# Family Photos: A Poll



## LuckyMommaToo (Aug 14, 2003)

Let's say there's a large, extended family gathering. We'll call it a christening. Various family photos are being taken. MIL Landshark comes up to you and says, "We're going to do a photo of the Landshark girls" and holds her arms out for your baby. So it's a photo of MIL, her DD, her DD's DD, and your DD. But not you.

This has happened both to me and a friend. Curious what you guys think, and I'll BBL to share my reaction.
-e


----------



## LaLaLaLa (Oct 29, 2007)

I think it's kind of lame, to have a need for a family picture that's just the blood relatives. But I tend to think that family is as much created as born. Some people are more clannish than others, though, and those blood ties are super-important. I guess I can accept that, while secretly thinking how silly it is.

When my grandfather died, my grandmother wrote his obituary for the newspaper. Mentioned were my mom, me, my brother, and my two kids. NO mention of my father (to whom my mother has been married for 36 years) or my husband, or my brother's wife. My mom was irritated; she thought the obituary made it seem like she and I had both had these kids with no husbands (the thought of which also didn't bother me at all, but bothered my mom). To my grandmother, my father and my husband and my brother's wife just didn't belong to my grandfather in the same way as the rest of us. She is also fond of pointing out to strangers when she's out with my mom and me and my kids that we are four generations, all together. For some reason that maybe I'll get when I'm older, that blood tie really matters a great deal to her.

I'm sorry if your feelings were hurt. If it were me, I'd think it was dumb but I wouldn't make a big deal out of it.


----------



## liliaceae (May 31, 2007)

That's pretty messed up.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

I wouldn't even think twice about it.

ETA: Didn't notice the poll. Totally fine.


----------



## Lynn08 (Dec 2, 2008)

I can see how/why one might be upset but I personally wouldn't think twice if it were me. I've been at family-type gatherings and requested certain photo *groupings* and have been excluded from other *groupings*. Meh, I never really thought about the reasons behind it other than because someone wanted pix of those specific people.


----------



## AbbieB (Mar 21, 2006)

I would feel snubbed and a little hurt but I probably would not fight it.

But although my MIL irritates me with her workaholic ways and with the way she pisses of my DH, I don't have an adversarial relationship with her.


----------



## RebeccaWo (Apr 1, 2008)

If this was one photo out of many being taken it wouldn't bother me. I'm usually the photographer at family functions and I like to get photos of the generations, same sides of the family, etc. What was the mix of the other group photos taken?


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

I might feel a little left out. But I can understand the want of having only blood relatives in the picture. Now if another in-law was included and not me, then I'd be pissed. But in all honesty, when we take a picture of the G**** men, then DH and step-bro aren't included because they aren't G**** men even if they are part of the family.


----------



## aprons_and_acorns (Sep 28, 2004)

I would have no problem with that.


----------



## Veronika01 (Apr 16, 2007)

Honestly? When you married her son you became a "Landshark girl". JMHO I probably won't say anything, but my dh would know how upset I was.


----------



## AllisonR (May 5, 2006)

I think it would actually depend on the MIL.

Meaning my MIL is very very different than me (different language, different culture, different religious beliefs....), but the main thing is she is a warm, kind, generous person. She is always kind to me. So if she did this, it would not bother me at all, because I would know she was not trying to do it to hurt or exclude me. It would be unintentional, kwim? However, if my MIL was manipulative or mean or excluding me in general, and this was just one more smart arse thing, then I would be hurt or angry. In that case I would be in shock as I handed over my baby and then beat myself up over it later for not having told her at the time where to shove it.


----------



## staceychev (Mar 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LaLaLaLa* 
When my grandfather died, my grandmother wrote his obituary for the newspaper. Mentioned were my mom, me, my brother, and my two kids. NO mention of my father (to whom my mother has been married for 36 years) or my husband, or my brother's wife. My mom was irritated; she thought the obituary made it seem like she and I had both had these kids with no husbands (the thought of which also didn't bother me at all, but bothered my mom).

Interesting. I never even thought of it that way. Around here, obits with just blood descendants named are quite common, so I never gave it a second thought. I can totally see how that would be disappointing and hurtful, though.


----------



## laurelg (Nov 27, 2007)

You ARE a blood relative of one "bonafide" Landshark girl - your DD. I guess your MIL was shooting for more of a generational photo, but... meh. I think it's rude and I would be mad.

My DH is included in all of my family's photos and I expect to be treated the same.


----------



## 2xy (Nov 30, 2008)

It wouldn't bother me in the least. We've done generational photos with my ex's family, and I never found it odd or insulting.

And I wrote my grandmother's obituary this past summer, and only included blood descendants. To be honest, with all the broken marriages/remarriages/adoptions in our family, listing spouses and such would be weird. My DH is not my sons' father, and my grandmother only ever met my DH at my wedding. Out of my grandmother's four children, only one is married to the person who helped create the grandchildren.


