To not want to help FIL after surgery?

(No is the best word in the English language)

EqualityWhatequality · Today 12:39

MrsSkylerWhite lucky you. I mean that - not sarcastic

It really isn't luck, it is a choice. An abused child (by father and brother) It just hit me like a bolt of lightning in one single moment many years ago. No, I don’t have to tolerate anything that I don’t choose to. Never have again.

MrsSkylerWhite lucky you. I mean that - not sarcastic.

@EqualityWhatequality - well done to you for learning to put in boundaries.

I agree it is exhausting to enact this new skill - especially with difficult people - and yes you may well get backlash initially - but you weather that storm until they get used to respecting your calmly stated boundaries and if that’s not possible for them then you emotionally protect yourself and enact consequences by withdrawing from them.

@Gloriously
**
However none of these 3 emotions need to be taken on by the OP and she can make decisions and live in freedom without these constraints that keep her bound to the system.”

Absolutely. It really is as simple as saying no.

@EqualityWhatequality - your approach to compromise and appease abusers assumes that the OP is stuck in FOG - fear, obligation and guilt - three emotions that are engendered in toxic, enmeshed and abusive family systems.

However none of these 3 emotions need to be taken on my the OP and she can make decisions and live in freedom without these constraints that keep her bound to the system.

Why should she feel any guilt towards this obnoxious abusive manipulative individual when his own DCs don’t?

EqualityWhatequality · Today 12:18

MrsSkylerWhite
**
Gulit: Because, as women, we are often socialised into a sense of duty or responsibility to nurture and care for others. The guilt is likely. Not necessary - but likely”

This is alien to me. The only people I have ever felt duty towards or responsibility for are our children. Honestly, it really is a choice.

MrsSkylerWhite

Gulit: Because, as women, we are often socialised into a sense of duty or responsibility to nurture and care for others. The guilt is likely. Not necessary - but likely. She can ignore the guilt but might not want that hassle. It’s not a sign she should do something different. Just a common feeling, especially for women, when we stand our ground and put boundaries in.

A backlash: because that is the dynamic the OP had described and is common when we start stepping out of our prescribed roles. It can be worth it but isn’t necessarily easy.

To be clear, I’m not telling the OP what to do. I’m empathising with the various tricky emotions she might feel and the difficult dynamic she is facing. Whatever she choses is potentially tricky for HER. My use of the word compromise was about an internal compromise to smooth things for her, if she doesn’t want to risk grappling with guilt and the backlash but also doesn’t want to stay in the role the system around her expects her to be in.

My point is, that she needs to work out what her end goal is and what she’s prepared to deal with in pursuing that.

There are choices here on a continuum: from do nothing and take a strong ‘no more’ position to doing what is expected. There are many options in between too which might be easier for HER in the long run.

EqualityWhatequality

I did read your post. And the subsequent one:

“Do nothing. Not her problem. But the cost to her is guilt and backlash”

Why on earth would OP feel guilt?

Backlash? Why would there be, as you say, not her problem, not her father? Really can’t understand why so many women pussyfoot around and enable useless men. The obvious answer to any such nonsense is, your father wants help? Crack on, I’m not stopping you. Just leave me out of it.

Gloriously

In principle I completely agree. But the reality is that no person is an island. I would fully condone the OP telling them all to fuck off! But I know from personal experience that putting those boundaries in can often end up with you using more time and emotional energy. Do the OP has three rough choices (with some nuance):

1. Do nothing. Not her problem. But the cost to her is guilt and backlash.
2. Do ‘what’s expected. But the cost to her is resentment and you can never get it right. Uses up her time and resource.
3. Do something that feels manageable but is limited and uses up only the resource she feels able to give.

MrsSkylerWhite

Because her choice is;

Resentment and using up her energy and resource or guilt and having to deal with other peoples shit reaction.

I would fully condone the OP doing nothing but as someone that is in the process of putting more boundaries in, it isn’t as easy as it sounds. It comes with a cost. I’ve suggested the OP considers which of the two evils she prefers and if neither feels ok, a compromise. For her, not for them.

Please read my whole post, rather than just taking one bit and reacting.

WTF should OP even consider “compromising”? Her FIL is a bellend. Not worth a moment of her thought let alone effort.

100% @MrsSkylerWhite - “bellend” is generous - manipulative, demanding, abusive, bully seem more appropriate descriptors to this characters behaviour to all members of his family (except the golden balls DH - yet......)

We should never appease these types or be encouraged to keep the peace (ie be complicit and further enable their manipulative, demanding, abusive and bullying behaviours).

