DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Bad Manners and Brimstone
HTML https://badmanners.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Holidays
*****************************************************
#Post#: 42479--------------------------------------------------
Re: Inviting (or not) judgmental MIL to Christmas lunch?
By: Gellchom Date: November 22, 2019, 1:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
My MIL often got on my nerves. She got on most people's nerves.
Even my mother, who can get along with absolutely anyone, could
only take about two days of being with MIL.
She wasn't judgmental or controlling, and she certainly wasn't
toxic. She was a good, kind, hardworking person, she just had a
kind of tiresome, childish personality, and made such a big fuss
about silly things. She was self-centered and needed a LOT of
attention, and it drove me nuts when she would try to manipulate
me to do things rather than just ask. At the same time, though,
when something really important was going on, NO ONE was more
mature than she was. When she battled cancer, I was with her
most days for two years, and I never once heard her complain or
even say she was scared. She was amazing.
And now that she's been gone for over a year, I have to say that
I can hardly remember what it was that was so irritating. I
just miss her.
#Post#: 42486--------------------------------------------------
Re: Inviting (or not) judgmental MIL to Christmas lunch?
By: NyaChan Date: November 22, 2019, 1:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Hmmm link=topic=1407.msg42446#msg42446
date=1574378814]
[quote author=peony link=topic=1407.msg42434#msg42434
date=1574367613]
I don't think I understand why having MIL over for the evening
or even taking her out to a restaurant for a special dinner, and
having Sue's family for lunch on the day, is anything less than
kind and compassionate. Sue deserves a hand if she agrees to
endure MIL's carping at her so that MIL won't be alone on
Christmas and Tom will be happy. Sometimes compromise is the
best way to go, and Sue's family deserves a peaceful holiday as
well as MIL does.
[/quote]
[quote]Why does someone become a saint/helpless victim in our
eyes the second something bad happens to them? If you treat
everyone around you badly and are unpleasant on a daily basis, I
think it is a bit rich to expect everyone to rally around the
second you realize you might need them. I think sue should
invite her, but I don’t for a second think of her badly for
hesitating or not wanting to do it. MIL has clearly banked
little or no goodwill with the people around her. It shouldn’t
be a surprise to anyone that people don’t want to subject
themselves to her bad behavior. Would I suck it up this once
and give her a chance to be a good guest? Yes. But it’s not
some moral failing to not want to be around people who don’t
have much regard for you even if they have suffered a
blow.[/quote]
I feel like I have somehow missed a post further describing the
MIL's behavior. All I've seen is that she's offered some
opinions a couple of times, that Sue thinks she is flaky and
that Sue's parents have different values and opinions. That does
not equate to "constantly carping" or "someone who behaves so
badly that they deserve to be alone.
As I stated early one, I don't think it is fair of Sue to decide
the family will exclude the MIL when Tom wants to invite the
MIL. Why is her desire more important than Tom's?
To me this isn't an issue of whether Sue is the problem or the
MIL is the problem. To me the issue is Sue's complete lack of
support or interest in her husband's needs or desires.
[/quote]
No, you didn’t miss anything. That was more of a general
observation and something that’s been in my mind of late. MIL
here from the description sounds like she is more on the unkind
or rude part of the spectrum. Which is why I personally would
just deal with it for one year and invite her. But as a broader
point, I think there is a level of unpleasantness even if it
falls short of abuse or toxicity where people shouldn’t have to
endure it to be nice just because that person is having a bad
time of things.
#Post#: 42488--------------------------------------------------
Re: Inviting (or not) judgmental MIL to Christmas lunch?
By: Aleko Date: November 22, 2019, 1:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]I don't see this as kicking so much as maintaining the
status quo. She hasn't gone to christmas for a while.[/quote]
That's absolutely not true. The status quo has been shattered:
in the past MIL spent Christmas Day with her husband (Tom's
dad), mother (Tom's grandmother) and daughter (Tom's sister).
