Sending money back to PIL - WWYD?

[Namechangedonceagain]

My DH is Indian, and his family live in India. They're wonderful, although very traditional. (For example, we had a very hard time convincing them that we wouldn't be moving to India to live with them in their family home as per the tradition, but they have seem to have finally understood this now and stopped asking.)

We have an awkward situation with them regarding money. Traditionally, as a son, my husband is expected to send money back to the family home to support them. There are four people (parents and grandparents) living their permanently, and his sister and her baby live there half the week (the other half with her husband and his family). PIL buy almost everything for SIL and her baby (may be relevent).

So, DH feels really awkward as there's an expectation that we will send money back to them every month. But they don't need the money. They have another house that they rent out which means they can afford all food and everything else they need on a daily basis. They also have a huge amount of property and land which they could sell if they wanted to and be very wealthy. (I don't mean the land that they live on (which is also huge!) - I mean additional unused land which is seperate to where they live and just going to waste. They don't want to sell it but we aren't sure why, as it's really not used at all and worth a lot of money.) Should add - we only think they should sell a small part of it as they should enjoy their retirement and travel, something they've never done - we don't want any of the money!

Here is my confusion. I asked DH why, traditionally, we should send money that they don't need. He said (traditionally) they'd keep any money that we don't use in a savings account so that any left over after their death would be divided between him and SIL. As SIL isn't expected to contribute any money, this seems odd and unfair to me - so we should give them a proportion of our money each month so that maybe in 30 years we can have half of it back? And SIL can have the other half?

Secondly, he said that he thinks the reason his dad is reluctant to sell part of the land is because he wants to leave it (along with all other land) for DH and SIL in his will. Which is lovely but they've both told him they don't need it and would rather he sold it and enjoyed his retirement!

I guess my question is, how would you deal with this? DH and I don't want to send the money (we really can't afford to send money - any contribution would be a struggle at the moment - especially to people who don't need it) and it seems really odd since they are much wealthier than us and don't need it.

Not only do they have a lot of land and income from tenants but they also gifted SIL several thousand pounds when she got married (again, a tradition) while we got nothing (as not a tradition). It just seems a bit unfair that SIL has thousands of pounds sat in the bank which isn't being used (as PIL pay for everything for her and her baby) and yet we are expected to send our hard earned money to them each month so they can potentially just put it in the bank and give us half back when we are old and hopefully more financially secure! There's no question that SIL should or would contribute in anyway.

We love them but we really aren't in a financial position to send money but don't know how to not play a part in this tradition as it will cause offence (we have already upset them by not living with them so are worried this might really make them upset).

DH isn't traditional at all and has lived abroad a long time so sees this whole thing as just as odd as I do. Keen to add also that we don't blame them at all - we know it's just a tradition which is why they expect it. But if we weren't to give them money they would be a bit hurt and also embarrassed in front of their friends and relatives (who use their children's incomes to show off to each other and compete about whose child buys them the most!)

They would never force us to send money or be angry about it - I don't think (although these traditions seem to run deep so sometimes their reactions to our breaking them are surprising).

WWYD?

I wouldn’t send any money. Tbh I wouldn’t marry someone with such a strong cultural pull. You see it all the time - even second generation going back to their home culture ways especially after marriage.

"Why did her parents marry her into a family who are so different to them?"

It does seem very odd, doesn't it?

I'm guessing that part of it was to make sure that she would always be living close by?

Greeve - her husband is financially abusive - at least in the UK I'd consider it this - IF financial abuse is withholding money. He definitely withholds money.

But ... I just feel that this really simplifies the situation, for the reasons I have explained.

In the context of his tradition, he's not financially abusive, because in the context of his tradition the husband provides for the wife and child while the wife and child live with him. She doesn't like to help out around the house so she doesn't want to live with him. She wants to live at her parents and for him to give money out of his family pot for her to enjoy herself. He would give money out of the family pot IF she lived in his family home. But as she won't, he doesn't think he should. As I said before, he's also under immense pressure from his own family to try and get her to come home to his house as it's causing them great embarrassment that she won't stay there.

