UNWILLING to make the time to spend with hus parents? I think this is the typical fashion in which men blame women for just about everything.
I have an alternate interpretation of her perceived un-WoW. What if it is the failure of the partner to communicate and show HOW SIGNIFICANT his family is to him, and connect that to them as a couple. He must show how committed he is to serving the needs of his parents before he can have that expectation of his wife. She needs evidence. Things that I think signify thoughtfulness to parents: he purchases a home for them, or he bring them their medicine from the pharmacy, he pays their bills, he hires a maid for them, he brings their groceries. Most of all, he spends time with them. He shows up for dinner EVERY NIGHT because it is expected of him. If he showed commitment, he would NEVER miss family dinner, the one time of the day that everyone is together. Because his absence burdens others..
What the irresponsible husband would do is make the wife guilty for not spending time with his parents, and making her feel poorly about her decisions as an adult. He makes her feel guilty for wanting to spend time with her friends or even her parents because it is at the expense of not spending sufficient time with his parents. He is upset that his wife does not spend time with his Mom not because she does not want to, but because she does not make decisions that are conducive to arriving on time. He blames her working too long a commute, even though it makes her supremely happy.
Ultimately, it is not the unwillingness of the girl to spend time with her inlaws. Unless your inlaws are better than your parents, it is very difficult to be able to always place their preference over your own preference. As a society, we are not rewarded for that sort of sacrifice. Instead of the WoW factor, there is really a bigger question of WHAT IS HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS PARENTS? If it is simply "okay" you cannot reasonably expect the wife to have an "excellent" relationship with your parents, when she sees you making little effort.
Thus, to answer the original question posed, it depends arbitrarily on something else entirely: i.e. the son's relationship with his parents. If he has a good relationship, and he encourages his wife to do the same, then it will not matter whether she is willing to or not--she will have to adjust to the circumstance. Despite wanting only to "hide" in my room, I cannot because it would disappoint/anger/hurt/effect my husband in very tangible ways. Moreover, he will almost always let me know that what I am doing is wrong. If I see him there, chatting with his parents, I am more likely to take his lead and follow suit. If he is there (and I am not) then it is very problematic. And it is problematic because he makes it so. IHowever, if I am there and he is not, it is understood by his parents that their son is at work making income. If you entertain for a second that there is a choice, that you can choose to sit on gmail while your in laws cook you dinner--then you are flawed. There are some men, however, who do not feel obligated to their parents in this way, in sharing their company. Instinctively, the female will want to remain apart from his family and do whatever she wants to do--but it takes a special kind of son to led her to his parents.
It is his responsibility to make sure that she is able to adjust. i hate that people always blame the girl when the relationship ends, and i am not trying to defend anyone in particular but i am just saying, if anyone is culpable it is the son who does not facilitate the relationship with his parents and his wife.
I apologize that this was not well structured. I had a great conversation today about work going forward. And a house to clean so I can't be bothered with editing.
I have recently discovered two instances in which the Willingness of the Wife (or lack thereof) to spend time with her inlaws was the cause of separation. In one case, the wife refused to bond with her mother-in-law, refused to visit even though she lived down the street. In another case, the girlfriend chose to ignore her boyfriend's family at a Thanksgiving dinner celebration, instead planting herself before AIM and chatting away her evening.
These two cases raised questions of WoW as the primary cause of antagonist behavior from the wife.
I think daughter in laws (naturally), and women generally, prefer to do what they want to do. If individuals make decisions based on their preferences, then why is there a double standard when it comes to the choices of the wife/girlfriend? Why must she always be culpable for the decisions that effect the family (in law)? She is expected to always do what is best for the family, regardless of her emotional or mental state.
It is really just a matter of cause and effect? To say for instance that the girl was UNWILLING to make the time to spend with hus parents? I think this is the typical fashion in which men blame women for just about everything.
I have an alternate interpretation of her perceived un-WoW. What if it is the failure of the partner to communicate and show HOW SIGNIFICANT his family is to him, and connect that to them as a couple. He must show how committed he is to serving the needs of his parents before he can have that expectation of his wife. She needs evidence. Things that I think signify thoughtfulness to parents: he purchases a home for them, or he bring them their medicine from the pharmacy, he pays their bills, he hires a maid for them, he brings their groceries. Most of all, he spends time with them. He shows up for dinner EVERY NIGHT because it is expected of him. If he showed commitment, he would NEVER miss family dinner, the one time of the day that everyone is together. Because his absence burdens others..
What the irresponsible husband would do is make the wife guilty for not spending time with his parents, and making her feel poorly about her decisions as an adult. He makes her feel guilty for wanting to spend time with her friends or even her parents because it is at the expense of not spending sufficient time with his parents. He is upset that his wife does not spend time with his Mom not because she does not want to, but because she does not make decisions that are conducive to arriving on time. He blames her working too long a commute, even though it makes her supremely happy.
Ultimately, it is not the unwillingness of the girl to spend time with her inlaws. Unless your inlaws are better than your parents, it is very difficult to be able to always place their preference over your own preference. As a society, we are not rewarded for that sort of sacrifice. Instead of the WoW factor, there is really a bigger question of WHAT IS HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS PARENTS? If it is simply "okay" you cannot reasonably expect the wife to have an "excellent" relationship with your parents, when she sees you making little effort.
Thus, to answer the original question posed, it depends arbitrarily on something else entirely: i.e. the son's relationship with his parents. If he has a good relationship, and he encourages his wife to do the same, then it will not matter whether she is willing to or not--she will have to adjust to the circumstance. Despite wanting only to "hide" in my room, I cannot because it would disappoint/anger/hurt/effect my husband in very tangible ways. Moreover, he will almost always let me know that what I am doing is wrong. If I see him there, chatting with his parents, I am more likely to take his lead and follow suit. If he is there (and I am not) then it is very problematic. And it is problematic because he makes it so. IHowever, if I am there and he is not, it is understood by his parents that their son is at work making income. If you entertain for a second that there is a choice, that you can choose to sit on gmail while your in laws cook you dinner--then you are flawed. There are some men, however, who do not feel obligated to their parents in this way, in sharing their company. Instinctively, the female will want to remain apart from his family and do whatever she wants to do--but it takes a special kind of son to led her to his parents.
It is his responsibility to make sure that she is able to adjust. i hate that people always blame the girl when the relationship ends, and i am not trying to defend anyone in particular but i am just saying, if anyone is culpable it is the son who does not facilitate the relationship with his parents and his wife.
I apologize that this was not well structured. I had a great conversation today about work going forward. And a house to clean so I can't be bothered with editing.
Comments
Post a Comment