Log in or Sign up

How to Build Positivity in Married Life? : Click Here
Dismiss Notice

In-Laws or Out laws?

Discussion in 'Relationship With In-Laws' started by mathangikkumar, Aug 9, 2012.

Page 8 of 18

Aug 10, 2012 #71

Rihana Moderator Staff Member IL Hall of Fame

Messages:

12,513

Likes Received:

30,286

Trophy Points:

540

Gender:

Female

Quebec said: ↑

@rihana,

well as far as i can see either it is selective amnesia or selective vision in your reply......

Well everbody has a right to share their view......

I do not think this kind cutting and replying is warranted by anyone......

If you have'nt read please read the quoted text again.........
Click to expand...

Quoting entire post is against forum etiquette as it takes up page space. No selective amnesia or selective reading on my part. And nowhere did I suggest any views do not have a right to be shared.

She has specifically mentioned she doest blame any one side and also this is only based on experience of going on's around her...
Click to expand...

So, she mentioned that she doesn't blame any side? OK, what should we do about it? Is that cute disclaimer anticipatory bail against any responses to her post? We should sit mum? Many of us also responded based on experience - personal, around us and from heart-wrenching, mind-boggling threads we read here in IL.

I dont care if you have any problem with my reply to u or you considering me a MCP as sometimes i feel that people are going on a hyper attack mode at IL......
Click to expand...

If people are going on a hyper attack mode, take it up with mods or report the posts. I cannot help with that. As far as my post is concerned, I wrote what came to the mind on reading the first post. Report it if it seems like attacking mode.

As for having a problem with your reply to me, absolutely none. Freedom of speech is beautiful, and that makes such fora what they are. "Consider you as an MCP"? Why exactly would one do that? You only appreciated the first post and expressed some views about mine. That doesn't make any one an MCP.

Since the topic of labels has any way come up: MCP is a man who believes in the superiority of the male of the species and related outdated notions. In the case of the great Indian joint family (living together or connected by modern goodies like internet, phone), and MIL/DIL/FIL sagas that ensue from it, it would be more appropriate to call the men Mamma's boys. The MCP label would apply to the man's attitude to the man-woman relationship. Mamma's boy applies to the man's attitude to the MIL/DIL/DIL's husband triangle.

Rihana, Aug 10, 2012

Rihana, Aug 10, 2012

#71

4 people like this.
Aug 10, 2012 #72

steve Platinum IL'ite

Messages:

812

Likes Received:

1,294

Trophy Points:

263

Gender:

Male

sokanasanah said: ↑

Yes, yes., I know, but what I mean is, I recognized the locution instantly and I would argue that this version of wisdom is applied exclusively to women - "thatta-vendiya idathuley thatti-vekkanum ..." would never be applied to a son, or an employee or the family pet - although in practice it could apply to any disciplinary action, nor would it be applied to an encouraging pat on the back.
Click to expand...

WTH does that mean in English?

steve, Aug 10, 2012

steve, Aug 10, 2012

#72
Aug 10, 2012 #73

ashimasd Silver IL'ite

Messages:

218

Likes Received:

150

Trophy Points:

93

Gender:

Female

Mam,with all due respect to you I understand that there are cases like this. All I wonder is why no one cares about the girls parents after they are married off?If you had a daughter,would not you have loved to stay with her?

ashimasd, Aug 10, 2012

ashimasd, Aug 10, 2012

#73
Aug 10, 2012 #74

sokanasanah IL Hall of Fame

Messages:

3,959

Likes Received:

6,862

Trophy Points:

408

Gender:

Male

steve said: ↑

WTH
Click to expand...

tsk, tsk ....
<a href='http://www.mysmiley.net' title='smiley emoticons'><img src='http://serve.mysmiley.net/fighting/fighting0048.gif' alt='smiley emoticons' border='0'></a>

does that mean in English?
Click to expand...

Sorry I think it was paraphrased earlier by someone else, but an approximate translation would be:
"One ought to thwack 'it' where necessary....."
The 'it' here is usually the 'wife', portrayed as a shrew in this context.
Idiomatically it means to put someone in their place with an assertion of one's own superior position (not necessarily with physical violence), a "taming of the shrew", except without the "Kiss me Kate!"

sokanasanah, Aug 10, 2012

sokanasanah, Aug 10, 2012

#74

3 people like this.
Aug 10, 2012 #75

Viswamitra Finest Post Winner

Messages:

13,411

Likes Received:

24,175

Trophy Points:

538

Gender:

Male

Dear Mathangi,

Thank you for presenting your views of what you see around you. Even though you had a disclaimer that those were not your views, knowingly or unknowingly, you have presented one side of the story without evaluating both sides. I have read many of your posts earlier and this one appeared to be lopsided. I have nothing but respect for women of this generation as they are well educated and do multiple roles as wife, mother, executive, daughter, DIL, sister, SIL and many other roles. The responsibilities have changed so significantly now and hence the roles have changed as well. I think it is time for MILs to handover the responsibilities to DILs with more energy and good understanding of the world as they had their prime time. It is time to educate the men they raise to take responsibilities on the households to help their spouses.