----------



## betsyj (Jan 8, 2009)

I would be a bit annoyed but wouldn't lose any sleep over it. It is so common at weddings as well-photos of very specific familial relationships and I think this is an extension of that.


----------



## GardenStream (Aug 21, 2007)

No big deal. I'm assuming this was a generation photo. If other by-marriage-only Landshark women were involved in the photo and you were excluded, that would be something to be upset about.


----------



## NiteNicole (May 19, 2003)

It's a little weird. I guess if there were other DILs and you weren't the only girl left out, it might seem less odd.

We're planning to do an all girls photo at Christmas when we're all together because all the grandchildren are girls right now. No way would I till my SILs...hey, we're doing a family picture. Hand me your baby and go stand over there.

However, my MIL would TOTALLY do that to me. We hardly ever see each other and I think she quite forgets I'm just as related to her as her other DIL. She came to stay with us for about ten days when our daughter was about five months old (she, her other son, his wife, and their three kids). TONS of times she said here, let me hold DD, then handed me a camera and gathered everyone else up for a picture. I was just kind of stunned.

ETA: MY mother would do something like that, too. She's just thoughtless. She doesn't think of what might hurt someone else's feelings or what others might see as odd (she wore a white floor length dress to my wedding, tried to wear one to SILs and could NOT understand why I was trying to talk her down).


----------



## StrawberryFields (Apr 6, 2005)

I wouldn't mind. In fact my ILs are hoping to do an updated family portrait soon and I would prefer that spouses not be included. They have 5 children but there is just me and one other spouse. I think it would be a more timeless photo if it was just MIL/FIL and their kids.


----------



## noobmom (Jan 19, 2008)

Whenever we visit DH's parents we do a photo of great-granny, FIL, DH, and DS. It's a generational photo. I guess your case is a little different since it's only women and your SIL and her DD as well, but I don't think they meant any harm. It was only one photo--I assume you're included in the other family photos. It might irk me for 10 seconds, but no longer.


----------



## bugginsmom (Aug 4, 2005)

Eh, as long as I was included in other photos, it wouldn't bother me. I totally get it. We have done the same thing in our family, but always have photos with the spouses too, so no biggie to me.


----------



## mumkimum (Nov 14, 2006)

I think including her DD and other granddaughter, and your DD without you is sorta weird (reminds me of someone's story once that, after only taking pictures with their grandchild and son, a family friend happened to ask the GP's if the child's mother survived the birth) and a little different than, say, a generational photo with her kids and grandkids (sans spouses). I'd be somewhat offended and feel excluded.


----------



## crunchymamatobe (Jul 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NiteNicole* 
TONS of times she said here, let me hold DD, then handed me a camera and gathered everyone else up for a picture. I was just kind of stunned.

That is way out of line.

In the OP's situation, I think your MIL might not have used the best words, she could have asked to borrow your baby for a picture, rather than implying you're not a member of the family. You are a Landshark girl if you married a Landshark boy, right?


----------



## momtoS (Apr 12, 2006)

Well, my MIL has no daughters. But I could totally see her doing this. It would erk me but mostly because of all the other stuff she does with it.


----------



## transylvania_mom (Oct 8, 2006)

it wouldn't bother me. I like generational photos. I have one with my paternal grandmother, my father, me and ds.


----------



## Deefodil (May 25, 2009)

I think it's fine, and even perfectly reasonable in big families. I admit to feeling butthurt when it's a small family, though, and I am literally the ONLY person not in the photo, yk? Bigger families have more in-laws, so more people standing around on the side.


----------



## SunshineJ (Mar 26, 2008)

Eh it'd bug me a little but I do understand the reason behind it and wouldn't get too worked up over it. On the other hand, when the in-laws came to visit and they sent us the pics they'd taken and I saw one of everyone including sil's boyfriend I was really perplexed. I wasn't in it and didn't even know about it. Apparently they waited until I went to the bathroom and gathered up my DH and kids and sil and her child and bf and took it real quick before I returned. In MY house. THAT flat out pissed me off!


----------



## Alyantavid (Sep 10, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Veronika01* 
Honestly? When you married her son you became a "Landshark girl". JMHO I probably won't say anything, but my dh would know how upset I was.









That. And I would be hurt.


----------



## Barefoot~Baker (Dec 25, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Veronika01* 
Honestly? When you married her son you became a "Landshark girl".


----------



## Caneel (Jun 13, 2007)

I voted other. I have mixed feelings.

On one hand, I could see something like this happening in my family who does all sorts of different groupings for pictures. Because I am not close with the one set of in-laws I could care less if I was in a MIL composed picture.

But then on the other hand, if my maternal uncle said let's get a picture of just the G boys and included DS but excluded my husband, it would hurt my feelings and likely DH's.

If is was simply a multiple generation photo of the direct desendents - GGM, GM, Father,and LO I would be ok with being excluded.


----------



## runnerbrit (May 24, 2006)

It would depend. If it was just for a generational photo, fine. However, if it was inter-laced with only blood is real family I would be hurt. This is the situation with some of my family and I find it hurtful.