Her husband died last year, so presumably last Christmas she was
with her daughter and her mother. Now her mother is dead and her
daughter is overseas, so if she isn't invited by her son and DIL
she will be alone. There's no way one can argue 'why should we
invite her? We didn't invite her before, so why now?'.
#Post#: 42495--------------------------------------------------
Re: Inviting (or not) judgmental MIL to Christmas lunch?
By: wolfie Date: November 22, 2019, 2:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Aleko link=topic=1407.msg42488#msg42488
date=1574451692]
[quote]I don't see this as kicking so much as maintaining the
status quo. She hasn't gone to christmas for a while.[/quote]
That's absolutely not true. The status quo has been shattered:
in the past MIL spent Christmas Day with her husband (Tom's
dad), mother (Tom's grandmother) and daughter (Tom's sister).
Her husband died last year, so presumably last Christmas she was
with her daughter and her mother. Now her mother is dead and her
daughter is overseas, so if she isn't invited by her son and DIL
she will be alone. There's no way one can argue 'why should we
invite her? We didn't invite her before, so why now?'.
[/quote]
But nothing has changed in the relationship between the MIL and
DIL. So that brings the idea of why did MIL become a saint
because she is now suffering hardship. We don't know how bad
MIL is. If it really is just an annoyance or if she is toxic.
Most people assume it is just an annoyance because the idea of
toxic family is out of their experience. But if MIL is toxic
then why should DIL have to deal with it just because her FIL
died? it doesn't make the MIL less toxic. And if the husband
wants to do this then maybe he should step up and start doing
the work so that his wife doesn't have to forgo a good christmas
to make everyone else happy.
#Post#: 42502--------------------------------------------------
Re: Inviting (or not) judgmental MIL to Christmas lunch?
By: NFPwife Date: November 22, 2019, 3:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=wolfie link=topic=1407.msg42495#msg42495
date=1574456090]
[quote author=Aleko link=topic=1407.msg42488#msg42488
date=1574451692]
[quote]I don't see this as kicking so much as maintaining the
status quo. She hasn't gone to christmas for a while.[/quote]
That's absolutely not true. The status quo has been shattered:
in the past MIL spent Christmas Day with her husband (Tom's
dad), mother (Tom's grandmother) and daughter (Tom's sister).
Her husband died last year, so presumably last Christmas she was
with her daughter and her mother. Now her mother is dead and her
daughter is overseas, so if she isn't invited by her son and DIL
she will be alone. There's no way one can argue 'why should we
invite her? We didn't invite her before, so why now?'.
[/quote]
But nothing has changed in the relationship between the MIL and
DIL. So that brings the idea of why did MIL become a saint
because she is now suffering hardship. We don't know how bad
MIL is. If it really is just an annoyance or if she is toxic.
Most people assume it is just an annoyance because the idea of
toxic family is out of their experience. But if MIL is toxic
then why should DIL have to deal with it just because her FIL
died? it doesn't make the MIL less toxic. And if the husband
wants to do this then maybe he should step up and start doing
the work so that his wife doesn't have to forgo a good christmas
to make everyone else happy.
[/quote]
Except the actual examples, solid foods at 3 months and what age
to potty train, don't rise to the level of toxicity. I assume
people lead with their best examples. So, if Sue was presenting
this to the OP and arguing her case she's going to present her
strongest evidence in her "opening argument." That's why the
majority of us are landing at "She might be annoying, but it's
significantly lacking in compassion and common decency if she's
not invited."
Of course there are days that we should all get to enjoy
ourselves to and, if Sue has to "take one for the team" here,
surely she can have a lovely brunch or dinner out with Tom to
make up for it? (Or whatever else she'd like to do?)