So you can't simplify it so much. Yes in the context of UK life he is financially abusive as he withholds money when he doesn't like what she's doing.

But in the context of their tradition, he's not.

Also, would I be a victim of financial abuse if I refused to work or help out around the house in ANY way but if I also expected my husband to take me on regular holidays and shopping trips when we had a family to support and couldn't afford it?

The situation with her husband is much more complicated than "he's abusive."

If both you and husband dont want to do it then husband has to have a frank conversation about how that money us being taken from your family's mouth for food to eat and bills to pay.

Greeve - "Look, you and DH want the best of both worlds. The security of a comfortable Indian family and the freedom of Western life."

What on earth has given you this idea?

We don't want the security of a comfortable Indian family? We don't want anything from them except a normal, loving relationship. We love them, we care for them, we want them to be happy. We DONT want or get anything from them. We don't even care about the inheritance which means so much to them and have said so repeatedly. We have no intention of ever living in India. We want to earn our own money and pay our own way. All we want from them is what we want from ANY family - western family too - a friendly relationship!

It's really odd that you're determined to make out that we want something from them. We don't ask for or get anything fro them - we live in different countries and we have no intention of ever living in the same country as them so what do you think we are trying to get from them? Childcare? Money? We have already said we don't want their money and even if we did we wouldn't get it because DH is the son of the family.

All we want is what EVERY person wants - we want to be able to work, earn our own money, live in our own home, do our jobs, have a nice life with our children. We can't afford to send lots of money home to them but this doesn't mean we don't love them. We don't want to follow the traditions of a country we don't live in when doing so would negatively impact our own lives and our children's lives. It's funny that you're so invested in trying to make us somehow the bad guys in this situation? There are no bad guys! We are just trying to find a way to do what is best for all of us.

I'm fascinated to find out what you think they offer us that is exclusive to their being Indian as well. Very odd.

OK, OP. I think you and DH will just have to do things on your terms and accept that the PILs will be unhappy. Visit when you want. Point out that living in the UK involves huge financial obligations, that you both work, and that you intend to continue living your lives. Point out that SIL has other potential sources of support and one woman should not have to work to support another who doesn’t want to. Cut back on the visits if necessary. Say you don’t have money for tickets but they are welcome to come and see how you live. Rinse and repeat.

I say all this as a person in an intercultural marriage who has fought assumptions and trodden on toes to keep my autonomy. My close friend, on the other hand, divorced her Indian husband because he spent his whole salary on his parents, who did not need it, and sponged off his wife’s earnings. I hope your little family unit can negotiate all of these issues successfully. You sound like a great family.

As for why SIL was married into a family so different. This happens all the time. So many of her friends are in the same situation.

Their compatibility was judged according to things like qualifications, jobs, appearance, and astrology. They met about twice before the engagement - both sets of parents, SIL and her husband.

Obviously they liked the material stuff about the other (the salary, the appearance, the qualifications). In these ways they are similar. Obviously they were all on best behaviour during these meetings! Do you think my PIL would have said "SIL doesn't like cleaning, she won't help with the cooking, or help around the house in anyway, and we don't think she should have to." Of course not!

Do you think her husband's parents would have said "Honestly? He's got the personality of a cardboard box, but he's got a good salary!" Of course not!

Their marriage had to happen on a date determined by astrology. There were two dates, one was in just over a month and one was over a year away. They chose the closest one which is often done to ensure that the marriage actually happens.

They don't stay together overnight or anything within the lead up to the marriage, they barely get to know each other at all!