The joint-family system is non-existence now not because of issues in relationship but because of the changes in our lifestyle. Real joint-family system is when all brothers, their spouses, children and grandchildren live together and we have dispensed with that when we moved to the cities and adapted new life style. The parents want their children to educate, move around and be successful. Sometimes, they miss the part that they need to treat DIL properly to keep their own sons happy.

The football analogy you used also applied to parents. Many of them use one of their children against the other as well. They bad mouth one of their children when they move to another place and reverse the process when they move back to the very same child they bad mouthed earlier. Moreover, why should they view it as kicking around? Don't they feel love for each one of them and want to spend time with each one of them?

Using property as bait is inappropriate. If the parents think their property is going to protect them from DILs, God bless them. Instead of teaching love, they use property as "bait", they are better off using those properties to get themselves into old age homes. Women of this age are not raised with property of in-laws in mind and they look for good time with their own families and make their own wealth through their contribution.

In my opinion, the women are told how to adjust when they move to a new family but men are not trained to balance the life with spouse and parents simultaneously. The MILs who treat their DILs badly, don't hesitate to train their daughters to take their spouses into confidence and gain control. Why this discrimination? How many of us can touch our heart and tell that we are willing to send daughters to a joint family where she would toil from morning till night? We don't have heart to tell them to accept it as is and we definitely feel she should lead a good life with her husband and children at that young age.

There is nothing wrong in newly married woman getting authority as they are capable. Even if a son gives authority for peace of mind, he perhaps learned it from what his father did. It is DIL who is settling down with MIL and hence she is the one who needs to make DIL comfortable. In my opinion, even MILs who harass their DILs and the husbands who silently watch are committing sin. What is the point in taking a vow in front of fire that I would protect her for life? There are two sides to the coin. The love has to flow from both ends unconditionally.

My views are not with an intention to hurt OP or any other respondent to this post.

Viswa

Viswamitra, Aug 10, 2012

Viswamitra, Aug 10, 2012

#75

IL_Admin, (deleted member), (deleted member) and 32 others like this.
Aug 10, 2012 #76

ChristianKing Senior IL'ite

Messages:

26

Likes Received:

14

Trophy Points:

23

Gender:

Male

 Let them live where ever they want to live. All they need is to maintain peace between parties and affection with each other.

ChristianKing, Aug 10, 2012

ChristianKing, Aug 10, 2012

#76

1 person likes this.
Aug 10, 2012 #77

steve Platinum IL'ite

Messages:

812

Likes Received:

1,294

Trophy Points:

263

Gender:

Male

Sokanasanah:

Does it necessarily and unequivocally imply physical force? or more like "Be assertive" ?

steve, Aug 10, 2012

steve, Aug 10, 2012

#77
Aug 10, 2012 #78

eandian IL Hall of Fame

Messages:

1,882

Likes Received:

5,267

Trophy Points:

383

Gender:

Female

Thank you Viswa sir,
I have always had great respect for you. But after reading this post, my respect for you has increased many many folds.

eandian, Aug 10, 2012

eandian, Aug 10, 2012

#78

6 people like this.
Aug 10, 2012 #79

eandian IL Hall of Fame

Messages:

1,882

Likes Received:

5,267

Trophy Points:

383

Gender:

Female

steve said: ↑

Does it necessarily and unequivocally imply physical force? or more like "Be assertive" ?
Click to expand...

Force it is.

Thata / thatu in Tamil means - hit / knock.

More than the physical force, what irks others is that, this is usually used when referring to people with whom we do not share or do not want to share any emotional attachment.....reserved more for people who are "not upto our standard" that it is ok to hit them......more of a brutal / impersonal hit to get what you want without taking into account the other person's feelings.....infact crushing that person's feelings is part of the desired victory.....

Or at least this is how I have seen that phrase being used in my mother tongue.

eandian, Aug 10, 2012

eandian, Aug 10, 2012

#79

7 people like this.
Aug 10, 2012 #80

steve Platinum IL'ite

Messages:

812

Likes Received:

1,294

Trophy Points:

263

Gender:

Male

OP:

I hear your sentiments and the choice of language needs some more sensitivity and to be in tune with the times.

I for one sympathise with the view that parents want to be with their offspring in their old age. I also understand that staying with an offspring is a lot more desirable than staying in an old-age home. I also can sympathise with the view that it's preferable to be dependent on a son rather than a daughter in the Indian cultural situation, where a daughter may not have the same economic clout within the family as a son might have. If the daughter has that kind of economic clout, it may be more fun staying with her, if you ask me.

it surely would be an unfortunate situation for a parent to negotiate all this with a DIL (or son-inlaw) directly. It's the burden of the son/daughter and they should do whatever they can working within their marriage to somehow address your being taken care of.

Some of your language sounds desperate to me. To depend on an offspring in old age, a parent should not need to justify it on the basis of property distributions etc. In old age, they are frail and weak and who is better than their children to take care of them? If old-age home is the best option your children can come up with considering everything, don't scoff at it. You sure can tell that you are disappointed.

P.S. While my understanding is limited to old age, I do not however agree that parents should overlord the young family all along only because they are attached to the son.

steve, Aug 10, 2012

steve, Aug 10, 2012

#80

3 people like this.

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 8 of 18

Share This Page