Frankly, saying to Tom, "I'm doing this because I love you and
know this is important to you, I don't really feel like," builds
up the marital relationship and Sue's personal capital in the
relationship. It could be her entire Christmas gift to Tom! That
she can't do this for her MIL who has suffered significant loss
this year, makes me wonder about her level of compassion. That
she, further, just can't do this for her husband, really makes
me wonder about her level of egotism.
Personally, I'm not surprised that her parents would support her
perspective because my theory is the Sue apple didn't fall far
from the tree.
No one's saying MIL is a saint, we're saying she's a older lady
who's experienced significant loss and is worthy of a little
dignity and compassion. If that compassion includes a Christmas
lunch, then it's a Christmas lunch, but we're still not sure she
wants that. What we do know is that her son, who has also
suffered loss, wants her there. All of that should be good
enough for Sue to issue the invitation.
#Post#: 42515--------------------------------------------------
Re: Inviting (or not) judgmental MIL to Christmas lunch?
By: Hanna Date: November 22, 2019, 8:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=wolfie link=topic=1407.msg42495#msg42495
date=1574456090]
[quote author=Aleko link=topic=1407.msg42488#msg42488
date=1574451692]
[quote]I don't see this as kicking so much as maintaining the
status quo. She hasn't gone to christmas for a while.[/quote]
That's absolutely not true. The status quo has been shattered:
in the past MIL spent Christmas Day with her husband (Tom's
dad), mother (Tom's grandmother) and daughter (Tom's sister).
Her husband died last year, so presumably last Christmas she was
with her daughter and her mother. Now her mother is dead and her
daughter is overseas, so if she isn't invited by her son and DIL
she will be alone. There's no way one can argue 'why should we
invite her? We didn't invite her before, so why now?'.
[/quote]
But nothing has changed in the relationship between the MIL and
DIL. So that brings the idea of why did MIL become a saint
because she is now suffering hardship. We don't know how bad
MIL is. If it really is just an annoyance or if she is toxic.
Most people assume it is just an annoyance because the idea of
toxic family is out of their experience. But if MIL is toxic
then why should DIL have to deal with it just because her FIL
died? it doesn't make the MIL less toxic. And if the husband
wants to do this then maybe he should step up and start doing
the work so that his wife doesn't have to forgo a good christmas
to make everyone else happy.
[/quote]
Why are you assuming she’s toxic?
More importantly, why assume Sue does all the work to make the
holiday nice and Tom does nothing? That’s sure as hell not how
it works in my household.
#Post#: 42541--------------------------------------------------
Re: Inviting (or not) judgmental MIL to Christmas lunch?
By: Pattycake Date: November 23, 2019, 10:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Hanna link=topic=1407.msg42515#msg42515
date=1574477162]
[quote author=wolfie link=topic=1407.msg42495#msg42495
date=1574456090]
[quote author=Aleko link=topic=1407.msg42488#msg42488
date=1574451692]
[quote]I don't see this as kicking so much as maintaining the
status quo. She hasn't gone to christmas for a while.[/quote]
That's absolutely not true. The status quo has been shattered:
in the past MIL spent Christmas Day with her husband (Tom's
dad), mother (Tom's grandmother) and daughter (Tom's sister).
Her husband died last year, so presumably last Christmas she was
with her daughter and her mother. Now her mother is dead and her
daughter is overseas, so if she isn't invited by her son and DIL
she will be alone. There's no way one can argue 'why should we
invite her? We didn't invite her before, so why now?'.
[/quote]
But nothing has changed in the relationship between the MIL and
DIL. So that brings the idea of why did MIL become a saint
because she is now suffering hardship. We don't know how bad
MIL is. If it really is just an annoyance or if she is toxic.
Most people assume it is just an annoyance because the idea of
toxic family is out of their experience. But if MIL is toxic
then why should DIL have to deal with it just because her FIL
died? it doesn't make the MIL less toxic. And if the husband
wants to do this then maybe he should step up and start doing
the work so that his wife doesn't have to forgo a good christmas
to make everyone else happy.
