You know, not knowing any of the people in question, I'm going to be devil's advocate about the mother-in-law: some stuff is way too personal and painful to do anything but make light of, imho.

I could completely imagine myself saying what she said, if obliged to discuss the matter.

(Why yes, my mother and I were quipping madly and inappropriately the whole time my father was in his could-die-any-second-now- period for several days after his massive flatlining heart-attack, back when I was 16. This is not because we failed to give a shit. This is our standard defense mechanism. We are not so much of the Oprah spill-your-guts-in-public mentality.)

I mean, sure, maybe the woman IS a callous witch from hell - but given that she also lost a child of her own to SIDs, I think it's also possible that she does give a shit, and deals with tragedy through understatement and very black humour.

...she's not British, is she?

Fay, I would joke like that within the circle, and always do, but not to someone who was a stranger.

I don't see any way that the statement could ever be justified, even with joking. It had been less than 4 months since her own grandchild had died in his mother's arms. I see absolutely nothing worth joking about in the circumstance. Most especially not with the still-grieving mother standing right next to her.

And no, she's not British. And she lost her child to SIDS in the early 70's. And she never, ever talks about it, much less jokes about it.

but not to someone who was a stranger.

this. I may be inappropriately sardonic, sarcastic, and mean sometimes, but I keep it in the family.

job~ma Jilli!

Oh wow. I pictured it happening years later but months? Whoa.

Hmm. I wonder if that is part of why she had such a hard hearted reaction. Grief is weird, esp unprocessed grief.

This was my thought as well. The mil's unprocessed grief (if she didn't do any work/get any help on it) could only be compounded by the incredible shock of having the joy of grandparenting yanked out from under her.

Still. A public statement like that? Horrible.

It puts me in mind of a conversation I had with a group of girlfriends last week about historic examples of women symbolically saying, "Because I have suffered, you will suffer too."

While that was the first thought that came to my mind, I want to think that this particular woman wasn't doing that.

I don't see any way that the statement could ever be justified, even with joking.

And I respect that.

The more excruciating a subject, the less likely I am to be remotely inclined to discuss it, particularly with a stranger. (The whole Oprah spill-your-private-pain-in-public thing is still very much not my cup of tea, even though Britain as a whole is increasingly emulating this particular thing.) So, yeah - talking about something terrible, I would totally keep it at a distance with brittle one-liners.

I can definitely imagine the mother-in-law being a harridan, and this being said out of lack of feeling. But that isn't the only way I can imagine it being said - honestly, it struck me as tragic, rather than cruel. But understatement, and that whole way of dealing with intense emotion elliptically, is VERY much part of the tradition in which I've been raised.

I'm not trying to second-guess how the line was delivered or what the emotion was behind it, because, as stated previously, I wasn't there and I don't know the people. But this:

I don't see any way that the statement could ever be justified, even with joking

is where we differ.

It's entirely possible - likely, even, given the fact that evidently you guys can't imagine having this response yourselves - that she's just an insensitive cow. But I know that I could totally have said something like that, if questioned, and if it were something I found painful.

I think perhaps part of that is because we have fundamentally different understandings of what humour is for, and how we use it? Because this:

I may be inappropriately sardonic, sarcastic, and mean sometimes

is absolutely not what I'm talking about. I think that what the mother-in-law said can be read one of two ways: heartless bitch who doesn't give a shit, or grieving person deflecting a nosy stranger from a subject that is simply too painful to deal with.

Because I do not know the people in question, I'm not going to assume the worst.

(Edited for clarity, and because the YMMV at the end, which was meant as a sort of hands-in-the-air-with-apologetic-shrug kind of punctuation, actually read more like sticking my tongue out. Which wasn't so much the effect I'd been aiming for.)

My take is what if it were her child who had died, and she wanted to be dismissive of her own motherhood, it would be her right, though still incredibly creepy, to say that her own motherhood "didn't take". But to say that about someone else? Sorry, but NO.

(leaving office now, so won't be able to respond right away to any additional postings on this topic)

It's entirely possible - likely, even, given the fact that evidently you guys can't imagine having this response yourselves - that she's just an insensitive cow. But I know that I could totally have said something like that, if questioned, and if it were something I found painful.

This is sort of the standard mode in my family, as well. But we're not far removed from the British Isles. So.

I mean, I think it was at best hugely insensitive, and hurt is hurt no matter the intent, but it is something I could see someone saying out of their own sense of loss. But I also didn't read it as her saying that motherhood didn't take, I read it as saying she'd had a grandchild, but no longer did.

I do not think this reads as being dismissive of her own motherhood or of her daughter-in-law's motherhood. At all. That's kind of my point: that this (can be read as) the polar opposite of that sentiment.

eta Or: what Plei said.

But it looks like we're going to talk in circles here, so I'm bowing out.