was SIL rude ?

[EvilTendency1]

Friend told me today what happened at her place last weekend.

Her and her husband had put on a Christmas meal early for his side of the family (parents are deceased and it's only her DH's brother and his family)

They have two children and her in laws have three, so 5 children under 8, youngest is 4.

The 4 yr old starts to announce that she is hungry and wants some crisps, she wanders into the kitchen and starts looking in cupboards looking for them, my friend tells her neice 'Dinner will be 5-10 mins, so no I won't be giving out crisps - won't be long though ! " in a cheery voice.

Child complains to her mother, so friends SIL comes into the kitchen "Where are some crisps ? Mary is hungry." Friend starts to plate up, won't be long. SIL sniffs and says "Mary will have the crisps thanks, she's hungry now." then starts to look in cupboards and finds some, opens them and Mary gets her crisps.

10 mins later Mary doesn't want her dinner - she's not hungry now.

Pudding is served and Mary starts helping herself to things from the table and complaining that she wants other things as well. Friends DH announces then at the table to his neice "Mary, you didn't eat any dinner and in this house that means you don't get any pudding."

Mary bursts into tears and all hell breaks loose, SIL demands that her BIL apologise THIS instant for talkinf to a child that way and no one dictates to her child what she can and can't eat.

They leave 10 mins later and children are crying etc as their cousins are leaving halfway through a meal etc.

She told me she found her SIL actions really rude and doesn't want to see her again. I did admit I found her DH's comments a bit rude and I would have challenged him as well if someone spoke to my child like that.

Was the SIL being unreasonable and over reacting do you think ? I find it bloody rude to feed a child crisps right before a meal though and would have made my own dcs eat their dinner - there would have been no alternative s offered I'm afraid.

What people seem to be missing is that there is a 4yr old CHILD at the centre of this.

It wasn't HER fault her mother decided it appropriate to give her crisps while a meal was being plated,
it wasn't HER fault that the host probably had a long time between arrival & dishing up,
it wasn't her fault that a huge plate of food was put in front of her that she 1a] did like/want or b] now couldn't eat,
And I bet she certainly couldn't control wanting to pick at food (assuming it was desert?) on the table once she discovered that she was, in fact hungry.

Yet this FOUR yr old was the one who was punished for all that, punished for being hungry & then not, then being hungry again. Punished for having been given crisps.
Punished for not eating a big meal
Punished for choices that adults (who should fucking know better) made on her behalf.

They pushed the issue re her & the food & she loses out. I hope they al sleep well knowing they used a 4yr old for their own means, to win a battle of some sort (i.e dh not happy that child was given crisps/wife was overruled re crisps, mum not happy that her dd was refused crisps initially etc)

Fucking pathetic of adults to use a child like that & pathetic that people think any of the were right.

I have been thinking about this & have revised since my last message, so if I contradict myself, I apologise & I stand by what is in THIS post.

Quitethewoodsman But we don't know how long they were there before meal was served up. I went to a relatives house for lunch once, so gave dd breakfast, light morning snack. Arrived at 12 to eat at 12.30 (yes, we were told that) NOTHING was ready. Meal was started at 1pm, ready at 3pm. There is NO way my dd could hold on for several hours to eat, so I made her something as the meal was being started. relative childless, so didn't understand why dd couldn't wait for almost 3 additional hours to eat.

didn't like/want

Would anyone else love to hear the SILs perspective on this whole incident?

No, because all the adults concerned behaved despicably, using a 4yr old to make their points that were probably way above her head.

If a 4 year old asked me for crisps as I was serving up a meal that takes hours to cook I would have said "I don't think your mummy/daddy would want you eating crisps just before we have our Christmas meal" "but let's ask them" is the only end that should be on that sentence.

Other than that, you made the point I am trying to make serving up a meal that takes hours to cook How long was the child waiting for?

I think if a parent is weak enough to give their child crisps immediately before a meal then nothing else had to be said by the hosts.

As for taking them grom the cupboard - yes it was entitled of the mum but it's all part of the bigger picture which is a wee one ruling the roost.

You can't say that the 4yr old rules the roost on the basis of a one sided post, from the POV of the child's aunt.

You just can't!

I can and I did because that's what happened at the meal. The wee one ruled the roost.

YANBU. My DC don't get crisps straight before dinner and don't get pudding if they don't eat their dinner. If your a child in my house then you get treated the same as my DC.

Tattiebogle So I assume you were there?

This was told by the host, to a friend. There is nothing to say that host didn't exaggerate etc.

My dd had a screaming fit at the park recently & I am pretty sure that my dh aunt told my MIL all about it. But what aunt wouldn't have said was WHY is happened & how I made it worse. It would have all been dds fault.

You weren't there, you don't how long it took for the food to be served up, etc.

Differentname - you know as much as I do about what went on and we are both allowed our different interpretation of it.

Apart from that there really is nothing more to say except I hope you have a nice day. I have my eldest granddaughter here, she stayed over last night after a fabulously Christmas Day. We are doing nothing more than building Lego and having fun.

