Coping with a PD-Mother-In-Law: No, DH, my solution is NOT to throw mamma from...

[Just Kathy]

Where does one start such a tale?

Perhaps it's best to begin at the beginning, before my entrance into the narrative. My father-in-law, a man of humble beginnings and diligent savings, had been meticulously setting aside his spare pennies from the moment he set foot in puberty.

His goal was as traditional as personal: to accumulate enough wealth to secure a bride. In the 1970s, this practice found resonance among a special group of Americans, who often turned to matchmakers. These intermediaries played a crucial role, bridging continents and cultures to connect these men with potential brides from their ancestral lands. For my father-in-law, and many like him, "back home" referred to the vibrant and bustling streets of an old-world country, where traditions met modern aspirations and from where he hoped to find a partner to share his life's journey.


Into this narrative steps my future mother-in-law, a mere sixteen years old, freshly arrived by boat and standing at a crossroads defined by tradition and necessity. She was presented with a stark choice that would forever alter the course of her life: enter into an arranged marriage with a man she had yet to meet or face the daunting prospect of survival on the streets.

I think we all come to our crossroads in life - some of us make good choices and became good people - some of us - not so much. I can understand how my mother in law formed - but, I can't respect some of the choices she has made and the sad fact that we will never have a good and healthy relationship.


Afterward, for decades, my mother-in-law's life's purpose revolves almost entirely around accumulating wealth, elevating it to the highest pedestal in her value system, akin to a deity. At the tender age of sixteen, she quickly grasped that the semblance of power and autonomy she could command would be directly tied to her financial capacity. In her eyes, money became the golden key to unlocking freedom.


But one might wonder, freedom from what? Why, wealth gave her the right and freedom to become the 'Animal Torturer.' I conjecture that it's the freedom to overstep the personal boundaries of her family members without repercussion- if her husband and children were performers in her personal circus, then she, as I've come to label her affectionately, assumed the role of the Animal Torturer.

In this metaphorical spectacle, she wielded her authority not with the grace of a ringmaster but with the harshness of one who delights in the subjugation and control of her charges. Though bestowed with a touch of irony, this title underscores the severity with which she orchestrated the dynamics of her household, ensuring that each member plays their part according to her exacting standards, often at the expense of their own well-being and autonomy.

The man who became her husband, primarily as a means for her to enter this country, was reduced to a mere shadow of himself, embodying the proverbial passive little mouse. Echoing the wisdom of ancient biblical proverbs, his existence shrank to that of a man relegated to the corner of his own life, subsisting on the metaphorical crumbs she deigned to toss his way. In this dynamic, she emerged as the insatiable woman who haunts any rational man's nightmares. Her presence and actions created an environment where her dominance was absolute, casting her husband into a role where acceptance and passivity were his only refuge from her overwhelming influence.

As she reached middle age, she envisioned a future where her accumulated wealth would be her safeguard, a means to secure all the assistance she might require in her twilight years. This foresight was born out of a pragmatic, albeit cynical, understanding that her husband, children, and their spouses– those that she 'tortured most' might not be the caretakers she could depend on.

In the realm of mathematics, a single point is merely an isolated datum, lacking context or a broader population to give it meaning or to delineate its properties. When you have two data points, you can draw a line between them, suggesting a trend or a potential behavior forecast. However, you create a plane with three or more points, offering a more accurate and comprehensive depiction of behavior patterns.

Applying this analogy to my family dynamics, my mother-in-law, with her collection of four daughters-in-law and one son-in-law, provides more than enough data points to sketch a revealing picture. Over thirty years that we, the in-laws, have been acquainted with our dear sweet mother-in-law, a pattern has emerged: as a result, there is scant communication between her and us. The behavior we have all witnessed firsthand is a consistent trend, suggesting that our interactions—or lack thereof—form a pattern of behavior that speaks volumes about our relationship with her.

Much like a mathematical plane, this dynamic offers a stark illustration of the underlying patterns within our family structure. Now, you might be asking yourself - Why do the in-laws keep their distance from her? For the same reasons, mice flee from the presence of a bloodthirsty cat.

My mother-in-law's demeanor is emblematic of grandiose narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), characterized by an overwhelming aura of self-assuredness and infallibility. She embodies the quintessence of a 'know-it-all,' steadfast in her conviction that her opinions and decisions are beyond reproach. Within the microcosm of her family, she positions herself as the pinnacle of wisdom and capability, the unequivocal 'sharpest tool in the shed,' as it were.

My DH has over the years, expertly reframed his mother's intentions and lack of empathy, 'oh, she's not malicious, she just wants to be helpful, blah, blah, blah.'

