Granny offers help, then holds it over us

When people push family away, it is often hard for them to understand how behavior they minimize is not seen that way from the other side.

Hopefully the OP will have by now had a chat with her MIL, and her MIL is sensible enough to be kinder. I commend the OP for seeking clarity and having patience.

It's a bit OTT isn't it, to see responses to such a sensible, reasonable and mature OP to even suggest the her m.i.l. could lose all contact and needs help to stay in her son's life. Together with references to grooming and a child being set up to be an abused adult.

All the aforementioned about a m.i.l. and GM who is over involved in her son's family, and whose neediness for appreciation is becoming understandably annoying.

Okay. Whatever they decide to do.

As I was at pains to explain, using the singular pronoun doesn't necessarily rule out the involvement of someone else, but maybe that wasn't clear enough.

Doodledog

We don't know that he won't. Just because the OP used the singular second person pronoun does't mean that she won't expect her husband to get involved in whatever she decides to do.

It's often a style thing. I use the singular a lot, as I think it can sound a but twee to say 'We cook chicken in an air fryer' or whatever, and I am keen to speak only for myself rather than assuming automatic support. That doesn't mean that I don't expect Mr Dog to do certain things though - just that we are a couple that is made up of two separate people.

Why would it be what "she decides to do"? DS is her son and her connection to his family. And that's the point.

DS advise his mum to reasonable number of visits.

DS led introspection could help her stay in his life.

We don't know that he won't. Just because the OP used the singular second person pronoun does't mean that she won't expect her husband to get involved in whatever she decides to do.

It's often a style thing. I use the singular a lot, as I think it can sound a but twee to say 'We cook chicken in an air fryer' or whatever, and I am keen to speak only for myself rather than assuming automatic support. That doesn't mean that I don't expect Mr Dog to do certain things though - just that we are a couple that is made up of two separate people.

Smileless2012

Fortunately for this particular m.i.l., losing all contact doesn't appear to be on the agenda. The OP is wanting solutions so that this GM who she says "loves her grandchildren very much" can remain a part of their lives, as no doubt they love her very much too.

OP does seem to desire a solution to end unpleasantness and avoid excess interactions. DS is key.

Surely DS can bring his mum in line with reasonable visits.

I'd not go so far as to say this mil couldn't drive herself to CO.

A bit of DS led introspection could help her stay in his life.

Fortunately for this particular m.i.l., losing all contact doesn't appear to be on the agenda. The OP is wanting solutions so that this GM who she says "loves her grandchildren very much" can remain a part of their lives, as no doubt they love her very much too.

Anneeba "the OP's other half should step up to manage and meet her more"

Right. DS mum, DS responsiblity.

As it is, dil is asking advice, how to deal with an extremely difficult mil, after already allowing weekly visits. Time between all the excessive intrusions into dil/DS family time could well be lengthened.

DS doing his part, chatting his mum (on excess babysitting) may keep his mum from being one of those who lack introspection - lose all contact.

people are not exclusively all good or 'toxic' as to do the latter the latter would potentially be teaching him narcissistic ways of thinking about object constancy good point Doodledog.

The OP certainly appears to want to find a reasonable and workable solution Anneeba which is to her credit. She is the mother of her H and GM to their child, and I hope her H is going to be proactive on the solution front.

I will repeat, persistent negative behavior directed at an individual may very well become toxic. It bothers the OP enough that she is seeking advice on how to address it. Things may be coming to a head. I am not saying the MIL is totally toxic. I’m not calling her a Narcissist either, as I am not an internet psychiatrist diagnosing people I have never met. What I am saying is there is absolutely nothing wrong with reducing unnecessary “babysitting” days. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with gently reminding the MIL that her persistently abrasive behavior is not appreciated. She is an adult. Standards for her behavior shouldn’t be lowered because she’s a granny.

I vehemently disagree with any suggestion that the MIL should be placated with excessive thanks, especially because she is the one requesting the contact. I also hope the OP will not raise her child to feed into the idea that he/she should be responsible for constantly trying to please this perpetually dissatisfied gran, as it’s not a healthy way to raise a child. I am struggling to understand why basic ways of respectful interaction can generate so many opposing opinions just because a mother in law and daughter in law are involved. The same general rules apply to all relationships.

I mentioned narcissists, but for the record I didn’t suggest that the MIL (or anyone involved) is behaving narcissistically. I am not qualified to do that either, even if I thought it, which I did not suggest that I did.

What I said was that it would, IMO, be better to teach the child about compromise and that people are not exclusively all good or ‘toxic’, as to do the latter would potentially be teaching him narcissistic ways of thinking about object constancy.

What such acceptance has to do with board dynamics I don’t know, but I suspect that was some sort of dig, and I’m not interested.

I agree Oodles and Smileless. It could be made into all out war, deny the old so and so access, family rifts galore (all very exciting for some posters I feel), or it can be managed in a way I actually believe the OP would prefer, which is to contain it and not have to constantly put up with her neediness. I don't believe we know enough about her to start sticking narcissist labels etc on her or giving dire warnings for the mental health of the child. She's probably sad and feels no one does actually need her, then sticks her foot in it by trying to extract gratitude. She's annoying but most probably harmless. I'm not at all saying 'Suck it up' to the OP, and reiterate again (apologies) that the OP's other half should step up to manage and meet her more, doing collections etc and giving her a hug. I know my old mum said having a hug was marvellous as she got older. My children provided most of them.

That's a good suggestion oodles. Much better to find ways of mitigating the situation where ever possible which I do think Mama's trying to do.

There's no need to make this mole hill into a mountain, as annoying as it is. The OP's m.i.l.'s over involvement and apparent neediness does need addressing, but this can be done sensitively.