----------



## LuckyMommaToo (Aug 14, 2003)

OP here. So when this happened to me, I had a moment of "huh?" but then moved on. Seemed a little weird, but MIL likes me and we respect each other, so I let go. (The most interesting thing to me was that the photo was actually SIL's idea, and she and I do NOT get along. But whatever. Wasn't worth it to me to get upset.)

When it happened to friend, she was mad, but she has a terrible relationship with MIL to begin with.

As the momma of a boy, these things give me lots of room for thought!

Thanks for all the comments,
-e


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

i think it is lame but I would hand over the baby.


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

My reaction would be similar to yours, OP -- a moment of "huh?" and then moving on.

That said, I would never do that to someone as a MIL. But I have awesome examples of MILs in my own MIL and my own mother -- both of them fully include their DILs/SonILs in the family, with no delineation as to who is a bio-kid and who is an in-law kid. I think that's really the only kind way to go about things.


----------



## deny_zoo29 (Sep 21, 2008)

I would be quite hurt by this and have been. This is exactly how my ex-MIL was to me. Even though we always included my ex-husband (her son) in all of my side of the family photos.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I think her wording was clumsy, but she wanted a generational photo, and it wouldn't bother me.


----------



## becoming (Apr 11, 2003)

I wouldn't have thought twice about it. My husband's grandmother takes photos of her two (blood-related) granddaughters every Christmas in front of the tree as part of the family photos, and I've never even considered that I was being left out by not being included; however, DH's grandmother has always been extremely kind and welcoming to me and has never made me feel left out in any way, so maybe it has to do with how your MIL treats you on a regular basis?


----------



## becoming (Apr 11, 2003)

Oh, and coming back to add that I can see having a photo taken of my mom, myself, and my son's daughter without including my son's wife, not as an insult to her, just as a desire to have a photo of the three generations of women on that side.


----------



## rockycrop (Jul 31, 2007)

Wouldn't bother me at all, it's a genetic thing.

"Look at us and our mitochondrial DNA, weeeeeeeeeeee!".
Sorry, in-laws not included.


----------



## LuckyMommaToo (Aug 14, 2003)

Quote:

"Look at us and our mitochondrial DNA, weeeeeeeeeeee!".
Sorry, in-laws not included.
Thanks for the laugh, rockycrop! I needed it this morning!
-e


----------



## blazer (May 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rockycrop* 
Wouldn't bother me at all, it's a genetic thing.

"Look at us and our mitochondrial DNA, weeeeeeeeeeee!".
Sorry, in-laws not included.

Ok that made me laugh...

If they were doing various family groupings, I would not think a thing of it. It sounds to me it was a female 4 generation photo.


----------



## Kirsten (Mar 19, 2002)

Wouldn't bother me at all. I don't feel AT ALL that I became a Jones when I married him. I am a Smith. His mom is not my mom. We are married, and his family are my in-laws.

I always think it is SO odd when they put spouses of adult kids in people's obits. I do not survive FIL; I am not his child. I even have a hard time putting spouses names on sympathy cards. I do because it seems to be the social norm - but it always feels weird to me.

In the OP's situation, I would be mad if other DILs or SILs were included in a group photo but not me. But it doesn't sound like that was the case. If I was taking pix, I'd do an ALL group one (everybody), each specific family (OP, her husband, her dc), gramma, grampa,their kids and grandkids together.


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kirsten* 
I even have a hard time putting spouses names on sympathy cards. I do because it seems to be the social norm - but it always feels weird to me.

I'm glad that you include spouses even though it feels odd, and I'm sure those spouses appreciate it too.

I've never thought about putting certain boundaries on who is allowed to receive sympathy when they lose a loved one. IMO, anyone who loved that person should be given condolences, whether they're a blood relative, an IL, or "just" a friend. I've even sent sympathy cards to people who have lost a coworker they were particularly fond of!

Parents-in-law are often significant people in one's life for decades -- I can't imagine having the inclination to deny someone acknowledgement of their loss just because they don't share DNA. It will be a profound loss for me when my ILs pass away, and I hope no one thinks, "Oh, don't include her on the card, she's just the DIL."


----------



## Honey693 (May 5, 2008)

Totally fine. We do all kinds of photos in my family. Mom's side, dad's side, everyone together, all the women, etc. It's no big deal to me.


----------



## jeteaa (Jan 23, 2007)

Consider the example of a legal adoption. After the papers are signed, in all eyes that child is yours. That is how I feel about legal marriage. If MIL son signed the marriage papers, then for her to claim her adult son as her family but not you is well... morally illegal. That would be great! I would love to be able to take my MIL to court for all the BS she has done in defining who is family and who is not.


----------



## JamesMama (Jun 1, 2005)

I'd be fine with it...in the sense where that situation wouldn't bother me. I don't get along with my IL's at ALL so it's not like I wanna stand there all happy go lucky next to them in a photo *shudder* BUT if they included my husbands SIL's and not me I'd be perterved.

