Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

About PIL and bill splitting

76 replies

Fakeplasticcheese · 25/02/2018 10:14

We visited SIL (DHs sister) this weekend, staying in a hotel in her home town. PIL came over for the day. We went to the cinema and for a meal. For context we have two kids and SIL has a partner but currently lives alone (and was alone when we met) and has no children. DH and his sister are both early 40s and very close in age.

For both the meal and the cinema PIL paid for themselves and SIL, and we picked up the bill for our family. It was done very openly and left DH feeling pissed off. It's not about the money (and no-one attending would struggle to pay for a cinema ticket and pub lunch - though I have been unemployed for two months) but the openly biased treatment.

Unfortunately they do have form. We would probably be non-contact if we didn't have children.

Is DH BU to be peeved? Or should it wash over him? Does anyone else have parents or in-laws who do this kind of thing?

OP posts:

Original poster

Fakeplasticcheese · 25/02/2018 10:30

SIL definitely not repaying. And I know this particular issue seems trivial. That's why I'm not sure how whether I am unreasonable to feel strongly about it. It is part of a pattern of divisive behaviour though.

OP posts:

ZeroFuchsGiven · 25/02/2018 10:31

Maybe look at my a different angle and be grateful fil reimbursed you.

Clayhead · 25/02/2018 10:31

I get you OP.

My pil do this - it seems trivial but it's irritating and hurtful after a time. I have no advice though, sorry.

witchofzog · 25/02/2018 10:31

I think if they had paid for your dh too and not you and the children you would probably be posting about being left out and not part of the family. The split seemed fair to me, especially for the cinema where family tickets can usually be purchased anyway

RebelRogue · 25/02/2018 10:31

Unfortunately they do have form.

Can you give more examples?

Even if you don't,if they indeed do have form a small thing like this could very well be the straw that broke the camel's back.

HeddaGarbled · 25/02/2018 10:32

Is your FIL a bit old fashioned patriarchal? It sounds like he thinks it's the man of the family's role to pay, so your H pays for you and your children. SIL doesn't have a husband so he thinks, as her father, it's still his role to pay for her?

If you want to educate them, how about next time you all go out, you pay for your family? That'll flummox them.

Inertia · 25/02/2018 10:33

I can see where your DH is coming from- PIL demonstrated that they view their daughter as part of their immediate family, whereas their son is not.

Fairest way to split would be Pil pay for themselves, SIL pays for herself, you and DH pay for your family.

That said, if we visited my family in similar circumstances, my dad would probably buy our meals if we'd paid for hotels / petrol etc, and we've paid for meals when family have visited us.

frenchfancynancy · 25/02/2018 10:34

YANBU.

UNless your SIL is 14 and can't pay for herself

NataliaOsipova · 25/02/2018 10:35

Could be a less extreme version of this - he sees you and your DH and kids as your own, separate, family - but still sees SIL as part of "his" as she isn't married/with a family of her own. If so, it's probably habit rather than anything more sinister.

Thedogsmells · 25/02/2018 10:36

I would assume that he was reimbursing your DH as the main motivation. He could offer to reimburse for him too, but then that would be interpreted as leaving you and the kids out. Or they pay for all of you, which is a big ask. So this way seems most logical.

Original poster

Fakeplasticcheese · 25/02/2018 10:37

To clarify a couple of things:
PIL were visiting because we were there, ie primarily to see us.
They do see SIL slightly more often but there are no reciprocal payment arrangements.
I don't care about the money, I care about the weird fastidiousness of how it was all handled.
They do buy things for the kids when the visit us (t shirts mostly) but would never eg buy a round of coffee if we were out with them.

OP posts:

Thedogsmells · 25/02/2018 10:38

I agree on the family thing too. My sister is unmarried and despite being a professional who is currently travelling for a year still has a bedroom provided and decorated at my parents' house.

Belindabauer · 25/02/2018 10:39

So dh paid for everyone and then Fil made sure that your dh only paid for his immediate family.
I this that's fine tbh.
Perhaps Fil thought if he didn't pay for sil then your dh would end up paying for her and so to avoid that her paid her share.
I can see how it does seem unfair but you don't know what arrangement Fil has with sil, if any.
Perhaps he said beforehand that he would pay her share, perhaps sil helps them out more.
I don't know,
Some families are weird.

edwinbear · 25/02/2018 10:39

This. I suspect he feels men pay, maybe it's a bit old fashioned but he wouldn't want to insult your DH by suggesting he can't provide for his family, particularly not in front of you.

