MIL Made Extremely Rude Comment

[Jaunty]

6 hours ago, mylolita said:

I’m from the old school place where, an engaged couple, long term couple, or married couple - there is no one’s “own money” - it is all “the couples money”. 
 

You become a team and as one. So if his mum gives him money, that’s up to her, but realistically, it should just go in your joint account or wedding fund, to be spent or saved how you both see fit, not all for himself for him to keep only.

The thing is, I believe this OP is hung up at the place where the mom gave her son a check for $500.   OP believes that this should not happen.  Mom should only give them a check written out to both of them, when the OP is present.   

A lot of posters here are saying that the guy is pitting the OP and his mom against each other but I see it differently.  I think that the mother is simply behaving in a maternal fashion; this is her son.  He could have said to the OP "look honey, mom just gave me this check for $500 to do whatever with!" and OP would have gone off.  She's made it clear that she sees this as an affront to her (perceived, erroneously)  recent status upgrade to "fiancée".  

She does not want her boyfriend to have any interactions with his mother that she herself will not be involved with and able to control.

Their entire relationship, OP perceives as an insult and a threat.

All we have heard about is the mother, but I would be very surprised if this guy is allowed to have friends, or hobbies of his own. 

Because they are A UNIT and he has no autonomy as an individual, in her eyes.

 

 

[rainbowsandroses]

35 minutes ago, Jaunty said:

A lot of posters here are saying that the guy is pitting the OP and his mom against each other but I see it differently.  I think that the mother is simply behaving in a maternal fashion; this is her son.

I am one of the posters who believes fiancé is pitting OP against mom. 

This is HIS doing, not his mom's and agree with what's bolded above.  This has nothing to do with his mom, she's simply a mom who loves her son.

It's the fiancé who is wanting to cause a rift between them, the question is why?

Something sounds terribly off about it, and between what he told OP about the dinner and now telling her his mom meant the money only for him, he's upsetting the OP, causing conflict and drama and it would behoove the OP to stop blaming his mom and place blame for all her inner turmoil on her fiancé where it belongs. 

[itsallgrand]

35 minutes ago, rainbowsandroses said:

I am one of the posters who believes fiancé is pitting OP against mom. 

This is HIS doing, not his mom's and agree with what's bolded above.  This has nothing to do with his mom, she's simply a mom who loves her son.

It's the fiancé who is wanting to cause a rift between them, the question is why?

Something sounds terribly off about it, and between what he told OP about the dinner and now telling her his mom meant the money only for him, he's upsetting the OP, causing conflict and drama and it would behoove the OP to stop blaming his mom and place blame for all her inner turmoil on her fiancé where it belongs. 

I think he's used to communicating passive aggressively. He may not be comfortable communicating directly. It makes sense if his experience is to be guilted , fits and melt downs thrown, etc. when he does try to speak up and create boundaries. And he might just be comfy in that dynamic. 

Unfortunately it seems OP is rather aggressive in communicating so its a set up to fail here. The more she pushes and throws emotional fits, the more underhanded I'd expect his communication to be.

Just my take. I could be totally wrong. 

[rainbowsandroses]

14 minutes ago, itsallgrand said:

I think he's used to communicating passive aggressively. He may not be comfortable communicating directly. It makes sense if his experience is to be guilted , fits and melt downs thrown, etc. when he does try to speak up and create boundaries. And he might just be comfy in that dynamic. 

Unfortunately it seems OP is rather aggressive in communicating so its a set up to fail here. The more she pushes and throws emotional fits, the more underhanded I'd expect his communication to be.

Just my take. I could be totally wrong. 

I agree he's passive aggressive and may not be comfortable communicating directly.

However I'm not sure why he felt it necessary to tell OP his mom intended the money only for him.  

To me that's not passive-aggressive or being indirect, it was insensitive and mean, given how OP feels about his mom, which he undoubtedly knows after being with her for five years and recent events since the engagement.