Like a PP said, I'm a Smith. My husband is a Jones. I became a Jones, legally, when we married by I'm married to JOSH Jones, not Mr. and Mrs. John Jones and their clan. They are my husband's family, my in-laws, they aren't my family...kwim? Now my family with DH is a wee bit different, IMO because there is a little piece of MY brother inside my husband so he has to be nice to my family. LOL


----------



## kirstenb (Oct 4, 2007)

A picture like this wouldn't bother me, I like generational photos and have one of my grandfather, mom, myself, and DS. Being excluded from other family photos might bother me, but it would depend on the type of picture being taken.


----------



## seaheroine (Dec 24, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mumkimum* 
I think including her DD and other granddaughter, and your DD without you is sorta weird (reminds me of someone's story once that, after only taking pictures with their grandchild and son, a family friend happened to ask the GP's if the child's mother survived the birth) and a little different than, say, a generational photo with her kids and grandkids (sans spouses). I'd be somewhat offended and feel excluded.

This. I vote really rude.


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rockycrop* 
Wouldn't bother me at all, it's a genetic thing.

"Look at us and our mitochondrial DNA, weeeeeeeeeeee!".
Sorry, in-laws not included.

Well if it were mitochondrial DNA they were showing off, where are the MILs sons in the picture? Or her daughters sons?

Hehe, sorry, feel like being nit picky right now.


----------



## KristaDJ (May 30, 2009)

I'd be hurt because I'm just as much of a J****** as my MIL is, _she_ married into the name too








. I'd hand over my daughter but my DH would hear about it and I'd probably make some comment to my MIL about it as well, not an angry comment but one to illustrate the silliness of excluding me.


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KristaDJ* 
_she_ married into the name too

Good point. I never thought about that before!


----------



## l_olive (Jan 18, 2005)

Honestly, I'd be more offended if my MIL called me one of the "DH'sLastName girls", but she's constantly giving me grief about having kept my last name when we got married.


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

I find it odd because it isn't a direct generational photo nor a "Landshark girls" photo, the other granddaughter probably has a different last name, and the MIL married into the family too, so it's not really her last name either. We've done generational photos in our family, but the parent of the child was included because that was the point. So it seems odd to do a photo with the generations that includes a grandchild and grandparent but not the parent. People are looking at the photo and there are two children in it, so either you or your husband should have been in it. I guess about the only thing that was common was the genetic material, as someone else said more humorously.


----------



## elmh23 (Jul 1, 2004)

I would be pissed!


----------



## weliveintheforest (Sep 3, 2005)

This sounds pretty rude, and I see no reason to exclude you. Really, what would possibly be bad about having you in the photo too? Your daughter wouldn't be her grand baby without you.


----------



## ewe+lamb (Jul 20, 2004)

I didn't think that I would have a problem with this sort of thing ... but actually I do, I think the visual concept of separating a baby from her mother in a family photo is wrong, the OP in this situation is a blood relative - through her dd (as mentioned previously) maybe I'm looking into this too much but I think MIL should have given this a little more thought. and as an afterthought - I have never taken a photo and specifically excluded someone who is afterall a part of my family, I couldn't think of taking a photo of me, my sister and mum and with the girl cousins without my SIL that's quite cruel really, she is afterall my brother's wife and the mother of his wonderful kids - no in the end it does bother me and yes i think if I was in that situation I would have been offended.


----------



## Marylizah (Jun 17, 2005)

I would have NO problem with this whatsoever.

That said, I do not want to assimilate into my DH's family. They are a little on the steamroller side anyway-- I am not a blood relative and am just fine with that! DS is, and I would be very happy to have a photo like that of him, with half of his family. I would also want one of him with my half of the family.

Just my 2 cents.

ETA: By steamroller, I mean my MIL treats me like I'm her daughter (and not necessarily in a good way!), which is fine, but I need her to remember I am NOT her daughter, that I have a mother, and that we can have a perfectly fine relationship without pretending we are related by blood or that she raised me. Ok, enough explaining!!


----------



## shanniesue2 (Jul 4, 2007)

It doesn't sound that different from doing "generational pictures." Kind of a bloodline thing. We have 5 generation pictures that have my greatgrandmother, my grandmother, my dad, me, and my son in them. So no in-laws in the shot. I guess I dont see the photo you're MIL wanted to take as being too different from that. but that's just IMO.


----------



## Areia (Mar 5, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *transylvania_mom* 
it wouldn't bother me. I like generational photos. I have one with my paternal grandmother, my father, me and ds.









We have some gen photos too that I love. Like other OPs have said, I wouldn't have thought anything about it unless they purposely excluded you from other non-gen photos.


----------



## Phoenix~Mama (Dec 24, 2007)

I would be pretty hurt!!

To put it into perspective... what if OP had a DD, an adopted DD and a step daughter...