[/quote]
Why are you assuming she’s toxic?
More importantly, why assume Sue does all the work to make the
holiday nice and Tom does nothing? That’s sure as hell not how
it works in my household.
[/quote]
I didn't think wolfie was assuming mil was toxic - she clearly
said we don't know how bad mil is, and if she is, then... She
may have assumed Sue was doing all the work, though, but even in
this day and age that is still more common than not
#Post#: 42547--------------------------------------------------
Re: Inviting (or not) judgmental MIL to Christmas lunch?
By: Gellchom Date: November 23, 2019, 1:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=wolfie link=topic=1407.msg42495#msg42495
date=1574456090]
But nothing has changed in the relationship between the MIL and
DIL. So that brings the idea of why did MIL become a saint
because she is now suffering hardship. We don't know how bad
MIL is. If it really is just an annoyance or if she is toxic.
Most people assume it is just an annoyance because the idea of
toxic family is out of their experience. But if MIL is toxic
then why should DIL have to deal with it just because her FIL
died? it doesn't make the MIL less toxic. And if the husband
wants to do this then maybe he should step up and start doing
the work so that his wife doesn't have to forgo a good christmas
to make everyone else happy.
[/quote]
"why did MIL become a saint because she is now suffering
hardship" --
This illustrates what a lot of us are saying. What is the
threshold for being treated humanely? Is it saintliness?
There is a very long continuum from toxic through annoying to
saintly. Where should the line justifying excluding MIL from
this Christmas fall? Bad enough that Sue considers "annoying"
enough.
I acknowledge that wolfie is saying IF the MIL is toxic. And I
know that we all see things through the lens of our own
experience, so people from dysfunctional families (not looking
at you, wolfie) are more likely both to read in dysfunction that
isn't there and to pick up on subtle cues when it is. But I
agree with the others that in this case, we have no basis at all
to assume anything toxic. PVZfan makes a good point that people
usually lead with the most egregious examples they have, and in
this case, Sue led with some awfully petty stuff. Sure,
unsolicited advice is annoying. But everyone has some
undesirable trait. I wonder how many of us could measure up on
Sue's merit system.
And I have a feeling that Sue's MIL can do no right in her eyes.
It's hard to be a MIL. A good book I read on how to be a good
MIL pointed out it's mostly the same issues as being the parent
of adults generally, but harder. Even if a MIL never says a
word of advice or criticism or judgment, her DIL (or adult
child) still "hears" it. An example from the book was that if
MIL says, "It looks like rain," the adult child hears, "Take an
umbrella, which you wouldn't do unless I reminded you," when all
MIL was thinking about was whether she had to water the tomatoes
today.
There is a Yiddish expression, "A shnur is shtick a shviger" --
"A daughter-in-law is a little bit of a mother-in-law." I think
that's true; the hypercritical judgment, intolerance, and
irritation goes both ways. I say this from my experience as
both a DIL and a MIL -- and that is in good relationships, so
it's even harder in stressful ones. What helped me was the Aunt
Shirley test: when my MIL said or did something that irritated
me, I asked myself how I would feel if my favorite aunt had said
or done it. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, it wouldn't
have bothered me a bit, and the hundredth time I probably would
immediately have thought of some excuse for it. That was very
illuminating.
I wonder if Sue's parents ever give her unsolicited advice, and
if so, how she reacts to it.
#Post#: 42559--------------------------------------------------
Re: Inviting (or not) judgmental MIL to Christmas lunch?
By: OnyxBird Date: November 23, 2019, 4:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=PVZFan link=topic=1407.msg42502#msg42502
date=1574459374]
[quote author=wolfie link=topic=1407.msg42495#msg42495
date=1574456090]
[quote author=Aleko link=topic=1407.msg42488#msg42488
date=1574451692]
[quote]I don't see this as kicking so much as maintaining the
status quo. She hasn't gone to christmas for a while.[/quote]
That's absolutely not true. The status quo has been shattered:
in the past MIL spent Christmas Day with her husband (Tom's
dad), mother (Tom's grandmother) and daughter (Tom's sister).