Of course it's very easy for stuff like this to happen!

makingmammaries - thank you for the lovely comment! We will do as you say I think - continue to live as we are, and in the way that is right for us. We do love PIL but can't put them before ourselves or our children, especially as they don't need us to. Keeping our independence is important to us - thankfully to both of us - so I'm sure we will find a way to work this out, and just hope PIL can maybe eventually understand. Thanks again

Forgot to say this. People rarely challenge their own cultural assumptions. They continue to think they are absolute until someone asks them to explain why. So, if push comes to shove, you might have to ask why SIL is considered so weak that she is exempted from all forms of work while you just have to get on with it. And why you do the visiting instead of them (wording it in a way that implies that travellers fund their own tickets). And so on. Make it clear that your world is not the same as theirs and, much as you love them, you will be living in yours.

In the context of his tradition, he's not financially abusive, because in the context of his tradition the husband provides for the wife and child while the wife and child live with him. She doesn't like to help out around the house so she doesn't want to live with him. She wants to live at her parents and for him to give money out of his family pot for her to enjoy herself. He would give money out of the family pot IF she lived in his family home. But as she won't, he doesn't think he should. As I said before, he's also under immense pressure from his own family to try and get her to come home to his house as it's causing them great embarrassment that she won't stay there.

Abuse is abuse. There isn't "Indian" abuse and "Nigerian" abuse, there is abuse. Financial abuse isa type of abuse. Stop excusing it.

What I meant is why they let their daughter marry someone who cannot afford help.

I do think that you want the best of both worlds. Your husband especially. But as someone from another culture who sees people in mixed cultural relationships all the time, I know what I am talking about but its hard to explain to someone from a dominant culture. Especially in English.

Greeve, if you're saying that some elements of the culture and traditions are abusive then I agree 100%. I don't agree with the way SIL is treated, or the way many women are treated, because of the traditions. I don't excuse abuse just because it's 'traditional'. I am totally against oppressive traditions and as you can see am trying to avoid following one which I see as quite oppressive (although admittedly not abusive). However it seems odd to me that you're criticising the tradition in order to criticize SILs husband, but you're also in the same breath saying that we should unquestioningly follow these same set of traditions despite the negative impact it would have on our life? I'm really rather confused by your whole point of view really. 🤔

Also it's really odd that you seem to have decided what DH and I 'want the best of both worlds'. What are you basing this assumption off? I have already said:

1. we don't live in their country
2. we don't want to ever live in their country
3. we don't want money or inheritence from them

What do you think we want from them other than a normal relationship? The only things we like about them are totally seperate from their nationality. We like them as people. We care about them as people. That's IT. We don't want anything from them which is exclusive to their being Indian. So it's weird that you keep repeating that line about wanting the best of 'both worlds'.

And for the last time - my DH feels exactly the same way I do. It has nothing to do with me being from the 'dominant culture' - if it were this, why would he feel the same?

Are you deliberately being obtuse? In one breath insisting I follow the traditions that in the other breath you're calling abusive? Being absolutely DEAD SET on the idea that we want something from another 'world' that we literally have no connection to other than that some family still live there, despite having absolutely nothing to back this up except than the fact that you're also from another culture? So what - this makes you psychic? It means you understand us on some deep level despite that you've never met us and that everything I have explained goes totally against your theory?

You're honestly trying to tell me that you know things about mine and my husband's inner wants and needs JUST because you know a few people who are also in mixed-raced relationships? Are you really saying that ALL mixed race relationships are the same and that ALL people in these relationships have the same wants and needs from their life? How bizarre.

@Greeve, what you’re labeling ‘abuse’ is no more absolute than my own conviction that piercing babies’ ears is abusive. The law sees it differently.

SIL is abandoning her domicile (that’s recognized as an offence, by the way, in civil law countries) regularly. She refuses to contribute to the household while benefiting from the expectation that she will be kept. Who’s the abusive one here?

What is abusive is SIL's husband not letting her have money because she won't live where he wants. That's not okay in any language. Jeez. People can live how they choose.

I'm saying that as a brown person who sees how other brown people in mixed relationships can often want the best of both worlds, I can't explain to you, a white person, how this manifests or why it is problematic because as a white person, you won't understand. Especially as I'd be explaining it in my 3rd language (English) and without some workds or phrases we use in my 1st and 2nd language.