But MIL only wanted the DD in the picture... wouldn't everyone then be "that is so messed up and hurtful to the other children!" ?

I agree with PP's who posted, when OP married her DH, she became family. She should have been in that photo.


----------



## MacKinnon (Jun 15, 2004)

I would not have a problem with it, but I know others who would have trouble. Our family has never been the "once you are married you are a blood relative" type of family. I took pics of my Grandma, my mom, me and DD and really valued them after Grandma passed. Likewise, we have done the same thing with my husbands family (including GMIL, MIL, SIL and DD).

The only time this all bugged me was the year DH and I were engaged, and I was asked to take the family Christmas card picture and not be in it. My MIL also did not let my BIL and SIL's long-term, live-in girlfriend and boyfriend into our wedding pictures. It's pretty silly, because three years later, we were all married. I would have loved to have pics of us as a big family then, but no.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

If there were adopted children, then I doubt they'd be interested in a photo like this. Regardless, the OP isn't a child. They just like the idea of having a bunch of women and girls in the family who are all genetically related and being able to say, "Oh, they all have the XXX eyes" or whatever. The wording was very clumsy, and it would be inappropriate if an adopted child were left out, but that's not what's happening here. These are a common kind of photo and IMO no big deal.


----------



## mommajb (Mar 4, 2005)

It bothers me.

My mil decided that I didn't need to go to a family funeral so that bil could ride with dh. She stated the reason was that I wasn't really family so I didn't need to be there. Afterward she talked about how the family hadn't been together like that for 30 years.

Why is my name _____?! It has been my name almost half my life and will be my name for most of my life I think. Since when am I not a part of the same family as my children?

As you can tell it upset me.

For the record my mom thinks I should be glad I didn't drive all day for two days with five kids to attend a funeral with a bunch of really boring people. I should also be glad that I am apparently not related to such clueless people.


----------



## orangefoot (Oct 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *StrawberryFields* 
I wouldn't mind. In fact my ILs are hoping to do an updated family portrait soon and I would prefer that spouses not be included. They have 5 children but there is just me and one other spouse. I think it would be a more timeless photo if it was just MIL/FIL and their kids.

My mum won a family photo shoot at a wedding she went to and we had a family picture done.

Of those in the picture my Nan, my Aunt and my Dad are now all dead; I am divorced from my then husband and I have not only the two children in the photo but two mroe as well - and a husband.

A photo isn't meant to be timeless IMO: it is a moment captured on film. At the time our picture was taken we were a family and it is good to remember us all as that.


----------



## ShadowMoon (Oct 18, 2006)

I wouldn't be thrilled but I wouldn't really care. Whatever.


----------



## Hey Mama! (Dec 27, 2003)

I've had a similar situation happen to me a few times at my dh's family gatherings and it stings a bit.


----------



## Porcelain Interior (Feb 8, 2008)

I would have no issue with it as long as lots of family pictures were being taken with me in them, if I was excluded from each photo op I'd find a new family.

We did female generational photos, and sides at weddings and at other times. They make neat photos years down the road when someone wants to see how many got the Landshark nose or the grandma's widows peak. Stuff like that.

I also think it's rude to EXCLUDE spouses in obituaries. I loved my MIL dearly dearly dearly, and I did survive her- our whole family did, of which I am a part of.

My husband was included in my grandmother's obituary because he fathered her great grandchildren. We're family.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

I would feel weird if they tried to include me.


----------



## Smokering (Sep 5, 2007)

Wouldn't really bug me. I married a T--, but I'm not a "T-- girl", and in fact I still identify as an "M-- girl" (my maiden name). If someone took a photo of the Ms we probably wouldn't include DH or DD, but would still include me even though I'm technically a T. You know?

But then, I'm a tad dysfunctional and find it very odd when FIL rings up, gets me on the phone and says "It's Dad here". I call him Mr T--. Maybe after 40 years of answering to the name "Mrs T--" I'll feel more like a T--, but I doubt it.


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Smokering* 
If someone took a photo of the Ms we probably wouldn't include DH *or DD*, but would still include me even though I'm technically a T. You know?

To the bolded, really?!? Oh my gosh! Your DD isn't considered a part of your family of origin because she has her father's last name?? You mean like, it'd go your grandma, your mother, you, and NOT your daughter because her last name is different? Please tell me I'm misreading this.


----------



## foodymama (Feb 5, 2009)

I find it terrible when in-laws don't include spouses as family! My DH's family has a family reunion every year and they do the annual family pictures with everyone and their spouses then they do generational pictures where it is the original siblings, their children, grandchildren and so on. But they also do what they call an
"outlaw" photo which I fit into as someone who married into the family and every year I feel offended by that picture. The people I'm being photographed with aren't even relatedto me by marriage they are all my husband's relative's spouses. I think it's just wrong when in-laws are not treated like family.


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

I can't quite put my finger on why this bothers me so much, but it does. Honestly, I wouldn't really care about being snubbed by my MIL so much. I don't really care for her anyway







.