Her husband died last year, so presumably last Christmas she was
with her daughter and her mother. Now her mother is dead and her
daughter is overseas, so if she isn't invited by her son and DIL
she will be alone. There's no way one can argue 'why should we
invite her? We didn't invite her before, so why now?'.
[/quote]
But nothing has changed in the relationship between the MIL and
DIL. So that brings the idea of why did MIL become a saint
because she is now suffering hardship. We don't know how bad
MIL is. If it really is just an annoyance or if she is toxic.
Most people assume it is just an annoyance because the idea of
toxic family is out of their experience. But if MIL is toxic
then why should DIL have to deal with it just because her FIL
died? it doesn't make the MIL less toxic. And if the husband
wants to do this then maybe he should step up and start doing
the work so that his wife doesn't have to forgo a good christmas
to make everyone else happy.
[/quote]
Except the actual examples, solid foods at 3 months and what age
to potty train, don't rise to the level of toxicity. I assume
people lead with their best examples. So, if Sue was presenting
this to the OP and arguing her case she's going to present her
strongest evidence in her "opening argument." That's why the
majority of us are landing at "She might be annoying, but it's
significantly lacking in compassion and common decency if she's
not invited."
Of course there are days that we should all get to enjoy
ourselves to and, if Sue has to "take one for the team" here,
surely she can have a lovely brunch or dinner out with Tom to
make up for it? (Or whatever else she'd like to do?)
Frankly, saying to Tom, "I'm doing this because I love you and
know this is important to you, I don't really feel like," builds
up the marital relationship and Sue's personal capital in the
relationship. It could be her entire Christmas gift to Tom! That
she can't do this for her MIL who has suffered significant loss
this year, makes me wonder about her level of compassion. That
she, further, just can't do this for her husband, really makes
me wonder about her level of egotism.
Personally, I'm not surprised that her parents would support her
perspective because my theory is the Sue apple didn't fall far
from the tree.
No one's saying MIL is a saint, we're saying she's a older lady
who's experienced significant loss and is worthy of a little
dignity and compassion. If that compassion includes a Christmas
lunch, then it's a Christmas lunch, but we're still not sure she
wants that. What we do know is that her son, who has also
suffered loss, wants her there. All of that should be good
enough for Sue to issue the invitation.
[/quote]
I agree that nothing described in the OP clearly indicates
toxicity, so we should not assume that MIL is toxic. However, I
don't think it's entirely fair to assume the absence of toxicity
based on the post and judge Sue on that basis, for two main
reasons:
1) We are hearing this second-hand, through LifeOnPluto. While
I'm sure LifeOnPluto tried to accurately communicate the
situation as she remembers Sue describing it, it is very easy
for things to get lost in communication, especially when talking
about subjective interpersonal interactions. If Sue herself was
posting, she might have described the incidents differently,
with more detail or different emphasis, or she might have
offered clarification when she saw how people were interpreting
the description. She can't provide clarification one way or the
other, because she is not here.
2) I know from personal experience that people don't always lead
with the "best examples" to make their listener understand toxic
behavior. I certainly didn't when I was dealing with a toxic
boss, and I have similarly heard my mother struggle to convey
her relationship with my toxic grandmother. I think this is
partly because a lot of toxic people have a way of making you
second-guess yourself and wonder if you're partly at fault,
partly because societal expectations often make it hard to truly
describe toxic behavior in a way that people who aren't dealing
with toxic people themselves really grasp the problem (plus,
accurately describing it makes people uncomfortable), and partly
because it's often a toxic pattern of lots of a relatively
small-seeming things rather than a few blatantly over-the-line
behaviors, all of which make it tempting to downplay the
description to not make people write you off as
exaggerating/overreacting. Not to mention that a lot of toxic
people manage to behave themselves much better around people
they want to impress.
