AIBU or is my friend - views on relationships between MILs and DILs

[lzn]

Settle a debate please: Why do MILs and DILs so often clash, while MILs and SILs usually get a pass?

My take: It’s mostly the DIL wanting total control. Once the couple settles down, the wife typically takes over—planning the kids’ lives, holidays, social calendars, everything—and the husband just goes along with it to keep the peace (“happy wife, happy life”). The DIL usually prioritizes her own parents, expects the MIL to stay in her lane, and sets the rules on who gets access to the family. So if the MIL wants any involvement, she has to walk on eggshells or be labeled overbearing.

My friend’s take: She thinks it’s the MIL who can’t let go. That some of them treat their sons like emotional husbands and feel threatened by another woman becoming the center of his life. They don’t want to lose that influence, so they insert themselves constantly, even when it’s not their place. Meanwhile, mothers of daughters seem to accept the shift more gracefully and don’t try to compete with their SIL.

So who’s the bigger problem—DILs who want total dominance, or MILs who won’t step aside?

YABU - your friend is right, you’re wrong
YANBU - you’re right, your friend is wrong

Both of you are wrong.

Every MIL/DIL and MIL/SIL relationship is different.

And where is FIL in this scenario?

You are both right. Depends on the MIL, Son, DIL and dynamics. I’m close with my MIL, we see my husband’s family more than mine but I know that’s not the same for everyone.

Totally depends on the dynamic. It's so individual, just like any difficult relationship.

A lot of the time it's laziness on the part of the son/DH that causes the problem though.

Also folks forget that on here you generally hear about the poor relationships.

I'm hardly going to post a thread saying "MIL lives here and she's no trouble at all. In fact she's been so busy this week I've hardly seen her..." or "OMG for the third week in a row MIL took her turn making the dinner..."

It's only when things are bad, and very occasionally spectacularly good, do people need to post about their relationships.

We’re talking about the typical, quite common dislike between MILs and DILs. There isn’t really so much animosity (on Mumsnet, real life families that I know of, horror stories of terrible relationships that go around etc) for FILs and SILs or DILs.

I had 2 MIL, one was my husbands mother and the other is step mother. I got on really well with his step mother. She had some different views to mine but we got on as equals. His mother on the other hand is an utter toxic bitch. A husband should put his wife first and his mother should encourage that. When kids come along, grandparents need to realise that they had their turn to make the decisions and now it’s someone else’s turn. They dont need to agree but they do need to respect them.

Im a mother of boys and hope to be a lovely MIL when the time comes. The partners my sons choose are their choice.

Is it always that the DIL wants control? Or is it that men are inherently lazy and leave running of family life to their wives?

Also there are MILs who can't cut the apron strings, and there are those that are fine.

I think it is personality, and differing family time expectations often.

I think both are incorrect and it's usually to do with the son. Often being passive and used to the women in his life organising everything.

Well it’s not a black and white issue is it? So you can be right and so can your friend.

In my situation my MIL (and FIL) expected me to toe the line and do everything to suit them, they constantly interfered in decisions we made (telling us we couldn’t call our baby the name we chose and came up with a list of names they would accept) and basically criticising everything I did because there was “their way or the wrong way”. Once we established I would do things my way or the way dh and I decided they backed off and I now have a great relationship with my MIL.

However, I know a lovely lady who’s DIL is so intent on having control at all times that the lady’s son is now too scared to go against his wife and has more or less cut contact with his entire family to avoid arguments.

So basically you can’t come up with some blanket theory to answer this question because it depends on the people involved.

Once the couple settles down, the wife typically takes over—planning the kids’ lives, holidays, social calendars, everything—and the husband just goes along with it to keep the peace.

Well that's quite the statement. I'd say in the vast majority of relationships the woman doesn't want this at all, and if they do it, it's because their husband is a bit of a weak willed waste of space.

Why do MILs and DILs so often clash, while MILs and SILs usually get a pass?

Do they though? Isn’t the “oh god it’s the mother in law” not a common rant from men?

My take: It’s mostly the DIL wanting total control. Once the couple settles down, the wife typically takes over—planning the kids’ lives, holidays, social calendars, everything—and the husband just goes along with it to keep the peace (“happy wife, happy life”). The DIL usually prioritizes her own parents, expects the MIL to stay in her lane, and sets the rules on who gets access to the family. So if the MIL wants any involvement, she has to walk on eggshells or be labeled overbearing.

This is the most sexist pile of nonsense. If a man wants to arrange Sunday lunches, holidays and trips to the farm with his parents then he’s free to do so. Often they don’t because men seem to be granted a free pass from the moment they’re born. If you have a son who ditches you the moment he gets married it’s likely a combination of your relationship and the expectations you’ve put on him to be a functioning adult while raising him.

