I went to the gym the other day and heard two ladies chatting next to me. Saying that it is a chat, in fact, one person is spitting bitter water the whole time, and the other is listening, occasionally echoing it.
The grumbling lady and husband are both local only children, and the conditions are fair and good in all aspects. When you get married, you say that you have two children, one in one family (surname right). Dabao is a girl with her father's surname.
After a few years gave birth to a second treasure, boy. The husband immediately repented and did not agree with the son to follow the mother's surname, and said it in a grandiose manner: two children have two surnames, and your parents (parents-in-law) will have two attitudes towards them.
Image credit: Penguin
This is often seen on the Internet (post), and many netizens say that it is made up. This kind of comment is too lazy to refute it, and it can only be said that some netizens are really happy in their lives, and some netizens' ability to pretend to be stupid is really good.
At this time, the woman can refute the husband: If this is the case, then both children will follow the mother's surname, so that there is no need to worry about the child being treated differently by the grandparents.
If the husband jumps to his feet to oppose, the two families will nag well, and the things that are decided will be regretted unilaterally by the man's family, and the woman's family will owe the man's family anything?
The lady was angry but relented in fear that the fight would affect the harmony of the family, and both children took their father's surname. Not long after the opening of the third child, the in-laws advised the lady to have three children: the third can be with your family name, both male and female.
The lady was so angry with her in-laws that she couldn't speak, and the first two children in-laws had not been brought with her, and she actually asked her to have three children? Also with the mother's surname, at this time, do not worry about their mother's attitude to the three children is different?
Recently, the man's family "assigned" a house, the in-laws want to write only the name of the son, and worry about not writing the name of the daughter-in-law is difficult to be a person, so they come to the lady to discuss. It means that I hope that the lady will take the initiative to say that there is no need to write her name...
In the words of the lady, her mother's family conditions are no worse than those of the in-laws, and they have been married for so many years, and the children have given birth to two. Many things done by her in-laws made her feel speechless.
To tell the truth, I really don't sympathize with this lady, the two doors are not high, and it is rare to let the in-laws be so pinched. When the man's family competes for the right to crown the second child, it can be seen that this family is a chicken thief. What is "two children with two surnames, and the attitude of the parents-in-law towards them will be different"?
This kind of thing does exist, and many old people's paranoia about the right to crown the surname will indeed go beyond blood kinship. But if you follow this statement, then the grandparents' attitude towards grandchildren with different surnames will also be different. Why don't they say their own home, they have problems, do not reflect on turning the gun head to accuse the woman's mother's family, this is the fear of being attacked, the first to strike is strong?
Ladies should not give up their rights at the beginning with "fear of affecting family harmony", this is the consensus reached when they got married, no matter in any way, the woman did not take advantage of the man and the family did not lose the man, there was no need to be afraid of anything.
Besides, when the man repents, he is not worried about affecting family harmony? They all have children and daughters, and people are worried. In case the competition is not successfully divorced, is it so easy for the man's family to find another door-to-door marriage, and how many women with the same door are stupid enough to be willing to marry a man with two children and be a stepmother for the two children? Is it possible to look up for this skill, and to find their family down to be willing?
Sometimes people have a fluke mentality, knowing that they are not reasonable, but they will fight, in case they win, by the way, test the bottom line of others, and "explore the way" for the next time.
If the party whose interests have been violated has the ability to resist, then at the beginning it is necessary to let the other party know that there is no hope that it will suffer losses; if it is not able to resist for the time being, it must be patient and accumulate strength for the next day. It is human nature to bully the soft and be afraid of the hard and take advantage of others, and it is not necessary to talk about feelings when it is time to talk about interests, otherwise it is yourself who suffers losses.
The worst case scenario is not divorce, leaving who is afraid of whom. Many women are afraid of divorce is often economic, personality is not independent and there is no mother's family to rely on. The only child has a reliable family and no financial problems, and is afraid of what divorce. Whoever dares to calculate himself and his mother's family will have to kill them back. You can't kill or stay away; or be vigilant and don't let the other party take advantage of it (not a long-term solution).
When a woman's rights are violated, it is tantamount to telling the other party that she is a bully. Otherwise, why didn't the mother-in-law help with the grandchildren and dare to persuade the woman to have three children? The mother-in-law is also a woman, doesn't she know that giving birth to a child hurts the body, and does not know how tired it is to carry a child?
The lady and the couple have been married for many years, and the man's family is still guarding against the woman in terms of property, which is calculating that the divorce rate is high now, in case of divorce in the future, the woman must not be allowed to take advantage of it, right?
The man's family has this thought, but he is worried that it is too obvious and realistic, so he wants the woman to take the initiative to give up the right to real estate, and in the future, it is not that the in-laws are unwilling to give, but the daughter-in-law herself does not want it.
Guess if the man in the middle knows his parents' intentions? Once many women have conflicts with their in-laws, they are accustomed to attributing the problem to the contradiction between themselves and their in-laws, and the man in the middle is as invisible as they are. I don't know if I really don't understand that this man is the source of the contradiction, or if I don't dare to point the muzzle of the gun at him.
I have heard such a story before: children ask their mothers, if other children want their own toys, they do not want to give but are afraid not to give, other children will be angry and do not play with themselves, what to do? When your mother said that other children asked you for toys, you asked: What do you want to exchange?
There will be no pie in the sky, there is no lunch in the world, and no one's things are given in vain. If you want something from me, you have to exchange it for something, and this thing must be something that I can see.
Easy to compromise on the requirements of others, many times will only move themselves, can not be exchanged for the gratitude of others, and do not get good will let others gain inches.
In the face of suffering, not everyone can make choices that are in line with universal values