I could be wrong as well, we are all speculating based on what OP has posted and her demeanor throughout this entire thread and our interpretation of it.

[Jaunty]

1 hour ago, rainbowsandroses said:

 

It's the fiancé who is wanting to cause a rift between them, the question is why?

I question why you are prepared to accept the OP's perspective on what happened as reality.

Yes, we only have the OP's perspectives here on a forum.  I'm not saying that they are  lying, either.  But I do question whether the boyfriend really did tell the OP that his mother said "spend this ONLY ON YOURSELF."

Given what we know about the OP, which comes from her own words, choices of language, and emotions she displays in her writing, I think it's very likely that boyfriend could come home and say "look what Mom gave me today!" and the OP would construe that as "here, son, this is only for you."  

OP will only tolerate being FULLY INCLUDED in all things associated with this guy and his mother - and I bet it extends into  all of his life.   

My point is - I believe that the chances are very good that the guy never has told the OP anything that a person without her agenda would perceive as being "exclusionary."

Like I posted earlier - I have handed my daughter a gift of some dollars and probably told her to do something special for herself ... that could very well mean taking her partner out to a great dinner, or deciding to buy him a new set of headphones, or going to a writing class she wanted to do for herself.  UP TO HER. 

Also - if she told her partner about it, which she would, he would not even have a momentary thought about it being creepy or of him being excluded.

  

 

 

 

[Crawfords Wine]

On 12/16/2023 at 8:57 PM, niceknowingyou45 said:

My fiance just confirmed with me that my FMIL did in fact say to only spend the money on himself. 

Unless you are party to the actual verbiage used, this could have been entirely innocent and innocuous.

"Here's a little something, buy yourself something nice" or " Here's a few dollars to treat yourself".

Unless his mum specifically told him "Here's a nice fat cheque, but DO NOT spend any of it on <fiancée>", you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

 

[boltnrun]

I gave my cousin a gift card one time and told her I wanted her to spend it on herself. She almost never treated herself to anything and I wanted her to do so for once. Of course that's a totally different dynamic than mother/engaged son. 

[rainbowsandroses]

1 hour ago, Jaunty said:

I question why you are prepared to accept the OP's perspective on what happened as reality.

I was suspect at first until she posted this:

On 12/16/2023 at 12:57 PM, niceknowingyou45 said:

My fiance just confirmed with me that my FMIL did in fact say to only spend the money on himself.

But you're right who knows...

[Seraphim]

Even if she did say it , parents are allowed to give money for their own children. They earned it they can give it to whom they choose. 

[Jaunty]

17 minutes ago, rainbowsandroses said:

I was suspect at first until she posted this:

But you're right who knows...

OP has a very intense hatred of her boyfriend's mother and so far, everything that I've read about the woman's evil deeds are not making me see her as a villainess.   Also not really making me see the boyfriend as a troublemaker ... he didn't cause the initial crisis (where his mom invited him to dinner and he assumed that the OP was expected to be there too) or balk at having her off of his bank account or tracking app when the OP expressed her feelings on it.

[rainbowsandroses]

24 minutes ago, Seraphim said:

Even if she did say it , parents are allowed to give money for their own children. They earned it they can give it to whom they choose. 

Totally agree, what I was questioning was why the fiancé felt it necessary to mention it to OP, knowing how she feels about his mom (not good) and how she has a tendency to catastrophize.

If in fact he even DID tell her!  Use those words  "only on himself."  It's hard to fathom what would compel him to do so, again IF he did.

I don't know anymore; at this point I'm gonna leave this to OP and her fiancé to figure out.

 

[rainbowsandroses]

18 minutes ago, Jaunty said:

OP has a very intense hatred of her boyfriend's mother and so far, everything that I've read about the woman's evil deeds are not making me see her as a villainess.

Again, agree with you @Jaunty.

Not so sure about the fiancé though, JMO.