Is there a compromise? Send them some ‘cook’ vouchers? Drop round with a pre made meal for them and a bunch of flowers and card - stay for an hour making some empathic noises, then leave and go something nice”

WTF should OP even consider “compromising”? Her FIL is a bellend. Not worth a moment of her thought let alone effort.

I'd be telling DH where to stick his card and chocolates
& if he can't do that, he can take them to his 'D'F.

He sounds as much a twat as 'D'F TBH
watch out for signs of him morphing into his F as he gets older.

Emotionalsupportviper · Today 19:07

Well! That's fascinating, I love learning about things like that.

(Sorry for contributing to a diversion....)

I won't take your bet, Serafina, because I know you're right! The OP's partner must be desperate if coming up with that old chestnut was the best he could do! Perhaps telling him where to stick his money might be tempting?

The only way I would be doing this is if the chocolates were swapped out for chocolax and I needed access to steal all the toilet paper and replace it with that godawful waxed stuff you used to get in schools in the 90s.

Otherwise he could swivel. You reap what you sow.

You sound so nice.

You have married a dud.

His siblings probably have awful stories to tell.

You don't know the truth anout the awful dud you have married,.....god love you.

Don't have children with scum...it never works out.

I wouldn’t waste energy trying to get them to agree. It serves them all for you to take it on. Just try and truly beleive it yourself. That’s what’s finally worked for me.

Jesus says "if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well

Jewish law stated that if someone pledged their cloak it had to be handed back by nightfall - for many people their cloak was the only thing they had to protect them from the elements and the Law wouldn't see anyone sleeping unsheltered in the street. Many lenders were refusing to hand back these garments. By throwing their final garment at the person demanding it, a man rendered himself naked - and nakedness shamed not only the person who was naked, but anyone who caused it, and anyone who witnessed it (Remember Noah and his sons). Jesus was effectively saying embarrass them into behaving decently.

If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them 2 miles.

A Roman soldier could order a Jewish peasant to carry a burden for them - but only to a maximum of a mile. It was common for the Romans to compel people to act as "porters" for them. By taking it the extra mile, you were showing that you were choosing to do this as a free man with agency over your actions. The Roman soldier would be in the position of trying to stop you - and you could choose whether or not to carry on, taking the burden further than the soldier wanted you to, past his destination - yes, you risked being struck, but you had made a point.

These are forms of passive resistance - non-violent but calculated to give the subjugated a sense of identity, and show that they need not allow themselves to be bullied - God din't put anyone on earth to be a doormat!

Give to the one who asks you, do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Helping people poorer than yourself, was an act of generosity, though, and was aimed at encouraging everyone to help those in real need. While it doesn't seem to fit with the others, it does in that it encourages people to look after each other and work together and fosters a sense of national unity.

Jesus was highly political. He didn't encourage violence, but he didn't expect people to put up with being abused and exploited, either.

But you are right - it isn't any easier now than then. OP isn't being compelled - she has a choice, and she is choosing nNOT to let people exploit her.

Edited: to add final sentence

It all sounds pretty toxic to be honest.

I would certainly not accept my husband pushing me into being an unpaid skivvy to abusive people just so he can protect his inheritance.

You could offer to pick up a greater share of his childcare/ household tasks so he can offer more hands-on support, or arrange paid care.

The Will business, this sounds like NSVDH is trying to dangle a carrot in front of you. Unless you’ve seen the will with your very own eyes don’t take the bait. Even if you’re named they could change it as soon as the “four weeks of bed rest” is up, he’ll be on to the solicitor as soon as you take off your plastic pinny and rubber gloves.

That's interesting, but in the very next verse (Matthew 5 v40) Jesus says "if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them 2 miles. Give to the one who asks you, do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." The context and the clear meaning is highlighting profligate kindness - and it was no easier to do then than it is to do now.

Sounds like FIL has tried to play his children off against each other. He had visions lying in his bed, like Queen Victoria and ringing a little bell to summon someone to do what he says, but the two children he has pissed of the most won’t have anything to do with him.

He could easily live another 15 - 20 years, and MIL could go first after being worn out after a lifetime of catering to his whims.

Sometimes you have to make a stand. Why help someone who has been nasty to you, and is not the one who any ‘apologies’ would come from. Your DH could take round a card and a box of ‘milk tray’ from both of you, but no going to wipe his arse or change dressings on your own, as the ‘family skivvy’.

———————————-

If DH is the sole inheritor in their wills he can do a deed of variation after they pass to split any proceeds equally between him and his siblings if he wants.

Bet you a stick of toffee to a peppermint drop that DH/DiL are not mentioned in the Will in any event.

In OP's shoes, I wouldn't want his money if I were.