I think you responded with a well thought out and on the mark assesment of the situation. I'm sure that you consider these reader responses. Just remember that we are all monday morning quarterbacks. Don't shape your style to conform to the reader's desires...we would like to hear from you. From You. Not the echo of our own voice that wants to proffer advice.

I see improvement in your advice. Keep up the good work.

I think Mr. Tennis said so much, so vaguely, that what he wrote doesn't add up to a hill of beans, just a hill of psychobabble.

My advice to the letter-writer is that she must put her foot down about uninvited visits. She must put her foot down when it comes to her mother-in-law refusing to hand over her baby when she asks. And if her attempts to insist on these items fail, she must bar her mother-in-law from her home.

In the letter, these options are never mentioned. I suspect this is because they are not easy: they will surely cause strife with the mother-in-law and the father-in-law, and quite possibly with her husband as well.

The best option would be for her to convince her husband that her preferences about unannounced visits and the handling of her baby are essential, and that he should act as the intermediary to convey this to the mother-in-law and father-in-law.

I hate to say it, but if her husband declines to intervene on her behalf, this marriage is doomed.

I always think, perversely, in situations like the one described, perhaps hubby's childhood only looked idealic. Maybe this is a family fiction. Maybe they all collectively agreed about it in unspoken family form. Maybe hubby, who is obviously NOT sticking up for his wife (or helping around the house from the way it sounds)needs therapy too to crack the illusion of the "prefect mother".

just sayin.

Let's see - an annoying, selfish and pushy mother in law - that's a first! LW's solution: I want her to die. Violently. Now. And I want her to see it coming. And Cary, who would excuse bin Laden (well, those Trade Towers were an eye sore), can't even point out the irrational thinking of this nut: Not that there's anything wrong with you. Yes, Cary - there's something very wrong with her - and her child may be at risk (the abused frequently become the abuser). Responding to small problems (and these are very small, common and easily fixable problems) with thoughts of extreme violence, indicates an immature and dangerous mind. We all have people in our life whom we dislike - often strongly, but how many of us actually wish (violent) death upon these people - and now we're talking about the mother of the LWs "perfect" husband! Add the grandmother of her "perfect" child (both who might, in fact, be very hurt by this painful and violent death)- all because the LW is ignored, corrected and treated poorly (which she is, but come on!). The LW accuses the mother of "stealing" her special day - as if that's possible without collusion by the LW and her husband (childish), she accuses the mother of "devaluing" her, though, of course, that's all in the LW's head, and really doesn't mean anything (unless, the Mother-in-Law is signing the LW's paycheck), in fact, this is all bullshit - and for most people would be written off as such, followed by meaningful stratagies to deal with the problem. Instead of childish fantasy, the LW might try standing up for herself, but that would make too much sense. Violent masturbation is so much easier...

The husband cannot take "no stance" in this situation. Instead of being so passive, he needs to work with his wife and take an active role in solving this situation. I cannot see how the mother-in-law's behavior is something that can be excused or denied. The husband and wife are married and they are their own family as well. They need to recognize that what hurts one of them hurts them as a whole, and they need to stop the harassment.

That said, therapy is also an excellent idea for the wife. She's suffered abuse and needs to deal with that, as her anger seems to definitely be seeping out in her language.

--

Note to jeffrey: Stop being so literal. You say "but how many of us actually wish (violent) death upon these people". Does it not occur to you she just might using hyperbole?

I think one thing to keep in mind in this situation is that we are only hearing it from one side, the LWs. Not to say what she's saying is completely inaccurate but clearly biased.

1) the wedding. Did MIL really insist on inviting 80 friends? I somehow think the real number was lower. And in any case they didn't get invited. Her MIL does have reason to be a little aggravated. Weddings are complicted matter, as it's never truly clear whom they are for. Both children and parents make sacrafices on the invite list.

2) As for the television situation if the LW is truly kind and pleasant as she professes to be, it's quite possible that the MIL had no idea it was such a big deal to her aughter in law. Maybe the MIL just put her husband too high on the priority list.

3) Thanskgiving. The baby was just born. Is it so suprising that the parents in law come to visit. I know that's what my parents would do. Of course the expectations that DIL do all the work is clearly unreasonable. If anything here it seems like the son should be doing the work. Why isn't the wife mad at him? And if she isn't you have to assume to he actually helped out quite a bit.

4) Mother's day. Most people don't like univted guests. However from the DIL tone's she sound presumptive that mother's day is only her day. Mother's day is for all mothers.

5) Her daughter's name. Since her daughter does share a name with her MIL, it's not so presumptive to think that she would be named after the MIL. Somehow I'm sure that the son had this in mind when the name was chosen. I'm sure there are other reasons, and other people for whom the name can be attributed to, but it certainly does not stretch my imagination to think that the daughter was named with the grandmother in mind. Even if it were not true, sometimes it's best to humour people, and the DIL in that situation should've done that. Let the old woman have a little joy.

As the DIL pointed out her husband grew up in happy idyllic household. It can't be that the MIL is truly dreadlyful. I'm sure the relationship between the MIL and DIL is indeed dreadful, but MIL may not actually be a dreadful person. I think we often assign blame on problems in a relationship with the persons involved rather than the relationship itself. Deriding her MIL as witless, and undeducated, the DIL has set herself up not to get along with her. The MIL is probably equally guilty, but as it's the DIL who has written for advice, Cary truly can only advise what the DIL can do. I say let go of the anger, put yourself in her shoes, be accomodating, and try to like the old bag.