[LotusBlack]

On 11/29/2023 at 5:35 AM, niceknowingyou45 said:

See nope I have seen the opposite too many momma's boys out there who can't get under their mother's thumb for long enough to realize that their wife and children are their immediate family and should be a priority.  The wife is entitled to suck it up and deal with her momma's boy husband who hasn't grown up.  Trust me I talk to a lot of married women and I haven't heard one story about the wife's mother being a problem but I have heard where the husband's mother is the problem. I have heard this over and over again from friends, peers, colleagues, life in general.  There must be at least a grain of truth to it if I am repeatedly hearing of the same issues throughout life.   Again I don't blame the husband's mother as much as I blame the husband for making his wife put up with his mother's BS because he would rather upset his own wife than mommy.  Or who will continue to defend and put his mother first at the expense of his wife.

It is the responsibility of a person to choose a partner who is already the way a person wants their partner to be. Meaning they are compatible from the beginning. The problem with all the people you know who are with men who are “mamma’s boys” is that they have prematurely and immaturely chosen a partner they want to change. The issue is with them, not the “mamma’s boys” who, in reality, haven’t changed at all and have shown who they are from the beginning. Eventually, they will figure out no one wants to be with them if they come as a mother-son package deal and then it will be up to them as to whether that situation remains to suit them or not. It’s no skin off of any one else’s noses because they can simple skip by these men and choose a man who is ready to be without his mother.

Do better at picking a partner who is already the person you want to be with and not somebody you feel you need to change. The onus is on you, not them.

[Seraphim]

1 minute ago, LotusBlack said:

It is the responsibility of a person to choose a partner who is already the way a person wants their partner to be. Meaning they are compatible from the beginning. The problem with all the people you know who are with men who are “mamma’s boys” is that they have prematurely and immaturely chosen a partner they want to change. The issue is with them, not the “mamma’s boys” who, in reality, haven’t changed at all and have shown who they are from the beginning. Do better at picking a partner who is already the person you want to be with and not somebody you feel you need to change. The onus is on you, not them.

Correct people need to marry and go out with people who already tick the boxes , don’t expect people to change for you. 

[boltnrun]

21 minutes ago, rainbowsandroses said:

why the fiancé felt it necessary to mention it to OP, knowing how she feels about his mom (

She directly asked him to "confirm" his mother said the money was for him only. However I'm not clear on how the topic originally came up. Did he volunteer this info initially ("My mom gave me some money and said to spend only on myself") or did it only come out after the OP directly asked him ("My mom gave me some money." "Oh, she did? What for?" "Oh, she said I should use it to buy myself whatever I want." "You mean, she said to spend it only on you and not on anything for US?" "Yes.")?

[rainbowsandroses]

38 minutes ago, boltnrun said:

She directly asked him to "confirm" his mother said the money was for him only. However I'm not clear on how the topic originally came up. Did he volunteer this info initially ("My mom gave me some money and said to spend only on myself") or did it only come out after the OP directly asked him ("My mom gave me some money." "Oh, she did? What for?" "Oh, she said I should use it to buy myself whatever I want." "You mean, she said to spend it only on you and not on anything for US?" "Yes.")?

Hopefully the OP will return and clarify. 

This entire thread has been so confusing, the narrative keeps changing and/or not being clear. 

Honestly, I can't figure what's reality or her own personal spin.

OP, are you around?  Any updates? 

 

[LotusBlack]

On 12/16/2023 at 2:38 PM, niceknowingyou45 said:

Right but to tell him not to spend it on me that's out of line.

She likely didn’t say not to spend it on you, she told him to spend it for himself. There is a huge difference there in intention. Although, in practice, it amounts to the same end result, the intention is very different. The former is to suggest the express exclusion of you with the intention being to exclude you. The latter has an aim of the son getting something nice for himself on one of his most important days in his life. The former is all about being malicious for the sake of being malicious and the latter is all about spoiling her son a little on an important day. Very very different scenarios.