If you'd asked me early in that job why I found my boss so
upsetting, I probably would mentioned things like him frequently
getting "angry" in meetings. That was a terrible description:
"angry" is vague, and can apply to a huge spectrum of behavior
ranging from completely reasonable to horrifically
inappropriate. It wasn't until I got so stressed out that I went
to counseling, and the counselor asked "What makes you conclude
that he is angry?" that I started articulating actual behaviors
(directed at me and others). For example: He routinely shouted
at people in meetings. He aggressively stabbed his finger at
people's faces for emphases. He told a colleague that their
(internal) presentation "looked like a [barnyard animal] made
it" (for the record, the slides in question were better than a
lot of formal presentations I've seen and perfectly reasonable
for the casual internal status update they actually were).
Someone from a different group who did not work for him in any
capacity heard a conversation where he was shouting at me while
I stood my ground and defended my position on whatever he was
shouting about, and she commented that he clearly must respect
me...based on comparison to the way he had screamed at her in
the past (again--she didn't even work for him). And those are
just the tip of the iceberg. When I describe him in those terms,
people seem get it. But I did not start off by articulating the
"best examples" that actually get through to other people. I
initially tried to be "reasonable" and "polite" and soft-pedaled
the situation, which resulted in people dismissing my
frustrations and suggesting I was being too oversensitive.
#Post#: 42564--------------------------------------------------
Re: Inviting (or not) judgmental MIL to Christmas lunch?
By: Hmmm Date: November 23, 2019, 5:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=OnyxBird link=topic=1407.msg42559#msg42559
date=1574547790]
[quote author=PVZFan link=topic=1407.msg42502#msg42502
date=1574459374]
[quote author=wolfie link=topic=1407.msg42495#msg42495
date=1574456090]
[quote author=Aleko link=topic=1407.msg42488#msg42488
date=1574451692]
[quote]I don't see this as kicking so much as maintaining the
status quo. She hasn't gone to christmas for a while.[/quote]
That's absolutely not true. The status quo has been shattered:
in the past MIL spent Christmas Day with her husband (Tom's
dad), mother (Tom's grandmother) and daughter (Tom's sister).
Her husband died last year, so presumably last Christmas she was
with her daughter and her mother. Now her mother is dead and her
daughter is overseas, so if she isn't invited by her son and DIL
she will be alone. There's no way one can argue 'why should we
invite her? We didn't invite her before, so why now?'.
[/quote]
But nothing has changed in the relationship between the MIL and
DIL. So that brings the idea of why did MIL become a saint
because she is now suffering hardship. We don't know how bad
MIL is. If it really is just an annoyance or if she is toxic.
Most people assume it is just an annoyance because the idea of
toxic family is out of their experience. But if MIL is toxic
then why should DIL have to deal with it just because her FIL
died? it doesn't make the MIL less toxic. And if the husband
wants to do this then maybe he should step up and start doing
the work so that his wife doesn't have to forgo a good christmas
to make everyone else happy.
[/quote]
Except the actual examples, solid foods at 3 months and what age
to potty train, don't rise to the level of toxicity. I assume
people lead with their best examples. So, if Sue was presenting
this to the OP and arguing her case she's going to present her
strongest evidence in her "opening argument." That's why the
majority of us are landing at "She might be annoying, but it's
significantly lacking in compassion and common decency if she's
not invited."
Of course there are days that we should all get to enjoy
ourselves to and, if Sue has to "take one for the team" here,
surely she can have a lovely brunch or dinner out with Tom to
make up for it? (Or whatever else she'd like to do?)
Frankly, saying to Tom, "I'm doing this because I love you and
know this is important to you, I don't really feel like," builds
up the marital relationship and Sue's personal capital in the
relationship. It could be her entire Christmas gift to Tom! That
she can't do this for her MIL who has suffered significant loss
this year, makes me wonder about her level of compassion. That
she, further, just can't do this for her husband, really makes
me wonder about her level of egotism.