I think it's more about the thought of being removed from my baby...not like in a "I can't stand be away from her for a few minutes for a photo to be taken" kind of way, but more in a like "hey, I made her but am not getting credit" kind of way







...like she just miraculously appeared in the family. IMO, it just seems out of balance to have a parent of one child in the photo and not a parent of the other. I don't see how this could be considered a "generational" photo for that reason.

It just seems weird and contrived to me. I wouldn't be mad per se, but more confused and probably a little annoyed. I'd probably hand over the baby though.


----------



## MaryTheres (Mar 21, 2007)

It's absolutely rude (regardless of tha fact that some people would not be botheredm, it IS hurtful and rude) I would and have said "no" to such a picture... I agree with the poster who said "No way would I till my SILs...hey, we're doing a family picture. Hand me your baby and go stand over there."


----------



## MaryTheres (Mar 21, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Porcelain Interior* 
We did female generational photos, and sides at weddings and at other times. They make neat photos years down the road when someone wants to see how many got the Landshark nose or the grandma's widows peak. Stuff like that.

You can still do that even if a non-landshark girl is in the photo ... so what do you do if there are adopted children in the line up - toss them out too?


----------



## LuckyMommaToo (Aug 14, 2003)

OP here again. Interestingly, DH and I had never discussed this (as it didn't really bother me too much at the time). His take is -- this is a photo where you're taking a matriarch (or patriarch) -- his mom -- and showing her with all her direct female descendants. So when I look at it that way, it bothers me even less. And if we did have an adopted DD, I assume she would have been included as well.

It's clearly a very nuanced situation though, huh??
-e


----------



## Kirsten (Mar 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Smokering* 
I married a T--, but I'm not a "T-- girl", and in fact I still identify as an "M-- girl" (my maiden name). If someone took a photo of the Ms we probably wouldn't include DH or DD, but would still include me even though I'm technically a T. You know?

But then, I'm a tad dysfunctional and find it very odd when FIL rings up, gets me on the phone and says "It's Dad here". I call him Mr T--. Maybe after 40 years of answering to the name "Mrs T--" I'll feel more like a T--, but I doubt it.

Exactly!! Thank you!! Oh, it is nice to be understood.









I call my MIL Jane. She isn't my mom, and I would never in a million years call her that. We have a perfectly fine relationship; I actually do much more of the care for her (she's 84 with dementia) than my dp/her son does.

On the other hand, I do consider my relationship with the parents of my best friend from high school to be very parent-like - but even then I don't call them Mom or Dad. However, my kids DO call them Grammy and Gramps.

Whether step, half, unofficially adopted or by marriage - there are so many ways to join a family or be considered family. When my sister was married, I was very fond of my BIL (still am in fact) - but he isn't my BROTHER. To me, it just isn't the same. Can ILs have special relationships - sure. But not always is that the case. Sometimes it is just respecting the other person because they are important to your spouse.

And at all holidays, we take a pic of me, my sister and my brother. No spouses or kids - just us. The siblings. Of course there are pix with spouses, significant others, kids, etc - but I hope no one is bent because I want a pic with my siblings.


----------



## Marlet (Sep 9, 2004)

I put it depends. With my inlaws there are so many people that there are multiple family pics...just the boys (2 sets...one including those who married in), just the girls (again 2 sets...one including those who married in), and then 2 family photos (meaning one of just the family including MIL and FIL and then that same one but with spouses). In our situation if I weren't included I would feel bad but as you can tell...EVERYONE is involved (DH is 1 of 10 kids...all but 2 are married with kids). Kids stay with their respective families though and are usually only in the kid shots and the biggest family shot.

That said, my grandma is that way. She loves to seperate things off like that but only because it's "accurate" and that's just how you do it. Gag me with a spoon. Then again, I'm partial to my in laws a bit more than my parents.


----------



## Marylizah (Jun 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kirsten* 
Exactly!! Thank you!! Oh, it is nice to be understood.









I call my MIL Jane. She isn't my mom, and I would never in a million years call her that. We have a perfectly fine relationship; I actually do much more of the care for her (she's 84 with dementia) than my dp/her son does.

On the other hand, I do consider my relationship with the parents of my best friend from high school to be very parent-like - but even then I don't call them Mom or Dad. However, my kids DO call them Grammy and Gramps.

Whether step, half, unofficially adopted or by marriage - there are so many ways to join a family or be considered family. When my sister was married, I was very fond of my BIL (still am in fact) - but he isn't my BROTHER. To me, it just isn't the same. Can ILs have special relationships - sure. But not always is that the case. Sometimes it is just respecting the other person because they are important to your spouse.

And at all holidays, we take a pic of me, my sister and my brother. No spouses or kids - just us. The siblings. Of course there are pix with spouses, significant others, kids, etc - but I hope no one is bent because I want a pic with my siblings.