I suspect your FMIL has not done a single thing up until now with the express intention of being malicious towards you but you are determined to bend the narrative to be so regardless of the reality.

I imagine my toddler when he is an adult and if he chooses to get married, I might do such a thing as giving him a little monetary gift to splurge on himself just because I love him, not because I want to go out of my way to exclude his partner. Just because he is getting married doesn’t mean I can no-longer gift my child. A mother is always going to be a mother and the marriage of her child to another shouldn’t change her being a mother still. That does not mean that mothering includes babying. A mother should adjust what her mothering looks like to reflect the age and stage of her child. One day, you may have the perspective of a mother and I suspect that only then will you understand what all us mothers are saying.

FYI, my ex-husband also received a money gift from his parents for us when we were getting married and we put it towards some furniture when we moved into our marital home. It was for the both of us, but my husband told me that should we ever split then that furniture would be his because the money came from his parents. So, the problem was my husband and not the parents. Perhaps the problem lies with your partner and not his mother.

[boltnrun]

Maybe his mother wanted him to buy himself a super nice custom tailored suit and pair of shoes to wear when he takes you out to a nice, expensive dinner during your honeymoon. Or maybe get some "fun" undergarments. Or a haircut and shave at a fancy men's salon. That would technically be for him but you would definitely benefit. 

As Lotus said, it isn't necessarily nefarious intentions. 

My son has been looking a bit scruffy lately (WFH), so I was thinking about giving him a gift card to an upscale barbershop to get a cut, shave and facial. I would be giving HIM the gift card, not his spouse. And my intention isn't to exclude his spouse but to have my son look great which I think his spouse would appreciate. 

[Tinydance]

I agree with what a lot of posters are saying. I think sometimes a lot of disappointment comes when expectations are too high and a person isn't behaving in the way that you expect them to. In my opinion there's no obligation to be friends with your partner's relatives unless you naturally really get along with them and are clicking great and WANT to be friends. I see it as fine that a mother wants to go out for dinner with her son or give him money. There are some people who will always without fail include their child's partner, but some just want time with their child alone.

To me excluding would only be if it seems very calculated or deliberate. E.g. The MIL organises a dinner or party at her house and the whole family is invited but daughter-in-law isn't. Or MIL gives everyone in the family money but gives daughter-in-law nothing. I think there are some behaviours that are not calculated and there isn't actually some kind of plot about it. 

Again it depends on expectations. I personally don't really care that much if I'm included with things with my partner's family. I have a lot of friends, hobbies, my own family. And work. So I'm pretty busy. I'm totally happy if my partner wants to go out with their relative alone because then I can just do my own thing.

I'm getting a sense in this case that yes the fiance is a "Mama's boy" and now that he's getting married, the mother is freaking out. She got upset she got removed from the bank account and tracking app. She's trying to spend time with her son alone and give him presents. To me that seems more a sign of clinginess ti her son rather than hating DIL. I'm not saying it's good but it's not necessarily some kind of evil plot against DIL.

[Batya33]

I tell my husband when I get cash gifts from my mom but I tell him just like I’d tell him stuff about my day. If I didn’t tell him the card had a check in it and cashed it and bought myself something he wouldn’t care at all if he never found out or found out later.  But there’s a limit. If it was a substantial amount of $ I would tell him.  We know that  amount.  We have an amount in mind where if we want to spend that much we check in first. Even if it was from my money or a gift. 

[Seraphim]

When I got a cheque from my dad’s life insurance I spent it entirely on myself and bought myself something that I would have to remember him with . 🤷🏻‍♀️

[Jaunty]

28 minutes ago, Tinydance said:

 

To me excluding would only be if it seems very calculated or deliberate. E.g. The MIL organises a dinner or party at her house and the whole family is invited but daughter-in-law isn't.