Basically, your PIL made a really shitty decision for their daughter which effectively means she is stuck. That is why they have to do what they are doing for her. Back in the day, she would probably be forced to stay in that home where literally anything could be going on. She probably doesn't speak about some stuff and the family probably keep it concealed from you (and maybe your husband too). That is why they are essentially indebted to her. She could divorce, but that would show badly on her in the future.

makingmammaries - thank you for explaining that better than I could!

Greeves, firstly , what makes you assume I'm white? And what does the colour of my skin have to do with this?

Secondly, actually, as I've repeated tried to tell you, it IS okay in this tradition for him to not fund her decision to live at her parents house! It ISNT abusive in this tradition. Please listen to me and PPs. Indian courts will often grant divorces to men when the woman refuses to live in the husband's family home. He could very easily divorce her based on this alone. It's NOT okay IN THIS CULTURE for a woman to live separately from her husband. It IS okay IN THIS CULTURE for a husband to not fund his wife to live in her parents home.

Please stop looking at this from your own perspective and look at it from WITHIN the culture that it is happening.

As I have repeatedly said, I consider many aspects of this culture sexist and even abusive. But I acknowledge that that's if you look at it from a western perspective. Within the culture, some things aren't abusive that we would consider abusive.

For example, emotionally or financially blackmailing someone into an arranged marriage is illegal in the UK and considered abusive. Within the context of PILs culture it is entirely normal and not considered abusive at all. I'm not saying this is right or wrong. I'm just saying it's complex, it's different cultures. Stop simplifying everything.

And you're just speculating that SIL is in an abusive marriage when I've told you that she's not. Even she admits that she doesn't like living there because why would she when PIL do everything for her and pay for everything for her? Stop trying to make up a situation that doesn't exist just to back up your argument.

Also, having researched financial abuse due to being a bit foggy about it, I think you're really using the term inappropriately.

From my understanding, a husband refusing to take money from his family pot, (when he doesn't have a big salary, and needs to use his money to support 7 people) in order to pay for his wife to go on shopping trips and days out with friends because she doesn't fancy getting a job, is NOT financial abuse.

If she were unable to work due to looking after her son or being busy with work or housework then maybe it would be a bit more questionable. But she already doesn't do the childcare, she doesn't contribute to the housework, and the reason she isn't working is because she doesn't want to! She is in no way oppressed by his refusal to fund her lifestyle as obviously her parents pay, and she can get a job any time she wants as she already has my MIL and her MIL doing 100% of her childcare.

In the context of this culture, she is basically saying that she doesn't want to be a part of his family because she refuses to live with him. So why should she receive money from their family pot to enjoy herself when she contributes NOTHING to the family? Is it REALLY financial abuse that he won't send her regular chunks of money so she can live at her parents house, go out with friends, go to the cinema, go for meals out, etc?

If so, I'll quit my job tomorrow, refuse to look after my children or contribute to the housework, and insist my husband spends his salary paying for me to just have fun every day. If he dares to refuse I'll tell him he's being financially abusive. Because that's what financial abuse is, by your standards.

And lastly - why does ANY of this mean that DH and I should send money to PIL, which isn't needed by them, and which we can't afford?

Greeve, how do you know what colour I am?

You said and I quoted that it is 'definitely abusive'. Its only when it was suggested this might influence their divergence from their cultural traditions (because you know, brown people evolve too) that you started saying that it isnt really abuse. Law says nothing to me. It's legal in some countries to stone homosexuals so in no way does the fact that he is allowed to do this and not have it deemed abuse in India change my thoughts at all. She is in a financially abusive relationship. End of. As you said (I think), marital rape used to be legal but that doesn't mean the millions of women forced into sex by their husbands weren't raped because the law didnt agree.

And why is there an obligation on the husband to provide money and no obligation on the wife to lift a finger? That’s not OK anywhere, except in some wealthy Gulf States

I'm 95% sure you're white because most other cultures do this in some shape or form so this thread wouldn't exist.