Many behaviours that are accepted in respect of DMs are frowned upon in respect of MILs. So totally acceptable for a woman to speak/see her DM on a daily/weekly basis. If a husband does that with his mum then he is a mummy’s boy etc.

DMs can come into the house unannounced, do cleaning, laundry, tell you where bits of furniture go, comment on your parenting. MIL does this, she is an interfering bitch.

Yes some adult sons are lazy and don’t sort out contact with parents but that must partly be down to parenting and modelling behaviour you want when they are young.

I think you're both wrong too.

Men just aren't held accountable for things. So if MIL isn't happy with how often she sees her son and grandkids then it becomes the DIL's fault and problem. The assumption is she's not making the effort or actively keeping them away.

That very rarely happens with a son in law..

Meanwhile if the MIL is difficult DIL's seem to be expected to put up with it or deal with it themselves rather than their husbands taking action.

In short, a son in law gets the option to step back and away if the in laws are hard work. He's not expected to organise visits and presents and all the rest. DiI's just don't get that kind of free pass as often.

I adore my MIL. DH is very close to her, and I’ve never felt threatened by their relationship. My DH is the best man I’ve ever known, that’s why I married him. It was MIL who raised him to be that man, and she did a great job. I have so much respect for her.

Yes, both of you are wrong. Not all women view men as territory to be ‘marked’ and fought over. I don’t ’organise’ family life or set ‘access rules’ for DC. DH deals with his family, invitations etc and taking DS to see his parents. I do the same with mine.

I’m actually quite fond of my MIL, whom I’ve known since my student days, despite recognising that she is also a bossy, tactless, terminally unimaginative woman, who could pick a fight with a wall for looking at her funny. FIL is a sweetheart.

I think along similar lines to this. More often than not the men make very little effort to make plans etc, leaving the women to sort it. The only thing these women often have in common is the son / husband, naturally that can lead to clashes.

I also think there are VERY different expectations for men a women. What you describe as ‘the husband just goes along with it to keep the peace’, I would describe as a man too lazy to do it himself. He could make plans, but it’s less effort to not, so leaves it to his wife. It has the double benefit of zero effort on his part, and zero accountability. He does nothing, and then when his family complain he blames his wife.

? Sorry the dil wants control of her own children's lives?
🤣

I never realised she's supposed to hand that over to her mother in law and then the poor husband when doesn't get a wife who wants to hand over " control" of her own children has to meekly go along with it?

Saying of course nothing about the son wanting some control over his own life and he his ken children?

If you think that it’s possible to generalise like that, then you are wrong and probably about other things too

I think many husbands have to put up with domineering MILs ie their wife’s mum.

In my case my fil is a racist pig and mil sat there and defended him. So now I won't allow them in my house

Load of old flannel i'm afraid, every relationship is individual. I've had both types of MIL. Current DPs mum i can get along with, i think her son is quite strident about what he wants in life and is proactive, therefore his mum and my roles are different. Previous MIL had a passive lazy son and she encouraged him to be that way, she wants to mother him to the grave and he wants to be mothered.

You can’t generalise on something like this. It’s all down to personal relationships. I had a great relationship with my MIL when she was still alive and my own mum adores my brother’s wife, as do I.

This is exactly what I was coming here to say. It is not the woman's job to organise her husbands relationship with his family, both his kids and his parents etc. He can take on an equal responsibility for all of this and prioritise his family if he wants but too often husbands simply don't want to be bothered with the mental load of it all so sack it off on their wives.

Perhaps DiL would have better relationships with MiL if their husbands stepped up and did their part.

I never met my MIL, she died before I met dh.
But FIL remarried and she was lovely.
Neither FIL nor my stepMIL have ever interfered and have only ever been supportive.

My dh has a fab relationship with my parents, he gets on well with them and as they get older he is the one who does lots of stuff round the house, as we live closest.

My brothers got on well with their MILs and my SistersIL get on well with my mum

Why do we always assume that it is going to be bad?

Neither - if the son is lazy with his own mother then the DIL gets blamed for 'taking control'

PP are right, it's all individual.

For my part:

• MIL or me normally arranged meet ups pre baby. Now there's a baby, I've hardly got time to sort out my own social events, I'm not facilitating hers. No different to any other acquaintance dropping off the radar a bit when you have a child.
• MIL is also someone who COMPLETELY cut her own in laws out of family life. My husband didn't want that for us, and wants a balanced family life with both sides.
• MIL does really baby her sons at every opportunity. She can't believe the things I've taught our toddler already.
• FIL is a git who has been horrible to me and I don't like to see him when it can be avoided.
• My husband specifically didn't want to live on her side of town as she'd always be dropping in, and she's got massive FOMO and therefore wants people to stay endlessly.
• In spite of all this, we haven't been to their house for almost a year because BIL and his dangerous dog live there.

My parents have all sorts of flaws, but they're easier to handle because they don't push on our lives and make demands in the same way as in laws.