Interesting.  The way I read this post in the first place was that this was a GATHERING in the name of "celebrating the engagement" from which the OP was specifically excluded.  And I thought that was atrocious and outrageous.

Then I read more carefully and as the thread got longer,  I realized that it was simply the mother asking her son to meet her for dinner and what ensued that started all of this.

The OP was enraged by the temerity of the mother asking the son to dine with her to "celebrate the engagement."

At first I could *sort of* see the OP's point but as the vibe got more and more hate fueled, I lost that perspective. 

As a parent, if my daughter were newly engaged, I definitely could see wanting to share some moments with her in celebration of the shift in her life - between the two of us. 

The obsession of the OP to prevent any personal relationship between the parent and child seems ... sick.

[Tinydance]

40 minutes ago, Jaunty said:

Interesting.  The way I read this post in the first place was that this was a GATHERING in the name of "celebrating the engagement" from which the OP was specifically excluded.  And I thought that was atrocious and outrageous.

Then I read more carefully and as the thread got longer,  I realized that it was simply the mother asking her son to meet her for dinner and what ensued that started all of this.

The OP was enraged by the temerity of the mother asking the son to dine with her to "celebrate the engagement."

At first I could *sort of* see the OP's point but as the vibe got more and more hate fueled, I lost that perspective. 

As a parent, if my daughter were newly engaged, I definitely could see wanting to share some moments with her in celebration of the shift in her life - between the two of us. 

The obsession of the OP to prevent any personal relationship between the parent and child seems ... sick.

Oh yeah this is actually exactly what I was saying, what you just wrote. I consider excluding to be if there are a lot of people invited and you're the only person not invited. It always depends on the situation as well. I do see how it might seem offensive not to be invited to "celebrate the engagement" or given $500 "for the wedding". But it really just seems like a mother pampering her son rather that it's some kind of actual party or celebration. 

I do actually see this situation as a bit like a Mama's boy/man child" situation which is probably being fueled largely by the mother. To me the $500 dollars actually reminds me of how a parent says to their little child: "Here's $5, go buy yourself some lollies or chocate, whatever you want." Except here it's $500 and she's doing it to a grown man.

[rainbowsandroses]

56 minutes ago, Tinydance said:

I actually see this situation as a bit like a Mama's boy/man child" situation which is probably being fueled largely by the mother. To me the $500 dollars actually reminds me of how a parent says to their little child: "Here's $5, go buy yourself some lollies or chocate, whatever you want." Except here it's $500 and she's doing it to a grown man.

Fair point!

I wonder if it's different for women.  My late dad would sometimes give me money when I was in a serious relationship; I didn't always tell my boyfriends about it, my dad gave it to me to spend, not my boyfriends.

We had separate accounts, we were two separate individuals not joined at the hip.

However, wrong or right, I do not recall him doing same for any of my brothers.  My mom certainly didn't! 

Not sure why except I suppose my dad thought they're grown men, raised to be "providers," not provided for, by either their girlfriend or wife or parent. 

My dad was an old school ex-marine which may have had something to do with his attitude about it.

[Tinydance]

17 minutes ago, rainbowsandroses said:

Fair point!

I wonder if it's different for women.  My late dad would sometimes give me money when I was in a serious relationship; I didn't always tell my boyfriends about it, my dad gave it to me to spend, not my boyfriends.

We had separate accounts, we were two separate individuals not joined at the hip.

However, wrong or right, I do not recall him doing same for any of my brothers.  My mom certainly didn't! 

Not sure why except I suppose my dad thought they're grown men, raised to be "providers," not provided for, by either their girlfriend or wife or parent. 

My dad was an old school ex-marine which may have had something to do with his attitude about it.

Well I think it's OK to give the money and if the person wants they can share the money with their partner. In this case is the  boyfriend only spending it on himself like his mother suggested? Or did he share? I wouldn't really be blaming the mother because the son doesn't need to follow everything she says. If he is following it then that's by choice isn't it?