I will bet my last C&W Marc de Champagne truffle that there was (what seemed to the child at least) an inordinate delay with lunch. It wasnt being plated up as the crisps were swiped. Even by the hosts account there were, what 10 minutes to wait? So i would extend that to 20.
Agree with Phaedra and Differentnameforthis

tattiebogle has it exactly right: Mary was ruling the roost.

Whatever Mary wanted, Mary got. Her DM made sure of that. What she should have been doing was making sure Mary was not in the kitchen getting in the way while her aunt was trying to serve up a meal for the family - it's not only annoying, it's also possibly dangerous.

If SIL had been looking after her child properly, then is possible none of the subsequent bad behaviour by the child would have happened. But to insist that Mary had to have a packet of crisps while the meal was being served was frankly ridiculous and very, very rude. Mary would have suffered no harm to have heard the word "no".

But I suspect that word may be an unknown country.

the OP doesn't mention any serious food/eating problem the child has beyond wanting crap over a proper dinner so yes it is a reasonable enough assumption to make that she doesn't have one.

The Mary's and her mother's behaviour are classic "power struggle over food" type behaviour where the mother has lost all perspective and grabs every opportunity to get her child to eat something.

The fact that the child rules the roost is another unreasonable assumption. Food battles hand a lot of power to small children but this is generally restricted to eating and food and parents do usually keep perspective over other aspects of family life, probably because they don't cause the same degree of anxiety.

If your a child in my house then you get treated the same as my DC.

This philosophy, I assume, would not extend to smacking someone else's child in a household where smacking is acceptable?

Both were rude, but I think the woman who said in her house you don't get pudding if you haven't eaten was really out of line. I can't imagine telling someone else's child that at a special dinner. What is it to her after all? She was obviously annoyed the mother gave the child chips, and acted on that annoyance by power tripping over a child. At the end of the day, the child's eating habits do not affect her (friend)'s life, she should mind her own business.

Obviously you shouldn't give a child crisps just before dinner, and you certainly shouldn't grab a bag of crisps out of your host's cupboard just as they're about to serve dinner. That seems like extraordinary bad manners.

However, I don't believe children should be forced to eat food they don't want, and I don't think it was up to the DH, however annoyed he was feeling, to say the child couldn't have pudding. It shouldn't be up to him. And even if it was a rule he was determined to impose, the time to mention it is at the beginning of the meal, not at the time pudding is served.

Essentially, it's a good example of adults behaving like children. Neither of them is modelling good behaviour for a child, are they?

For those that think house rules shouldn't apply to other peoples children

If you don't allow your children to jump on the settee would you let another child do it or tell them to stop?

If little Johnny often draws on the walls at home and attempted to do the same to your walls would you tell him to stop?

If you don't allow shoes upstairs on your nice new cream carpet would you let little Suzy run up the stairs with her muddy shoes because her parents allow her at home or would you tell her to take them off?

I think it is important to teach children that some family's do things differently and that whilst you are in somebody else's home they may have to abide by rules they aren't necessarily used to. I mean your children understand that while at home the may be able to eat in pyjamas/half dressed but at a restaurant this isn't acceptable right? The utter lack of respect that is 'well my child my decision' regardless of any rules or boundaries set by the host, is how we end up with arseholes who think its okay to spark a fag up In a non smokers home because its 'their choice to smoke'

There's a difference between house rules and parenting rules and I don't expect all our rules to apply to visiting children.

Jumping on the sofa is a no brainer because that's about damaging our property, as is drawing on walls or wearing muddy shoes.

Issues that only affect the child are different so eating crisps in front of other children is unfair but whether a child gets pudding without having eaten any main can be glossed over fairly easily and isn't really the host's business.

I would argue that I've everybody in the house has to obey by a rule, adults included that it is a house rule not a parenting one. I read the DHs comments as meaning just that. "In this house we don't.."

And it doesn't just effect the child though does it? It also effects the other children who have had to eat all their dinner before they are aloud dessert. It also effects the hosts when their children pick up on the fact that Mary was allowed crisps and cake as her meal and suddenly want to do the same. Also, the fact that the host was completely ignored when she said no to the crisps sets the example to her own children that's she is a pushover, her word is not to be taken seriously and rules are not to be obeyed.

If not I've*

Also my point about the sofa/walls/carpets were aimed at those who stated that if marys mum usually lets her do certain things ie eat crisps before a meal, skips said meal completely and then moves on to dessert, then the host has no right to protest.

How many times do those of us who distinguish between house rules which have a point (jumping on the sofa, pulling the cat's tail) which affect others have to make that distinction?

Of course the father can protest about such behaviour.

And as for the argument that allowing Mary to have pud undermines the entire parenting structure- no it doesn't. We will all have had to deal with that at some point. There was an easy get out too- "we don't normally do this but this was a special occasion"

How many times do those of us who believe in house rules have to say that allowing Mary to have crisps before a meal, to behave badly at table and then to get pudding when she's refused to eat her meal do affect others? Not only the other children, but SIL who had Mary and SIL faffing around the kitchen when she was trying to dish up and everyone who had to endure Mary's antics at the table?

Because it was a special occasion for which the hosts had gone to some effort was all the more reason for SIL (and her partner) to engage in some parenting with Mary to make sure that everyone could enjoy the meal.