Winteriscoming18 · 25/02/2018 10:39

They treat your dc your Sil hasn’t got a family of their own her family is her parents. My dbro is in the same boat and if my dp wants to treat my brothers is completely non of my business. You and your dh are coming across extremely petty here. Did your dh expect all of you to be paid for or for him?

rogue8 · 25/02/2018 10:41

I get you. We've endured decades of favouritism so it stinks. DH & his DB are resigned but still resentful over how their DM favours their youngest sibling in EVERYTHING - from the minor things to major things. Nothing will change - you need to either accept it (harder said than done) or make it easier with a little more distance. Challenging it makes it worse - they don't see/accept why it's hurtful even when their DC point it out to them. Been there, done that!

blueskyinmarch · 25/02/2018 10:41

I think, as Natalia said, that your FIL sees your SIL as still being part of his family , whereas your DH now has his own family. It is maybe a bit of an old fashioned viewpoint but it isn't really something i would be angsting over.

MiddleClassProblem · 25/02/2018 10:43

But you say you would be NC with them if it weren’t for the kids...

Why are you not just eye rolling and cracking on? Surely if things are bad enough to want to be NC then this is a drop in the ocean.

(Honestly you have no idea whether SIL has bought something for them in the past dinner or and amazon deliver etc. Don’t claim you know everything)

Lifeisabeach09 · 25/02/2018 10:43

Agree with PPs in that your DH has his family to pay for whereas the sister still falls under the wing of the FIL. Patriarchal.
Or, maybe, they know something about her finances that you don't.

This would not bother me.

Garmadonsmum · 25/02/2018 10:43

I struggle to get parents to allow (adult) dc to pay for anything when we meet. I would have thought this was the norm! Unless they know something about sil's finances that you don't, it's very old fashioned.
As you've had to stump up for a hotel I would expect to be treated a bit.

Original poster

Fakeplasticcheese · 25/02/2018 10:44

Thanks for the different view points. The two men being heads of families and splitting it that way does sort of make sense of FIL actions and is the most charitable way of viewing it which may make it easier to 'park'.

To be clear neither DH nor I care about the actual money. We would have happily paid for everyone. We certainly don't expect anything at all from PIL. Maybe that's why it seems odd to see them offering to pay for someone else.

OP posts:

Belindabauer · 25/02/2018 10:47

Ok I see.
Fil was like this
When we got married we paid for the entire wedding ourselves.
I have no family so no contribution there.
The only thing they did was buy a mediocre gift, that was fine but it was no greater value that what friends bought.
Sil married the same year.
All her wedding was paid for by the parents.
She could have a bigger wedding.
Fil would go round and decorate her house even though she had a husband.
We were left to work out how to walk paper ourselves.

Yet whenever they needed anything it was always us they turned to.
Odd.

Chatterbitch · 25/02/2018 10:48

Could SIL have money problems you don't know about and that's why her parents are paying?

My parents would always try to pay for me (very much a grown adult) if we were out and about. I suppose because your husband is married and has a family he doesn't need "looking after" and is no longer the "responsibility" of his parents. In the same way if these PIL are very old fashioned they would see wife and children as the financial responsibility of the husband, where maybe they see their unmarried daughter as still their responsibility?

Avasarala · 25/02/2018 10:49

They might not realise it, but maybe they see their son as "real grown up" with a wife and family, so they don't need to treat him but their daughter is still "single" and they are seeing her as still their responsibility, especially if they are old fashioned and treat her as their baby girl. They just see themselves as paying for their "not quite an adult" daughter and their "grown up, married son" can pay for his own. Even with them being almost the same age, they're maybe just not realising that she's also grown up even though she doesn't have kids. The real test would be if they went out with just your husband and his sister; would they pay for both of them, or just pay your SIL's and expect your husband to pay himself. Or would they all pay their own. That's the only way to really confront the favouritism.

Snowman123 · 25/02/2018 10:49

I get the point.

If they are poor, SIL should have paid for herself. If they aren't poor why couldn't they treat everyone?

Siblings being treated differently causes so many rifts in families.

Flip

1 2 3 4