Personally, I'm not surprised that her parents would support her
perspective because my theory is the Sue apple didn't fall far
from the tree.
No one's saying MIL is a saint, we're saying she's a older lady
who's experienced significant loss and is worthy of a little
dignity and compassion. If that compassion includes a Christmas
lunch, then it's a Christmas lunch, but we're still not sure she
wants that. What we do know is that her son, who has also
suffered loss, wants her there. All of that should be good
enough for Sue to issue the invitation.
[/quote]
I agree that nothing described in the OP clearly indicates
toxicity, so we should not assume that MIL is toxic. However, I
don't think it's entirely fair to assume the absence of toxicity
based on the post and judge Sue on that basis, for two main
reasons:
1) We are hearing this second-hand, through LifeOnPluto. While
I'm sure LifeOnPluto tried to accurately communicate the
situation as she remembers Sue describing it, it is very easy
for things to get lost in communication, especially when talking
about subjective interpersonal interactions. If Sue herself was
posting, she might have described the incidents differently,
with more detail or different emphasis, or she might have
offered clarification when she saw how people were interpreting
the description. She can't provide clarification one way or the
other, because she is not here.
2) I know from personal experience that people don't always lead
with the "best examples" to make their listener understand toxic
behavior. I certainly didn't when I was dealing with a toxic
boss, and I have similarly heard my mother struggle to convey
her relationship with my toxic grandmother. I think this is
partly because a lot of toxic people have a way of making you
second-guess yourself and wonder if you're partly at fault,
partly because societal expectations often make it hard to truly
describe toxic behavior in a way that people who aren't dealing
with toxic people themselves really grasp the problem (plus,
accurately describing it makes people uncomfortable), and partly
because it's often a toxic pattern of lots of a relatively
small-seeming things rather than a few blatantly over-the-line
behaviors, all of which make it tempting to downplay the
description to not make people write you off as
exaggerating/overreacting. Not to mention that a lot of toxic
people manage to behave themselves much better around people
they want to impress.
If you'd asked me early in that job why I found my boss so
upsetting, I probably would mentioned things like him frequently
getting "angry" in meetings. That was a terrible description:
"angry" is vague, and can apply to a huge spectrum of behavior
ranging from completely reasonable to horrifically
inappropriate. It wasn't until I got so stressed out that I went
to counseling, and the counselor asked "What makes you conclude
that he is angry?" that I started articulating actual behaviors
(directed at me and others). For example: He routinely shouted
at people in meetings. He aggressively stabbed his finger at
people's faces for emphases. He told a colleague that their
(internal) presentation "looked like a [barnyard animal] made
it" (for the record, the slides in question were better than a
lot of formal presentations I've seen and perfectly reasonable
for the casual internal status update they actually were).
Someone from a different group who did not work for him in any
capacity heard a conversation where he was shouting at me while
I stood my ground and defended my position on whatever he was
shouting about, and she commented that he clearly must respect
me...based on comparison to the way he had screamed at her in
the past (again--she didn't even work for him). And those are
just the tip of the iceberg. When I describe him in those terms,
people seem get it. But I did not start off by articulating the
"best examples" that actually get through to other people. I
initially tried to be "reasonable" and "polite" and soft-pedaled
the situation, which resulted in people dismissing my
frustrations and suggesting I was being too oversensitive.
[/quote]
There are very good reasons to assume there is no truly toxic
behavior.
1) Sue is willing to spend time with MIL when it is convenient
for her and does not impose on how she wants to spend her time
with her family.
2) Tom wants to spend time with his mom.
3) The OP is close enough friends with Sue for Sue to confide in
and for the OP to give Sue her opinion. If there was true toxic
behavior, the OP would most likely be aware.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page