I understand his point. The mother-in-law aspires to be the most intelligent, the most insightful, and the guiding force within the family. Her opinions on any matter, particularly those concerning family affairs, should hold paramount importance, overshadowing all others. This drive to position herself as the central authority on virtually everything underscores her deep-seated need to be recognized as the ultimate source of wisdom and direction in the family's life.

To reiterate, I grasp his perspective; however, the truth of the matter reveals a deficiency in two critical areas. Firstly, there is a notable gap in her knowledge. Despite not being fully acquainted with all the facts, she believes that her status as the revered matriarch, the 'golden uterus' that brought her children into the world years ago, grants her an inalienable right to remain significantly involved and interfere in the lives of her children. Her historical role in the family is seen as a license to insert herself into every facet of her children's affairs, irrespective of her actual understanding or relevance to the situation at hand.

Secondly, perhaps more crucially, she exhibits a stark lack of empathy. This absence of emotional insight means she operates without the necessary 'brakes' that would typically prevent one from overstepping the personal boundaries of her children's families. Her inability to recognize and respect these boundaries leads to a pattern of intrusion that disregards their autonomy and emotional well-being. This combination of inadequate knowledge and empathy deficit underscores a profound disconnect between her intentions and the impact of her actions, complicating family dynamics and relationships.
I'll give you a few data points so that you can hopefully see the plane of her behavior.

Firstly, it's important to note that the son-in-law in question is quite affluent, his wealth evident in the meticulous landscaping of his mansion by top-tier professionals from his state. He has a particular fondness for a certain shade tree, to the extent of having a rare specimen imported to grace the front porch with its canopy. However, during her last visit, the mother-in-law fixated on this very tree, criticizing that its branches were hanging too low and suggesting that "real professionals" should be called to address the issue. Despite reassurances from her daughter and son-in-law that it was not a concern, she persisted in her complaints.

Tragically, while the daughter and her husband were out fulfilling another commitment, the mother-in-law took matters into her own hands. Rather than enjoying the luxurious amenities available, such as the swimming pool or the private gym, she embarked on a misguided mission. Armed with a saw she found in the tool shed, she took to the poor tree herself, ultimately destroying the cherished and rare specimen.

Upon returning home, the daughter and son-in-law were met with the shocking aftermath of the mother-in-law's actions. The consequences of this incident led to an abrupt and "unexpected" end to the mother-in-law's visit, attributed to some "unforeseen reason." This episode highlights the mother-in-law's disregard for boundaries and lack of empathy and the significant emotional and financial toll her impulsivity can have on her family's lives.

Data point number two, in the nascent year of her marriage, the eldest son's wife graciously invited the mother-in-law for a road trip across the Eastern United States. This gesture was made with the simple hope that the mother-in-law would relish the journey, with the couple generously covering all expenses. Yet, embracing the experience gracefully was beyond the mother-in-law's capabilities. Instead, she embarked on a relentless critique of virtually every decision made by her daughter-in-law, from the selection of eateries and tourist spots to her fashion sense.

Despite the mounting tensions, the couple persevered, eagerly anticipating a meal at a restaurant they had long aspired to visit. This dining experience was meant to be a cherished memory, enthusiastically shared with the mother-in-law. Regrettably, the outing soured before it could even begin, as the mother-in-law clashed with the waitress over the seating arrangements—a reservation that had required months of planning by the daughter-in-law.

Pushed to her limit by the continuous barrage of complaints, the daughter-in-law laid down an ultimatum: either remain and enjoy the meal or wait in the car. The mother-in-law's reaction was explosive. She accused her family of mistreatment and indignantly rejected their "charity," dramatically scattering hundreds of dollars at the daughter-in-law's feet before making a tempestuous exit. This incident not only marred what should have been a joyful occasion but also underscored the deeply ingrained patterns of behavior that strained her relationship with her family. This pattern of behavior has persisted to this day.

The third instance involves another son, who, along with his wife, had two children. The wife's sister played a pivotal role in their upbringing, earning the children's deep affection. Tragically, this sister passed away during the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving the family enveloped in grief. However, during the funeral, the mother-in-law's insensitivity surfaced starkly. She told the bereaved children that their aunt's death was a consequence of her obesity, bluntly stating that had the aunt heeded her advice to lose weight, she might have survived. This comment left the children and their mother utterly dismayed and speechless.

