AITA for telling my husband I want separate holidays after his mom called me “temporary”?
The holiday season, for many, is a time of joy, family, and togetherness. But for others, it's a minefield of unspoken resentments, awkward encounters, and the inevitable family drama. This week's AITA story perfectly encapsulates how quickly festive cheer can turn into a battleground, especially when in-laws are involved and boundaries are nonexistent. Let's dive into a tale that has readers everywhere debating the true meaning of holiday spirit.
Our Original Poster (OP) has found herself in a deeply uncomfortable situation, questioning if her desire for a peaceful holiday outweighs her husband's family obligations. The core issue? A mother-in-law's cutting remark, labeling OP as 'temporary,' which has sparked a much larger conversation about respect, support, and the future of their family traditions. It's a classic in-law saga, but with a particularly painful sting that has left OP contemplating drastic measures.
"AITA for telling my husband I want separate holidays after his mom called me "temporary"?"
This situation highlights a classic dilemma where a spouse's loyalty is tested between their partner and their family of origin. OP's mother-in-law, Brenda, clearly crossed a line with her 'temporary' comment. It wasn't a harmless joke but a deliberate, hurtful jab aimed at undermining OP's place in the family. Such remarks often stem from insecurity or a desire to maintain control, but their impact on the recipient is undeniable and deeply damaging. OP's feelings of disrespect are completely valid.
The husband's reaction, or lack thereof, is equally concerning. Mark's immediate failure to defend his wife speaks volumes. Shrugging off such a significant insult as 'just how Mom is' or 'joking' demonstrates a profound lack of empathy and a prioritization of his mother's comfort over his wife's emotional well-being. This pattern of behavior is often referred to as 'fawning' or 'parentifying' by therapists, where the spouse avoids conflict with their parent at the expense of their partner.
OP's decision to demand separate holidays, while extreme, is a direct consequence of feeling unsupported and disrespected. It's a boundary, albeit a very firm one, born out of frustration and self-preservation. While it might seem like a drastic step, it signals to Mark the severity of the situation and the depth of her hurt. Her intention isn't to ruin the holidays but to protect her peace and dignity, something she feels is consistently undermined when she's around Brenda.
The core issue here isn't just Brenda's comment but Mark's consistent failure to create a united front with his wife. For a marriage to thrive, partners must feel like a team, especially against external pressures. OP's request forces Mark to confront the reality that his inaction has consequences for their relationship. The solution isn't necessarily separate holidays forever, but a clear expectation that Mark will actively defend and support his wife.
The internet weighs in: Is 'temporary' grounds for a holiday boycott?
The comment section erupted, overwhelmingly siding with OP. Many users highlighted the egregious nature of Brenda's comment, pointing out that calling a married person 'temporary' is a direct assault on the marriage itself, not just the individual. There was a strong consensus that Mark's inaction was a significant failing, with several people calling him a 'mama's boy' and criticizing his lack of backbone. The sentiment was clear: OP's feelings are valid, and her reaction, while strong, is justified.
Interestingly, while most supported OP, a few suggested alternative approaches, such as couples counseling or a more direct conversation with Brenda, perhaps with Mark present and prepared to defend. However, the prevailing opinion was that OP's demand for separate holidays, at least temporarily, is a necessary measure to force Mark to finally take her feelings seriously and address the long-standing issue with his mother. The consensus points to NTA.
In conclusion, OP's story is a stark reminder that marriage is a partnership, and that includes defending each other, especially against family members. While the idea of separate holidays is jarring, it often becomes a last resort when one partner consistently fails to establish necessary boundaries. The 'temporary' comment was not just an insult to OP, but a challenge to the sanctity of her marriage. Hopefully, Mark will reflect on his inaction and realize that a united front is paramount for their relationship's longevity. Until then, OP is well within her rights to protect her peace.