I'm not one to use words toxic, narcissist, coercive control, or many other common counselling phrases. I'm not qualified.

I think that OP mils behaviour is decidedly unpleasant. I'd avoid OP mil as much as possible asking OP DS to visit alone beyond the weekly visit.

Op mil sees the child weekly, let that be more than enough.

I'm wondering how the times are arranged. Does MIL ring up and offer say tuesday at 10? Is it be the one initiating it in this situstion.
Is there a time coming up when it would be helpful to have a babysitter, and actually ask if she can help, maybe could she have this instead of her granny time this week, but if you want granny time as well that's ok, just don't want to wear you out by asking for help this one time....and then be very effusive with your thanks. Maybe this scenario wouldn't work but perhaps changing the description might be helpful

Goodness me. I have no idea how this thread has ended up talking about grooming and the potential of a child being set up to be an abused adult, but it goes some way to explaining why there are so many families having relationship issues.

Yup really

Literally exactly how abuse cycles perpetuate

Smileless

Yes, really really!

Those who maintain positive interactions with family understand the importance of compromise. If there were a m.i.l. complaining about behaviour like this from her d.i.l., I wouldn't use the word toxic to describe her d.i.l.'s behaviour.

Persistent, unpleasant behavior directed at someone is toxic to that person, or will become toxic. Compromise is necessary in plenty of situations; decent treatment of family members is not one of those situations. Those who maintain positive interactions with family understand this. All have a right to be treated without abrasion; no family member is exempt. If the MIL was here complaining about this type of behavior from her DIL, the responses would no doubt be riddled with tales of “toxic” ungrateful DILs. The standards should be the same on both sides of the coin.

Doodledog

Well, that's a point of view; but personally I see teaching children to live and let live, and to be tolerant of people as a good thing. Not to be a doormat, which there is absolutely no evidence for thinking is true of the OP, but to be understanding of others.

I don't think that being emotionally needy is necessarily 'toxic'. Irritating, maybe, but toxicity can take worse forms than wanting to be thanked for small favours, and with a mature attitude to it the OP can teach her child to deal with it kindly, and to save drawing lines in the sand for when the situation requires it.

I think that far from projecting 'unwavering deference', showing children that good people can sometimes be annoying is a good lesson. Clinical narcissists lack 'object constancy' (the ability to see that people are not 'all good' or 'all bad', and that sometimes we feel anger towards people we love), and whereas it must in some ways be simpler to make life exactly as we want it by refusing to allow others to do anything that doesn't make us feel gratified, I think that part of bringing up emotionally healthy children is to teach them that things are not always so simple. Part of loving someone or just being able to rub along with people on more than a superficial level) involves accepting foibles and finding a way to keep our own integrity without trying to walk all over others.

If only live and let live were applied across the board. This young woman asking for advice here is not being told to live and let live. She is being told to accept improper treatment, even though she is already making time weekly to see her MIL. The hypocrisy is pretty clear. Why can the OP not be allowed to live without unnecessary poor treatment? It is absolutely unwavering deference being pushed because the same leeway is not applied both ways.

Being tolerant of people does not mean accepting objectionable treatment, and it shouldn’t be hard to see that. Tolerance should be taught with regard to differences in individuals, not with regard to poor treatment consitently directed at a person. We’re not talking about tolerance of personalities, we are specifically speaking about teaching women and children to tolerate abrasive behavior specifically directed toward them. The general rule doesn’t apply in the OP’s case.

Loving someone and spending excessive time around them are not one in the same. Love can be present with a bit of space, and that’s important to teach children. Love isn’t and should never be defined by how much you allow a relative to mistreat you. That’s a dangerous and unhealthy concept.

grooming a young child to think this is normal is setting the child up to be abused when he/she is an adult really!!!

Be tolerant of differences is a great thing! Live and let live is great

Such as somebody having a different hair style you would not choose for yourself
You read books while others read magazines

You pick X while others pick y and everybody is happy

This is a bad comparison.
We are not talking about tolerating a person, we are talking about a person influencing the behaviour of the parents and a child for her own benefit.

Not the same at all

In this case, grooming a young child to think this is normal is setting the child up to be abused when he/she is an adult

Great post Doodledog. I find the word toxic is over used and a lot of behaviour that people find annoying/irritating isn't necessarily toxic. In fact neither of those words for me go any where near to describing toxic behaviour, which at the very least is disturbing and frightening.

Children need to learn to compromise and negotiate in order to have healthy and happy relationships with their peers and family members. These lessons learned in childhood, serve them well in adulthood too.

They're taught by example primarily by their parents.

Well, that's a point of view; but personally I see teaching children to live and let live, and to be tolerant of people as a good thing. Not to be a doormat, which there is absolutely no evidence for thinking is true of the OP, but to be understanding of others.

I don't think that being emotionally needy is necessarily 'toxic'. Irritating, maybe, but toxicity can take worse forms than wanting to be thanked for small favours, and with a mature attitude to it the OP can teach her child to deal with it kindly, and to save drawing lines in the sand for when the situation requires it.

I think that far from projecting 'unwavering deference', showing children that good people can sometimes be annoying is a good lesson. Clinical narcissists lack 'object constancy' (the ability to see that people are not 'all good' or 'all bad', and that sometimes we feel anger towards people we love), and whereas it must in some ways be simpler to make life exactly as we want it by refusing to allow others to do anything that doesn't make us feel gratified, I think that part of bringing up emotionally healthy children is to teach them that things are not always so simple. Part of loving someone or just being able to rub along with people on more than a superficial level) involves accepting foibles and finding a way to keep our own integrity without trying to walk all over others.