Following this deeply unsettling incident, the mother-in-law found herself unexpectedly cut off from further interaction with her grandchildren, as they refused to see her. The once customary Sunday gatherings at their home came to an abrupt halt. While the mother-in-law professed confusion over this sudden change, attributing it to "some unknown reason," the underlying cause was all too clear to the rest of the family. This exclusion directly resulted from her long history of making insensitive remarks.

Her tactless comment about the children's aunt's weight at such a sensitive time was merely the latest in a series of thoughtless observations. It was the final indignity that pushed the family to a tipping point. This incident at a moment of deep grief highlighted her penchant for offering unwelcome and harsh advice. It became evident that her presence, far from being a source of support, had become a source of distress, leading the family to seek solace away from her critical eye. This marked a poignant moment of realization that her unsolicited and often blunt counsel was neither needed nor desired, underscoring a broader issue within her relationships with her family members.

When I came into the picture, my future husband, lacking tact, shared a conversation where his mother responded with silence after proudly listing my achievements to his mother. After a pause, she questioned, "If she is so accomplished and has done all of that, why is she marrying you?" This revelation shed light on a pattern I would recognize: her tendency to diminish or outright undermine her children's successes and happiness over the years.

Upon our first meeting, after I became trapped in this union, I excitedly showed her my engagement ring, a modest piece that perfectly matched the vision I had always cherished in my heart. Yet, this moment too was marred by her inability to appreciate the significance of the choice. To my dismay, she suggested to my husband that he return the ring for a more expensive one, akin to the one he had chosen for his ex-wife. This incident highlighted her disregard for the sentimental value we placed on our choices and her persistent inclination to compare and devalue her children's (and by extension, their partners') milestones and preferences.

All the daughters-in-law have corroborated my observations regarding our mother-in-law's behavior during her yearly torture sessions. During visits, she maintains a facade of civility for the first couple of hours. However, a careful observer can notice her eyes scanning the room, betraying the gears shifting rapidly in her mind. It's as though she's on a reconnaissance mission, seeking vulnerabilities or any potential fodder for her next vicious critique. There's a telltale moment when her expression becomes vacant, as if her congenial persona momentarily steps aside, allowing a more malevolent character to take the stage. After this brief interlude, she reanimates with a vigor fueled by whatever imperfections she's managed to unearth, ready to unleash her observations. This pattern of behavior has become a predictable, albeit unwelcome, part of our interactions with her.

Once she enters this demonic state, her criticisms become relentless. She will disparage the cleanliness of your home and the quality of the food you offer, sparing no detail in her assessments. She doesn't hesitate to dictate drastic changes, from insisting you part with cherished pets to demanding furniture rearrangements purely based on her personal preferences. Her intrusions also extend to personal appearance; if you're not coloring your hair, she'll assert that you should start, and if you are, she'll critique your choice of color as unsuitable, proposing an alternative she deems more appropriate. Her recommendations are not gentle suggestions but imperatives, reflecting a belief in her superior taste and judgment over those whose lives she's commenting on. This level of interference crosses boundaries and imposes her aesthetic and lifestyle choices onto others, disregarding their preferences and autonomy.

Her conversations with the children are not spared from this critical eye; instead, they are targeted in hopes of revealing any hint of marital discord that she can openly critique. This behavior transcends mere opinion sharing; it's a deliberate tactic aimed at identifying and magnifying weaknesses within the family's framework, all while masquerading as well-intentioned concern or guidance. Her ultimate goal appears to be positioning herself as the 'savior,' offering sage advice to rescue the family from their supposed follies. This approach not only undermines the autonomy and judgement of family members but also insidiously elevates her role within the household, casting her in the light of an indispensable guide amidst self-manufactured chaos.

I have numerous instances that illustrate this point, yet my aim here is to convey the essence of what dealing with an overtly narcissistic mother-in-law entails. My husband often tries to frame her actions as well-meaning, but I contend that a lack of empathy and grandiose self-importance can distort even the best intentions into something harmful. When genuine understanding and humility are absent, what's intended as benevolence can easily become a conduit for negativity, even evil. This dynamic suggests that intentions, no matter how ostensibly positive, can lead to detrimental outcomes if they stem from a place lacking empathy and inflated self-perception.

Whenever I attempt to convey these concerns to my husband, his response is defensive and exaggerated, "So, you want to throw mama from the train—well, I'm not having it!" He emphasizes the physical distance between us and her, pointing out, "She's thousands of miles away, and we don't see her much," as if to minimize the impact of her actions. I intend to seek validation for my experiences, a reality check that might bring him to acknowledge the emotional toll her behavior takes on me. Yet, he swiftly escalates to the assumption that I'm advocating for cutting all ties and burning bridges with her. This leap to conclusions frustrates and vexes me deeply, as my genuine attempts at dialogue and understanding are misinterpreted, leaving me feeling invalidated and our concerns unaddressed.