I hate pretending we're all one big family with exactly the same relationship as the ones I have with MY parents and siblings. It just isn't the same! And I would be happy for my son to have pics with only his paternal side of the family, as long as there were also pictures of the whole family together.


----------



## Veronika01 (Apr 16, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
If there were adopted children, then I doubt they'd be interested in a photo like this.

Really? Why would you assume that?


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Veronika01* 
Really? Why would you assume that?

Well the only reason I've ever seen photos like this is to say, "Oh look, she has the Smith eyes. She has the Smith forehead." That kind of thing. It seems like it would be exclusionary whether you did a photo like that or not if some of the children were adopted. Either you wouldn't put them in the photo, or they wouldn't have the eyes or whatever are being compared.


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
Well the only reason I've ever seen photos like this is to say, "Oh look, she has the Smith eyes. She has the Smith forehead." That kind of thing. It seems like it would be exclusionary whether you did a photo like that or not if some of the children were adopted. Either you wouldn't put them in the photo, or they wouldn't have the eyes or whatever are being compared.

Perhaps, but that still doesn't mean that an adopted child would have no interest in being in a photo like this. My friend's sister has two adopted children from China, and I'm quite certain they would be pretty crushed if they were left out of a family photo with grandma because they didn't have her eyes.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *riverscout* 
Perhaps, but that still doesn't mean that an adopted child would have no interest in being in a photo like this. My friend's sister has two adopted children from China, and I'm quite certain they would be pretty crushed if they were left out of a family photo with grandma because they didn't have her eyes.

Which is why it seems like a photo like this might not be interesting in a family with adopted children. I'm speculating. And anyway, this is really a red herring. This isn't about a family with adopted children.


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
And anyway, this is really a red herring. This isn't about a family with adopted children.

True, but the comment was made, so I commented on it







. I'm not comparing the two situations.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

I wouldn't care. I have more important things to worry about than other people's photo collections, and I don't look for reasons to be offended.


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli* 
I have more important things to worry about than other people's photo collections

Clearly not since you took the time to comment







.


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Marylizah* 









I hate pretending we're all one big family with exactly the same relationship as the ones I have with MY parents and siblings. It just isn't the same! And I would be happy for my son to have pics with only his paternal side of the family, as long as there were also pictures of the whole family together.

I agree, and we do take pictures with just my side or just DH's side of the family sometimes -- I'll snap a picture of DH with his parents and sisters without feeling the least bit left out -- but somehow the situation in the OP would still bother me a bit (just a bit!). Someone earlier said that these things are highly nuanced -- I think that's very true.


----------



## BroodyWoodsgal (Jan 30, 2008)

I'm much much closer with my husbands family than I am with my own...they have kind of become my "real family" and this just wouldn't happen in our family circle...first of all, it's suuuuuch a small circle of family...but mainly just because I have become my MILs "child" over the years. I think that at some point there probably have been pictures of MIL and SIL and the baby without me, but it never felt like "We're taking a picture of the M women, here, you go stand over there out of hte picture" - you know?

That being said...in a different set of circumstances...it would hurt my feelings probably. So, I answered, "Depends upon the relationship with MIL" - if the picture thing was just one situation amongst many where I felt pushed aside and "not as good" for only having married into the family and not being a true blood relative...it would hurt me a lot and piss me off considerably....as it is, how you've described it OP, I'm not sure why but it does seem a little hurtful and I would have walked away mad...but again, I'm not sure at exactly WHAT.


----------



## jnet24 (Sep 4, 2006)

I wouldn't care if my DD wasn't included, as soon as you put her in you include me as well. OR I was excluded and the pic was gmil mil and dd, but if SIL were included I would be hurt.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AverysMomma* 
.as it is, how you've described it OP, I'm not sure why but it does seem a little hurtful and I would have walked away mad...but again, I'm not sure at exactly WHAT.

I think the way it was worded, "The Smith girls" (can't remember the last name), is where the problem is. Because, of course, she IS a Smith (or whatever the last name is) girl now. If the MIL would have said, "We want a generational photo of the women and girls in our genetic line" or something, it would have communicated what they were trying to do in a way that, hopefully, wouldn't have made the OP feel bad. I see why she was hurt because of the wording, but I doubt the MIL meant it like that.


----------



## Polliwog (Oct 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
Well the only reason I've ever seen photos like this is to say, "Oh look, she has the Smith eyes. She has the Smith forehead." That kind of thing. It seems like it would be exclusionary whether you did a photo like that or not if some of the children were adopted. Either you wouldn't put them in the photo, or they wouldn't have the eyes or whatever are being compared.

My kids are adopted and my son loves being in pictures with all the B men. He doesn't care who looks like who. He's just one of the gang. No one gives a hoot about whose body parts look like whose.


----------



## Shera971 (Nov 26, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
I think the way it was worded, "The Smith girls" (can't remember the last name), is where the problem is. Because, of course, she IS a Smith (or whatever the last name is) girl now.