When my husband hastily surmises, "So, you want to throw Mama from the train," I can't help but wonder if, in some deep recess of his mind, he's projecting his own secret wish—a longing for liberation from his mother's overbearing presence. Yet, this desire for freedom seems tethered by the anticipation of a potential inheritance, a financial boon that keeps him bound to her despite the emotional cost.

In moments when this tension surfaces, I gently remind him with a half-joking, half-serious quip: "Evil people live forever!"

This remark serves as a light-hearted nudge, a way to inject some humor into the situation while subtly acknowledging the complex, often painful reality of our circumstances.

It's a reminder that waiting for change to come from outside circumstances, especially those tied to someone as manipulative as his mother, might be an exercise in futility and that perhaps our focus should be on finding peace and autonomy within the current framework of our lives.

[Just Kathy]

Navigating the annual "torture" sessions with his mother, my husband has developed a particular coping mechanism. His physical response is telling whenever she commences her litany of concerns, which could span the gamut of imaginable issues.

The muscles in his neck and shoulders visibly tense, a prelude to his defensive verbal retort. Matching her intensity with a forceful "I know, Mom, I know," he promptly removes himself from the fray, retreating to the sanctuary of his study.

This swift departure effectively leaves me in the line of fire, as she then pivots her attention towards me, the remaining target for her manipulative games. In these moments, I transform into the "other mouse"  in the room, subject to my blood thirsty catlike mother-in-law, on the hunt for victims and must suffer her whims and critiques, as my husband seeks refuge away from her tumult.

Believing a good offense is a good defense, last year, with a mischievously wicked smile, my husband floated the idea of spending an entire week visiting his dear mother, seemingly under the impression he could offer me up as a sort of sacrificial buffalo to endure the visit.

However, this plan abruptly stopped when I firmly informed him I would not accompany them.   Taken aback by my refusal,  his grand scheme was derailed. 

Consequently, their visit was significantly shortened; he and his daughter stayed for merely two days, starkly contrasting to the originally planned seven.

[phlox]

My husband behaved this same way with his mother for many, many years. It was only after he had years of therapy that he was able to set firm, consistent boundaries with his mother/my MIL.

Her behavior escalated in horrible ways for a very long time after boundaries were enforced by DH and now she mostly avoids us when we are visiting BPDh's hometown. Unfortunately, the behavior hasn't gone away - during a visit last summer she displayed it openly during a rare afternoon alone with her teenage grandchildren, supposedly to go through old photos. They have rarely been left alone with her during their lives due to her antics and they promptly reported the undesirable behavior to us. DH had to then use his new(er) skills and call his mother out on the behavior, who petulantly instituted a blissful silent treatment for many days hence.

Has your husband gone through any therapy to help him cope with his mother?

[Pepin]

When my husband hastily surmises, "So, you want to throw Mama from the train," I can't help but wonder if, in some deep recess of his mind, he's projecting his own secret wish—a longing for liberation from his mother's overbearing presence. Yet, this desire for freedom seems tethered by the anticipation of a potential inheritance, a financial boon that keeps him bound to her despite the emotional cost.

  Wow!  Eerily similar story to my (late) CN MIL.  Not one of the DILs or SILs were close to her on any level either.  Yet my DH was somehow the glue that kept her fueled.  And you bet he stayed in the circus for the money.  They were a poor immigrant family and money meant everything to them, even after they earned it and were comfortable.  And it is what eventually blew the entire extended family apart at CN MIL's death.  She was an emotionally immature woman who failed to see beyond her own bank account - and actually, it wasn't really that much.  Everyone, including FIL (also similar to yours and reduced to a shell of a man), was a character in her circus.  It is my understanding that MIL and FIL were also matched in their country of origin before emigrating.  The man brought literally nothing to the marriage other than himself and hard work.  And that became his life - work....his work became his safe place, too, from her.  He knew he didn't amount to what she had had in mind as a husband.  As he lay dying in the hospital, she could not bring herself to visit him much after he was placed there.  Claimed it was too hard and she didn't know how or what to do.  She made DH do it. 

I gave up having conversations about her with him.  He was terribly defensive about her and made excuse after excuse for her behavior.  Her death feels like she was finally thrown from the train.  Her own train that is... 

[Just Kathy]

Phlox,

I truly empathize with your challenges—it's indeed a difficult situation. Dealing with an unsupervised narcissist can be particularly trying, as their behaviors tend to intensify when not kept in check. And when they are confronted with their actions, their typical response is to vanish or exclude the challenger, offering a paradoxical reprieve to those weary of their antics.

It's commendable that your husband has established boundaries with his mother!



It appears, though, that my husband, whom I suspect might be on the PD spectrum,  carries with him some significant behavioral patterns inherited from his 'Mommy Dearest':

He has become an adept triangulator.

He seems to be a seasoned practitioner of D.A.R.V.O. (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender), mastering the art of flipping narratives to his advantage. Every tib-bit of information I have told DH has been used against me.

His defensive arsenal is predominantly filled with tactics of reframing situations and outright denial.
He has consistently shirked responsibility for the unraveling of his first marriage, placing the entirety of the blame on his ex-wife's shoulders. In his narrative, she is the sole architect of their union's downfall, absolving himself of any and all culpability.

Similarly, his portrayal of his oldest daughter casts her in a malevolent light, branding her as inherently wicked, a convenient scapegoat for any familial discord. His oldest daughter hinted at a deeper, less visible facet of his personality when she ominously advised, "You don't really know my father," as she estranged herself from him. This comment came when DH was still in his love-bombing phase; we were barely a year into our marriage.

And when it comes to our interactions, the pattern persists unabated; in his eyes, I invariably embody the role of the one who is perpetually in the wrong. This unyielding stance on accountability paints a portrait of a man ensconced in a fortress of denial, where introspection is foreign, and blame is always an external commodity.

These behaviors likely contributed to the demise of his first marriage. The lyrics from the poignant song "Blindsided" resonate deeply, questioning, "Was there nothing ever wrong, 'cause you were always, right? Tell me, were you blindsided, or were you just blind?" His ex-wife's sarcastic proclamation of his 'perfection' was, perhaps, her way of signaling her grasp of the situation.

My husband's capacity for empathy falls significantly short, ranging from scant to utterly nonexistent. His emotional landscape is primarily dictated by his own state of regulation or dysregulation, featuring what might be termed as cold empathy—a clinical, detached acknowledgment of others' emotions—without ever crossing into the realm of genuine, warm empathy that connects one human being to another. This deficiency in emotional attunement leaves him navigating interpersonal relationships without the natural warmth and understanding that fosters deep, meaningful connections.

Regarding the prospect of therapy for someone with a personality disorder, its utility can manifest in quite a specific manner. For an individual characterized by such challenges, therapy may not necessarily lead to profound transformations or the development of empathy. Still, it can instead serve as a mechanism for personal emotional regulation and a space where they feel validated. Following his divorce, my husband sought solace in a support group that essentially functioned as an echo chamber, reinforcing his perspective and narrative. This group became a cadre of yes-men, unequivocally upholding his view that his ex-wife was solely to blame for their marriage's dissolution. In this context, therapy or support groups provide comfort and a sense of righteousness rather than challenging him to introspect or consider interpersonal dynamics and accountability complexities.



If you find yourself with a husband capable of introspection and eager to acquire new interpersonal skills, you truly are in a fortunate position. Such a partner demonstrates a willingness to grow and evolve and a deep commitment to enhancing the quality of your relationship together. This ability to reflect on one's behavior, acknowledge areas for improvement, and actively seek change is a rare and invaluable trait that can significantly contribute to a healthy, fulfilling partnership.

[Just Kathy]

Pepin,

It indeed is a small world, and hearing stories like these only reinforces that sentiment. Thank you for sharing your experience.

It's fascinating and somewhat disheartening to observe how my mother-in-law crafts her own version of history, positioning herself as the sole architect of the family's financial success. This narrative conveniently overlooks my father-in-law's foundational role in establishing and nurturing the very enterprise she claims to have single-handedly flourished in. Moreover, her account erases the contributions of the children, who were enlisted to work for the family business without compensation, further glorifying her image as the lone genius behind their prosperity. According to her rendition, she emerges as the paragon of intellect and innovation, while her husband is unfairly diminished to a figure of incompetence.

The recent diagnosis of my father-in-law's cancer didn't stop MIL from deciding to travel to Europe with friends starkly illuminates her priorities and the depth of her empathy—or lack thereof.

My husband's stance towards his mother, influenced not by a desire to defend me but by considerations tied to potential inheritance. Meanwhile, my sister-in-law epitomizes a more refined version of MIL's covert toxic traits, earning her my moniker of MOM 2.0. Her covert methods contrast sharply with my mother-in-law's overt tactics, marking her as a more snake-in-the-grass, more dangerous presence in this crazy family drama.