Hmmm, I don't get that. Actually I don't understand the whole taking the guys name thing. I am me with a perfectly good name that I was born with and don't have any interest in taking another one. I don't really see the OP as a Smith... she just happened to marry a Smith man. I wouldn't be offended in the least in that situation.


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Shera971* 
Hmmm, I don't get that. Actually I don't understand the whole taking the guys name thing. I am me with a perfectly good name that I was born with and don't have any interest in taking another one. I don't really see the OP as a Smith... she just happened to marry a Smith man. I wouldn't be offended in the least in that situation.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I don't think mamazee was necessarily talking literally about the OP's last name. Pretending my last name is Jones, I consider my DH to be one of "the Jones guys" even though he didn't take my last name when we married. I think the point was just that marriage makes a person part of their spouse's family (at least in some people's opinion -- this thread has shown that not everyone feels that way).


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Polliwog* 
My kids are adopted and my son loves being in pictures with all the B men. He doesn't care who looks like who. He's just one of the gang. No one gives a hoot about whose body parts look like whose.

Different families work differently. It sounds like the OP's inlaws don't feel that way, and my mom's family has done these photos too. Though I can't imagine my dad's family doing it. My inlaws have too, come to think of it. Anyway, it's common enough. And I was just speculating about how a family with adopted children might react, as I don't have adopted children. Anyway, it was speculation and feel free to disregard it as such if it doesn't apply. It seems like it could be hurtful in either instance. Either the adopted child isn't included in the photo, or people sit and talk about how everyone has the same nose and eyes and cheeks in the photo (which is, in my family, what is done with those photos, and possibly what the OP's inlaws do as well) when one person obviously doesn't have the same nose, eyes, and cheeks. I would probably want to avoid either situation as either might to cause hurt feelings. Although that type of photo isn't my thing anyway.


----------



## Polliwog (Oct 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
Different families work differently. It sounds like the OP's inlaws don't feel that way, and my mom's family has done these photos too. Though I can't imagine my dad's family doing it. My inlaws have too, come to think of it. Anyway, it's common enough. And I was just speculating about how a family with adopted children might react, as I don't have adopted children. Anyway, it was speculation and feel free to disregard it as such if it doesn't apply. It seems like it could be hurtful in either instance. Either the adopted child isn't included in the photo, or people sit and talk about how everyone has the same nose and eyes and cheeks in the photo (which is, in my family, what is done with those photos, and possibly what the OP's inlaws do as well) when one person obviously doesn't have the same nose, eyes, and cheeks. I would probably want to avoid either situation as either might to cause hurt feelings. Although that type of photo isn't my thing anyway.

Actually, families with adopted children do look for similarities. Sometimes it's personality traits, sometimes, physical. Adopted kids know they are adopted. It doesn't make it more hurtful to see a picture in which Aunt Michelle looks a lot like Grandma. My sister looks a lot like my mother, I don't. It doesn't change anything. We still look at family pictures and talk about what we see. I'm in pictures with my son's birthmother and her family. I don't look a thing like them.

OP, I detest being in pictures, so I avoid them at all costs. We usually only do those types of pictures at weddings, anyway.


----------



## Shera971 (Nov 26, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *limabean* 
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I don't think mamazee was necessarily talking literally about the OP's last name. Pretending my last name is Jones, I consider my DH to be one of "the Jones guys" even though he didn't take my last name when we married. I think the point was just that marriage makes a person part of their spouse's family (at least in some people's opinion -- this thread has shown that not everyone feels that way).


I had never thought of it that way. I would never consider my DH a Jones guy. But since we're not married in the first place and don't have any plans to in the future, I admit my opinion might be different than the "norm"


----------



## WC_hapamama (Sep 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kirsten* 
I always think it is SO odd when they put spouses of adult kids in people's obits. I do not survive FIL; I am not his child. I even have a hard time putting spouses names on sympathy cards. I do because it seems to be the social norm - but it always feels weird to me.

I have mixed feelings about that myself.

DH's grandfather died last week, and when his obit was published yesterday, MIL (or her brother) had included my name, and the name of SIL's spouse.

While I did care for him a great deal (DH and I have been married for 12 years, and I've developed an attachment to this particular set of grandparents), it feels weird to be acknowledged as anything other than the mother of their great-grandchildren.


----------



## dachshund mom (Dec 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Viola* 
I find it odd because it isn't a direct generational photo nor a "Landshark girls" photo, the other granddaughter probably has a different last name, and the MIL married into the family too, so it's not really her last name either. We've done generational photos in our family, but the parent of the child was included because that was the point. So it seems odd to do a photo with the generations that includes a grandchild and grandparent but not the parent. People are looking at the photo and there are two children in it, so either you or your husband should have been in it. I guess about the only thing that was common was the genetic material, as someone else said more humorously.

I agree with this. It's an odd grouping for a picture without either you or DH in it. It wouldn't bother me though.

But I also think it's funny that MIL still gets professional family portraits with her, FIL, DH and his sister. They're adults and married! Enough already!


----------

